The Church's Stance on Evoution

[Kyle]

It seems to me that there are mormons on here that believe/know in evolution. They are able to reconcile evolution and church doctirines, but that is not really what I want to discuss.

I am curious as to what is the official church's stance on evolution.

If they officially conflict, does the church need to change its stance?

Any other thoughts?

I really don't want to argue, I just want your opinions.

Thank you for your time.

[BCSpace]

I am curious as to what is the official church's stance on evolution.

Looking at the various first presidency statements, one sees that all the Church does is reiterate the scriptures rather than speak against evolution. So despite a couple of "rogue" opinions by some strongly opinionated apostles (some of which had to be modified or didn't accurately address the concept of evolution anyway), the Church has no doctrine for or against evolution.

So if you believe that God exists and that He created man in His own image; that Adam was the "first flesh" and that there was a fall in which there was a state of no death prior to that fall; then you are in good company.

I believe all those things and also find that I can accept evolution just as mainstream science has it without conflicting with LDS doctrine.

In addition, you could also adhere to a creationist pov and not be in conflict with the Church unless you designate a age of the earth as LDS doctrine. The Church has specifically come out and said that an age of the earth is not a doctrine the Church has.

[Jan]

Here ya go! (short answer: there is no official Church position on evolution and members are free to believe what they want about the exact mechanisms of how our world was created):

http://en.fairmormon.org/Evolution

[Obiwan]

No "church" stance.... Some leaders/members views in the past were mostly against the "primative" view of evolution, such as we evolving from Apes, not against the idea that there is some "evolution" that occurs within species, or even a small degree across animal species. Human's however are fully unique, and seems to have only evolved within itself, not from or as another species.

[thesometimesaint]

Anyone who thinks that evolution postulates that man evolved from Apes doesn't understand Evolution.

[BCSpace]

Anyone who thinks that evolution postulates that man evolved from Apes doesn't understand Evolution.

That's right. But the answer probably still won't be satisfactory to those who currently think man evolved "within himself"; that being man and apes share a common ancestor. For some strange reason I can't seem to pin down, some people think that evolving from lower life forms somehow precludes man from being created in God's image. A more valid concern is the notion of death before Adam and Eve, a concern which I have been able to answer for myself scripturally.

[cinepro]

This is an excellent article by a geology professor at BYU-I:

TEACHING GEOLOGY, AN OLD EARTH, AND ORGANIC EVOLUTION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GOSPEL

I have taught a historical geology class (Life of the Past) since I first

came to teach at Ricks in 1964. There are two fundamental concepts in

the class. One is that the earth is billions of years old and has had a very

long and eventful history. The second concept is shown by the fossil

record and illustrates there was an orderly development of life through

time. This progression of life is called The Principle of Faunal Succession

and states that plants and animals appear in the fossil record in an orderly

and predictable sequence. This systematic development of life through

time is not a theory but a reality of the earth. By understanding this

concept, geologists can find fossil fuels and other natural resources that

are essential today.

Faunal Succession is the documentary evidence of the Theory of

Organic Evolution, the improvement, change, and adaptation of life as

the earth and environment have changed through its long history. Early

in the class, I tell my students: â??Until you know the basics of evolution,

be careful about mentioning the â??E-wordâ?? to your roommates and friends

because there are so many misconceptions and incorrect ideas about

the theory.â?

[mfbukowski]

That's right. But the answer probably still won't be satisfactory to those who currently think man evolved "within himself"; that being man and apes share a common ancestor. For some strange reason I can't seem to pin down, some people think that evolving from lower life forms somehow precludes man from being created in God's image. A more valid concern is the notion of death before Adam and Eve, a concern which I have been able to answer for myself scripturally.

I have too, but I wonder if you're solution is the same as mine. Care to share?

[BCSpace]

I have too, but I wonder if you're solution is the same as mine. Care to share?

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

2 Nephi 2:22

To me, this implies two states. A prior creative state and a created or finished state (ostensibly when Adam was placed in the garden). Notice that the state of no death, where they have no end is the finished state. Therefore, while it is true that there was no death before the fall, there is also no description of the state before the finished state or any properties applied.

Therefore, you can have prior to Adam being placed in the garden death and evolution. Then Adam is placed in the garden into a state of no death awaiting the fall. Then the fall and all natural processes, such as evolution, can proceed apace.

[ZekeTheElder]

I am curious as to what is the official church's stance on evolution.

The church will take no stand on evolution because it understands that it cannot defend religion and science at the same time.

Bruce McConkie laid out the logic very clearly when he said:

"If death has always prevailed in the world, there was no fall of Adam which brought death to all forms of life. If Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement. If there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, no eternal life, nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. If there is no salvation, there is no God. The fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself. The atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself."

Choose one - religion or evolution. You canâ??t have it both waysâ?¦

[BCSpace]

Bruce McConkie laid out the logic very clearly when he said:

"If death has always prevailed in the world, there was no fall of Adam which brought death to all forms of life. If Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement. If there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, no eternal life, nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. If there is no salvation, there is no God. The fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself. The atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself."

Choose one - religion or evolution. You canâ??t have it both waysâ?¦

Actually, you can. You made two mistakes here....

1. You quoted from The Seven Deadly Heresies, June 1, 1980, BYU, which, by definition, is not published as an official doctrinal work.

2. In that same speech, BRM admitted that if you can reconcile it, go ahead and that he was simply giving his opinion on why he thought it could not be reconciled.

[Noah]

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

2 Nephi 2:22

To me, this implies two states. A prior creative state and a created or finished state (ostensibly when Adam was placed in the garden). Notice that the state of no death, where they have no end is the finished state. Therefore, while it is true that there was no death before the fall, there is also no description of the state before the finished state or any properties applied.

Therefore, you can have prior to Adam being placed in the garden death and evolution. Then Adam is placed in the garden into a state of no death awaiting the fall. Then the fall and all natural processes, such as evolution, can proceed apace.

That's an interesting take. I'm curious, did that just pop out at you, or were you reading over that verse again and again with a fine-toothed comb. Very impressive.

Count me in as one who has given the 'no death before the fall' problem a lot of thought. I know that 1) it's a necessary component to the Adam and Eve story, and 2) everything perceivable by the senses reminds us that, not only do we live in a fallen world, but we live in a fallen universe.

It's fascinating that we can simultaneously hold two apparently contradictory positions at once without buckling under the weight of cognitive dissonance. I guess I'm still waiting for that final piece of the puzzle. For now we have the 'why'; God willing, someday we'll have the 'how'.

[thesometimesaint]

Noah:

I don't believe that we know nearly enough about science or religion to exclude either. I too eagerly await the answer.

[ZekeTheElder]

Actually, you can. You made two mistakes here....

I don't understand why you think I made a mistake, let along two. I quoted McConkie because I think his logic was airtight.

If you believe in evolution then death MUST have occurred before the Garden. Death is the engine of evolution.

If you believe in the story of the Garden then you CAN'T believe in evolution. Death started in the Garden.

Its really that simple (and complex).

[thesometimesaint]

ZekeTheElder:

Eden seems to be a special place, apart from the lone and dreary would. Could not Eden experience different conditions than the rest of the world?

[annewandering]

ZekeTheElder:

Eden seems to be a special place, apart from the lone and dreary would. Could not Eden experience different conditions than the rest of the world?

hmm i have never really thought about death before adam and eve. now that it is brought up, we know that all before us died. (God, his family, all of the endless streams of mankind from the never beginning, beginning etc.) therefore it appears that the immortality that adam and eve brought to this world was limited to them. do we actually have scriptural evidence that animals didnt die before?

[BCSpace]

That's an interesting take. I'm curious, did that just pop out at you, or were you reading over that verse again and again with a fine-toothed comb. Very impressive.

It just popped out at me while reading someone else (I forget who and under what circumstances) use the same verse to try and show evolution contradicts LDS doctrine. Very ironic.

Count me in as one who has given the 'no death before the fall' problem a lot of thought. I know that 1) it's a necessary component to the Adam and Eve story, and 2) everything perceivable by the senses reminds us that, not only do we live in a fallen world, but we live in a fallen universe.

It just seems so clear to me now. Previously, I toyed with the notion that the key was in the spiritual creation, that it was somehow manifested in the physical world. It never worked for me and then I found 2 Nephi 2:22.

It's fascinating that we can simultaneously hold two apparently contradictory positions at once without buckling under the weight of cognitive dissonance. I guess I'm still waiting for that final piece of the puzzle. For now we have the 'why'; God willing, someday we'll have the 'how'.

Amen.

Actually, you can. You made two mistakes here....

I don't understand why you think I made a mistake, let along two.

Poor choice of words on my part. I had just finished mopping the floor with Billy and was "in the mood". Apologies.

I quoted McConkie because I think his logic was airtight.

I mentioned something about it because I am looking for stuff that is actually considered doctrine by the Church.

If you believe in evolution then death MUST have occurred before the Garden. Death is the engine of evolution.

If you believe in the story of the Garden then you CAN'T believe in evolution. Death started in the Garden.

My answer would be that I do indeed believe that there was no death prior to the fall. But I would also say that because of 2 Nephi 2:22, there is no scriptural or doctrinal requirement for no death before Adam is placed in the garden.

Perhaps this is where I took a closer look at 2 Nephi 2:22 because BRM quotes it here in defense of his opinion.

Speaking of which, notice how careful BRM is to state that this is his opinion. Notice also that he says...

"These are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself what he will believe. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields."

Its really that simple (and complex).

Indeed. Either evolution conflicts with LDS doctrine or it doesn't.

[e=mc2]

Actually, you can. You made two mistakes here....1. You quoted from The Seven Deadly Heresies, June 1, 1980, BYU, which, by definition, is not published as an official doctrinal work.2. In that same speech, BRM admitted that if you can reconcile it, go ahead and that he was simply giving his opinion on why he thought it could not be reconciled.

I think BCSpace is accurate here. I have just made a new series of videos on this subject, if one cares to take a look. I use the most recent information on this topic of evolution and Mormonism from the two LDS biologists Stephens and Meldrum.

I don't understand why you think I made a mistake, let along two. I quoted McConkie because I think his logic was airtight. If you believe in evolution then death MUST have occurred before the Garden. Death is the engine of evolution.If you believe in the story of the Garden then you CAN'T believe in evolution. Death started in the Garden.

It's not quite that way. See here: