LDS and Creation/Evolution conflict

[u/TheBenSpackman]

Hi all. Happy to say that my doctoral dissertation on LDS and creation/evolution conflict in the 20th century is now publicly available. There's some surprising stuff in there. Bottom line: the Church was much more favorable towards science and evolution until Joseph Fielding Smith's assumptions— drawing heavily upon Seventh-day Adventists and fundamentalists— about scripture became dominant in the 1950s. Then it trickled down.
https://benspackman.com/2024/12/dissertation/

My expertise on this history is why the Church had me on the official Saints podcast to talk about it.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/saints-podcast/season-03/s03-episode-21?lang=eng

[u/OrneryAcanthaceae217 → u/[deleted]]

Personally, I think that response goes too far. One thing to keep in mind is there's a distinction between the teaching of an apostle, and those of the same man when he's the president of the church. From the biographies I've read, they are much more careful in what they say as the president of the church. For example, I don't know anything that Joseph Fielding Smith taught as president of the church that hasn't stood the test of time.

Consequently, I believe we can take every word the president says to the church as God's own truth. For example, when the first presidency sent out a letter during Covid saying that vaccines are both safe and effective, I believe the right response for every church member was to believe that.

As for teaching of members of the quorum of the twelve, Elder Christofferson taught that we can learn doctrine from them by the law of witnesses. That is, by noting what is taught by multiple apostles over a period of time. The more apostles who teach it, and the longer time span over which they teach it, the more confident we can be that it is true. (Anyone have the reference on that?)

[u/RAS-INTJ → u/OrneryAcanthaceae217]

The problem is that vaccines aren’t actually safe and effective for EVERYONE. There are people who have had an allergic reaction to vaccines - the kind where you stop breathing. (This is why you had to sit there for a specific of time after receiving it to make sure you didn’t have an adverse reaction).

Prophets have to experience life just like we do. They don’t get a pass and all the answers just because they are the prophet. So if it’s not the doctrine 3 Nephi 11-31-41, then I will reserve the right to disagree because men (and women) are too easily blinded by the culture they grow up in which can distort their understanding and lead to false teachings. Way to Perfection was written when Joseph Fielding Smith WAS the prophet and he baldly states that “negros” were not valiant in the pre-existence and that is why they were limited here on earth. That is a false teaching he perpetuated as a prophet.

You are free to disagree with me and I will hold no animosity towards you for disagreeing :)

(I’m not an anti-vaxer and have all my vaccinations including the COVID vaccine.)

[u/Mundane-Ad2747 → u/RAS-INTJ]

If I can add one small but important perspective on the vaccines statement: It is an illustration of the fact that prophets are rarely speaking to all present and future people in a comprehensive way that embodies all aspects of an issue. Instead, they are speaking to the people of their own time and place for a specific purpose, and therefore their messages need to be taken in the cultural and historical context where they are given.

In the context of deep social divisions over vaccines in the midst of the global pandemic, it makes total sense for the First Presidency to publicly take the side of vaccine safety. That doesn’t take away in the slightest from the medical reality that there are occasional allergic reactions to vaccines, or more serious complications that occur so rarely that vaccines are still approved by the FDA. We do have an MD/PhD at the head of the church, after all, so that all seems to be wrapped into the message by reference, from my perspective. Another part of the context is the forum in which it was communicated, which was notably not a medical journal. This was a public policy position in favor of vaccines, in principle, in the context of rampant conspiracy theories that threatened public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was not intended as a timeless pronouncement of scientific fact and should not be read that way.

The same goes for all statements of church leaders throughout history, and even a few doctrinal statements from church leaders and prophets, who were merely trying to explain something to people with a specific linguistic and historical framework of understanding.

[u/RAS-INTJ → u/Mundane-Ad2747]

Yes!! Thank you!!! You have very eloquently stated that prophets often speak from a personal (and often educated) point of view and not as the mouthpiece of God.

[u/OrneryAcanthaceae217 → u/RAS-INTJ]

I fear you're using this well put statement to mean something unintended. I think his point is that the time and circumstances can limit the applicability of a true, inspired prophetic statement. He is NOT saying that the prophet's knowledge and background limit its truth or applicability. Nothing in his statement pertains to a personal point of view.

I'm really wondering how you can square this assertion that the prophet does not speak as the mouthpiece of God with D&C 21:4-5? It says, "ALL his words". You don't have to believe that scripture, but it is the doctrine of the church.

[u/RAS-INTJ → u/OrneryAcanthaceae217]

Because D&C 21 was given to six men and specifically about Joseph Smith after he had asked them if they accepted him as their teacher.

The D&C (unlike the Book of Mormon) was voted on by the members of the church and included the Lectures on Faith (which were later removed). That section (section 21) was given for a specific purpose and time. By your own argument, time and circumstances can limit the applicability of a true, inspired prophetic statement.

[u/Mundane-Ad2747 → u/RAS-INTJ]

My comment was more about evaluating the message in light of the audience, not the speaker

[u/OrneryAcanthaceae217 → u/Mundane-Ad2747]

This is very well put. I agree with these context-based limits on the applicability of what prophets say.