Age Of The Earth And Age Of The Human Race

[Rivers]

I would love to go up against JFS in debate on this subject.

Both JFS and Talmadge (via BH Roberts) lost this debate with the 1931 statement by the HJ Grant Presidency in which it was stated that the Church has no doctrine whatsoever on the issue of preAdamite races. The bottom line is that one can accept either Evolution or Creationism and not be in conflict with LDS doctrine.

It appears that JFS, with the help of his son-in-law Bruce R. McKonkie, have won the debate. Their ideas have infiltrated the CES.

[Jeff K.]

Given you can retain membership regardless of their opinions, I would say that the issue falls within a neutral portion and is exactly as it was stated by HJG presidency. My seminary teacher did not believe in evolution, and she stated apostles did not believe in it, but she also said the church had no official position. So CES teachers have their opinions as well.

[BCSpace]

I really like this statement by Elder Nelson, published in the Ensign. He was a gifted heart surgeon before being called to the 12. I very much respect his statement as well as his tremendous faith.

"Through the ages, some without scriptural understanding have tried to explain our existence by pretentious words such as ex nihilo (out of nothing). Others have deduced that, because of certain similarities between different forms of life, there has been a natural selection of the species, or organic evolution from one form to another. Many of these people have concluded that the universe began as a “big bang” that eventually resulted in the creation of our planet and life upon it.

To me, such theories are unbelievable!

It does take great faith to deny much of the same science that can at the same time produce a heart surgeon, but I'm glad he stated it as opinion. His companion, Elder Wickman, brought him down to earth in a related interview, and Nelson admitted that the Church doesn't know:

The church has said it neither promotes nor opposes capital punishment. It says it "opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience." It does not oppose removing a medical patient from "artificial means of life support." Different denominations deal differently with questions about life's origins and development. Conservative denominations tend to have more trouble with Darwinian evolution. Does the church have an official position on this topic?

Nelson: We believe that God is our creator and that he has created other forms of life. It's interesting to me, drawing on my 40 years experience as a medical doctor, how similar those species are. We developed open-heart surgery, for example, experimenting on lower animals simply because the same creator made the human being. We owe a lot to those lower species. But to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible.

Why is that?

Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It's just the way genetics works.

Wickman: The Scripture describing the Lord as the creator of all of these things says very little about how it was done. I don't know of anybody in the ranks of the First Presidency and the Twelve [Apostles] who has ever spent much time worrying about this matter of evolution.

Nelson: We have this doctrine, recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101: "When the Lord shall come again, he shall reveal all things, things which have passed, hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth by which it was made and the purpose and the end thereof, things most precious, things that are above, things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, upon the earth, and in heaven." So as I close that quotation, I realize that there are just some things that we won't know until that day.

In Focus: Mormonism in Modern America

Here, Nelson makes the same mistake that those who do not actually know what evolution is often make. Evolution teaches already that man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. Evolution does not teach that one species gives birth to another.

This is not to take away from Elder Nelson, but there is a reason why most of them are very very careful about evolution even when communicating their own negative views about it.

Edited June 30, 2011 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

I also find the phrase "in the meridian of time", referring to the Savior's life in mortality to be of interest to this topic.

It shouldn't figure very prominently in the way I think you mean it to. "Meridian" has more to do with being "highest" or "greatest" than "middle".

I like this hypothesis too. The only loose end for me is the time line that places Adam and Eve at 4000 B.C. If Adam and Eve are the common ancestors of every human being living today, 4000 B.C. is just way too early.

It don't see it as a problem because of the Gospel definition of man, which is a physical body and a spirit child of God in combination. If prior to the Fall, homo sapiens spirits were not literal children of God, then they are not men in the gospel sense. And therefore, Adam can Fall relatively recently and still be the first man even though homo sapiens have been around thousands of years prior.

That's the beauty of hypothesizing a different spirit prior to the Fall to explain the sudden rise of civilization. It doesn't matter when the Fall was in that case. If you prefer simply the revelations of God that promoted the rise of civilization, this can still work as to the gospel definition of man in this case could also add the property of Divine enlightenment.

It appears that JFS, with the help of his son-in-law Bruce R. McKonkie, have won the debate. Their ideas have infiltrated the CES.

They have. There is a whole generation that grew up on the independent and non doctrinal works of BRM and JFS.

Among CES are some of the most ardent supporters of the notion that evolution can't swim with LDS doctrine. But even their manuals can't quite get them that far. If they erroneously teach antievolution for doctrine, they are doing a grave misservice to the Church. I am an ardent supporter of evolution but even I don't teach it for doctrine and must freely admit that creationism can also swim with LDS doctrine. They should be teaching along similar lines.

Given you can retain membership regardless of their opinions, I would say that the issue falls within a neutral portion and is exactly as it was stated by HJG presidency. My seminary teacher did not believe in evolution, and she stated apostles did not believe in it, but she also said the church had no official position. So CES teachers have their opinions as well.

B.H. Roberts (a Seventy)

James E Talmadge

David O McKay

Spencer W Kimball

Gordon B Hinckey

All accepted or were neutral on the matter of evolution. There is evidence of others as well.

An interesting blurb on Roberts:

Roberts hoped that the church would publish his most elaborate theological treatise "The Truth, The Way, The Life", but his attempt to use contemporary scientific theory to bolster Mormon doctrine led, in 1930, to a conflict with Mormon Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, who had been influenced by the writings of young earth creationist George McCready Price. Smith publicly opposed Roberts' quasi-evolutionary views in deference to a literal reading of both the Bible and the Mormon scriptures.[21] The controversy was debated before the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and it "declared a draw: Neither the existence nor the nonexistence of pre-Adamites would constitute church doctrine."[22] The Truth, The Way, The Life was not published until 1994.[23]

[21] Roberts argued that the Adamic race had been preceded by a pre-Adamic race, which implied that there had been death and decay before the Fall of Adam.

B.H. Roberts

[LeSellers]

It appears that JFS, with the help of his son-in-law Bruce R. McKonkie, have won the debate. Their ideas have infiltrated the CES.

FYI: There's only one K in "M^cConkie".

Lehi

[Arkholt]

Given you can retain membership regardless of their opinions, I would say that the issue falls within a neutral portion and is exactly as it was stated by HJG presidency.

I so wish that this was more widely known in the Church, not just because I happen to think good science is important, but because I think a lot more scientifically minded people would remain in the Church if they knew their views were entirely compatible.

I have been very fortunate, however, to have very good Institute teachers. One of them was actually an evolutionary biologist. Great discussions on the Creation.

[Jeff K.]

Not sure how well known or unknown the issue is. I do know that in a small branch in VA in the 70's, the policy was seen as neutral. And if we in pre internet times, far from the hurley burley discussions of the church, were aware of such things, how unknown was the policy in its reality? My view is anecdotal but there isn't any report that shows less or more knowledge of the policy.

[Jeff K.]

As a side bar.... I note that Mitt Romney former stake president did in fact state he believed evolution was theory that made most sense to him.

[bu11fr0g]

There are a lot of difficulties reconciling some of the historical anthropology with the idea of a single Adam and Eve as the origin of all mankind about 4000 years ago.

The Clovis inhabitants and pre-Clovis peoples of the Americas being one example.

This, in my mind, indicates that the interpretation of a single Adam and Eve living 4000 years ago as the common ancestors of all mankind is incorrect.

[BCSpace]

There are a lot of difficulties reconciling some of the historical anthropology with the idea of a single Adam and Eve as the origin of all mankind about 4000 years ago.

The Clovis inhabitants and pre-Clovis peoples of the Americas being one example.

This, in my mind, indicates that the interpretation of a single Adam and Eve living 4000 years ago as the common ancestors of all mankind is incorrect.

That's why I hypothesize different, non children of God spirits for preAdamite homo sapiens. One could have the spirits of Adam and Eve born to homo sapiens at any time and then placed into the garden. There are all kinds of spirits anyway so I don't think it unreasonable to postulate that there could be one more type of spirit.

[Xander]

Nice copy and paste. Conveniently you left out the entire quote that is filled with dot dot dot ... ... .... (I wonder why?).

You clearly have never had a scientific course on evolution and no, wikipedia doesn't count, sorry. Keyword: "this", maybe that will help you out.

LOL!

I cite Joseph Fielding Smith and all you can think to do is attack me and say it is clear I never studied Evolution in college?

As someone already mentioned, I didn't provide this citation because I agreed with it, but because it pertained to the topic. I was especially curious to know why anyone in the Church should take bcspace's word over Joseph Fielding Smith's.

Now, if you have a problem with the ellipses then why don't you go ahead and provide the "missing context" that you believe to be so vital to overthrowing the plain fact that he said Evolution is incompatible with the Gospel? Stop posturing and produce something of substance.

[Doctor Ninja]

I like this hypothesis too. The only loose end for me is the time line that places Adam and Eve at 4000 B.C. If Adam and Eve are the common ancestors of every human being living today, 4000 B.C. is just way too early.

I hear you.

The more I learn in the secular world and the Gospel world, the more I am comfortable with not truly knowing all the answers.

[Jeff K.]

LOL!

I cite Joseph Fielding Smith and all you can think to do is attack me and say it is clear I never studied Evolution in college?

As someone already mentioned, I didn't provide this citation because I agreed with it, but because it pertained to the topic. I was especially curious to know why anyone in the Church should take bcspace's word over Joseph Fielding Smith's.

Now, if you have a problem with the ellipses then why don't you go ahead and provide the "missing context" that you believe to be so vital to overthrowing the plain fact that he said Evolution is incompatible with the Gospel? Stop posturing and produce something of substance.

Funny, I don't recall the doctrine that states everything a prophet says is doctrine.

Anyone want to help me on that one?

Edited June 30, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Doctor Ninja]

LOL!

I cite Joseph Fielding Smith and all you can think to do is attack me and say it is clear I never studied Evolution in college?

As someone already mentioned, I didn't provide this citation because I agreed with it, but because it pertained to the topic. I was especially curious to know why anyone in the Church should take bcspace's word over Joseph Fielding Smith's.

Now, if you have a problem with the ellipses then why don't you go ahead and provide the "missing context" that you believe to be so vital to overthrowing the plain fact that he said Evolution is incompatible with the Gospel? Stop posturing and produce something of substance.

To give you some of your own medicine: "you just don't get it".

Let me give you the keyword again: "this". Yes, it would be nice to see the entire quote in context. The only websites I am showing it on are those pesky anti-Mormon sites. You wouldn't be using their same tactics would you? Unless of course, you can provide the entire quote?

[thesometimesaint]

Doctor Ninja:

"The more I learn in the secular world and the Gospel world, the more I am comfortable with not truly knowing all the answers".

I'm not comfortable at all not knowing. I want to know everything that God knows.

[Doctor Ninja]

Doctor Ninja:

"The more I learn in the secular world and the Gospel world, the more I am comfortable with not truly knowing all the answers".

I'm not comfortable at all not knowing. I want to know everything that God knows.

Don't we all?

The "uncomfortable" feeling will never serve us. Get feeling comfortable and you begin to know.

[thesometimesaint]

Doctor Ninja:

I believe that some will be perfectly happy in the lesser Kingdoms. I believe that to a extent that until I do arrive at knowing all, there will be an amount of divine discontent.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

LOL!

Word of wisdom. Never mess with a doctor. This one appears to be a ninja too.

[Xander]

To give you some of your own medicine: "you just don't get it".

Let me give you the keyword again: "this". Yes, it would be nice to see the entire quote in context. The only websites I am showing it on are those pesky anti-Mormon sites. You wouldn't be using their same tactics would you? Unless of course, you can provide the entire quote?

So you're going to continue with your false accusation that context has been intentionally left out, simply because you are unable to verify it yourself?

I'm shocked I tell ya.

SHOCKED!

Here is another citation that will be sure to enrage you further:

Recently there was some trouble...in one of the leading Church schools—the training college of the Brigham Young University—where three of the professors advanced certain theories on evolution as applied to the origin of man, and certain opinions on "higher criticism," as conclusive and demonstrated truths. This was done although it is well known that evolution and the "higher criticism"...are in conflict on some matters with the scriptures, including some modern revelation...The Church, on the contrary, holds to the definite authority of divine revelation which must be the standard; and that, as so-called "science" has changed from age to age in its deductions, and as divine revelation is truth, and must abide forever, views as to the lesser should conform to the positive statements of the greater...Philosophic theories of life have their place and use, but it is not in the classes of the Church schools, and particularly are they out of place here or anywhere else when they seek to supplant the revelations of God - Improvement Era vol. 14, p. 548, 1911)

[thesometimesaint]

Xander:

In 1911 there was plenty of discussion of evolution in most universities.

In 2011 not so much. At BYU they teach evolution.

[Xander]

Xander:

In 1911 there was plenty of discussion of evolution in most universities.

In 2011 not so much. At BYU they teach evolution.

Yes, I'm aware that they do now.

I guess all that other stuff coming straight from the President, was mere opinion. It almost makes you wonder why he bothered speaking as a man in a statement directed to the whole Church, especially with such emphasis added.

Almost.

[cdowis]

... I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory [of evolution] of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so.... Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory [of evolution], death had always been in the world.

- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, v. 1, pp. 141-42

I guess all that other stuff coming straight from the President, was mere opinion. It almost makes you wonder why he bothered speaking as a man in a statement directed to the whole Church, especially with such emphasis added.

It is official doctrine that the first man was Adam, which would preclude the theory of evolution on his origins, and that Adam was the "first flesh". This is based on scripture.

He does not specifically state that "no death before Adam", but implies it. There are other possibilities, such as death in the first five days of creation, prior to the Garden of Eden. The scriptures are not clear on the creation process, and whether death was involved.

This is similar to that "one Hill Cumorah" discussion. Assumption, not doctrine.

Edited June 30, 2011 by cdowis

[Jeff K.]

Doctor Ninja:

"The more I learn in the secular world and the Gospel world, the more I am comfortable with not truly knowing all the answers".

I'm not comfortable at all not knowing. I want to know everything that God knows.

I think I exist in a dichotomy of sorts. I am comfortable not knowing, mainly because I have faith that eventually I will know. And I am curious enough to keep looking and asking.

[thesometimesaint]

xander:

I went to BYU in the mid 1970's they taught evolution then too.

[cdowis]

xander:

I went to BYU in the mid 1970's they taught evolution then too.

Evolution is a fact, but has itself evolved into a belief system.