Evolution And The Church

[Eldwynn]

It's been a long time since I have really discussed why I believe what I do with any church members. This is rather odd, considering I live in Salt Lake City, in view of the University of Utah. I plan on majoring in Neurobiology (with a transfer to the University of Washington) and because of that, I feel fairly knowledgeable about evolution. Growing up in the church, being active most my life (And graduating from seminary, something I am still proud of, since I felt I was one of the few that really applied myself). So now that the 15 seconds introduction is over, I wanted to see how church members reconcile evolution. It has been a while since discussing the issue, but I found a rather double standard in the church on the topic. Many I spoke to had no problem accepting it, but did not know what it actually meant. They were fine with saying "oh yeah, of course it's a correct scientific theory" without really giving it much thought after that.

The real conflict (as with most christians) is not admitting that evolution occurs in the natural world, but is that humans are indeed a product of evolution. The proof of this is undeniable (something I am more than willing to spell out if someone really wants to talk about the subject). On this topic, I feel it really has to be one or the other. Either evolution is true, or a former prophet, Joseph F. Smith (and his whole first presidency) was WRONG, and thus God should have removed them (according to that D&C scripture I don't feel like looking up right now).

What Joseph F. Smith thought about Evolution:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

For those that don't read links, here are the two most important paragraphs:

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men."

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist coeternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporallyâ??â??that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.â? He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant, but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its â??distinct order or sphere,â? and will enjoy â??eternal felicity.â? That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (see D&C 77:3)."

or, another anti-evolution treasure from the same:

http://www.amazon.com/ORIGIN-DESTINY-Josep...7377&sr=8-1

For a more recent example of Boyd K. Packer:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

Common ancestry is a fact. It's as valid as gravity(or relativity), Germ theory etc. Either common ancestry/ evolution is false, or Joseph F. Smith, a prophet, was totally wrong, not only with his entire book, but the letter he wrote (with the first presidency) for the church.

[Aquilifer]

I don't pretend to be an expert on evolution, and there've been some heated threads on the subject if you look around, but I think it's worth pointing out that you've quoted some of the most ferociously conservative members of the Church leadership on the subject. I know a number of professors and students in the biology dept. at BYU who would quietly disagree with such statements.

Have you looked at Reflections of a Scientist by Henry Eyring, a renowned chemist? It might be a good starting point for you to try reconciling your faith with your profession.

[Freedom]

The real conflict (as with most christians) is not admitting that evolution occurs in the natural world, but is that humans are indeed a product of evolution. The proof of this is undeniable (something I am more than willing to spell out if someone really wants to talk about the subject).

The proof is not undeniable, just strongly supported. With a tiny fraction of the archeological record available and millions of years of evidence missing, this type of statement is unfounded. Nevertheless, evolution and church doctrine are not at all related. There is a great article that discusses the battle between Pres Smith and other church leaders, including McKay, Widstoe and Clark. Perhaps someone can find it and link it here. There is evidence that evolution occurred, but there is also significant evidence that contradicts the theory. This is a quest for science to figure out. Your issue, however, is not with the church but a popular sentiment among many members. I suspect that most members are also ignorant about how gravity works, what an atom really looks like, and why oceans are not cluttered with millions of years of sediment. I suspect that less than 1% of members have ever read the book of Isaiah. This does not prove that the church rejects this book as scripture, only that many members are ignorant.

I donâ??t reject evolution; I just think that support for it is over stated. It is the best theory available, but you canâ??t create an â??undeniableâ?? picture with 1 piece from a billion piece puzzle.

[Eldwynn]

I don't pretend to be an expert on evolution, and there've been some heated threads on the subject if you look around, but I think it's worth pointing out that you've quoted some of the most ferociously conservative members of the Church leadership on the subject. I know a number of professors and students in the biology dept. at BYU who would quietly disagree with such statements.

Have you looked at Reflections of a Scientist by Henry Eyring, a renowned chemist? It might be a good starting point for you to try reconciling your faith with your profession.

Oh I totally agree, and I have read quite a bit by Henry Eyring, including reflections of a scientist.

The problem here is the fact that a large amount of criticism came from a prophet himself. Also, I see more recent prophets "dodging" the discussion altogether, which is what I would expect from a man that is not really getting inspiration from an infallible source.

Joseph F. Smith and the first presidency were wrong. Assuming that is the case, then Prophets, past, present, and future, can be wrong. This does not fit with what my understanding of the church was, not to mention the song "Follow the prophet"!!!!! (Okay, I had to throw in a little joke...)

This really bothered me. To me, there has always been the thinking in the church that the prophets were the ONE source you could always listen to, since they were on a one on one talk with god. Reading the writings of Joseph F. Smith, and knowing what I know about Evolution and mans origin, I just can't reconcile the gap. This led to cognitive dissonance, which ultimately led to a change in beliefs.

I wish the church would be more clear on this issue. If Evolution is correct, and it was "guided" by god (something that has a whole other set of issues... since evolution is blind) then why doesn't the prophet come out and say so? If it's incorrect, and god made all the species at once; then again, why doesn't the church say so. Remaining quiet on the issue I would imagine bothers more than just me. I suppose that's why there are very few LDS biology professors (outside of BYU of course).

In the end, if evolution were even admitted by the entire church to be true, and spun to make it appear like it fit with scriptures, I still wouldn't buy it (as I alluded to before) because one of the (to me, beautiful) things about evolution is that it is blind, has no purpose, no goal, acting (according to Richard Dawkins) as a "Blind watchmaker". This pushes a theistic god that can interfere with us sort of out of the window.

[Eldwynn]

The proof is not undeniable, just strongly supported. With a tiny fraction of the archeological record available and millions of years of evidence missing, this type of statement is unfounded. Nevertheless, evolution and church doctrine are not at all related. There is a great article that discusses the battle between Pres Smith and other church leaders, including McKay, Widstoe and Clark. Perhaps someone can find it and link it here. There is evidence that evolution occurred, but there is also significant evidence that contradicts the theory. This is a quest for science to figure out. Your issue, however, is not with the church but a popular sentiment among many members. I suspect that most members are also ignorant about how gravity works, what an atom really looks like, and why oceans are not cluttered with millions of years of sediment. I suspect that less than 1% of members have ever read the book of Isaiah. This does not prove that the church rejects this book as scripture, only that many members are ignorant.

I donâ??t reject evolution; I just think that support for it is over stated. It is the best theory available, but you canâ??t create an â??undeniableâ?? picture with 1 piece from a billion piece puzzle.

Common ancestry is as undeniable as a round earth. Sure techincally science *could* be wrong about both, but the evidence is good enough for a round earth, that it is silly to say it is flat. Not to mention that our brains (thus, everything about ourselves) were created through evolution. Before I spill the evidence, I am curious, that since you made this statement "I just think that support for it is over stated" what you actually think the evidence that supports evolution is. So often, I find many people that say the evidence is weak, don't really know much about it. I can give you a hint, Biologists rarely think of fossils proving evolution happened. If there were no fossils on the earth, the evidence would still be nearly just as strong. Fossils give us a bit more detail, but are not needed at all to prove common ancestry, or that humans share ancestry with chimpanzees.

I am also interested in any contradicting evidence you may be able to bring to light, because I was not aware there was any (at least not any coming from a scientific realm). I think you may be confused about what I was saying. I was not saying that the church does not appear to accept evolution because many of its members do not. I am saying that the church's official opinion at one time (via the prophet and first presidency) was that evolution is wrong; and I have yet to see a prophet say otherwise.

[Freedom]

I wish the church would be more clear on this issue. If Evolution is correct, and it was "guided" by god (something that has a whole other set of issues... since evolution is blind) then why doesn't the prophet come out and say so? If it's incorrect, and god made all the species at once; then again, why doesn't the church say so. Remaining quiet on the issue I would imagine bothers more than just me. I suppose that's why there are very few LDS biology professors (outside of BYU of course).

In the end, if evolution were even admitted by the entire church to be true, and spun to make it appear like it fit with scriptures, I still wouldn't buy it (as I alluded to before) because one of the (to me, beautiful) things about evolution is that it is blind, has no purpose, no goal, acting (according to Richard Dawkins) as a "Blind watchmaker". This pushes a theistic god that can interfere with us sort of out of the window.

Evolution is a theory based on skimpy evidence. The prophet will no sooner declare this theory to be doctrinally correct then is will declare the theory of general relativity or plate tectonics to be doctrinal. They are scientific theories that have no connection to the principles and ordinances of the gospel that lead us to salvation. What happens when, as with Newtons theories of the earth, the theory of evolution is replaced by another theory? Theories that explain our distant past have been developing for thousands of years. We simply do not have enough information to say that evolution is a fact. And even if it is proven, it is not a doctrinal issue. I have yet to find a verse of scriptures that declares the laws of electricity to be doctrinally correct.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]What Joseph F. Smith thought about Evolution:

[...]

One of my favorite papers on the subject: The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution

[Aquilifer]

Oh I totally agree, and I have read quite a bit by Henry Eyring, including reflections of a scientist.

The problem here is the fact that a large amount of criticism came from a prophet himself. Also, I see more recent prophets "dodging" the discussion altogether, which is what I would expect from a man that is not really getting inspiration from an infallible source.

Joseph F. Smith and the first presidency were wrong. Assuming that is the case, then Prophets, past, present, and future, can be wrong. This does not fit with what my understanding of the church was, not to mention the song "Follow the prophet"!!!!! (Okay, I had to throw in a little joke...)

This really bothered me. To me, there has always been the thinking in the church that the prophets were the ONE source you could always listen to, since they were on a one on one talk with god. Reading the writings of Joseph F. Smith, and knowing what I know about Evolution and mans origin, I just can't reconcile the gap. This led to cognitive dissonance, which ultimately led to a change in beliefs.

Ah, so the issue is cognitive dissonance from reading a prophet's writings that you think fly in the face of established science? Slightly different issue.

What's the quip, again? "Catholics teach that the Pope is infallible, but no one really believes it. Mormons teach that the Prophet is not infallible, but no one really believes it."

I'm afraid that I just don't see that JFS was speaking from revelation on this subject. It's not an area that impacts my salvation, and with that in mind, I am comfortable disagreeing with him.

Of course, that opens up a new series of questions. When is the Prophet speaking from revelation, and when is he offering an opinion? How can we know the difference? I recall GBH often couching comments in terms of his "opinion", which was nice, but JFS didn't give us that nice little loophole when speaking of evolution. Should we only accept as infallible any sermon that starts with "Thus sayeth the Lord...."? Do we limit prophetic revelation to the core of the Plan of Salvation, or does it encompass peripheral issues like the interaction between religion and science?

Dang it, now you've really opened up a can of worms.

[Aquilifer]

One of my favorite papers on the subject: The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution

Nice article. I'm gonna tuck that one away in my back pocket next time my creationist-minded inlaws wanna pick a fight.

[Log]

Oh, common descent is not a fact, like gravity, but an axiom. If it can be falsified in principle, it is false in fact.

Good luck, there, pardner. I applaud your honesty in discerning the logical contradiction between Darwinian theory and the Gospel. That point is denied most strongly in these here parts.

[katherine the great]

Common ancestry is a fact. It's as valid as gravity(or relativity), Germ theory etc. Either common ancestry/ evolution is false, or Joseph F. Smith, a prophet, was totally wrong, not only with his entire book, but the letter he wrote (with the first presidency) for the church.

Evolution has been a difficult thing for me to reconcile as well. All I can say is that I believe in evolution and I still believe in the prophets. I can understand Joseph F. Smith's stand against evolution because they didn't have a fraction of the evidence in 1910 that we do now. I don't know why church current leaders are not dealing with the issue though because it is going to be a much greater issue for this generation of LDS kids--especially with our emphasis on education. It is becoming really impossible for educated LDS people to deny that human beings' bodies evolved just like every other creature in the natural world.

[dblagent007]

The problem here is the fact that a large amount of criticism came from a prophet himself. Also, I see more recent prophets "dodging" the discussion altogether, which is what I would expect from a man that is not really getting inspiration from an infallible source.

What do you think is the role of a prophet? I can easily see God allowing prophets to have their own ideas, thoughts, etc. in a number of areas, especially areas that are not of primary importance to central mission of the church "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." I can also see God allowing the prophets to explaint their own opinions as well.

God is our father and we are his children. Like any father, he doesn't dictate everything to his children - even those called to special positions.

Joseph F. Smith and the first presidency were wrong. Assuming that is the case, then Prophets, past, present, and future, can be wrong. This does not fit with what my understanding of the church was, not to mention the song "Follow the prophet"!!!!! (Okay, I had to throw in a little joke...)

This really bothered me. To me, there has always been the thinking in the church that the prophets were the ONE source you could always listen to, since they were on a one on one talk with god. Reading the writings of Joseph F. Smith, and knowing what I know about Evolution and mans origin, I just can't reconcile the gap. This led to cognitive dissonance, which ultimately led to a change in beliefs.

Prophets can be wrong, especially about things that are outside of the primary purpose of the church. There are numerous threads on the fallibility of prophets. Do a search and you will find a lot on this issue.

I wish the church would be more clear on this issue. If Evolution is correct, and it was "guided" by god (something that has a whole other set of issues... since evolution is blind) then why doesn't the prophet come out and say so? If it's incorrect, and god made all the species at once; then again, why doesn't the church say so. Remaining quiet on the issue I would imagine bothers more than just me. I suppose that's why there are very few LDS biology professors (outside of BYU of course).

Why does the church have to take a position? Church leadership disagrees about evolution (read the article linked by Dr. Steuss) so this is clearly one of those areas that hasn't been cleared up by revelation, nor do I think it needs to be. This just seems like something at the periphery that God is happy to let us speculate about.

In the end, if evolution were even admitted by the entire church to be true, and spun to make it appear like it fit with scriptures, I still wouldn't buy it (as I alluded to before) because one of the (to me, beautiful) things about evolution is that it is blind, has no purpose, no goal, acting (according to Richard Dawkins) as a "Blind watchmaker". This pushes a theistic god that can interfere with us sort of out of the window.

So, why are you here asking questions? It seems that you have made up your mind. What is your purpupose?

[Log]

Evolution has been a difficult thing for me to reconcile as well. All I can say is that I believe in evolution and I still believe in the prophets.

So, since the prophets have definitively and bindingly declared that humans did NOT arise from something other than human, whereas the evolutionists say they DID, which do you believe?

What is your purpupose?

He's another atheist looking to throw up dust around here.

[thesometimesaint]

Eldwynn:

The Church takes NO official position regarding evolution. We are free to believe or not.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/co...mormon-doctrine

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four â??standard worksâ? of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."

Or in the word of Joseph Smith Jr.

"A Prophet is only a Prophet when acting as such.".

[Aquilifer]

So, since the prophets have definitively and bindingly declared that humans did NOT arise from something other than human, whereas the evolutionists say they DID, which do you believe?

No, they have not. Please read the article linked by the good Dr Steuss.

(I told you about the can of worms, Eldwynn!)

[Log]

The Church takes NO official position regarding evolution. We are free to believe or not.

The Church does take an OFFICIAL position regarding the evolution of mankind. But you are free to believe or not, just as you are with Genesis or the Articles of Faith.

No, they have not. Please read the article linked by the good Dr Steuss.

Yes, they have. Please read the article linked by myself.

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

The Origin of Man. Has NEVER been put to the Church, or accepted by the Church as binding on the Church.

[Aquilifer]

Yes, they have. Please read the article linked by myself.

The subject of which is extensively treated in Dr. Steuss's article (which is not to say that Dr. Steuss wrote the article, merely that he linked to it. Of course, it's anonymous board, so maybe Dr. Steuss did write it. Not that he ever boasts of his qualifications to write or anything. Indeed, he's often pretty self deprecating. I wouldn't think he wrote it. But you could put it to him. Heck, I'll put it to him. Dr. Steuss, are you Michael Ash? But I digress.).

[katherine the great]

So, since the prophets have definitively and bindingly declared that humans did NOT arise from something other than human, whereas the evolutionists say they DID, which do you believe?

I think that's obvious.

[Log]

The Origin of Man. Has NEVER been put to the Church, or accepted by the Church as binding on the Church.

The First Presidency, acting in their official capacity, made that statement.

[daz2]

I do not have a problem accepting that humans evolved, and I do not have a problem accepting that prophets are inspired (but not infallible).

[Log]

I think that's obvious.

I don't. Which do you believe, the prophets or the evolutionists, on the point?

[Aquilifer]

The First Presidency, acting in their official capacity, made that statement.

The First Presidency then spent a number of years backing off of the statement when people began asking about some of its more controversial language.

[Sargon]

My great-grandfather was a biology professor at BYU many years ago. He specialized in botany. He worked there at a time when evolution was a very taboo, and was frowned upon by most. Because he himself had actually created a new species of plant, he was a firm believer of evolution during that time.

Joseph Fielding Smith's beef with evolution was that he believed it rejected the atonement of Christ by rejecting the existence of Adam. I suppose he held a pretty simplistic view of the issue. Nonetheless, there are and have been plenty of LDS just as intelligent as Smith who embrace both the gospel and evolution.

Your issue is not about reconciling evolution with the gospel, but about your fundamentalist paradigm in regards to the role of prophets. Because you couldn't realize that your perception of what a prophet is and is not was incorrect, you entertained cognitive dissonance. Not everyone runs into that problem, because they are able to recognize that they have misunderstood the role of a prophet.

If you can get your hands on Mike Ash's new book Shaken Faith Syndrome, you should read chapter 3.

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

That would be D&C what?