Creation Vs Evolution; Exclusive Of One Another?

[Freedom]

People are free to discuss whatever they want to discuss. If you believe as a matter of principle that a subject should not be discussed, then you should make it good by not participating in the discussion; not participating and objecting at the same time.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that we were at church.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"None of the quotes you have given contradict the position I have held in this thread with regard to Evolution. Show me how they contradict what I have said?"

Okeedoke.

"Evolution is rejected as an explanation of human life on earth."

If you had followed the links I quoted in my first reply to this thread, you would see that it simply is not. Here they are again; please take the time to actually read them rather than dismiss them without consideration.

The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution by Michael R. Ash

by Trent D. Stephens

No Definitive LDS Stance on Evolution, Study Finds by Carrie A. Moore

"I reject the claim that science is a superior source of knowledge to revelation."

Despite the fact that Church authorities such as Hugh B. Brown have told us that "we should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research."

Science is neither superior nor inferior. It is just another method of coming closer to truth. [bTW, cf. Alma's Tree of Wisdom metaphor and compare to Kuhn's work on paradigms for intriguing results.]

"I take a statement by the First Presidency as conclusive evidence." "I adhere to the view that the First Presidency authoritatively declares Church doctrine. They are the final arbiter on any controversy or disagreement on doctrinal issues. Once they have spoken, that is the end of the discussion on the subject."

Truth is the final arbiter on any controversy or disagreement on reality. The authoritarianism you're espousing here is downright frightening, and amounts to nothing more than "if your friends told you to jump off a bridge" logic. Moreover, it is contradicted by scripture:

D&C 1:24: "Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; and inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; and inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; and inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time."

Clearly we do not believe in infallible leaders: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile." (D&C 121)

Good thing, 'cuz as Richard Feynman observed: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

Or for the Millenial Star's version: "None are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God [...] would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves." (Vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95)

As Joseph Smith said: "The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter Day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived it's members of the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter Day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time."

Obsolete statements by the First Presidency are not doctrine. They are not Creeds. They have not been voted into the Standard Works by the Common Consent of all members. I do not sustain every last one of them, nor do the Temple recommend questions require me to. Or should I pull up similar obsolete statements about how polygamy is necessary for exaltation? Statements by members of the First Presidency can be wrong. That's what continuing revelation is for. It's a good thing! Have you tried to reconcile all the statements made by Presidents of the Church in the Journal of Discourses? I challenge you to find a way that every Official Statement made by a member of the Presidency is univocal Inspired Truth without having your head explode.

"What I mean is that they have the final say on the subject. Our endless discussions don't alter that established principle in the Church."

But our "endless discussions" are crucial for our leaders to know what to ask for guidance about and approve. See Ed Kimball's paper on the "endless discussion" and historical circumstances which led to Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood. That's certainly a prominent case of discussions which alter previous gospel "truths."

I have examined the evidence in favor of a literalist reading of the Creation account in Genesis, which is where most of our leaders who do not accept evolution have received their information. I have also examined the evidence in favor of evolution, and there is far more explanatory power in that hypothesis (or something like it) than in the "idle tale" of Eve being pulled from Adam's rib. As some versions of the Temple ceremony have stated, many things represented in our Creation accounts are "figurative".

(By the way, the Creation accounts in Genesis are contradictory; that is, humans cannot be created instantaneously in the image of the Gods, male and female, and yet simultaneously have Eve being created from Adam's rib. If you believe the rib section is figurative, I wish you good luck on finding a rationalization for why that part isn't literal, yet everything else is.)

The First Presidency has also stated that "The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light [...] to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals."

There exist "wise men" that some people in the Church "know not". Why can't they be good men like Darwin, who very nicely tied his theory back to the good ol' Tree of Life? I'll let James Talmage take this one (and using 20/20 hindsight, I can say that he did so "prophetically", from wayyy back in 1884):

"In the course of my studies I have naturally been brought face to face with the alleged atheistic tendency of scientific thought and the conflict usually said to exist between Science and Religion.

... I have been unable to see the point of conflict myself - my belief in a loving God perfectly accords with my reverence for science, and I can see no reason why the evolution of animal bodies cannot be true - as indeed the facts of observation make it difficult to deny - and still the soul of man is of divine origin.

The dilemma which has troubled me is this - being unable to perceive the great difficulty of which Scientists, and Theologians, and Scientific-theologians refer - I have feared that my investigation of the subject was highly superficial, for when such great men as most of the writers upon this subject are - find a puzzle, it would be high egotism for me to say I find no puzzle.

... the fancied exit which I see has appeared from my reading some of John Stuart Mill’s writings and I feel ... that if I had none other idea of a Deity that those men have, viz., that of an unknown being, whose acts as Mill says are “contrary to the highest human morality” - I too would hail atheism with delight.

I could never believe in such a God as theirs, not though one should rise from the grave to declare Him to me. And just as certainly do I perceive that there can be no antagonism between the true science as revealed and made easy by the Priesthood, and the God whose attributes and passions of love and mercy are also declared by that same Priesthood …

May 4, 1884 - Have just returned tonight from service at the Westminster Presbyterian Church. The minister spoke against belief in Darwinism and like most ministers whose remarks I have heard or read upon this subject - showed his ignorance.

He spoke much as an ordinary person would - ”Darwin. Oh yes - says we come from monkeys” - then condemns. I certainly think ’tis the ministers themselves who have bred the disgust with which most scientific people regard them - because they will dabble with matters from which their ignorance should keep them at a safe distance.

The speaker tonight brought out many noble principles, but in spite of his eminence as a preacher - self contradiction and inconsistency were apparent.

Really, I do not wonder that any scientific man refuses to belong to a church where he is told nothing but “Only believe & you’ll be saved” - ”The blood of the Lamb is all powerful” - ”take up the cross of Christ” etc. The preachers always talk in metaphors - you can’t bring them down to fact; and anything which will not bear scrutiny when stripped of fine language is to the scientific mind nonsense.

Again, Darwin wrote for those who can understand him: some of whom will agree with & others oppose him: but he did not write for ministers who never read beyond other’s opinions of the man."

It's fine if you don't believe in evolution. It's not fine to characterize those of us who do as somehow going against official doctrine, or not taking the statements of our leaders seriously. "Taking something seriously" is not equivalent to "accepting unconditionally."

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father."

1. The theory of evolution does not say that Adam was not the first "man of all men" upon this earth.

2. The theory of evolution does not say that there is something "lower" about the animal creation.

3. The theory of evolution does not say that the Uncreated Intelligence which inhabited the homo sapiens body given to Adam was not our primal parent. (Though my understanding of the Creation account in the Temple makes it seem very likely that, as Hugh Nibley said, Adam and Eve were "the archetypal man and woman, in whom each of us is represented," in much the same way that the Whore of Babylon is not any particular woman but is instead partaking of the common Ancient Near East typology which personified groups of people into a single fictional person in order to highlight very real moral concerns. Which is a point in favor of the Pearl of Great Price, which says that the name Adam means "many".

4. The theory of evolution does not say that all men were not created after the image of God, in either spirit or body.

5. The theory of evolution does not say that men do not begin mortal life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father [and Mother].

The theory of evolution does say that the first man's body was a "development" from a primate lineage, but this is extremely easy to reconcile with our theology, which has Restored the essential idea of preexisting Uncreated Intelligence which is poured into our mortal bodies. The theory of evolution does nothing to weaken my testimony; in fact, considering the immense amounts of time which the Divine Council had to wait for in order for our current bodies to be developed gives me enormous respect for the utterly mind-blowing cosmic scope of the Plan of Salvation.

Meanwhile, I urge everyone in this thread to please take the Doctrine and Covenants more seriously and read more.

Edited January 14, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Freedom]

But when the First Presidency declares Evolution to be false, don't you think that we should take their statement seriously?

We should if it ended there but it did not. And there is a difference between taking it seriously and accepting it as doctrine. That is where you cross the line. You do much more than take it seriously; to you it is scripture. Ironically, the quote does not even mention evolution. Furthermore, the follow up letter of 1925 tells quite a different story, and I provided quotes from two prophets and a few apostles who disagree with your position. Why is it that the first presidency would declare the doctrine and then subsequent prophets would discard it? Did they church go into apostasy? You seem unable to explain this conundrum. Why did Tamlage and so many others not get what you seem to get? You are putting all your argument on this one letter from 1909 and willfully ignore every other statement. I just want an explanation of why so many other apostles and prophets did not render the same respect to that 1909 statement that you do.

Also, have you read all the statements that have come from the first presidency over the past 100 years? Do they all pass your test of being reliable to declare official doctrine? How did Heber J Grant in 1930 get it so wrong? How is it that just 6 months after the first statement was issued, the editor of the Improvement Era (Joseph F Smith the prophet curiously enough) have this published for all the members of the church?

"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."

Why did this same prophet also tell us in 1913 that Adam was born of a woman as were you and I? Did he not believe his own official statements? Was he just an idiot? I simply am unable to connect the dots, or in the case of your evidence, the dot.

Please explain these many quotes which seem to outnumber yours about 30 to 1.

[altersteve]

Jeremy, every single one of your posts is fantastic. I always enjoy reading them.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Thanks, altersteve.

(Uh, but please ignore the rather unbecoming Big Head I'm currently evolving due to such praise.)

[Jeff K.]

The quote is from an official statement by the First Presidency. It is not just a well thought out opinion. Click on the Source link to get to the source of the quote.

The quote is an official statement of opinion, it is not doctrine. If it isn't in the standard works, per the official statement, it isn't doctrine.

attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

• 
  

  • Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
    
  • Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.
    

[*]

That "The Doctrine" resides in four standard works. Nowhere in those standard works is evolution dismissed or embraced. Now if you care to show us in the standard works where evolution is dismissed and how you reconcile it with the fact that Presidents of the church have not rejected it nor made such rejection doctrine. I would be glad to hear it. Otherwise we have your interpretation of opinion as being doctrine. Which does not even rise to the level of tenuous in this case. You should not attempt to create doctrine where non exists, to do so is wrong.

The Improvement Era is not doctrine in any sense of the word. The source you cite is therefore counter to the official statement as to what source is acceptable to be qualified as doctrine. You may wish to distort the information for your won reasons, but it is very clear that you are citing a source that does not qualify as doctrinal.

Now, if you want to cite a source in the standard works, declarations or proclamations, I look forward to seeing it. Otherwise you are presenting opinions of prior prophets that have not been made or declared to be doctrine. To quote Bruce R. McConkie, it is comparable to "primordial swampmire".

Edited January 14, 2012 by Jeff K.

[MMMillie]

Did Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud also have their endowments done in the Manti Temple along with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln? Or was that person mistaken when she told me about George and Abe?

[BCSpace]

There is nothing whatsoever in that statement or any other that precludes evolution. The culmination of the debate over the 1909 statement between James E Talmadge and BH Roberts on one side and JFS on the other was the 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement to all GAs that the Church has no doctrine on the existence of preAdamite races of people. So if preAdamites are possible within LDS doctrine, then death before the garden state is possible and hence evolution can swim within the realm of LDS doctrine without conflict. JFS and his protege BRM, held their peace for a while, but after DOM died (who also defended evolution as not in conflict with LDS doctrine), they saw a chance to once again advance their views but that only result in their works not being published or approved by the Church.

There are other ways to show that evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine, but this alone should suffice. The bottom line is that the Church has no doctrine on exactly how man was created and so one can frely accept Creationism or Evolution though Evolution has the advantage of being good with LDS doctrine and science; whereas Creationism lacks scientific support.

To me this statement is quite clear:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. (Emphasis in the original.) Source.

Not sure how anyone can get round that.

What's to get around? The gospel definition of man is a spirit child of God combined with a physical body and no word on how the physical body came about. No problem there. Evolution does not preclude the existence of God or the fact that man is created in His express image. No problem there. The culmination of debate on the 1909 statement ended in 1931 with this statement from the first presidency:

The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.

So no problem there. Where's the problem?

[Calm]

Since Freud died in the 1930s and Darwin in the 1880s and the vision you are referring to took place in 1877, I highly doubt their work was done at the same time.

[BCSpace]

The quote is an official statement of opinion, it is not doctrine. If it isn't in the standard works, per the official statement, it isn't doctrine.

That is not true. Anything published by the Church is doctrine as per the same statement you quoted in Approaching Mormon Doctrine. While the doctrine does reside in the scriptures, only the FP and Qo12 can establish it, and when they do, it is published. Neither you nor I is qualified or capable to state what is official doctrine without quoting something published by the Church. If it were otherwise, then you run into the John 3:5 problem:

How does an LDS person know that "water" in John 3:5 is water baptism and not physical birth like the EV's teach? It's because the Church has it published somewhere. Without such publication, you might, strange as it may seem, also think that "water" meant physical birth or something other than baptism.

So the 1909 statement is official doctrine, it just doesn't preclude evolution in any way. Notice that zerinus, while he quotes a section of it, cannot seem to state exactly how it precludes evolution. He merely says it's obvious. So, essentially, he's lost the deabte by any standard.

[Nominee]

Did you even read the source? I am not interested in arguing either way but I am discouraged by the habits of selective reading. There very well may be many reasons to argue whether Zerinius' posted statement is still the church's position. I personally believe that it is but that is beside the point. But I see the posted statement as doctrine, partly because of what you have pointed out here! Read the source. It is an official statement declared by the entire Presidency in 1909 that had been reissued by the church in Feb. 2002, it is not a single individual's opinion taken out of context. It is a declaration. These are the first two paragraphs:

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.

In presenting the statement that follows we are not conscious of putting forth anything essentially new; neither is it our desire so to do. Truth is what we wish to present, and truth—eternal truth—is fundamentally old. A restatement of the original attitude of the Church relative to this matter is all that will be attempted here. To tell the truth as God has revealed it, and commend it to the acceptance of those who need to conform their opinions thereto, is the sole purpose of this presentation.

And please feel free to read on. Just click the SOURCE.

• 
  

  Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

  
  
• 
  So True.
  

  With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and theArticles of Faith.

  
  
• 
  So True.
  

  Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

  
  
• Very True.
  

Have whatever theory of evolution you want.

Doctrine: "...let them worship how, where, or what they may.

But the article in question here is church doctrine ~even according to your standards.

P.S. Sorry about the font, I don't have the patience to fix it up tonight.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Nominee

[Jeff K.]

I am not concerned with evolutionary theory either. Whatever the Lord uses, he uses. What I worry about is people attempting to make doctrine out of what is not doctrine. That creates more problems than a question of evolution.

[Jeff K.]

That is not true. Anything published by the Church is doctrine as per the same statement you quoted in Approaching Mormon Doctrine. While the doctrine does reside in the scriptures, only the FP and Qo12 can establish it, and when they do, it is published. Neither you nor I is qualified or capable to state what is official doctrine without quoting something published by the Church. If it were otherwise, then you run into the John 3:5 problem:

How does an LDS person know that "water" in John 3:5 is water baptism and not physical birth like the EV's teach? It's because the Church has it published somewhere. Without such publication, you might, strange as it may seem, also think that "water" meant physical birth or something other than baptism.

So the 1909 statement is official doctrine, it just doesn't preclude evolution in any way. Notice that zerinus, while he quotes a section of it, cannot seem to state exactly how it precludes evolution. He merely says it's obvious. So, essentially, he's lost the deabte by any standard.

I guess my point is that the doctrine is published in a specific manner, and that the church is very clear in how it presents doctrine and and how it proclaims it. Basically through their proclamation and publication through the standard works "after" the agreement process between the First Presidency and the Apostles.

[MMMillie]

I believe God created all life, including man, through natural emergence and evolution. At whatever point Adam appeared among the hominids, it's hard not to wonder if Homo sapiens sapiens hadn't already been around for tens of 1000s of years. Makes me wonder how much sacred myth and metaphor there is in Genesis and the Book of Abraham.

[Mariner]

In terms of scripture, the Bible, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham and the Doctrine and Covenants all describe and/or refer to a creation narrative that is clearly incompatible with modern science and specifically with evolution. The former position of the LDS Church in proclaiming creationism as a fact and discounting evolution was made clear in 1909 by the Origin of Man statement by the First Presidency as cited by Zerinus.

Since that time, scientific evidence supporting evolution and discrediting the scriptural creation narrative and its associated cosmology in general has become overwhelming. Given the evidence-backed case against a Genesis creation as described in scripture and supported by the First Presidency in 1909, and later in Man His Origin and Destiny by JF Smith in 1954, the LDS Church has been forced to change its doctrine and teaching regarding creation vs. evolution to a "no position" position.

This " no position" position was first taken publicly by David O. McKay in 1957 in a statement wherein he disavowed Joseph Fielding Smith's biblical creation affirming Man and His Destiny, stating that it did not reflect Church Doctrine.

Continued support of a Genesis creation would put the Church at clear odds with a body of evidence supporting evolution that grows by the day. Embracing evolution would put the Church at odds with its own scripture and traditional teachings.

The answer to the question in the OP Is that scriptural creation and scientific evolution are absolutely incompatible and diametrically opposed. Evolution is based on observation, measurement and experimental results from any number of scientific disciplines. Evolution is an internally consistent theory that has tremendous predictive power and scientific utility.

The Genesis creation is but one of hundreds of creation myths generated by prescientific humans in an attempt to explain their existence. Creationism as found in Mormon scriptures is based on a combination of various bronze age myths, none of which are backed by credible evidence of any kind, and none of which have any predictive power or practical value other than being of historic interest.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Mariner

[zerinus]

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" (Genesis 1:20).

Sounds a lot like evolution to me.

I don't see how.

[zerinus]

Okeedoke.

If you had followed the links I quoted in my first reply to this thread, you would see that it simply is not. Here they are again; please take the time to actually read them rather than dismiss them without consideration.

The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution by Michael R. Ash

by Trent D. Stephens

No Definitive LDS Stance on Evolution, Study Finds by Carrie A. Moore

Despite the fact that Church authorities such as Hugh B. Brown have told us that "we should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research."

Science is neither superior nor inferior. It is just another method of coming closer to truth. [bTW, cf. Alma's Tree of Wisdom metaphor and compare to Kuhn's work on paradigms for intriguing results.]

Truth is the final arbiter on any controversy or disagreement on reality. The authoritarianism you're espousing here is downright frightening, and amounts to nothing more than "if your friends told you to jump off a bridge" logic. Moreover, it is contradicted by scripture:

D&C 1:24: "Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; and inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; and inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; and inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time."

Clearly we do not believe in infallible leaders: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile." (D&C 121)

Good thing, 'cuz as Richard Feynman observed: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

Or for the Millenial Star's version: "None are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God [...] would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves." (Vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95)

As Joseph Smith said: "The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter Day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived it's members of the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter Day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time."

Obsolete statements by the First Presidency are not doctrine. They are not Creeds. They have not been voted into the Standard Works by the Common Consent of all members. I do not sustain every last one of them, nor do the Temple recommend questions require me to. Or should I pull up similar obsolete statements about how polygamy is necessary for exaltation? Statements by members of the First Presidency can be wrong. That's what continuing revelation is for. It's a good thing! Have you tried to reconcile all the statements made by Presidents of the Church in the Journal of Discourses? I challenge you to find a way that every Official Statement made by a member of the Presidency is univocal Inspired Truth without having your head explode.

But our "endless discussions" are crucial for our leaders to know what to ask for guidance about and approve. See Ed Kimball's paper on the "endless discussion" and historical circumstances which led to Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood. That's certainly a prominent case of discussions which alter previous gospel "truths."

I have examined the evidence in favor of a literalist reading of the Creation account in Genesis, which is where most of our leaders who do not accept evolution have received their information. I have also examined the evidence in favor of evolution, and there is far more explanatory power in that hypothesis (or something like it) than in the "idle tale" of Eve being pulled from Adam's rib. As some versions of the Temple ceremony have stated, many things represented in our Creation accounts are "figurative".

(By the way, the Creation accounts in Genesis are contradictory; that is, humans cannot be created instantaneously in the image of the Gods, male and female, and yet simultaneously have Eve being created from Adam's rib. If you believe the rib section is figurative, I wish you good luck on finding a rationalization for why that part isn't literal, yet everything else is.)

The First Presidency has also stated that "The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light [...] to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals."

There exist "wise men" that some people in the Church "know not". Why can't they be good men like Darwin, who very nicely tied his theory back to the good ol' Tree of Life? I'll let James Talmage take this one (and using 20/20 hindsight, I can say that he did so "prophetically", from wayyy back in 1884):

It's fine if you don't believe in evolution. It's not fine to characterize those of us who do as somehow going against official doctrine, or not taking the statements of our leaders seriously. "Taking something seriously" is not equivalent to "accepting unconditionally."

1. The theory of evolution does not say that Adam was not the first "man of all men" upon this earth.

2. The theory of evolution does not say that there is something "lower" about the animal creation.

3. The theory of evolution does not say that the Uncreated Intelligence which inhabited the homo sapiens body given to Adam was not our primal parent. (Though my understanding of the Creation account in the Temple makes it seem very likely that, as Hugh Nibley said, Adam and Eve were "the archetypal man and woman, in whom each of us is represented," in much the same way that the Whore of Babylon is not any particular woman but is instead partaking of the common Ancient Near East typology which personified groups of people into a single fictional person in order to highlight very real moral concerns. Which is a point in favor of the Pearl of Great Price, which says that the name Adam means "many".

4. The theory of evolution does not say that all men were not created after the image of God, in either spirit or body.

5. The theory of evolution does not say that men do not begin mortal life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father [and Mother].

The theory of evolution does say that the first man's body was a "development" from a primate lineage, but this is extremely easy to reconcile with our theology, which has Restored the essential idea of preexisting Uncreated Intelligence which is poured into our mortal bodies. The theory of evolution does nothing to weaken my testimony; in fact, considering the immense amounts of time which the Divine Council had to wait for in order for our current bodies to be developed gives me enormous respect for the utterly mind-blowing cosmic scope of the Plan of Salvation.

Meanwhile, I urge everyone in this thread to please take the Doctrine and Covenants more seriously and read more.

Thank you for your quotes and references. The problem I have with your posts is that you are not really engaging me in a debate. You are not explaining to me how any of this disagrees with or contradicts what I have said or the position I have maintained with regard to Evolution and Church doctrine in this thread. You seem to be talking to yourself rather than to me, and I don't really know how to respond to that.

[zerinus]

We should if it ended there but it did not. And there is a difference between taking it seriously and accepting it as doctrine. That is where you cross the line. You do much more than take it seriously; to you it is scripture.

I accept it as doctrine. I don't know what planet you come from, but back on earth where I live, when the First Presidency issues an official statement, it is accepted as doctrine.

Ironically, the quote does not even mention evolution.

It does. It uses language that unmistakably refers to Evolution.

Furthermore, the follow up letter of 1925 tells quite a different story, and I provided quotes from two prophets and a few apostles who disagree with your position. Why is it that the first presidency would declare the doctrine and then subsequent prophets would discard it? Did they church go into apostasy? You seem unable to explain this conundrum. Why did Tamlage and so many others not get what you seem to get? You are putting all your argument on this one letter from 1909 and willfully ignore every other statement. I just want an explanation of why so many other apostles and prophets did not render the same respect to that 1909 statement that you do.

That is a valid point. The answer is that an official declaration by the First Presidency carries greater weight than the opinions of a bunch of academics, or even of a couple of Apostles. It is not "so many other apostles and prophets". They are an isolated group. The majority have not dissented from the original First Presidency statement; and having been reissued and restated by the Church in 2002, and republished in the Church's official journal, that nails it down as hard as it can that that is still the official position of the Church regarding that subject, regardless of what anybody else might have said.

Also, have you read all the statements that have come from the first presidency over the past 100 years?

I am not aware of any subsequent declaration by the First Presidency that contradicts the 1909 declaration.

Do they all pass your test of being reliable to declare official doctrine? How did Heber J Grant in 1930 get it so wrong? How is it that just 6 months after the first statement was issued, the editor of the Improvement Era (Joseph F Smith the prophet curiously enough) have this published for all the members of the church?

People expressing their opinions is not equivalent to an official declaration by the First Presidency. Show me when the First Presidency in an official statement have contradicted the 1909 declaration.

"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."

Why did this same prophet also tell us in 1913 that Adam was born of a woman as were you and I? Did he not believe his own official statements? Was he just an idiot? I simply am unable to connect the dots, or in the case of your evidence, the dot.

Please explain these many quotes which seem to outnumber yours about 30 to 1.

As I said, people (including prophets and Apostles) expressing their opinions is not the same as an official declaration by the First Presidency. Let me try and simplify it for you. The dilemma that a Church member faces, as far as I can make out, is as follows:

1. On the one hand, there is an official declaration by the First Presidency issued in 1909, categorically denying and rejecting the evolutionary origin of man, which has never been contradicted by any other statement by the First Presidency, and which has been reissued and reemphasized for good measure in 2002.

2. On the other hand, there have been a very small number of General Authorities who have voiced opinions that appears to be at variance with what the First Presidency has declared in 1909, and which the Church has subsequently reemphasized in 2002.

The dilemma that a Church member faces is, which two alternatives views should I choose?

For me, the answer is clear: the 1909 declaration by the First Presidency overwhelmingly wins over all other statements and expressions of opinion voiced by anyone else, including those isolated group of General Authorities whom you have mentioned.

Edited January 14, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

The quote is an official statement of opinion, it is not doctrine. If it isn't in the standard works, per the official statement, it isn't doctrine.

* * *

There is no such thing as an "official statement of opinion". When the First Presidency issues an official declaration, and all three of them sign it, that makes it as official and authoritative as it can be. It becomes the doctrine of the Church.

[zerinus]

The culmination of debate on the 1909 statement ended in 1931 with this statement from the first presidency:

The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.

So no problem there. Where's the problem?

That quote according to my research comes from the minutes of the First Presidency, and can have several meanings unrelated to evolution; and it is not equivalent to an official declaration by the First Presidency. Belief in the existence of "pre-Adamites" is not an endorsement of Evolution. The existence of pre-Adamites does not necessitate nor imply an evolutionary process.

[Nominee]

The majority have not dissented from the original First Presidency statement; and having been reissued and restated by the Church in 2002, and republished in the Church’s official journal, that nails it down as hard as it can that that is still the official position of the Church regarding that subject, regardless of what anybody else might have said.

On the one hand, there is an official declaration by the First Presidency issued in 1909, categorically denying and rejecting the evolutionary origin of man, which has never been contradicted by any other statement by the First Presidency, and which has been reissued and reemphasized for good measure in 2002.

On the other hand, there have been a very small number of General Authorities who have voiced opinions that appears to be at variance with what the First Presidency has declared in 1909, and which the Church has subsequently reemphasized in 2002.

I just want to emphasize what you have said here. I keep hearing people use the date 1909 and state that the fact that it was more than 100 years ago when the declaration was written makes it out-dated as the Church's official stand on the matter. But we know this to be the official stand of the Church as late as 2002. Can anyone provide evidence that the Church's stand has changed since 2002?

[zerinus]

That is not true. Anything published by the Church is doctrine as per the same statement you quoted in Approaching Mormon Doctrine.

“Anything published by the Church” is not necessarily doctrine. Church publications are not perfect, and they can contain errors.

While the doctrine does reside in the scriptures, only the FP and Qo12 can establish it, and when they do, it is published.

I don’t understand that. You mean that when I read my scriptures, I am not qualified or capable of obtaining doctrine from them, and I have to wait until some GA comes along to tell me what the doctrine is by some kind of publication? That makes no sense.

Neither you nor I is qualified or capable to state what is official doctrine without quoting something published by the Church.

You are apparently excluding the scriptures, which makes no sense.

If it were otherwise, then you run into the John 3:5 problem:

How does an LDS person know that "water" in John 3:5 is water baptism and not physical birth like the EV's teach? It's because the Church has it published somewhere. Without such publication, you might, strange as it may seem, also think that "water" meant physical birth or something other than baptism.

Now you are talking about something that might be a controversial issue. I agree that when there is a controversy in the Church over doctrine, the First Presidency has the final say on the subject; but in the vast majority of cases the matter is not controversial, and the scriptures provide the ultimate source of authoritative Church doctrine.

So the 1909 statement is official doctrine, it just doesn't preclude evolution in any way.

It certainly does. I don’t see how anybody can read that language and come to a different conclusion.

Notice that zerinus, while he quotes a section of it, cannot seem to state exactly how it precludes evolution. He merely says it's obvious. So, essentially, he's lost the deabte by any standard.

LOL! That is a good one. Here is the quote for you again:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. (Emphasis added.) Source.

This is as clear as language can make it. If it is not clear to you, the burden is on you to explain how, not on me to make it any clearer. If that language is not clear to you, tell me why or where it is not clear, and I will do my best to explain it. But from my point of view I don't know how to make it any clearer than it already is.

Edited January 14, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I just want to emphasize what you have said here. I keep hearing people use the date 1909 and state that the fact that it was more than 100 years ago when the declaration was written makes it out-dated as the Church's official stand on the matter. But we know this to be the official stand of the Church as late as 2002. Can anyone provide evidence that the Church's stand has changed since 2002?

Thank you; I entirely agree.

[katherine the great]

I don't mind being a bit on the "fringes of orthodoxy, but I don't like to think of myself as at odds with official church doctrines. However, when the Ensign republished President Smith's "The Origin of Man" (it was very obviously referring to evolution), I became convinced that the church is officially anti evolution. President Packer's talk in conference a few years ago confimed that in my mind. It's a problem for young LDS (especially for Biology and Anthropology majors) that I hope will somehow be addressed in the coming years. My daughter is a Human Biology major at BYUI, and she says even the professors struggle with recent statements by the brethren on the topic.

[David T]

Katherine: There's hope. See this post: The Darwin Seminar at BYU - exciting progress is happening, I think. Slowly, but surely.