Evolution And The Church

[Log]

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.

Show me another official statement by the First Presidency backing off of the statement.

Log:That would be D&C what?

Red herring.

[SLC]

I think that church members and Christians in general get uncomfortable with the idea of evolution because it makes the whole idea of earth life look like it just happened - like some sort of cosmic accident. As an active member of the LDS Faith, I could not accept this. When I read the article that you linked, the message I hear is that God is in control. Man was not formed by some accident. It was God's will that man be formed in his likeness and his image. We do not know the method that this came about. Whatever happened, happened because God willed it and not because nature decided it.

[Aquilifer]

My great-grandfather was a biology professor at BYU many years ago.

Bertrand Harrison by chance?

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

But he's the heretic who wrote Dr. Steuss's article (or may even be Dr. Steuss - the Dr. hasn't seen fit to deny my accusation)!

[Doctor Steuss]

But he's the heretic who wrote Dr. Steuss's article (or may even be Dr. Steuss - the Dr. hasn't seen fit to deny my accusation)!

Alas, much to my chagrin (and that of my Jewish mother), he and I are not one-in-the-same.

On another note, I seem to recall seeing a book at DB a couple of months back that was a compilation of all the statements that have been made regarding evolution from GAs. Anyone know what book I speak of (and as a side note, is it worth buying)?

[Log]

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.

He wouldn't be the first to not grasp the essential difference between intelligent design and evolution, accepting evidence of the first as somehow supporting the second.

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

February 3, 1959

David O. McKay, President

Dear Brother:

...The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution.

Neither "Man, His Origin and Destiny" by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, nor "Mormon Doctrine" by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, is an official publication of the Church.

Evolution is a theory. You say that biologists would agree on the general lines of what happened, although there may be less agreement about just how it happened. While scientific people themselves differ in their interpretations and views of the theory, any conflicts which may seem to exist between the theory and the truths of revealed religion can well be dealt with by suspending judgment as long as may be necessary to arrive at facts and at a complete understanding of the truth.

[Eldwynn]

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

Wow, all the way at the bottom page and someone finally read it (or at least has read it before). I quite from the beginning:

"In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Churchâ??s doctrinal position on these matters."

There was plenty of evidence of evolution when Darwin first wrote The origin if Species, so that doesn't really fly. I have some school stuff to deal with (new semester starting) but I will be back and comment on a few posts I glanced at. I did not realize how fast threads grow in this place.

[Log]

I think that church members and Christians in general get uncomfortable with the idea of evolution because it makes the whole idea of earth life look like it just happened - like some sort of cosmic accident.

Actually, that's exactly what is claimed by the evolutionists themselves. By definition, evolution is unguided, unplanned, and purposeless. That's the content of the words "random" and "natural" in the phrases "random mutation" and "natural selection."

[Aquilifer]

Show me another official statement by the First Presidency backing off of the statement.

From the article from Michael Ash (who, alas, is not Dr. Steuss):

When it was recognized that the First Presidencyâ??s statement didnâ??t address the origin of manâ??s physical body, questions among members persisted. Less than six months after the official â??statement,â? the following information was printed in the April 1910 Improvement Era: "Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, thru the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted thru sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in

mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in

the revealed word of God."

While President Smith personally believed that the theory of evolution was an â??hypothesisâ?

and â??more or less a fallacy,â? he also stated that the church wasâ??not undertaking to say how much of evolution is true, or how much is falseâ? and that â??the Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world.â?

Then in 1913, in a conference address in Arizona, President Smith added another interesting comment to the issue:

"Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman and God,

the Father, was born of woman. Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of

woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I."

After six years of serving in office, President Grant saw a need to reiterate the

1909 official statement on â??The Origin of Manâ? with a few modifications. The First Presidencyâ??s â?? â??Mormonâ?? View of Evolutionâ? reaffirmed the divinity and role of Jesus Christ, that Adam was â??our great progenitor, â??the first man,â??â? and that â??the doctrine of pre-existence pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of manâ??s origin.â? The statement also reaffirmed that man is a â??child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes.â? Sixteen years earlier, the original 1909 statement had concluded: â??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.â? As already noted, some people incorrectly interpreted this as an anti-evolution comment. This ambiguous comment was no longer found in the 1925 statement.

[Sargon]

The collection of statements below, many by Church leaders, should be enlightening.

http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2008/08/...s-on-evolution/

James E. Talmage:

"The Earth and Man", Address Delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Utah Sunday, August 9, 1931 and subsequently published in a 1931 church pamphlet and the December 1965 issue of The Instructor magazine.

EVOLUTION

"Geologists say that these very simple forms of plant and animal bodies were succeeded by others more complicated; and in the indestructible record of the rocks they read the story of advancing life from the simple to the more complex, from the single-celled protozoan to the highest animals, from the marine algae to the advanced types of flowering plantâ??to the apple tree, the rose and the oak."

DEATH BEFORE THE FALL

"The oldest, that is to say the earliest, rocks thus far identified in land masses reveal the fossilized remains of once living organisms, plant and animal...These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation."

SCIENCE AND THE GOSPEL

"Within the Gospel of Jesus Christ there is room and place for every truth thus far learned by man or yet to be made known."

********

David O. McKay: Letter to Dr. A. Kent Christensen, February 3, 1959

OFFICIAL CHURCH POSITION

"The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution."

"Neither 'Man, His Origin and Destiny'...nor 'Mormon Doctrine'...is an official publication of the church."

SCIENCE AND REVELATION

"â?¦any conflicts which may seem to exist between the theory [of evolution] and the truths of revealed religion can be dealt with by suspending judgment as long as may be necessary to arrive at facts and at a complete understanding of the truth."

********

Bertrand F. Harrison:

"The Relatedness of Living Things", The Instructor, July 1965, pp. 272-276

CREATION BY EVOLUTION

"Well, last week when we were discussing the creation of the world you said that life on earth could not have come about by evolution. We both agree on the one really essential aspect, that God created all living things; but when you say that He could not do so by an evolutionary process, are you not in effect saying that God could not do with the beasts and the lilies of the field what man can do with cows and dogs or wheat and roses?"

"Still I see no great problem; there are so many explanations. For example, evolution might account only for man's physical body; the addition of that 'divine spark' that sets man apart from the other animals might have been the final step that created the man, Adam. Whichever way it came about, I am willing to wait until some future time for the details."

"I never try to convert anyone to evolution, but I do believe in helping people to understand enough to judge for themselves. What I was trying to do was to convince you that one can believe in evolution and still believe in the Gospel. I believe the Gospel embraces all truth; then if evolution is true, it is part of the Gospel."

NATURAL SELECTION

"By contrast, life may have begun as one or a number of simple, one-celled organisms. These organisms developed the ability to duplicate themselves by some process so the products were similar to, but not necessarily identical with, the parent cells. Thus, there would be slight variations among the offspring. It seems quite logical that those individuals which were best adapted to their environment would be the ones most likely to survive; and, if they lived long enough to reproduce, they would be the ones which would leave offspring."

"You see Charles Darwin was strongly impressed by the fact that men have been able to make great improvements in domestic plants and animals by selective breeding; this was one of the things that led to his theory of evolution...Darwin reasoned that those which were best adapted to their particular environment would live and reproduce, thereby leaving progeny similar to themselves. Here then was a mechanism for the selection of the favored races that would survive. Darwin termed it 'natural selection,' in contrast to the 'artificial selection' practiced by man in improving domestic plants and animals."

Morris S. Petersen, "I Have a Question" Ensign, Sept. 1987, pp. 28â??29

AGE OF THE EARTH

"From the fossil record we learn that the dinosaurs were the dominant animals on earth between 225 and 67 million years ago."

********

William E. Evenson, "Evolution" Encyclopedia of Mormonism, New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1992, vol. 2, p. 478

"The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,

'Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church...'

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: 'Adam is the primal parent of our race' [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931]."

Gary James Bergera and Ronald Priddis: "Organic Evolution Controversy", Signature Books, 19851895

"One of [brigham Young] Academy's most enthusiastic advocates of evolutionary theory was English professor Nels Nelson. As early as 1895, he had argued in the church's Contributor magazine that all Darwinism lacked was provision for the intelligent supervision and design of the universe. Viewing Nelson as able and committed to defend the church's interests in such topics, the church helped subsidize in 1904 the publication of his Scientific Aspects of Mormonism..."

1909

"Subjects ranging from communism to eugenics were hotly debated both in and out of class [at BYA]. 'I recall one occasion in which there had been a good informal talk in a little group,' Henry Peterson later wrote. President [George H.] Brimhall 'spoke up and said, 'I too am an evolutionist.''"

1911

"Without mentioning names, he accused 'four or five of the [bYU] teachers' of championing organic evolution and higher biblical criticism. The theory of evolution, he alleged, was 'treated as a demonstrated law and their applications of it to gospel truths [had given] rise to many curious and conflicting explanations of scripture. Its relations to the fall, the atonement and the resurrection,' he wrote, 'are, perhaps, the most important and damaging to the faith of the students'...Committee members recommended that 'the services of those three teachers in the B. Y. University be dispensed with unless they change their teachings to conform to the decision and instructions of the Board of Trustees of the Brigham Young University '"

1924

"Elder James E. Talmage, heading a program of lectures at BYU by leading church authorities, added a modicum of balance by suggesting that there may have been a special creation of man, independent of other animal life which may have evolved."

1927

"BYU's Y News termed Charles Darwin 'a man possibly as great in his chosen field [as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were in theirs],' adding, 'throughout his long life the only thing he feared and shunned were hate and prejudice.'"

1929

"Twenty-fours years later, during the dedication of the Eyring Science Center, Harvey Fletcher, then on the faculty of Columbia University, observed to the audience, 'I think in most scientific societies this would be considered a most unusual thing, to dedicate to the Lord a building of science.' But, he continued, God-fearing scientists 'will eventually be saviors of our culture and civilization.'"

1936-1948

"Elder John Widtsoe began a gospel question-and-answer series in the Improvement Era, including his analysis of some of the arguments against evolutionary theory. He contended, as had Talmage, that the earth was very old and that the seven days of creation were of indeterminable length. Evolution, he wrote, was a plausible theory deduced from a number of observable facts but could be revised in light of new scientific discoveries. Twenty years after B.H. Roberts, Widtsoe acknowledged the existence of 'human-like beings before the coming of Adam,' adding, 'The mystery of the creation of Adam has not yet been revealed.' To one reader, Widtsoe privately explained in 1948, 'If [the Lord] chose to place man-like beings upon the earth before the days of Adam, I really have no right to find fault with that'"

1954

"[President David O.] McKay subsequently asked Apostle Adam S. Bennion, former superintendent of church schools, to solicit responses to Elder [Joseph Fielding] Smith's book from qualified LDS scientists.

Unshelving Evolution 5

Elder Bennion enlisted the cooperation of Henry Eyring, dean of the Graduate School at the University of Utah, who invited geologist William Lee Stokes and chemist Richard P. Smith to join him. 'I can understand Man: His Origin and Destiny as the work of a great man who is fallible,' Eyring wrote to Bennion. 'It contains many serious scientific errors and much ill humor, which mar the many beautiful things in it. Since the gospel is only that which is true, this book cannot be more than the private opinion of one of our great men.'"

1958

"Thus it was with relief that pro-science academicians listened to Elder Hugh B. Brown, an assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who suggested to BYU students and faculty in 1958, 'Both religionists and scientists must avoid arrogant dogmatism...Scientists and teachers of religion disagree among themselves on theological and other subjects...Even in our own church men take issue with one another and contend for their own interpretations. But this free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men remain humble and teachable.'"

1959

"Almost a full year later, the First Presidency met with Apostles Petersen and Romney, who had been asked to carefully review Mormon Doctrine. Both reported that the book had not been cleared for publication by the church's reading committee. Elder Petersen remarked that he had located more than 1,000 doctrinal 'errors,' while Elder Romney reported that he had identified nearly forty problem areas, including the treatment of 'evolution,' 'evolutionists,' 'pre-Adamites,' 'status of animals and plants in the Garden of Eden,' and the 'meaning of the various accounts of creation'. The First Presidency concluded that the book '[was] full of errors and misstatements, and [that] it [was] most unfortunate that it [had] received such wide circulation.'â?¦A second, revised edition of Mormon Doctrine appeared several years later, although almost no changes were made to mitigate the book's views on evolution."

1964

"In October 1964 the church's Improvement Era printed an article on the age of the earth which concluded that the earth was 13,000 years old, 'roughly the age chronicled for it in the Bible.' In response to a number of criticisms, Bertrand F. Harrison, chair of BYU's botany department, was asked the following year to write an article for the church's Sunday school teachers' magazine, the Instructor, on organic evolution. David Lawrence McKay, a son of President David McKay and a member of the general church Sunday school superintendency, read Harrison's article to his father, who approved it for publication. Harrison's essay, 'The Relatedness of Living Things,' was printed in the July 1965 Instructor and was the most pro-evolution article ever to have appeared in an official church periodical."

1966

"Biology professor Howard C. Stutz, who taught BYU's first graduate course in evolutionary biology, asserted, 'Not only is the concept of organic evolution completely compatible with the gospel as found in the scriptures, but it is the very heart of it.'"

1971

"When Dallin Oaks replaced Ernest Wilkinson as BYU president in August 1971, he soon learned of serious problems on campus regarding the role of evolution at the university. In his first address to the faculty in September he asked that guilty parties, particularly among members of the religion faculty, 'stop casting aspersions on [the] testimony and devotion of their colleagues' in the sciences."

1977

"In mid-September 1977, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, with the cooperation of Religious Instruction, began offering a series of one-hour science and religion seminars...After the first two sessions, William O. Nelson, secretary to the Quorum of the Twelve, complained to Elder Benson, 'The program is heavily weighted in favor of a pro-evolutionary approach.' Benson shared Nelson's memorandum with Elder Mark Petersen, who forwarded a copy to President Oaks, with the comment: 'Some of the brethren have been very concerned about [this topic]...and, of course, hope that no evolution

Unshelving Evolution 6

will be taught at the BYU under any circumstance.' Oaks responded again that the university could not 'ignore the theory of evolution...'"

1979

"Speaking to church educators at BYU in mid-August 1979, Marion G. Romney, second counselor in the First Presidency, explained that if 'there are some things in the strata of the earth indicating there were men before Adam,...they were not the ancestors of Adam.'"

Convinced by this time of the need for a stronger statement, Oaks responded decisively to Hinckley: 'If we stopped teaching this theory, within a few years students from BYU would not be admitted to...graduate schools. At that point we would cease to function as a recognized university and would, in the eyes of the world (especially the world of higher education), be little more than a seminary with added courses in the humanities. I have no doubt whatever that our accreditation as an institution of higher education would be lost. The issue is that loaded.'"

1980

"McConkie delivered the harshest denunciation of organic evolution to date. Speaking on 'Seven Deadly Heresies' infecting the church, he contended: 'There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish'"

1982

"Former dean Lester Allen was asked to submit to the church an informed, albeit unofficial response to criticisms that the church was anti-science. Allen wrote, '...the theory of organic evolution is a product of good science. It is a powerful, well-substantiated tool for explaining many facts and [observations] in nature. Numerous LDS scholars find [the theory of evolution] both scientifically sound and not in conflict with God's revelations...To the LDS scientist,' he concluded, evolution 'is an expression of God's omnipotent control of natureâ??not beyond law but fully in accord with it.' During the church's next General Conference in October 1984, however, both Elders Packer and McConkie delivered separate anti-evolution addresses."

2. The Instructor was a church magazine for Sunday School teachers. President David O. McKay was editor in 1965.

3. A search of LDS.ORG for:

● James E. Talmage's "The Earth and Man" yielded 3 unique hitsâ??2 quotes from and 1 reference to the document.

● Bertrand F. Harrison's "The Relatedness of Living Things" yielded nothing.

● "Organic Evolution" yielded 4 unique hitsâ??contrary remarks by Ezra Taft Benson (1975), Gordon B. Hinckley (1984), Russell M. Nelson (1988), and Robert L. Millet (1992).

● "Darwinism" yielded 1 unique hitâ??the same 1984 contrary remark by Gordon B. Hinckley

● "Natural Selection" yielded 1 unique hitâ??the same 1988 contrary remark by Russell M. Nelson.

4. Who's who:

● James E. Talmage (1862-1933) was called as an Apostle in 1911. He was a geologist and fellow of several prestigious scientific societies.

● John A. Widstoe (1872-1952) was called as an Apostle in 1921. Dr. Widtsoe was also a noted author, scientist, and academician.

● David O. McKay (1873-1970) was called as church president in 1951. He was an educator and valedictorian of his 1897 U of U class.

Unshelving Evolution 7

● Joseph Fielding Smith (1876-1972) was called as church president in 1970. He was a religious scholar and a prolific writer.

● Hugh B. Brown (1883-1975) was called as an Apostle in 1958. He was an attorney, businessman, author, and professor of religion at BYU.

● Harvey Fletcher (1884-1981) was the Founding Dean of the BYU College of Engineering. He invented the hearing aide and stereophonic sound.

● Marion G. Romney (1897-1988) was called as an Apostle in 1951. He was a prosecuting attorney, Utah state legislator, and Book of Mormon scholar.

● Henry Eyring (1901-1981) was a theoretical chemist and president of two prestigious scientific societies. Dr. Eyring authored many books on science and religion.

● Bruce R. McConkie (1915â??1985) was called as an Apostle in 1972. He held a Juris Doctor degree and was a theologian and prolific author.

● Dallin H. Oaks was called as an Apostle in 1984. He is a former Utah Supreme Court justice and president of BYU.

● Bertrand F. Harrison was a professor of botany at BYU and a member of the Deseret Sunday School Union General Board in 1965.

● Howard C. Stutz was a Biology and Botany Professor at BYU for 35 years. He was a Bishop and is now an emeritus Patriarch.

● A. Lester Allen was a professor of zoology and dean of the College of Biological and Agricultural sciences at BYU.

● Morris S. Petersen was professor of geology at BYU and a stake president in 1987.

● William E. Evenson was a professor of physics and astronomy at BYU.

"If a thing is wrong, nothing can save it, and if it is right, it cannot help succeeding." Henry B. Eyring

[Sargon]

Eldwynn,

Have you read Nibley's piece on the issue?

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=73

Bertrand Harrison by chance?But he's the heretic who wrote Dr. Steuss's article (or may even be Dr. Steuss - the Dr. hasn't seen fit to deny my accusation)!

Nope.

[Log]

Log:

February 3, 1959

David O. McKay, President

Dear Brother:

...The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution.

Neither "Man, His Origin and Destiny" by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, nor "Mormon Doctrine" by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, is an official publication of the Church.

Evolution is a theory. You say that biologists would agree on the general lines of what happened, although there may be less agreement about just how it happened. While scientific people themselves differ in their interpretations and views of the theory, any conflicts which may seem to exist between the theory and the truths of revealed religion can well be dealt with by suspending judgment as long as may be necessary to arrive at facts and at a complete understanding of the truth.

Dear TSS:

This is a red herring and does not respond to any claim I've made. Please stay on topic. The First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, acting in its official capacity, published an article entitled "The Origin of Man." David O. McKay's letter does nothing to address that article, which article takes a clear position on the evolution of mankind, and therefore McKay's letter is irrelevant to our current discussion.

[Eldwynn]

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.

Do remember that we are talking about a "prophet" giving an official church statement on the matter, and you throw a rather double standard around anyways. If evidence SUPPORTS the church, it is talked about everywhere. If it CONFLICTS, you get a multitude of statements like the one you gave. Evolution is a scientific theory based on plenty of evidence. Newtons theory was not replaced at all, but there ws just more to the picture, something newton could not solve (he actually invoked god to explain what he could not, and then 10 years later someone came along with the mathematics to explain it...) that Einstein did. We DO have enough evidence to say evolution is as much as a "truth" as anything else in science (you know... the stuff that makes antibiotics work).

You never did as requested, and tell me the evidence you know. I am just going to assume you are another person with an inadequate knowledge of the theory, or how science works; that is just shouting something he/she heard.

[Aquilifer]

There was plenty of evidence of evolution when Darwin first wrote The origin if Species, so that doesn't really fly.

I think it's wise to remember that in 1909, Darwinism's place was still very uncertain outside of most scientific circles. Remember, we're still a few decades away from the Scopes Monkey Trial. Much of the evidence was there, but hadn't quite congealed in popular acceptance.

[Log]

From the article from Michael Ash (who, alas, is not Dr. Steuss):

While President Smith personally believed that the theory of evolution was an â??hypothesisâ?

and â??more or less a fallacy,â? he also stated that the church wasâ??not undertaking to say how much of evolution is true, or how much is falseâ? and that â??the Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world.â?

Then in 1913, in a conference address in Arizona, President Smith added another interesting comment to the issue:

"Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman and God,

the Father, was born of woman. Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of

woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I."

Smith had no thought of evolution when he said this. I have seen multiple supporters of evolution cite this statement in complete ignorance of its theological background before you. Let me cite it, from "The Origin of Man": "All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity."

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

"All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity."

I don't have a problem with that statement. I do have numerous problems with "The Origin of Man", and your interpretation of it however. One being it has NEVER been accepted by the Church.

[Log]

Log:

"All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity."

I don't have a problem with that statement.

Good.

I do have numerous problems with "The Origin of Man"....

Bad.

[Aquilifer]

Smith had no thought of evolution when he said this. I have seen multiple supporters of evolution cite this statement in complete ignorance of its theological background before you. Let me cite it, from "The Origin of Man": "All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity."

Yes, but taken in the context of the rest of the quotes, it is, as the article says, "interesting".

Log, calling citations offered against your position "complete ignorance" is not going to earn you any points here.

You have also looked past a critical statement:

While President Smith personally believed that the theory of evolution was an â??hypothesisâ?

and â??more or less a fallacy,â? he also stated that the church wasâ??not undertaking to say how much of evolution is true, or how much is falseâ? and that â??the Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world.â?

That's not a ringing endorsement for the position that "Origin of Man" is a binding doctrinal statement.

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

IF I am wrong then I'm am sure God will gently inform me as to HOW He actually did it. Until such time I am free to go where the evidence leads me.

[Log]

Yes, but taken in the context of the rest of the quotes, it is, as the article says, "interesting".

It's of interest in this dispute only when taken in ignorance of its theological background.

You have also looked past a critical statement:

That's not a ringing endorsement for the position that "Origin of Man" is a binding doctrinal statement.

Smith's statement is decontextualized and irrelevant. An official statement from the First Presidency is sufficient. If you have something like that, then we might have more to discuss.

Let me add, if Smith had as his understanding of the claims of the theory of evolutionary theory what is now known as the neo-Darwinian synthesis, which definitively excludes intelligent agency, I have no doubt his response would have been quite different.

[dblagent007]

The First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, acting in its official capacity, published an article entitled "The Origin of Man." David O. McKay's letter does nothing to address that article, which article takes a clear position on the evolution of mankind, and therefore McKay's letter is irrelevant to our current discussion.

I don't think the 1909 statement is as clearly anti-evolution as you think it is. When it came out, people were still confused about what the church's position was on the issue - hence the reason for the later clarifications. There is certainly the implication that the church is against evolution, but I don't believe referring to evolution as "theories of men" is sufficient to say the church believes that evolution is so contrary to the gospel that only one of them can be true.

[Aquilifer]

Smith's statement is decontextualized and irrelevant.

Joseph F. Smith said that in April 1911 Juvenile Instructor. How the heck is it irrelevant?

An official statement from the First Presidency is sufficient.

In 1925, President Grant reissued the statement without including the statement "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."

How is it that you do not see the backtracking? If the 1909 statement is akin to a law, then reissuing the statement 16 years later without certain passages means that the law has been amended, and holding up the 1909 law must be balanced against the 1925 amendment to that law.

The 1925 restatement is an official statement of the First Presidency, and must be considered in your analysis of the Church's position (or lack thereof) on evolution.

[Log]

The 1925 restatement is an official statement of the First Presidency, and must be considered in your analysis of the Church's position (or lack thereof) on evolution.

The 2002 restatement, which is an official statement of the First Presidency, from which I have been drawing, must therefore be considered in like fashion, no?

I don't think the 1909 statement is as clearly anti-evolution as you think it is.

How anti-evolution do I think it is?

[Sargon]

From the The Origin of Man:

In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Churchâ??s doctrinal position on these matters. A reprinting of this important First Presidency statement will be helpful as members of the Church study the Old Testament this year.

This introductory paragraph was not written by the First Presidency. This is an editorial introduction by the magazine in which the essay appeared.

From the first paragraph authored by the First Presidency:

Inquiries arise from time to time respecting the attitude of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints upon questions which, though not vital from a doctrinal standpoint, are closely connected with the fundamental principles of salvation. The latest inquiry of this kind that has reached us is in relation to the origin of man. It is believed that a statement of the position held by the Church upon this subject will be timely and productive of good.

It should be at least pointed out that Smith recognized this issue as "not vital from a doctrinal standpoint." It isn't as severe a question as some may wish it to be.

This paragraph also declares that what follows is the "position held by the Church."

However, there is something very important that needs to be pointed out. While Smith may have felt that this document represented the "position of the Church," he did NOT advance it as official doctrine that should be considered "scripture." That distinction is important. Joseph F. Smith was not afraid to add to the scriptures. He received revelation which he added on to the end of D&C as section 138. He obviously did not hold The Origin of Man on the same level of authoritative instruction as he did D&C 138.

[Aquilifer]

The 2002 restatement, which is an official statement of the First Presidency, from which I have been drawing, must therefore be considered in like fashion, no?

A reprinting of the 1909 statement in the Ensign is different from a modifying restatement by the First Presidency. That the 1925 restatement was ignored or overlooked by the Ensign staff is regrettable. What I do not see is a subtle effort to reinvigorate the debate over evolution after two decades of virtual silence on the matter. In the century since the 1909 statement, the balance of the debate has quietly shifted to neutral acceptance of evolution as something to consider, Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie notwithstanding.

I see no evidence to support your contention that evolution is condemned by the Church. Even Joseph F. Smith stated that the Church is neutral on the Lord's creative process. You can have your opinion and I can have mine. We can both be comfortable with our respective beliefs while in the same church.