Posts
Let's Not Overinterpret Revelation
Last week Mormon Interpreter published a treatise by Duane Boyce titled Sustaining the Brethren. In making the point that the personal views of Apostles do not trump First Presidency statements, Boyce wrote that "Elder Boyd K. Packer once said that he knew by personal revelation that man did not evolve from animals..." This is, of course, a reference to Elder Packer's 1988 speech, The Law and the Light, which was published with a disclaimer that it represented his personal views only. In footnote #37 Boyce quotes Elder Packer as follows:
“I said I would give six reasons for my conviction [i.e., that ‘the theory that God used an evolutionary process to prepare a physical body for the spirit of man … is false’], and I have listed only five. The sixth is personal revelation” (emphasis in original).Boyce quotes and paraphrases Elder Packer accurately, and yet it is incomplete. Here is more of what Elder Packer said about his personal revelation.
Do not mortgage your soul for unproved theories; ask, simply ask! I have asked, but not how man was created; I have asked if the scriptures are true [emphasis added].In a sense, the speech is anti-climactic because just as we get to the ultimate reason for his conviction, it turns out that Elder Packer asked a different question than the one we were led to expect. Revelation that evolution is false vs revelation that the scriptures are true, is an important distinction in my book [1]. We would hardly expect God to reveal that the scriptures are NOT true, and yet if pressed even the most conservative saint will concede that some things in the scriptures not entirely accurate (or are figurative, or whatever).
There is no doubt that Elder Packer believes evolution to be false. However, I believe it is claiming too much to say that he knows by revelation that it is false--at least based on what he has shared publicly.
Incidentally, former BYU professor and Biology department dean Lester Allen once described his own (anti-climactic) revelation in response to a more direct question.
After some struggle, I decided to ask the Lord how the separate stories [evolution and creation] relate to each other. Even though I was surrounded by those superior to me scientifically, as well as spiritually, I was brash enough to hope the Lord would assist me in finding an answer. After personal preparation, I petitioned the Lord and asked, "What is the answer?" There came clearly into my mind the statement, "There is an answer." I didn't learn what the answer is, but it is reassuring to know that it all fits together.
Notes:
1. In fairness to Boyce, his footnote #38 cautions that different people can mean different things when talking about evolution, so caution is warranted in interpreting statements.
5 comments:
I used to think more like you about these matters, but I can't anymore.
For Boyd Packer, a revelation that the scriptures are true implies that evolution is false, and he can hardly be blamed for thinking that. The scriptures say that Adam was the first man and was created immortal. Both statements are incompatible with the evidence for human evolution.
If we can somehow define "first" or "man" in a way that harmonizes the scriptures with evolution, then we can make the scriptures say anything we like. Then revelation can only tell us what we already know, which isn't very revealing.
I understand Elder Packer's logic and point of view, but it seems to me that since the evidence for human evolution is strong, we ought to be cautious about turning inferences into strong conclusions.
To the extent that modern scriptures discuss Adam, they largely line up with received interpretations. It is evolution that is the revelation, in the sense of being previously unknown. I understand your concern about making the scriptures too flexible, but neither do I think it wise to seal them off from outside sources of information.
Since you brought it up, and in case you are interested, I have laid out some thoughts about "first" and "man" before.
It probably wasn't clear from my comment that I accept the evidence for evolution and agree with your characterization of it as strong. It's revelation that I now see as unreliable because through reinterpretation it merely parrots back to us what we already believe.
Jackie, Thanks for the clarification; I thought you were coming at it from the opposite direction.
I share your concern to a certain extent, and it's not just a 'liberal' thing. Conservative saints do the same thing when they redefine terms to harmonize dissonant passages and make all scripture conform to current doctrinal understanding. I think there is value in letting each prophet or scriptural unit speak for itself. Peter Enns talks about understanding the scriptures as they are, rather than what we think they should be. We don't have to ultimately agree with every detail in them, but if we can discern the real meat of the issue, we can often find enough to agree with to smooth over disagreements.
For me, an open canon also means openness to further information, as well as revision and even rejection. I think that is the spirit with which Joseph pursued revelatory knowledge. But I also recognize that institutions like the Church have their own needs, such as keeping the message simple and consistent. And of course the leaders come with various backgrounds, experience, and assumptions.
In my opinion, this is why it is important to discern the critical parts of the gospel--which will largely remain in the realm of faith--while engaged in the adventure of inquiry and learning.
I've never understood why people object to evolution, and I've never understood why scientists object to the creation as described in Genesis and Moses. As I understand it, evolution pertains to this mortal world, a world that didn't (according to the scriptural view) come into existence until after Adam and Eve decided to become mortal, or speaking metaphorically, ate of the forbidden fruit. Adam was the first man, again speaking metaphorically, of the creation, but that creation was a celestial (to use the words of Brigham Young) or eternal creation and was not the creation described by evolution.
So, yes, Adam was the first man in the celestial creation, but his mortal body had to be created after he, speaking metaphorically, ate of the forbidden fruit. Evolution is the best answer scientists currently have of the creation of Adam's physical body. Evolution says nothing about the celestial creation of Adam, and we know nothing how that creation was performed. Genesis and Moses only say that it happened but not how it happened.
Post a Comment