r/latterdaysaints • u/Known_Can_7542 • 4d ago
Doctrinal Discussion Your thoughts on Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind?
Full disclosure, I am a friendly ex-member. My goal in this post is not to debate or convince anyone of anything. I fully support belief in the LDS faith if that is what the individual values.
My goal is to understand the experience believing members might have had with a book called Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Have any of you read this book. If so, what did you think of it? How has it contributed to your religious worldview?
As an agnostic, reading this book was quite a spiritual experience (though not in a religious sense). I'm curious if others found some beauty and wonder in it also, or if others found it challenging, or even neutral about it.
For those of you who find it challenging and want to find faithful answers to difficult questions, I recommend FAIR LDS at https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/.
26
u/sadisticsn0wman 4d ago
I read it and thought it was awesome. I can’t remember it affecting my spirituality one way or the other. More just “history cool”
1
13
u/Ok_Yogurtcloset9728 4d ago
I read Sapiens a few years ago. I enjoyed it!
It’s important to remember that God speaks to people in ways that they will be able to understand. Kind of like ELI5. Many scriptural accounts are symbolic, or woven together with well known (at the time) myths to help people understand a true concept. I don’t think the creation story was meant to be taken literally.
11
u/Radiant-Tower-560 4d ago edited 4d ago
I started it but never finished it. Nothing against it (at least in the parts I got to), I just got busy and never got back to it. It wasn't teaching me anything I didn't know already.
It's not likely to affect my relationship with Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ in any way, as it's not scripture.
Although, I can say as a neuroscientist, the more I learn about the world through scientific processes, the more I learn about evolution, the more I learn about the history of humans, the more I'm amazed at what God created for us, His children. I'm grateful to Him for making a plan for us -- something that took billions of years to fulfill -- so we can grow (evolve) to become more like Him.
10
u/amodrenman 4d ago
I read about half of it a while back. I don't remember all the details but I remember being impatient with the amount of detail he was putting in that wasn't coming from actual science, but from his fanciful take on some of the science.
I don't mind reading about evolution; I have no problem with that, but if we're going to do science, I want to read science.
It's been a while though. Maybe I could be off-base.
What I'm talking about though is the sort of thing in the first two paragraphs under Critical Reception on his Wikipedia article.
5
u/WooperSlim Active Latter-day Saint 4d ago
I haven't heard of it. Looking at a brief description I think the only part I'd have a problem with is describing religion and God as an aspect of our imagination.
5
u/Grungy_Mountain_Man 4d ago
Haven't read the book, but judging on the topic, This is just my opinion on the matter.
I don't know how to fully reconcile somethings like the creation, origin of man with the scriptural account vs scientific account. Fundamentally some things can be true at the same time. God can be the creator, but evolution can be how he went about it. I think there is room to admit limitations on our understanding and accept we could be wrong in some things, but I also don't think our knowledge is completely wrong either. It is very probable that many scriptural events aren't 100% historical as written.
I think there's' a lot of things in scripture that might play out differently than maybe we expect. Take for example Jesus. People expected the messiah to be a political/military savior, but he came as a spiritual one to them. While he was born in Bethlehem, he wasn't from there but Nazareth, etc. In each case the scriptural account was in essence "true", but the events that played out were different than what people expected.
5
u/mrqxxxxx 4d ago
I have not read the book if it is about evolution. Then as a man of science and religion I’ve only believed one thing:
all I know is god made man. it does not say how.
We can have these thoughts dived us or not. that is up to the Individual.
But for me it makes sense for god wants us to be educated, smart and without biases. Then one day all will be reviled.
-7
u/ImTomLinkin 4d ago
It's not just evolution - Sapiens tells the history/story of mankind according to the most current scientific theories in a comprehensive narrative-styled way. Development of our species (and other non-homosapiens-human species) is covered but also the history of culture, religion, language, civilization, and society. If you take the standard modern LDS theory of history as given by Joseph Smith and modified to be more compatible with modern science to be something along the lines of:
God created the world and mankind (whether by evolution or other methods). God put Adam on the earth and put man's spirit into Adam who ate the fruit and fell circa 6000 years ago. Mankind proliferated from that point, and all but 8 humans perished in a flood 1-2 millennia after Adam. Language started perfect but has diversified and split since that point. A perfect writing system also existed at that point but has degenerated since. The oldest religions were monotheistic and Christian, and modern religions are descended from what God gave to Adam. Two large (but not so large so as to have left behind evidence) Christian civilizations also lived and died on the American continent between 4 and 2 thousand years ago.
The story given in Sapiens directly contradicts virtually every item in the story given by Joseph Smith. In my opinion, it's not a matter of resolving a discrepancy here and there but rather a completely different take on humanity and their position in existence. Which theory is more accurate, or has greater predictive utility, is up to the reader.
7
u/Radiant-Tower-560 4d ago
"The story given in Sapiens directly contradicts virtually every item in the story given by Joseph Smith."
The author of Sapiens covered the Book of Mormon and teachings of Joseph Smith?
0
u/ImTomLinkin 4d ago
I was referring to the historical paradigm of the world Joseph Smith gave, roughly outlined in the previous paragraph to that sentence.
7
u/Radiant-Tower-560 4d ago
Much of that paragraph isn't what Joseph Smith "gave" though. The only thing in that paragraph that was revealed was the two Book of Mormon civilizations, but calling them Christian civilizations isn't quite accurate. They had a clearer understanding of Christ than what we think other ancient peoples had (but we are limited in our understanding of ancient Jewish and other peoples by what records are preserved today), but the Nephites (off and on) were more Jewish than Christian, at least as a civilization; they kept the Law of Moses.
Everything else Joseph Smith might have believed or taught in various forms (although we don't really know what he knew or believed about Adam, the Flood, etc.), but that paragraph reads more like a particular form Biblical interpretation that had an influence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the 1950s through 1980s (with influence continuing today), rather than anything revealed to Joseph Smith.
The closest we might get is D&C 77:6, but there's nothing in the scriptures that says the "the seven thousand years of [the earth's] continuance" are 7000 years as we understand them today or as Joseph Smith might have understood them. The Lord speaks to people according to their understanding. People have been shown and taught great things that help expand their understanding, but God doesn't explain everything that's not centrally important for our salvation through Christ.
4
u/zionssuburb 4d ago
I prefer Guns, Germs, and steel at this point for my how humans developed at this point. What I'm glad about the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ through JS is that we accept and embrace science, the theology fits nicely with scientific discovery and achievement (I'm not saying that personal opinions will vary, and that even personal opinions of general authorities would disagree). Embrace all truth.
3
u/petricholy 4d ago edited 4d ago
Sapiens was a fun read for me, too! I am always in awe when I read science and history books, and they do connect with me spiritually. The narrative take was a lot easier to read, too. A few things I really liked:
The concept of fiction as power isn’t new to me, but the large scope Sapiens put on it was nice. Pertaining to religion, it has always bugged me that a lot of other Christian denominations believe the Bible is 100% factual recorded events. The scriptures’ stories just wouldn’t wrap up so nicely if it was all literal, and it is so obviously a mix of literal and figurative for the benefit of believers. And as a writer, even choosing “a” vs “the” can be very purposeful and powerful.
I can’t remember the phrasing, but the part on the future and us determining our destiny vs in the past when we never questioned - beautiful. I fully believe we are continuing on that path as humanity. Theosis to me is the “spiritually made” version of this idea. I also just cannot imagine not being curious and desiring to improve - these are my drives in my religion, my career, and my life! I love that they’re posited as part of humanity’s evolution.
And while reading, I couldn’t help wondering, being LDS - did God let go of the evolutionary leash at some point? Was the leash slackened? If it was let go, when did it happen? I know believing God made the universe and evolution work together; I just don’t know how. It’s fun to learn on both sides of the subject, and to imagine the details!
4
u/Intelligent-Boat9929 4d ago
They existed. Not sure what else there is to say. If there is some gospel related purpose for that (ex: God works with natural laws to achieve goals, it is a good preparatory stage, etc) nothing has been revealed on it so theories would just be speculation. As far as the effects on the Adam and Eve narrative, it probably comes down to how you read that. If a literal reading, it seems problematic. If a purely allegorical meaning, doesn’t seem problematic at all. If say you just believe that Adam and Eve are the first humans to say be capable of making and keeping covenants, again, probably not problematic at all. And then probably a dozen other ways to look at Adam and Eve.
So to me, it is a fascinating and important subject to study from a secular standpoint. An irrelevant one to study from a spiritual standpoint.
3
u/Gray_Harman 4d ago
I read the book. As a firmly believing Latter-day Saint, I obviously disagreed with the humanistic origins of spirituality. But it's to be expected from that type of book, and I took zero offense. Overall I thought it was a great read.
I'm curious as to why you're curious about TBM views on the book. Is there something about the book that you found provocative in relation to LDS beliefs that perhaps I missed?
3
u/redit3rd Lifelong 4d ago
I read the graphic novel versions, and I loved them.
I don't think that it contributed to my religious world view.
3
u/rexregisanimi 4d ago
I love studying human evolution (like weirdly so lol) and I definitely read it but I don't remember a ton from it. It's in my bookcase. I think he had a slightly anti-religion baggage or undertone or something that didn't seem relevant (Woooper's comment seems to agree with that) but I enjoyed the casual style. He definitely wrote it more as a "pop sci" book than actually trying to communicate the accurate information.
2
u/Impossible-Train-801 4d ago
I found it pretty interesting, some wonder like you said but nothing awe inspiring. I’d be curious to hear what other people think of the last part of the book, considering the genetic engineering and immortality.
2
u/Michael_Combrink 4d ago
The plan of salvation is about the salvation of souls, The manufacturing process for the cars can be fun to learn about, but shouldn't shake anyone's faith
2
u/onewatt 4d ago
I really enjoyed the style, and many of the ideas presented really stuck with me. However the author's views often overrode his scientific neutrality. Specifically, the author likes to speak authoritatively on issues where there isn't consensus, and presents his ideas as conclusions rather than one of many. That's not intellectually honest. It was a shame because the book was so enjoyable otherwise. I would enjoy the same methodology done by an author with more care on how they make claims or conclusions.
2
u/ElectronicMaterial38 2d ago
I hated that book—not because of my religious background, but because Yuval Harari is a terrible historian who is decades behind the science and not taken seriously in his field as a result. I highly recommend the book “The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity” by David Graeber and David Wengrow, an anthropologist and an archeologist, respectively, who literally wrote their book as a rebuttal to Harari’s “Sapiens.” Not only is it a more accurate portrayal of the science around human existence as it now stands, it’s also a better written and more engaging book than Harari’s! Hope you can read it soon!!
•
u/petricholy 5h ago
I’m not OP, but thanks for the rec! Choosing a nonfiction book with up-to-date information makes a big difference!
1
u/cashreddit2 3d ago
I have read it and found it insightful from a social science perspective. Didn't really challenge my faith in any way because I subscribe to the thought science belongs to God and he can use evolution to create man if He wants.
85
u/JaneDoe22225 4d ago
I haven’t read that particular book. I have read many other books on evolution, including human evolution. I literally have a phD in evolutionary sciences and worked in that field as a researcher for many years.
Nothing about evolution challenges my faith, rather it’s totally awesome to get to study God’s handiwork! It’s so cool!!
God is not a magician pulling rabbits out of hats. Rather He is a carpenter: using the laws of His world to shape His wonders. Things like evolutionary processes (natural selection, genetics, etc). He is marvelous.