Have any religions dropped major tenets because facts got in the way?

[Czarcasm]

And before anyone mentions the LDS church and its decisions regarding multiple wives and African-Americans, neither of those tenets were officially changed because reality got in the way, but because their god updated his decision. I’m looking for cases where the major tenet was officially changed because facts/evidence made it obsolete/wrong.

[Quimby]

The Catholic Church has accepted Evolution for decades. It’s only loony tunes in America who don’t.

[Czarcasm]

@Quimby

The Catholic Church has accepted Evolution for decades. It’s only loony tunes in America who don’t.

When did the policy officially change, and what was the official reason given for the change?

[Procrustus]

@Czarcasm

When did the policy officially change, and what was the official reason given for the change?

According tothis Wikipedia page, it “evolved”

Catholic concern about evolution has always been very largely concerned with the implications of evolutionary theory for the origin of the human species; even by 1859, a literal reading of the Book of Genesis had long been undermined by developments in geology and other fields.[12] No high-level Church pronouncement has ever attacked head-on the theory of evolution as applied to non-human species.[13]

Even before the development of modern scientific method, Catholic theology had allowed for biblical text to be read as allegorical, rather than literal, where it appeared to contradict that which could be established by science or reason. Thus Catholicism has been able to refine its understanding of scripture in light of scientific discovery.[14][15] Among the early Church Fathers there was debate over whether God created the world in six days, as Clement of Alexandria taught,[16] or in a single moment as held by Augustine,[17] and a literal interpretation of Genesis was normally taken for granted in the Middle Ages and later, until it was rejected in favour of uniformitarianism (entailing far greater timeframes) by a majority of geologists in the 19th century.[18] However modern literal creationism has had little support among the higher levels of the Church.

[Procrustus]

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right

I think this qualifies for the OP.

[Rick_Kitchen]

Didn’t the Catholic Church change their stance on anesthesia before surgeries?

[Senegoid]

@Czarcasm

And before anyone mentions the LDS church and its decisions regarding multiple wives and African-Americans, neither of those tenets were officially changed because reality got in the way, but because their god updated his decision. I’m looking for cases where the major tenet was officially changed because facts/evidence made it obsolete/wrong.

I can imagine that any church, when updating their doctrine to account for the “facts”, will attempt to rationalize the changes as being some kind of new revelation or new understanding of their god’s position.

ETA: … or updating doctrine to account for modern sensibilities, such as LDS accepting African-Americans.

[Dewey_Finn]

@Rick_Kitchen

Didn’t the Catholic Church change their stance on anesthesia before surgeries?

And since 1963, the Catholic Church accepts cremation instead of burial or entombment. Not sure if that’s because “facts got in the way”.

[Czarcasm]

@Rick_Kitchen

Didn’t the Catholic Church change their stance on anesthesia before surgeries?

Not according to this source.

[Riemann]

@Czarcasm

…those tenets were officially changed because reality got in the way, but because their god updated his decision…

I think maybe you need to be a bit clearer about exactly what you’re asking for.

In the LDS case, clearly, a non-existent god did not actually notify them of an updated decision. A bunch of middle aged white men got together in a meeting and decided to change their tenets, and made up some bullshit to save face.

So it seems to me you’re not asking if tenets were really changed because of new facts. You’re asking about the publicity spin that religions have put on such changes. In other words, whether there have been occasions when a religious authority has honestly admitted that its prior tenets were just plain wrong based on new evidence, rather than claiming that it was a matter of literal vs metaphorical interpretation or some such nonsense?

[Czarcasm]

@Riemann

I think we need to be a bit clearer about exactly what you’re asking for.

In the LDS case, clearly, a non-existent god did not actually notify them of an updated decision. A bunch of middle aged white men got together in a meeting and decided to change their tenets, and made up some bullshit to save face.

So it seems to me you’re not asking if tenets were really changed because of new facts. You’re asking about the publicity spin that religions have put on such changes. In other words, occasions when a religious authority has admitted that its prior tenets were just plain wrong based on new evidence.

I thought that it was clear what I wanted in the OP but, yes-that is what I am looking for.

[CalMeacham]

@Czarcasm

And before anyone mentions the LDS church and its decisions regarding multiple wives and African-Americans, neither of those tenets were officially changed because reality got in the way, but because their god updated his decision. I’m looking for cases where the major tenet was officially changed because facts/evidence made it obsolete/wrong.

Polygamy was changed in the LDS Church after Official Declaration 1, which states:

To Whom It May Concern:

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.
Wilford Woodruff

President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

I observe that nothing in this states or gives the impression that God updated the decision, although it is certainly generally viewed that way.
On the other hand, Official Declaration 2 does explicitly state that it is the result of Revelation:

To Whom It May Concern:

On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

June 8, 1978
To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.
Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball

N. Eldon Tanner

Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.

[Czarcasm]

That first one sounds more like a denial of reality that admission that they were wrong.-basically “It never happened, and that was never our policy.”

[gnoitall]

@Czarcasm

That first one sounds more like a denial of reality that admission that they were wrong.-basically “It never happened, and that was never our policy.”

We’ve always been at war with Polygamasia.

[thelurkinghorror]

@Quimby

The Catholic Church has accepted Evolution for decades. It’s only loony tunes in America who don’t.

This isn’t a change. It went from basically zero official acknowledgment to “we won’t tell you what to believe, but it’s probably true.” It was never condemned by the church, though individual clergy may have spoken against it.

The Galileo case wasn’t a tenet.

The Community of Christ is the second largest LDS movement church, founded (under a different name) by Joseph Smith III. He claimed (perhaps incorrectly) that his father never sanctioned polygamy, but that Brigham Young inserted it on his own. So they maintain that polygamy was a doctrinal change, not removing it.

Not sure if Christianity’s removal of kosher laws counts? There are some theories that the proscriptions of pork, shellfish, etc. are based on the higher incidence of illness caused by these foods, though I’m not sure that this is a current theory.

[race_to_the_bottom]

I seem to remember reading that the Catholic Church was an early supporter of the Big Bang theory because it proved that there was a creation, as opposed to theSteady State theory which postulated that the Universe had always existed.

[thelurkinghorror]

@race_to_the_bottom

I seem to remember reading that the Catholic Church was an early supporter of the Big Bang theory because it proved that there was a creation, as opposed to theSteady State theory which postulated that the Universe had always existed.

The scientist who first theorized the Big Bang was a practicing Catholic priest.

[UDS]

Well, the early Christian movement appears to have believed in the imminent return of Jesus Christ (within a generation the Crucifixion) and to have rethought matters when that didn’t unfold as expected.

[dtilque]

@thelurkinghorror

The scientist who first theorized the Big Bang was a practicing Catholic priest.

Yes, but it was Pope Pius XII who came out in favor of the BB because it seemed to support a single act of Creation. Lemaitre apparently disagreed with this way of thinking.

[ftg]

@thelurkinghorror

The Community of Christ is the second largest LDS movement church, founded (under a different name) by Joseph Smith III.

The Community of Christ did update one of their tenets based on facts: The status of the hieroglyph “translations” that Joseph Smith used to create the Book of Abraham. They no longer consider it a religious text.

Many other Mormon groups attitudes range from “It’s still a valid translation, the Egyptologists just don’t understand the hidden meaning.” to “Regardless of how it was produced, the result is still canonical.”