A Place at the Table
by Christian Y. Cardall on March 23rd, 2005Why is evolution unpalatable to many Mormons? Unlike more fundamentalist devotees of the Bible—who tend to lump an “old earth” and evolution together—most Mormons seem capable of swallowing the former, while still choking on the latter.
Of Elder McConkie’s litany of traditional doctrines to which evolution might be noxious, the first item on the list—God’s creative role—wields a particularly potent psychological impact, and has far-reaching implications.
One of these implications—the question of God’s existence—will be explored here.
At the Church’s electronic interface to the world, one of many questions answered is How can I know that God exists? The answer’s opening sentence states that there are many such evidences, but only one is explicitly cited and discussed: “the testimony of His creations.” References to Psalm 19:1 and Alma 30:44 buttress the argument.
God’s relationship to nature is seen differently by the believer and the skeptic. As exemplified above, for the believer, the creation is prima facie evidence of the existence of God. The skeptic turns this argument on its head: gods were invented to explain forces of nature beyond humanity’s comprehension.
Evolution is anathema to so many because in the context of this argument over the existence of God, it is perceived as a potent weapon in the skeptic’s hands. By telling plausible stories of man’s origin without reference to God, the believer’s usual prima facie evidence for God’s existence is invalidated. (An “old earth”—merely stretching out the time scale of creation—is not usually perceived by Mormons as having the same effect, though it could: If there is such a powerful god, why did he take 4.5 billion years to create the world instead of six days?)
Any reconciliation between Mormons and evolution must begin by giving God a place at the table. At its etymological roots, ‘reconciliation’ is ‘to sit down together again.’ Evolution’s disposal of the prima facie case for God’s existence is perceived by many as the equivalent of banishment of the King from his own banquet hall, a rebellious expulsion at the hands of the generously invited lowly subjects! Reconciliation requires that the King be explicitly invited back in. To gain widespread traction for evolution among believers, the shock of this rupture must be soothed, the apparent breach of protocol resolved: The first task must be to identify evidences for the existence of God other than the wonders of nature, and compellingly articulate why they should be given primacy.
As this post is sufficiently long, and this author insufficiently qualified, these tasks are left as exercises for the comments—and for other posts, and sermons, and articles, and books.
[This has been post-dated to its cross-posting at The Spinozist Mormon. The comments retain their original dates.]
[This is part of the collection Christian’s Reconciliation Notebook.]
It seems to me that Mormonism is in a unique position because we have heard from (or for the skeptic, claim to have heard from) God recently. We have the testimony of prophets and additional scripture as evidence. These scriptures tell us, explicitly, that God created the world and highly suggest that he played an active role, although from a scientific standpoint, we cannot identify what that active role was.
Jeffery and I discussed the issue a little bit at my blog in the comments. He rightly pointed out that the Lectures on Faith do not support the idea that God’s creations are the starting point for faith.
Jared, thanks for the pointer to the discussion on your blog. I’m fascinated that Lectures on Faith 2 took the point of view that human contact with God is the primary evidence, with recognition of God’s responsibility for creation coming only after the fact.
You also had a great insight into the order of Alma’s recitation of evidence in Alma 30, which also places the prophets’ experience first.
(BTW, I’m glad to be introduced to it and expect to begin visiting there regularly.)
There is not much in LDS belief surrounding the creation that has commonality with fundamentalist Christian belief on the subject. Abraham specifically describe additional players and a process more gradual (and perhaps more hands off) than “orthodox” Christianity believes (whatever born-again Christians mean by that; I have asked Ed Decker, but he didn’t respond to my email).
Abraham 4:20-21 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures…And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth [whales, etc.]
In v. 18: And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until the obeyed.
These concepts of time and allowing things to happen are consistant with evolution, but so foreign to the conventional Christian view of the creation, and to the view of many LDS of creation. I agree that there evolution should not be as difficult a pill for Mormons to swallow.
Possible reasons why it continues to be 1) There seems to be some remnant of puritanical Christianity in the early leadership of the church (some of the proposed reasons for blacks not having the priesthood have their origen in more fundamental Christian ideologies), 2) the codifying of doctines by Elders McConkie and Joseph F. and Joseph Fielding Smith (in books which had the appropriate yet rarely-read or -referenced disclaimers). Church-wide use of these books as absolute true doctrine makes it difficult to overcome the perception that Evolution is a heresy. 3) We want leaders to tell us what to think and do. It takes all of the hard work out of it. We want to be told precisely what we can or cannot do on the Sabbath.
I was a TA for Dr. Bill Bradshaw’s Biology 100 class at BYU. He had all the students write two essays (beginning and end of semester) on evolution, yes or no and why. This was the first time many of them had been forced to consider the topic without being able to hide behind a parent or seminary teacher to tell them what to think and to deflect the evidence. The insight and realization that occurred during the semester was impressive for some, disappointing for others.
These are just some of the obstacles that exist to a sincere discussion about the topic
Mike, welcome to the discussion. I know it might take a while but please review the material which we have already covered and comment as you see necessary. It sounds like your thoughts could bring some much appreciated insight to this blog.
As we have already seen, and as you pointed out, the issues between Mormon doctrine and evolution are hardly the same as those between the rest of Christianity and evolution. Yet while we are able to avoid some issues (such a literal readings of the biblical account of creation) we also have issues which are quite unique such as our belief in a premortal existence and our unmatched emphasis on the fall.
These differences are made all the worse by our lack of any attempt at reconciliation. Instead we tend to read Born-again attempts at reconciliation which really don’t address what needs to be addressed. I haven’t found any Mormon attempts at full reconciliation yet, which is an uncomfortable state of affairs to say the least. This, in my opinion, is what makes this blog so important, it seems to be the first attempt at total reconciliation.
Wow, this is my first look at the new WP site — how long has it been up? Does the banner image symbolize the Desert of the Real? And somehow this post was dated 3/23/05 rather than ‘06, in case you didn’t notice.
About Creation … it occurs to me that mainstream Christians actually have a much easier time giving God a passive role in a lengthier Creation process — God the Transcendent One who is not part of Creation could be made to just sit back and watch after giving it all the appropriate Swerve at time t=0.
But in Mormonism, God is part and parcel of the eternal (and therefore uncreated) Universe. He can’t be made to just sit back and passively watch because He would be part of the slow organizing process being observed. That would raise difficult problems. It’s easier to think of God, in a fully formed Universe, booming out a “Let there be light!” command at dawn on Jan. 1, 4004 BC.
But Dave, by extension God has to set back and watch the world unfold in a fashion since he is in it. He just doesn’t have the degree of control that say the Spinozist or the Calvinist gods have.
Clark, I’m not sure it’s the degree of control I’m thinking of. Align Christian Creation with 15 billion years of cosmic and organic evolution, and you get a passive God watching the process. Align Mormon Creation with 15 billion years of cosmic and organic evolution, and you get a developing God that is part of the evolutionary process. I’m just suggesting the second scenario is more unsettling to the average Mormon than the first is to the average Christian.
Christian asks: “Why is evolution unpalatable to many Mormons?”
Reason #1: Most Mormons think the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are against evolution. And not without reason.
The 1909 First Presidency’s statement on “The Origin of Man” is a formal declaration “of the position held by the Church upon this important subject.” (Improvement Era, Vol. 13, Nov. 1909, 75-81.) Regarding the question of man’s body evolving from lower orders of life, the 1909 First Presidency said: “These, however, are the theories of men” — easily and usually interpreted as anti-evolution.
The 1909 statement was excerpted in chapter 37 of the 2000-2001 study guide Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith which includes the anti-evolution sentence on page 336. The 1909 statement was also reprinted in the Feb. 2002 Ensign in its entirety so that Church members might know “the Church’s doctrinal position on … evolution.” (Introductory paragraph, 26.)
Maybe most Mormons simply recognize that these reprints update the 1909 statement and give it focus directly to the 21st century.
Reason #2: The “C” word — Correlation. I think it’s clear that the Correlation Department has embraced many of the teachings of Presidents Joseph F. and Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Bruce R. McConkie on this subject. The question is whether the Correlation Department accurately represents the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. Christian, you yourself provided an excellent answer to this question last week.
Maybe most Mormons simply recognize a correlation (pun intended) between Church publications (magazines and manuals) and what the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve believe.
Reason #3: Death and time are the essential ingredients of evolution. Most Mormons accept the latter, but not the former — until after Adam’s fall. Since January 1970, six Church Presidents and thirty one Apostles have served in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, and they have demonstrated a remarkable unity in their public teaching that there was no death before the fall.
Maybe most Mormons simply feel the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost when today’s Church leaders teach no death before the fall.
Conclusion: These reasons won’t change your mind, but they do show that Mormons aren’t necessarily just blindly following Bruce R. McConkie back into “puritanical Christianity” (#3).
P.S. I like your new digs — very impressive graphics and design.
This post gets to the core of the problem with evolution that I have. I appreciate the empathy shown to be able to recognize such a point of view. For a religious person, objections to evolution have a religious basis, not scientific. A belief in God is difficult to reconcile with an explanation for life that doesn’t need him or even have a place for him.
Further, we pray to God. We fast to call on his aid. We lay on hands to invoke his power. Latter-day Saints testify of God acting on their behalf, sometimes in astounding ways. Consistency between evolution and these experiences and practices requires that God’s interaction with the world is of a different kind now from what it used to be. This is a bit ironic: proponents of evolution who wish to hold on to a belief in God have to explain why God’s interaction with the world is stronger now than in the past. Usually, religious people are justifying why God’s interactions with us are weaker now than in the past.
John, could you explain the inconsistency between evolution and administering the priesthood? I guess I don’t see it. Evolution is the law, much like the laws of mechanics. God, as an interventionist being (like us) has to abide by those laws (or at least the fundamental laws) to act. That is he acts in a technological fashion. But wouldn’t you think that he does this when we call upon his power with the priesthood? That is he intervenes but in a fashion that is ultimately technological or social. (In the broad sense of those terms)
Dave and Gary, the site first went up yesterday. Basically, I got a burr under my saddle when I woke up in the morning, and checked out wordpress themes instead of reading the scriptures or something before going to work. Then I set it up at lunchtime. The “famous WordPress 5-minute install” really is just about that if—key word, if—you know what you’re doing, and you have a ready-made template/theme.
Mostly I just found this desert theme attractive, but to me it also symbolizes the two names of the two halves of the blog title Mormons and Evolution: the Utah geographical heritage of Mormonism, and the ‘lone and dreary world’ which is the stage on which evolution takes place. The notion of ’spiritual wilderness’ need not be assumed; the desert is also a place of spiritual testing/growth/enlightenment (cf. Sinai for Judaism/Christianity/Islam, or Sedona for New-Agers)—not to mention haunting beauty. (I always got a sacred feeling in traveling out to my girlfriend’s family home in isolated Dugway, Utah.)
On the other hand, I gather that biodiversity is greatest in rainforests, so maybe we should find a rainforest theme, which would also have connections to the garden of Eden…
On the date: this post is recycled from a year ago. More later on the substance of the comments.
Dave and Clark, I don’t think the notion of a developing God is necessarily problematic here. God tells Moses that uncountable earths have come and gone under his watch even before this earth was created. He may have already had his mature Godhood status for much longer than 15 billion years, so that on the comparatively short (!) time scale of earth’s creation (a few billion years) he is indistinguishable from the eternal Christian god who, being eternal, is in no rush.
This is also related to one of John’s points. One could posit that God interacts more frequently now because the thing he’s interested in—the personal growth of his children—is now underway: the main event has begun. In the slow preparation for that phase one could suppose he wasn’t in any hurry, but simply looked in from time to time to see that the creation was developing acceptably. I don’t think I’d go all the way with Clark and say evolution is a ‘law’ in the same sense as Newton’s laws, since even we humans now have some control over evolution; but it may well happen ‘naturally,’ and one could argue it is the easiest way even for a God to bring about a suitable biosphere for intelligent beings.
John, I appreciate your apprehension of the perspective of this post. Your comment is also closely related to a follow-up post to this one.
Gary, I think you’re right about the default position of the authorities and its effect on Church members. But one still may wonder, do the authorities feel that way because of clear revelation, or are they merely combining their best (but limited) human understanding of the scriptures (not to mention the limited human understanding of the prophets who wrote them) with sentiments like that described in this post? In other words, even if you remove the sentiments of this post from members’ consideration, one can still ask if such sentiments motivate the leaders who shape the members’ thinking.
Gary, if an apostle is preaching anything besides repentance and the gospel of JC, they are exceeding their commission and are only expressing personal opinion. If they testify to things otherwise they are false prophets. There is no conflict between faith and evolution. Get over it.
Steve EM, I find it very difficult to argue that an apostle can only preach the basics of the gospel and repentence. If so then Moses is off to a very bad start having given the creation account, not to mention Joseph Smith who clearly was interested in it.
“The first task must be to identify evidences for the existence of God other than the wonders of nature, and compellingly articulate why they should be given primacy.”
I think you evolutionists have a problem here that defies a satisfactory solution. Just as is often said of me (”he’s fighting an uphill battle“), I think you (plural) are also fighting an uphill battle to convince Latter-day Saints that the wonders of nature are something other than prima facie evidence for God’s existence. For example,
If you read this paragraph in context, I think it’s apparent President Hinckley is expressing his testimony, obtained by “clear revelation.”
Gary, thanks for the link to Pres. Hinckley’s interesting message. Clearly he is of the opinion that the glory of creation motivates belief in God—as are Alma and/or Joseph. (And another reference by President Hinckley to an argument from design is discussed here.) I happen to disagree about the persuasiveness of arguments from design, but what I meant to point towards in this post is that there are other reasons to believe in God that Pres. Hinckley discusses in the talk that are considered both more important and more definitive. Members can look to these other revelatory evidences even if an intellectual argument from creation is taken off the table.
Another argument from that talk, not meant as revelation but as a preliminary motivation aimed at persuading doubters, is
I have some quibbles with this as well: I am suspicious of love as evidence for a deeper spiritual reality; and it disappoints me to see the importance of physical evidence downplayed when God himself apparently thinks it important at some level, in for example having the original apostles and the Nephites physically handle the resurrected Savior, and having witnesses heft the golden plates. (And by the way, the suggestion that electricity cannot be physically proved and explained seems pretty obviously false.)
Clark,
If you wish to defend an apostle shamefully making a bogeyman out of evolution, be my guest. I feel such a person is spouting off personal opinion and inappropriately using thier office to convey that opinion, all at the expense of faith building testimony of Jesus. The prophets you cite, giving 1st hand accounts of visions, certainly falls within preaching the gospel. A later apostle misusing a religiuos account of creation out of context to attack a scientific theory of great merit, is not faith promoting, but utter stupidity in the exterme.
Steve, I was dealing with your claim, a seeming overhasty generalization you appear to now be backing away from. So giving accounts by revelation are OK and count as preaching the gospel. Even if they don’t appear to be. But you simply wanted a nice generalization to attack with.
Clark,
One is a first hand account (in which much is lost because an account can only convey an aspect of what was experienced, moreover, I doubt a vision can be completely described in earthly terms anyway). In other words, I accept such an account as made in good faith, but with the understanding it can’t be complete and therefore can’t be read literally word for word. The second is using scriptures out of context to battle science in a bogus apples/oranges comparison. I see nothing faith promoting about this; I see the opposite. Perhaps I have a sort fuse on this because I had a senior comp who would bother the hell out of me by preaching against evolution. He was great at having intelligent people not inviting us back for further discussion. In effect my hard work was getting flushed down a toilet by that ignoramus. I think everyone I baptized on my mission believed in evolution, not that we discussed it in detail, but the subject would always come up, and I would just say, “there is no conflict between possible mechanisms of creation and faith in JC. Now, let me tell you about……………….” to get the discussion back on track.
BTW, in the case of JFSII and BRM, DOM also felt they misused their office to push personal opinion. Not being a fellow GA, and commenting behind a handle, I don’t have to restrain myself as DOM did. If an emperor is naked, I’ll say so.
This is my first visit to your site. In reading I have concluded two things:
Gentleman, you are splitting hairs, and splitting hairs is for the spiritually immature,
and
None of you have ever been to the temple, have you? At least there isn’t an understanding of it.
Also, it is obvious to me that God creating all things and evolution walk hand in hand.
[…] A Place at the Table: There must be assurance that evolution does not preclude God’s existence. […]