Galapagos, Darwin And The Ensign

[cinepro]

LDS Science Review has a post focusing on an article in this month's Ensign, saying they've "avoided" something that should be "obvious":

Islands of Fire and Faith: The Galapagos

The article has profiles of different Church members and life on the islands, and even discusses the ecology and wildlife there. But it never once mentions Charles Darwin. Do you think this is an intentional omission, or is it understandable that someone could write such an article and just not think to mention Darwin and the part the islands played in his theories?

As a tour guide and naturalist, André explains, “The Galápagos teach us that an ecosystem is like a living being. It’s like a body. It has pressure, fluids, and organs. If one of those things goes wrong, then everything suffers.”

The Galápagos Islands also teach us about the vast grandeur of God’s creations. Nothing is indigenous to the Galápagos. All life, plants, animals, and people are imports.

“If you think about it,” André explains, “the chances of life beginning here on the Galápagos are incredible. First, the lava rock had to decompose to the point where it would support life. Then freshwater sources had to develop. Then seeds had to arrive in a condition that would allow them to germinate. And they had to be able to pollinate each other.

“Then creatures had to arrive, whether floating on the water or flying or whatever. And members of each sex had to arrive at the same time and place and condition so that they could reproduce and find food and water. There are thousands of species of animals in the Galápagos.

“Remember, the nearest land mass is 600 miles [1,000 km] away. For all of these conditions to be met is something of a miracle.”

And yet that is exactly what the Lord, in His infinite wisdom, caused to happen.

Edited July 29, 2011 by cinepro

[Vance]

The article has profiles of different Church members and life on the islands, and even discusses the ecology and wildlife there. But it never once mentions Charles Darwin. Do you think this is an intentional omission, or is it understandable that someone could write such an article and just not think to mention Darwin and the part the islands played in his theories?

Does he live there? Is he a member of the Church?

Edited July 29, 2011 by Vance

[CV75]

The article has profiles of different Church members and life on the islands, and even discusses the ecology and wildlife there. But it never once mentions Charles Darwin. Do you think this is an intentional omission, or is it understandable that someone could write such an article and just not think to mention Darwin and the part the islands played in his theories?

Where the article is about Church members gathering through reactivation and conversion, the strength of covenants and so forth, it is understandable that Darwin is not mentioned.

[Loran Blood]

The article has profiles of different Church members and life on the islands, and even discusses the ecology and wildlife there. But it never once mentions Charles Darwin.

So what?

Do you think this is an intentional omission, or is it understandable that someone could write such an article and just not think to mention Darwin and the part the islands played in his theories?

Your continuous and rather intemperate obsession with Mr. Darwin and his theories has been duly noted, but as many have attempted to articulate, acceptance of the general claims of his theory does not necessarily require acceptance of the scientistic philosophical materialism that many wish to affix to it.

[volgadon]

LDS Science Review has a post focusing on an article in this month's Ensign, saying they've "avoided" something that should be "obvious":

Islands of Fire and Faith: The Galapagos

The article has profiles of different Church members and life on the islands, and even discusses the ecology and wildlife there. But it never once mentions Charles Darwin. Do you think this is an intentional omission, or is it understandable that someone could write such an article and just not think to mention Darwin and the part the islands played in his theories?

I was actually wondering the same thing.

[BCSpace]

Do you think this is an intentional omission, or is it understandable that someone could write such an article and just not think to mention Darwin and the part the islands played in his theories?

By not using the opportunity to attack evolution, it could be a sign that the Church is in all actuality, neutral on the subject. The evidence (elucidated in the recent and numerous other threads on the subject) so far suggests to me that the Church leadership as a whole can't get around the 1931 statement, the recently republished 1909 statement, and other positive-for-evolution scriptures/doctrines/statements and loopholes even though some of them are strongly opposed to evolution.

One could certainly look at it from the other direction. The notion of seeds and both sexes of animals arriving to begin life there is a metaphor for the creationist pov. However, the fact again that they missed so obvious an opportunity to denounce evolution is yet another sign of the fact that the Church is neutral on the subject.

Of course, maybe the opportunity wasn't missed by the author but the editor took it out. If so, it's yet another strike in favor of neutrality........

Edited July 30, 2011 by BCSpace

[Sevenbak]

By not using the opportunity to attack evolution, it could be a sign that the Church is in all actuality, neutral on the subject. The evidence (elucidated in the recent and numerous other threads on the subject) so far suggests to me that the Church leadership as a whole can't get around the 1931 statement, the recently republished 1909 statement, and other positive-for-evolution scriptures/doctrines/statements and loopholes even though some of them are strongly opposed to evolution.

One could certainly look at it from the other direction. The notion of seeds and both sexes of animals arriving to begin life there is a metaphor for the creationist pov. However, the fact again that they missed so obvious an opportunity to denounce evolution is yet another sign of the fact that the Church is neutral on the subject.

Of course, maybe the opportunity wasn't missed by the author but the editor took it out. If so, it's yet another strike in favor of neutrality........

I think President Hinckley addressed this pretty well in a previous Ensign article.

"I remember when I was a college student there were great discussions on the question of organic evolution. I took classes in geology and biology and heard the whole story of Darwinism as it was then taught. I wondered about it. I thought much about it. But I did not let it throw me, for I read what the scriptures said about our origins and our relationship to God."

http://lds.org/ensign/1984/10/god-hath-not-given-us-the-spirit-of-fear?lang=eng

[Franktalk]

It is quite possible that a weighing of different inquiries has occurred. If I remember right when Charles Darwin was writing up a theory he took from someone else something way more important was going on. I seem to remember a city that was missing for 2500 years was discovered. A missing city that was used by scholars to "prove" the Bible wrong. Maybe Charles was just proactive for the naturalist case against God. Maybe he was trying to take attention away from the way more important discovery.

"In 1847 the young British adventurer Sir Austen Henry Layard explored the ruins."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineveh

[BCSpace]

I think President Hinckley addressed this pretty well in a previous Ensign article.

He himself might personally not have accepted it, but doctrinally, he comes down fairly neutral like several other contemporaries of his and some that came before. For example, BRM moderated his doctrinal stance later in life as did ETB.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

By not using the opportunity to attack evolution, it could be a sign that the Church is in all actuality, neutral on the subject. The evidence (elucidated in the recent and numerous other threads on the subject) so far suggests to me that the Church leadership as a whole can't get around the 1931 statement, the recently republished 1909 statement, and other positive-for-evolution scriptures/doctrines/statements and loopholes even though some of them are strongly opposed to evolution.

One could certainly look at it from the other direction. The notion of seeds and both sexes of animals arriving to begin life there is a metaphor for the creationist pov. However, the fact again that they missed so obvious an opportunity to denounce evolution is yet another sign of the fact that the Church is neutral on the subject.

Of course, maybe the opportunity wasn't missed by the author but the editor took it out. If so, it's yet another strike in favor of neutrality........

Or perhaps not even mentioning Charles Darwin, is a tribute to the UN-importance of his theories as far as we are concerned.

[BCSpace]

Or perhaps not even mentioning Charles Darwin, is a tribute to the UN-importance of his theories as far as we are concerned.

Sure. According to LDS doctrine on D&C 77, the critical evolutionary steps (if evolution it was) would have taken place outside of "temporal" time; the time before the Fall and the garden when the earth was being physically prepared as a dwelling place for man. It's the time within the seven seals that is of most import to us.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Sure. According to LDS doctrine on D&C 77, the critical evolutionary steps (if evolution it was) would have taken place outside of "temporal" time; the time before the Fall and the garden when the earth was being physically prepared as a dwelling place for man. It's the time within the seven seals that is of most import to us.

The Theory of Evolution is often used to "fill in the gaps" so to speak between what has been revealed, and what we believe we have discovered through science. Might God employ evolution with insects, and lower forms of life? Possibly. But that would entail that there are spirit crocodiles, and spirit wood peckers, and a whole lot of spirit in-betweeners who are neither crocodiles nor woodpeckers but spiritual links. As for MAN, I believe Adam is a son of God in the immortal flesh prior to the Fall. He is not the physical son of evolving missing links.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[Ariarates]

My first impulse when I saw the article was to look for a mention of Darwin too but these articles are primaarily about fellow members in some part of the world. There is usually some mention of one or two cultural aspects the local members have to deal with but it is never very deep of philosophical (at least not as long as I can remember).

Darwin could have been mentioned but it wouldn't have added much to the article, imo, nor does not mentioning him take anything away from it. Let's face it, these articles are a dime a dozen (and they are not even the worst the Ensign has to offer).

[Sevenbak]

He himself might personally not have accepted it, but doctrinally, he comes down fairly neutral like several other contemporaries of his and some that came before. For example, BRM moderated his doctrinal stance later in life as did ETB.

Noting about his statement is neutral to me. P. Hinckley was pretty clear. And you'll have to provide a reference to Bruce R. McConkie and Ezra Taft Benson changing their positions. Both tended to be extremely blunt and unforgiving when it came to opposing evolutionists.

[BCSpace]

Might God employ evolution with insects, and lower forms of life? Possibly. But that would entail that there are spirit crocodiles, and spirit wood peckers, and a whole lot of spirit in-betweeners who are neither crocodiles nor woodpeckers but spiritual links.

Sure and why not? There are millions of living species today and according to doctrine, every one of them has a spirit. For those concerned with such things, an evolution hypothesis in the LDS context is not really asking God to do any more than He already does.

As for MAN, I believe Adam is a son of God in the immortal flesh prior to the Fall. He is not the physical son of evolving missing links.

I prefer homo sapiens comming up through evolution as per science and when God decides all things are ready, homo sapiens with literal spirit children of God are born and placed into the garden into a state of no death. This change from a "lesser" spirit to the ones we have now, in my mind, could explain why homo sapiens have been around so long but never developed civilization until relatively recently. I think your hypothesis fits LDS doctrine just as well as mine but neither are doctrine of course.

The reason why I tend to not go with a hypothesis like yours, besides science which the LDS Church embraces, is that the Church has rejected the Adam-God theory and by extention an Adam Sr./Jr. theory. Also, the JST (Luke 3:45) corrects Luke 3:38 and that corrrection differentiates between how, for example, Seth is a son of Adam vs. how Adam is a son of God; it now says "....Adam who was formed of God".

So yes, I currently accept full blown evolution for all species, including homo sapiens, and argue that such an hypothesis is not in conflict with the LDS stance on creation.

[BCSpace]

Noting about his statement is neutral to me. P. Hinckley was pretty clear.

He simply doesn't let it worry him rather than attacking it. Pretty neutral to me. He does seem to differentiate between doctrines and evolution as if they were incompatible, but he doesn't specify how. Seems like almost every GA I've read about who opposes evolution is careful to avoid specifics of how it might conflict or when trying to address evolution directly, ends up not bashing evolution, but an atheist interpretation of evolution. For example, evolution does not preclude the existence of God, or that man is created in His image, or the Fall, or no death before the Fall. And evolution teaches directly that species are after their own kind, just like LDS doctrine does.

So when a GA brings up these things, it's impossible to bash evolution. I think the former is a positive relic of the 1931 statement, they know they can't preclude evolution. The latter is mostly the result of ignorance on the subject.

And you'll have to provide a reference to Bruce R. McConkie and Ezra Taft Benson changing their positions. Both tended to be extremely blunt and unforgiving when it came to opposing evolutionists.

Yes. Start with BRM and his late in life Seven Deadly Heresies speech at BYU. Notice how, while he disagrees with evolution still, he essentially says more power to you if you can reconcile it with doctrine. He even brings up the 1909 statement, which allowed BH Roberts and James E Talmadge to argue for the existence of preAdamites against the notions of JFS and that culminated in the 1931 statement of the HJG presidency in which it was officially stated that the Church has no doctrine for or against the existence of preAdamite races.

Now for EBT: In 1975 he says:

Now, we have not been using the Book of Mormon as we should. Our homes are not as strong unless we are using it to bring our children to Christ. Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc.

Ezra Taft Benson, The Book of Mormon Is the Word of God, Ensign May 1975

But by 1987, he had removed evolution from the list:

At the Oakland rededication ceremony, President Benson urged members to study the Book of Mormon throughout their lives. “I know,” he said, “that our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teaching unless we know how to use that book to expose and combat the falsehood in socialism, rationalism, humanism, and so forth.”

President Benson Addresses Members in Utah, California, September 1987 Ensign

This omission is repeated in the February 1988 Ensign New Developments in Book of Mormon Research by Millet. But Millet egregiously goes back to the original ETB statement in 1992 and 1996 articles.

[elguanteloko]

LDS Science Review has a post focusing on an article in this month's Ensign, saying they've "avoided" something that should be "obvious":

Islands of Fire and Faith: The Galapagos

The article has profiles of different Church members and life on the islands, and even discusses the ecology and wildlife there. But it never once mentions Charles Darwin. Do you think this is an intentional omission, or is it understandable that someone could write such an article and just not think to mention Darwin and the part the islands played in his theories?

"LDS Science Review"? In that case, chances are they probably didn't even know about it.

Edited July 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

The reason why I tend to not go with a hypothesis like yours, besides science which the LDS Church embraces,

The Church "embraces science?" If science is defined as "the study of" then yes. If science is defined as "the postulations of", then no.

is that the Church has rejected the Adam-God theory and by extention an Adam Sr./Jr. theory.

How is B.Y. theory related to possibility that Adam is a SON of God-born in with an immortal, terrestrial body?

Also, the JST (Luke 3:45) corrects Luke 3:38 and that correction differentiates between how, for example, Seth is a son of Adam vs. how Adam is a son of God; it now says "....Adam who was formed of God".

Yes, figurative language is preserved better. Now, does "formed" mean carved like a clay statue and then given life? Or does it mean evolved over millions of years from the image and form of an amoeba? Or could it mean begat in some manner that may be different than the manner in which we beget --i.e. begat with no blood?

So yes, I currently accept full blown evolution for all species, including homo sapiens, and argue that such an hypothesis is not in conflict with the LDS stance on creation.

I know there are many who do this. I also know BYU religion professors that propose the same thing I have tried to describe.

Someday all will be revealed, and the important thing for both of us is to not get too wrapped up in our postulations where we cannot accept what will someday be revealed.

Question:

Do you believe there is anything at all in Adam's physical DNA that makes him related to God is such a way that he has the potential to become like God with a glorified, resurrected body similar to His?

And do you believe that prior to the fall, that no animals on the earth had blood?

Edited July 30, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[BCSpace]

The reason why I tend to not go with a hypothesis like yours, besides science which the LDS Church embraces,

The Church "embraces science?" If science is defined as "the study of" then yes. If science is defined as "the postulations of", then no.

The Church certainly embraces the methodolgy and at the moment I can't think of a single scientific theory that conflicts with LDS doctrine.

is that the Church has rejected the Adam-God theory and by extention an Adam Sr./Jr. theory.

How is B.Y. theory related to possibility that Adam is a SON of God-born in with an immortal, terrestrial body?

Because Adam-God proposes a mechanism whereby Gods first begin to procreate spirit offspring. Then, they begin creating physical bodies for those spirits, by going to a newly-created world, where they eat the fruits of that physical world, "until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies", so they now can produce mortal bodies for their spirit children.

So I'd say your hypothesis, if not arrived at independently by yourself, derives from Adam-God.

Also, the JST (Luke 3:45) corrects Luke 3:38 and that correction differentiates between how, for example, Seth is a son of Adam vs. how Adam is a son of God; it now says "....Adam who was formed of God".

Yes, figurative language is preserved better. Now, does "formed" mean carved like a clay statue and then given life? Or does it mean evolved over millions of years from the image and form of an amoeba? Or could it mean begat in some manner that may be different than the manner in which we beget --i.e. begat with no blood?

Sure.

So yes, I currently accept full blown evolution for all species, including homo sapiens, and argue that such an hypothesis is not in conflict with the LDS stance on creation.

I know there are many who do this. I also know BYU religion professors that propose the same thing I have tried to describe.

Yes. However, I do not each my hypothesis as doctrine but I do teach as doctrine that evolution doesn't conflict with it.

Someday all will be revealed, and the important thing for both of us is to not get too wrapped up in our postulations where we cannot accept what will someday be revealed.

Of course. By I see science as more likely to be drawing the circle ever tighter around the actual truth and everthing else diverges from the ultimate truth.

Do you believe there is anything at all in Adam's physical DNA that makes him related to God is such a way that he has the potential to become like God with a glorified, resurrected body similar to His?

Yes. God is a homo sapiens. Or at least a humanoid depending on how strictly you want to define God's image.

And do you believe that prior to the fall, that no animals on the earth had blood?

Wondering what happened to bugs stepped on by Adam and Eve in the garden?

No blood is LDS doctrine for the garden state and I think you have to apply that to animals by implication. I think it is likely to be an opinion/conclusion drawn with limited understanding without any specific revelation. But certainly there is something that makes those in the garden state immortal.

A question that remains unanswered for me is the extent the garden. There are indications of both a universal and a local garden in LDS doctrine. If local, then mortality and blood existed during the garden state but outside the physical garden.

[Nenahnezad]

If Charles Darwin's Temple work has been done for him, would that prove the Church doesn't support Darwin's theory?

The Theory of Evolution doesn't explain resurrected beings, anymore than the claim that God used death to create life.

Besides, if the Theory of Evolution is correct, when has evolution stopped, as some of you infer? Evolution hasn't stopped, per the theory's adherents.

If it hasn't, will we all one day be considered lower life forms by our higher evolved descendants?

Embracing the theory means embracing that you're a lower life form. It's demeaning.

But if you enjoy demeaning yourself, go for it!

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

There is nothing demeaning about being biologically related to the other animals numbered among God's glorious creations. There is nothing "low" about other animals; they simply have different physical structures than us, fulfill different ecological niches. We are unique in some ways, but there's nothing stopping other primates from walking upright over long distances, turning themselves into runners, developing complex social behaviors to interact peacefully with the neighboring tribes they find, promoting reciprocal altruism, trading stone tools, forming simple rituals, vocalizing a sound which becomes a name, organizing proto-languages and crude writing systems, playing music, and singing their stories. In fact, we have already observed many of those things. And if they become sentient in the way we are sentient, will you exclude them from salvation merely because they look different from us? We look different from our God, who shines with light even in the daytime, but He is generous enough to extend a saving hand to we mortals.

Paraphrasing D&C 77: "When we speak of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air, that which is spiritual exists in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created. These classes of beings have glory in their destined border or sphere of creation, in the enjoyment of their eternal felicity." Everything living has a spirit, and everything is alive. The entire world is a school for spirits to progress in their designated sphere. This certainly does not preclude evolution.

Per our Articles of Faith, we believe that God will yet reveal many "great things" pertaining to the Kingdom. But we have also been given commandments in the D&C to search out knowledge from the "best books," to gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up. We have been told that there is no truth in heaven, earth, or h*** that does not belong to Mormonism, because our doctrine is truth, which is reason, truth eternal. The very first chapter of our D&C states that inasmuch as our past leaders have erred, they will be corrected if they search out Wisdom. There is no shame in being wrong so long as we modify our previous understanding with the addition of further information. This is the entire point of ongoing revelation, available to the scientist as much as the Priest, which overturns moribund Creeds by exposing their inadequacies in paradigm-shifting increases of light. That's part of our purpose here, to learn and grow.

It's true we don't understand the physics behind resurrected beings yet. But it's also true that merely saying "God did it" is an insufficient explanation for life on earth, whereas organic evolution has given us a great leap forward in understanding how our ecologies behave. It has predictive power. As Joseph Smith would say, "it tastes good." God is a part of the physical universe; it is a Neoplatonic, extrabiblical interpretation which shrilly demands that He merely snap his fingers and instantaneously, simultaneously, create a world. But when I read the Book of Abraham, I see Intelligences who come together in a place where there is space to grow within. They seed the earth, and watch over it for an unspecified amount of time as their commands to "be fruitful and multiply" are obeyed according to preexistent natural laws, with the water giving birth to creatures which then move to the land and spread outward, the simple leading to the complex.

Even if we are literally God's physical children (rather than his spiritual children, which is what is actually currently taught), that still only pushes the issue one step back. Joseph Smith taught that man exists that he might have joy, and that the great principle of happiness was in having a body, which was calculated to engender sympathy in mankind for their brethren. So where did God's body come from? Interestingly enough, Joseph Smith taught in the King Follett discourse that our God, among all the Gods, was once a Man like us, who did not have the power to create Himself. Additionally, Alma 42:13 states that "the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God." This implies to me external Laws which God must obey. If there is one thing that separates the LDS religion from most other philosophies, it is that we believe man is a necessary aspect of the universe. Like God, every man and woman is uncreated. Yet we exist on a planet which retains such a clear progression of fossil and genetic evidence that it is obvious that evolution has occurred in our bodies. We recapitulate it with every fertilized embryo.

We don't need to take our cues from the conservative evangelicals whose doctrines of a timeless, changeless, impotent abstraction of a god are already inimically opposed to our understanding of deity. This is, quite simply, a completely unnecessary conflict; our gospel is perfectly compatible with evolution, if someone wants to make the effort to reconcile the two. Now, I have no problem with good members who believe in a literal six-day creation. But please don't assume it's the only position possible to believe and still be a Temple-worthy member in good standing.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

None of which is really pertinent to the opening post. *laugh* I don't know if there's any way to tell, really, what the author was or was not meaning to imply. I could see it being a deliberate avoidance, or I can see it as a neutral statement. Or sheer carelessness. Meh.

[Calm]

I think the introduction of the article is clear to what it is meant to demonstrate (the part in italics) and mentioning Darwin's name wouldn't have hurt as far as I am concerned, but it wouldn't have helped it either:

Here, on the Galápagos, islands born of fire, life takes on precious meaning. It is a land where science and faith intermingle, where we come to understand that we are all part of a common humanity. And here, members of the Church, like these marine iguanas, understand that strength comes from holding tight to their covenants as they forge a united course toward the Lord through faith, service, and sacrifice.

[Calm]

I think the introduction of the article is clear to what it is meant to demonstrate (the part in italics) and mentioning Darwin's name wouldn't have hurt as far as I am concerned (the bold provides part of the context/environment of the saints there), but it wouldn't have helped it either:

Here, on the Galápagos, islands born of fire, life takes on precious meaning. It is a land where science and faith intermingle, where we come to understand that we are all part of a common humanity. And here, members of the Church, like these marine iguanas, understand that strength comes from holding tight to their covenants as they forge a united course toward the Lord through faith, service, and sacrifice.

Edited July 31, 2011 by calmoriah

[Nenahnezad]

There is nothing demeaning about being biologically related to the other animals numbered among God's glorious creations. There is nothing "low" about other animals; they simply have different physical structures than us, fulfill different ecological niches. We are unique in some ways, but there's nothing stopping other primates from walking upright over long distances, turning themselves into runners, developing complex social behaviors to interact peacefully with the neighboring tribes they find, promoting reciprocal altruism, trading stone tools, forming simple rituals, vocalizing a sound which becomes a name, organizing proto-languages and crude writing systems, playing music, and singing their stories. In fact, we have already observed many of those things. And if they become sentient in the way we are sentient, will you exclude them from salvation merely because they look different from us? We look different from our God, who shines with light even in the daytime, but He is generous enough to extend a saving hand to we mortals.

Paraphrasing D&C 77: "When we speak of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air, that which is spiritual exists in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created. These classes of beings have glory in their destined border or sphere of creation, in the enjoyment of their eternal felicity." Everything living has a spirit, and everything is alive. The entire world is a school for spirits to progress in their designated sphere. This certainly does not preclude evolution.

Per our Articles of Faith, we believe that God will yet reveal many "great things" pertaining to the Kingdom. But we have also been given commandments in the D&C to search out knowledge from the "best books," to gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up. We have been told that there is no truth in heaven, earth, or h*** that does not belong to Mormonism, because our doctrine is truth, which is reason, truth eternal. The very first chapter of our D&C states that inasmuch as our past leaders have erred, they will be corrected if they search out Wisdom. There is no shame in being wrong so long as we modify our previous understanding with the addition of further information. This is the entire point of ongoing revelation, available to the scientist as much as the Priest, which overturns moribund Creeds by exposing their inadequacies in paradigm-shifting increases of light. That's part of our purpose here, to learn and grow.

It's true we don't understand the physics behind resurrected beings yet. But it's also true that merely saying "God did it" is an insufficient explanation for life on earth, whereas organic evolution has given us a great leap forward in understanding how our ecologies behave. It has predictive power. As Joseph Smith would say, "it tastes good." God is a part of the physical universe; it is a Neoplatonic, extrabiblical interpretation which shrilly demands that He merely snap his fingers and instantaneously, simultaneously, create a world. But when I read the Book of Abraham, I see Intelligences who come together in a place where there is space to grow within. They seed the earth, and watch over it for an unspecified amount of time as their commands to "be fruitful and multiply" are obeyed according to preexistent natural laws, with the water giving birth to creatures which then move to the land and spread outward, the simple leading to the complex.

Even if we are literally God's physical children (rather than his spiritual children, which is what is actually currently taught), that still only pushes the issue one step back. Joseph Smith taught that man exists that he might have joy, and that the great principle of happiness was in having a body, which was calculated to engender sympathy in mankind for their brethren. So where did God's body come from? Interestingly enough, Joseph Smith taught in the King Follett discourse that our God, among all the Gods, was once a Man like us, who did not have the power to create Himself. Additionally, Alma 42:13 states that "the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God." This implies to me external Laws which God must obey. If there is one thing that separates the LDS religion from most other philosophies, it is that we believe man is a necessary aspect of the universe. Like God, every man and woman is uncreated. Yet we exist on a planet which retains such a clear progression of fossil and genetic evidence that it is obvious that evolution has occurred in our bodies. We recapitulate it with every fertilized embryo.

We don't need to take our cues from the conservative evangelicals whose doctrines of a timeless, changeless, impotent abstraction of a god are already inimically opposed to our understanding of deity. This is, quite simply, a completely unnecessary conflict; our gospel is perfectly compatible with evolution, if someone wants to make the effort to reconcile the two. Now, I have no problem with good members who believe in a literal six-day creation. But please don't assume it's the only position possible to believe and still be a Temple-worthy member in good standing.

Our LDS Gospel is NOT perfectly compatible with evolution. Or the Church would have had an official announcement embracing it. Or mentioned Darwin in the discussed Ensign article as the OP or others implied.

You quote scripture, but you don't understand it. D&C 1 does not talk about errors of Church Leaders. D&C 77 (& Moses 2-3) speaks of both the spiritual and physical creation. Did God use Organic Evolution to create spirits of men, animals, of all life forms? Spirits can't die. The theory of evolution is based on death.

The animals, etc were commanded to multiply in their spheres of creation. This implies no species evolving into another.

"..they are limited to four individual beasts, which were shown to John, to represent the glory of the classes of beings in their destined order or sphere of creation" - Joseph Smith

"And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul. For it was spiritual in the day that I created it; for it remaineth in the sphere in which I, God, created it," - J. Smith

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." - Paul

"..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.

And they would have had no children;" - Lehi

So as a Mormon, you believe Adam & Eve could have descended from a primate-monkey-man who had children, and then Adam & Eve could have had no children until Adam ate of the fruit? While all things which were created remained in their "same state," but were created from evolution which involves death? And you believe this is some sole belief restricted to "Conservative Evangelists?" And that this will be revealed, per the Article of Faith, as some "great thing?" What? What Darwin taught as being a future revelation?

Adam was the first "physical" flesh upon the earth.

"..man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word."

"I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;"

Even trees are considered living souls:

"And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul."

Thus Adam was the first living soul upon the earth, including plants and animals.

Death came through Adam using his agency to eat of the fruit.

"All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence." - J. Smith

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" - Paul

I don't believe animals are demeaning. Evolution demeans humans. The theory implies that you and I as we are now known, in the future, will be considered a lower life form.

Dr. Stephen J. Gould referred to lower life forms: "the first living things arose at the lower limit of life's conceivable, preservable complexity" [http://brembs.net/gould.html] He's demeaning.

You believe that one day someone will dig you up as a fossil and state: "Look at this notochord with a rib and skull. What a lower limit of life's conceivable, preservable complexity."

LOL!

Then some LDS members complain Darwin isn't mentioned in an article about LDS Members living on the Galapagos Islands.

LOL!