Creation Vs Evolution; Exclusive Of One Another?

[MMMillie]

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.

And we know the march of science and accumulated knowledge is inevitable and inexorable. But there can be no contradiction between discovered scientific knowldge and revealed truth unless we misunderstand one or the other or both. I'm still not quite sure what to do with those 10s of 1000s of years of pre-Adamite Homo sapiens that we know existed and all of her other now-extinct Homo relatives. One might, in a weak moment of temptation, almost wonder if God was experimenting.

I'm personally hoping the Second Coming isn't for thousands of years to come, at least centuries. Emergence, I suspect, will not be cracked for at least another century or two and it would be quite exciting.

[Nominee]

I think this scripture is relevant:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. ~ Isaiah 55:8-9

I believe in science but also that humanity cannot force discovery. I think we are required by the Lord to seek always but we will find in his time, not our own.

[katherine the great]

Thanks for the link. I actually used that picture in a paper I recently wrote about Neanderthal! (The entire picture is actually rather humourous.) IIRC, they've held similar seminars at BYU. The main problem (I think) is the religion professors. I think they tend to be firm creationists and very very ignorant of basic scientific knowledge. I don't think these type of meetings do anything for them other than to turn to each other afterward and express concern for the heresy they see. I hope I'm wrong, but that is the attitude I see at least from CES employees.

[Duncan]

Thanks for the link. I actually used that picture in a paper I recently wrote about Neanderthal! (The entire picture is actually rather humourous.) IIRC, they've held similar seminars at BYU. The main problem (I think) is the religion professors. I think they tend to be firm creationists and very very ignorant of basic scientific knowledge. I don't think these type of meetings do anything for them other than to turn to each other afterward and express concern for the heresy they see. I hope I'm wrong, but that is the attitude I see at least from CES employees.

with the CES though, if someone proves them wrong or shows them up or something then what use are they, and they become like that recent CES guy and his wife in colourado that quit the Church and obviously lost his job

[Nominee]

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.

Great post, Katherine! Thank you.

[katherine the great]

And we know the march of science and accumulated knowledge is inevitable and inexorable. But there can be no contradiction between discovered scientific knowldge and revealed truth unless we misunderstand one or the other or both. I'm still not quite sure what to do with those 10s of 1000s of years of pre-Adamite Homo sapiens that we know existed and all of her other now-extinct Homo relatives. One might, in a weak moment of temptation, almost wonder if God was experimenting.

I don't think we need to assume that. Allowing natural selection to work has allowed to us to possess all the characteristics that we need to have functional vehicles for our spirits and to live the gospel. Even the physically modern humans of a hundred thousand years ago may not have had the cognitive abilities of abstract thought that we have now. Really, our species needs to have the ability to love each other in the way we are commanded and even if only a handful of us actually achieve that in this life, I don't think the creation was considered complete until that possiblity existed in our brains. I don't think Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo antecessor, or even Homo neanderthalis possessed that potential.

Edited January 14, 2012 by katherine the great

[Jeff K.]

Sometimes people just want to argue. There seems to be certain disingenuousness in regard to establishing a position when one argues for the sake of arguing versus dialogue. I see an almost desperate need to place one simple singular position, that a statement made by the first presidency in a church magazine a century ago makes something a revelation and doctrine. Those of us familiar with the church know that such a thing does not occur. Doctrine, as we know it, defines us, defines our faith. Rejection of doctrine means a rejection of faith in our church.

Where doctrine is concerned, there must of course be agreement among the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. But agreement as to an issue or question alone does not make something doctrine. The brethren may all agree that pizza is good, but such is not doctrine. The brethren may all agree and endorse options for the many challenges that face us in our day. They may even speak of it in the Ensign, or New Era or Liahona. However agreement among people is not an automatic revelation that creates doctrine, even among the First Presidency. Carts do not pull horses.

There are many things that everyone in the First Presidency do agree on that are not necessarily doctrine. There are many things that all in the First Presidency may agree upon and place in the Ensign that are not doctrine. Hymns that all three in the First Presidency agree with and call beautiful are not doctrinal, even when they appear in the Ensign or New Era. I see staking a claim along those lines as something of a false creation. It imposes the idea that agreement in a church magazine trumps revelation that is given and presented by the Lord, it supposes that if the First Presidency are in agreement on anything and print it in the Liahona it must therefore be revelation. Such is how false doctrine is created.

The church has maintained and continues to maintain that it has no standing in regard to evolution. It is still so. The church also places doctrine before the general membership adds it to our “Doctrine and Covenants”, we, I have seen it occur with the “Official Declarations”.

In other words, our doctrine does not rely upon a review of old magazines in order to verify what doctrine is and what doctrine isn’t. There are many things in those magazines and magazines we have today that speak of well thought out opinions for our times, opinions by wise men who often receive counsel from Christ, who also receive revelation. This does not mean every utterance in agreement among the First Presidency is an “official declaration”. Anymore than ” Proclamation to the World” is an “official declaration”. Proclamation to the World is not doctrine. It is a well-reasoned document that uses doctrine. It is not the canon or doctrine of our church which holds an obligatory stance that we should follow it exactly and reflect that such doctrine is part of what defines us as Latter-day Saints. The “Improvement Era” of 1909 does not do that. It does not create doctrine.

I know some polygamists. Their arguments are indeed compelling in that they also go back to early magazines (documents if you will), and they also look at statements in which the First Presidency agree. Indeed, based on the logic presented by some, polygamy has a stronger position in the church than the acceptance or rejection of evolution. They point to First Presidency statements that polygamy was “here to stay” and that it must be allowed and practiced and that its continuous existence is doctrinal.

And that is the major flaw in the argument presented. That somehow a statement made in a magazine which indicates agreement between the First Presidency is therefore by fiat official and without question.

We know from later statements of apostles and prophets that this is a false position and without merit. We know that prophets and apostles have in fact stated clearly that the church takes no stand in regard to evolution.

It is easy to be led away from the church by those who cite only old church records while ignoring the living prophet and apostles or those who have most recently passed. It is easy to fall away, when one holds a singular statement to be more important than all other statements to the contrary or in the least, statements which allow for greater flexibility in understanding.

I think personally that our understanding of evolution, and our understanding of how the Lord operates will continue to change, sometimes radically, as He teaches us, as He helps us understand when the “need” to know arrives. I will not simply turn to the Lord, or His living prophets, or others and question their knowledge and veracity by stating in 1909 the First Presidency said “this” thus rejecting what may come later. Or rather appeared to be in agreement in a church magazine, and therefore any flexibility on the matter is dead.

I will however carefully study the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon and the Bible in order to more fully understand our doctrine, since it is there that such doctrine is presented. I will depend upon the Holy Ghost to give me insight when I hear the words of the prophets . Falling away from the church through false doctrine is an easier thing than we can imagine. Scriptures can be misinterpreted. False documents that have the patina of authenticity can undermine faith. Utterances from earlier prophets can be given heavier weight than modern revelation. All these thing can undermine and destroy the church from within in a way no persecution ever could. Relying on a magazine article is not doctrine, even when the First Presidency of that time agrees that the article is a good one. I will point out the Official Declaration 1 and Official Declaration 2 which reflect a doctrine that defines us as Latter-day Saints, and the method by which that doctrine was made known to us. A rejection of that Doctrine would in effect be a rejection of the church and its living prophet and the keys of restoration. I don’t think rejecting a magazine article from 1909 has the same effect. Why? Well, because it isn’t doctrine.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Jeff K.

[BCSpace]

And we know the march of science and accumulated knowledge is inevitable and inexorable. But there can be no contradiction between discovered scientific knowldge and revealed truth unless we misunderstand one or the other or both. I'm still not quite sure what to do with those 10s of 1000s of years of pre-Adamite Homo sapiens that we know existed and all of her other now-extinct Homo relatives. One might, in a weak moment of temptation, almost wonder if God was experimenting.

I look at it as creating. God had more than homo sapiens to create; He obviously waited until all conditions were right before putting two homo sapiens into the garden state. Think 2 Nephi 2:22 in which we see that the state of no death did not occur until after everything was finished being created.

There are multiple reasonable ways to think about pre Adamites. One has to consider that because modern homo sapiens have been for at least quarter of a million years. One question to ask that leads us to some plausible answers is why big-brained homo sapiens were around so long before civilization was established relatively recently? Say Sumer, 6000 B.C.

Could it be that homo sapiens did not have literal spirit children of God within them to take full or better advantage of the body and brain? A lesser type of spirit or intelligence perhaps? Not implausible because we know there are lesser spirits in existence now than those inhabiting our bodies today. Perhaps concurrent with the Fall was some sort of infusion of knowledge as well.

While I don't think it unreasonable at all for the LDS Church go with traditional Christianity on the date of the Fall pending actual revelation on the subject, I also don't think it unreasonable and certainly not catastrophic to the truth claims of the LDS Church to think that perhaps the Bible chronology is off and if one places the Fall nearer to the beginnings of the first civilizations, one differs from traditional Bible chronology by less than one order of magnitude.

There is also doctrine to support either a global or a local garden state and answering that question can affect whether or not we are all literally and physically descended from Adam or whether or not such a notion is more figurative.

In short, I think there are lots of ways current science can swim with LDS doctrine without conflict on this (and every) issue. My own hypothesis is one, but it doesn't have to be the only one.

[cinepro]

(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.)

No rationalization needed. President Kimball clearly taught that the "rib" creation was figurative, while he and the other Prophets and Apostles have also clearly taught that the paradisical creation of the Earth and Adam and Eve were clearly not figurative.

They could understand that, and so can we.

[BCSpace]

I don’t think rejecting a magazine article from 1909 has the same effect. Why? Well, because it isn’t doctrine

Was reprinted in 2000 and it is doctrine since it's published by the Church (See "Approaching Mormon Doctrine", "Teaching, No Greater Call", CHI, etc.). It just doesn't preclude evolution in any way and the Church has already affirmed that specifically.

Edited January 14, 2012 by BCSpace

[Jeff K.]

I agree it doesn't preclude evoluiton, but it doesn't create doctrine either.

[MMMillie]

It's hard not to wonder if God also took time to just have some fun: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8992117/Lost-world-sea-life-discovered-deep-in-the-ocean-near-Antarctica.html

[cinepro]

And for those who are new to the discussion, or have short memories, here are the scriptures that seem to present the greatest difficulty for the theory of evolution:

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

2 Nephi 2

If a plant or animal remains "in the same state in which it was created", then there is no evolution. So, we can theorize that God created everything in its proper form, with no birth or death on the planet until after the fall, or we can theorize that God used countless generations of birth/death to form the different species through evolution (one species slowly evolving into another over millions of years) until at some point He stops the process, puts everything into a Terrestrial state and introduces Adam and Eve, and then the fall takes everything back to the way it was.

Since evolution continues to this day, the Terrestrial period of the Garden of Eden was nothing but a blip in the chronology of the Earth, and ultimately unneeded since things just kept going the way they were going.

Another scripture which might contradict evolution is this frequently expressed principle:

21 And I, God, created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and I, God, saw that all things which I had created were good.

22 And I, God, blessed them, saying: Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the sea; and let fowl multiply in the earth;

24 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind, and it was so;

25 And I, God, made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything which creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and I, God, saw that all these things were good.

Moses 2

The principle of creation by evolution is that things evolved from one form into another, which is kind of the opposite of "after their kind". This is how Elder Packer explained this principle:

Some years ago I returned home to find our little children were waiting in the driveway. They had discovered some newly hatched chicks under the manger in the barn. When they reached for them, a protective hen rebuffed them. So they came for reinforcements.

I soon gathered a handful of little chicks for them to see and touch.

As our little girl held one of them, I said in a teasing way, “That will make a nice watchdog when it grows up, won’t it?” She looked at me quizzically, as if I didn’t know much.

So I changed my approach: “It won’t be a watchdog, will it?” She shook her head, “No, Daddy.” Then I added, “It will be a nice riding horse.”

She wrinkled up her nose and gave me that “Oh, Dad!” look. For even a four-year-old knows that a chick will not be a dog, nor a horse, nor even a turkey. It will be a chicken. It will follow the pattern of its parentage. She knew that without having had a course in genetics, without a lesson or a lecture.

No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce “after their own kind.” (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor “do men gather … figs of thistles.” (Matt. 7:16.)

In the countless billions of opportunities in the reproduction of living things, one kind does not beget another. If a species ever does cross, the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life is the pattern of the parentage.

This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways, even an ordinary mind should understand it. Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles. (Although one can easily imagine that those who accept the theory of evolution don’t show much enthusiasm for genealogical research!) The theory of evolution, and it is a theory, will have an entirely different dimension when the workings of God in creation are fully revealed.

Since every living thing follows the pattern of its parentage, are we to suppose that God had some other strange pattern in mind for His offspring? Surely we, His children, are not, in the language of science, a different species than He is?

The Pattern of Our Parentage

Another principle of creation that should be considered is the idea that God created everything spiritually first:

4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And 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;

6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and 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.

Moses 3

We must then figure out how God could create the spirits of everything first, before the creation by evolution. Let us consider, for example, the evolution of the whale. The theory posits that a land mammal of some sort reverted to an aquatic life, and evolved over millions of years into the whales we know today. So we have the original land mammal forms, and the countless generations of intermidate evolutionary stages resulting in the whales. According to the spiritual creation, this means if our premortal spirits had been granted access to the part of heaven where God kept his spiritual creations, we wouldn't see just a land mammal spirit and a whale spirit. We would see the spirits of all the intermediate steps as well. Bazillions of spirits mapping out the evolution of life from it's primordial stages to the wonderful plants and animals we know today, including the countless extinctions (and dinosaurs?).

So, those are three things taught in the standard works which some feel contradict the theory of evolution. I readily admit that with an ample dose of creativity, word re-definition, and dedication, these and the other teachings can be overcome and we can believe evolution fits together with the gospel like a hand in a glove. I only post these so, in our eagerness to champion such a harmony, we don't forget the path we took to get there.

[cinepro]

Here's another way to look at the problem of "spiritual pre-creation":

As the evidence for evolution mounts, more and more LDS are looking for the middle ground and adopting some hybrid theory of creation, usually adopting some form of “Theistic Evolution” in search of a middle ground that doesn’t make their heads explode.

I’ve heard many interesting and creative theories that blend the two (evolution and “God”), but most avoid one really uncomfortable aspect of evolution: If you know what you want to make, Evolution is an inefficient and inexact way to get there. Basically, it is the wrong tool for the job.

The whole idea behind evolution is that you don’t know how it’s going to end up. It’s gradual change over time, with improvements being made bit by bit (or with punctuated big

bits).

But supposedly God knew all along exactly what the end product was supposed to look like (namely: like Him). He knew the form and function of all the organs, and the total anatomy from head to toe. This idea is most explicitly outlined in the LDS doctrine of “Spiritual Creation“, in which things are actually created in spirit form before their physical creation. But how can that be possible with evolution?

This theory would suggest that God using evolution was a process with a goal; it had to come out just right so it would look just like Him. It couldn’t result in humans with three arms, or one eye. That’s not what evolution is.

So what is the purpose of spending millions of years just kind of nudging the process along, with false starts and dead ends? It would be like trying to make chocolate chip cookies, but instead of just using the Nestle Toll House recipe from the back of the package, you make thousands and thousands of different batches, trying to figure out how to make Nestle Toll House cookies. Then, finally, after years and years of experimentation, you arrive at the exact cookie that you could have made the first time by looking at the package. Even if you used that method, you wouldn’t say that you “evolved” the cookie. You would say you developed the cookie using trial and error. Do we really want to suggest that God created our physical world using “trial and error”?

The other problem is the ongoing nature of evolution. The story of the creation gives the idea of a creative “period”, and then the state where things are “created”. 2 Nephi 2:22 certainly frames the creation in such a way. But evolution doesn’t have an end. How could it? How could God be evolving thousands of different species, each moving slowly towards their intended finished design, and then find that one moment in time where a species is “created”, and then have it keep evolving? And what happens when some speices are fully evolved/created after 20 million years, but other species need 80 million years, or 100 million years? Do some animals get their spirits first? Are there animals even today who are not yet “created”, and are spiritless lifeforms waiting to evolve into their final “spiritual” form?

And what happens if a species evolves away from it’s spiritually created form? Does it become “uncreated”?

Sure, God could use evolution (a time consuming and wasteful process) to “create” life to the exact specification he had alreay prepared, but why would He? Other than the fact that some LDS need to reconcile the evidence for evolution with a belief in God-centric creation, why would anyone believe that?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

It is immensely clear from subsequent replies that people are simply not reading the papers or watching the videos which easily answer their objections - or else they are refusing to reply to the arguments presented therein. (With respect to Elder Packer, his talk contains extremely common elementary fallacies and mischaracterizations of evolution, showing that he too has simply not examined the evidence. cinepro's objections are based on similarly unfounded premises.) For good measure:

The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution by Michael R. Ash discusses the historical progression of the Official Statements, including those which modify the one from 1909 which the anti-evolutionists love to cite as if it were authoritative in any way.

The Church and Evolution: A Brief History of Official Statements is another quick review of the historical sources.

Seers, Savants, and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface by Duane E. Jeffery goes into even more exhaustive depth of the history of the LDS relationship with scientific findings - a relationship which has been - by far - more reconciliatory than antagonistic.

In the videos below, Trent Stephens discusses the pervasive misreading of our Creation stories which imply that there was no death on earth before the fall, and that Adam and Eve had immortal bodies in the Garden - a reading which is completely incoherent, especially when contrasted with scientific evidence which our leaders and scriptures have specifically advocated that we study, so that further revelation may come to our community. (I don't agree with everything Stephens says - he seems to believe in a more literal garden than I accept - but much of his talk is a vast improvement over the stereotypical anti-evolutionist view.)

Faithful LDS member Orson Scott Card also used to do a one-man skit called "Secular Humanist Revival Meeting", which utterly dismantles the absurdities of a fundamentalist mindset and yet finishes by affirming that religious belief and "secular" science can coexist in the same worldview.

Part One

Part Two

He has also written quite a few articles for Mormon Times that show how evolution is perfectly compatible with the Gospel, as well as how spiritual skepticism which examines all evidence (and ultimately affirms a scientific perspective of the world) is more firm a foundation than merely repeating out-of-date Statements like mantras:

We Don't Know The Lord's Time

Gospel Has No Place For 'Mysteries'

Guessing Leads to Knowing

Holding on to the 'Others'

Exploring Faith and Knowledge

Faith and Trust

Nothing to Fear From the Truth

(I hesitate to mention this last one of his, but if anyone has access to Card's story "Wise Men" from the December 2010 issue of his online magazine Intergalactic Medicine Show, he also provides a science-fictional retelling of the Nativity which deals quite nicely [if peripherally] with questions of evolution and how it all fits together with the Gospel. This one, of course, is fiction, so invention, exaggeration, and extrapolation is necessary, but it does help to "re-mythologize" the stories of the Bible - making them "myths that are true", as Heiser said, following Tolkien.)

Finally, Hugh Nibley has done incredible work on related issues (though, again, I don't agree with everything he says, his paradigm is brilliant because of how much more willing he is to examine the evidence than others.)

Abraham's Temple Drama shows how the Creation accounts are not step-by-step instructions on how to organize worlds, but are rather simplified dramas which record intentionality. They should not be read more literally than necessary.

Treasures in the Heavens is a compilation of some notes from early sources detailing the organization of worlds.

The Circle and the Square deals with similar speculations on "plantings" and "colonies" on those worlds.

Before Adam then, speaks of the Creation of this world, and pre-adamites.

Patriarchy and Matriarchy hints that the Adam and Eve story is another part of the Drama, and is in any case more important as a Revealed Template for our lives than as a strictly historical document.

[katherine the great]

My goodness Cinepro--how you do go on! I'm sure all of God's creatures are very important to Him and have a purpose.

[altersteve]

I don't see how.

According to the theory of evolution, all life started as microorganisms living in the oceans. I'll let you put this together.

[thesometimesaint]

See Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

Evolution

From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Author: Evenson, William E.

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity…. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

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

[Nominee]

This view is what I have taken issue with:

This does not mean every utterance in agreement among the First Presidency is an “official declaration”. Anymore than ” Proclamation to the World” is an “official declaration”. Proclamation to the World is not doctrine. It is a well-reasoned document that uses doctrine.

I have read Jeremy's links and am pleased to see that these links (provided by one who believes in evolution) openly acknowledges the 1909/2002 statement as an official statement and not just the mumbling of old men in some old magazine.

The link to the Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution says:

In 1909, after decades of controversy, the First Presidency issued an official statement regarding this matter entitled, “The Origin of

Man”:

The link to the The Church and Evolution: A Brief History of Official Statements starts with this:

The authors/compilers of this slim volume say that they had only

one purpose in mind: to assemble under one cover all the official statements of the First Presidencies of the Church of Jesus Christ

of Latter-day Saints regarding evolution and the origin of man...

and then carries on with numerous mentions of the 1909 statement including this one:

Some of the documents in this book are very short, even less than a page, but three

are rather extensive statements that are of considerable importance.

The first is the statement of the First Presidency in 1909 (document 1

in the “BYU Evolution Packet”), which includes a review of scriptural

statements on the origin and preexistence of man, the literal likeness

of both preexistent spirits and their temporal bodies to our Father in

Heaven and his Son Jesus Christ, and the reality of Adam as a real

person and progenitor of the human race.

Personally, I am open-minded to all information available on the subject of creation/evolution but I don't like it when someone attempts to diminish the importance of the prophets' position by out and out denying that it has any official standing just because someone thinks it is making one's personal position to be in opposition to the church.

[zerinus]

And for those who are new to the discussion, or have short memories, here are the scriptures that seem to present the greatest difficulty for the theory of evolution:

If a plant or animal remains "in the same state in which it was created", then there is no evolution. So, we can theorize that God created everything in its proper form, with no birth or death on the planet until after the fall, or we can theorize that God used countless generations of birth/death to form the different species through evolution (one species slowly evolving into another over millions of years) until at some point He stops the process, puts everything into a Terrestrial state and introduces Adam and Eve, and then the fall takes everything back to the way it was.

Since evolution continues to this day, the Terrestrial period of the Garden of Eden was nothing but a blip in the chronology of the Earth, and ultimately unneeded since things just kept going the way they were going.

Another scripture which might contradict evolution is this frequently expressed principle:

The principle of creation by evolution is that things evolved from one form into another, which is kind of the opposite of "after their kind". This is how Elder Packer explained this principle:

Another principle of creation that should be considered is the idea that God created everything spiritually first:

We must then figure out how God could create the spirits of everything first, before the creation by evolution. Let us consider, for example, the evolution of the whale. The theory posits that a land mammal of some sort reverted to an aquatic life, and evolved over millions of years into the whales we know today. So we have the original land mammal forms, and the countless generations of intermidate evolutionary stages resulting in the whales. According to the spiritual creation, this means if our premortal spirits had been granted access to the part of heaven where God kept his spiritual creations, we wouldn't see just a land mammal spirit and a whale spirit. We would see the spirits of all the intermediate steps as well. Bazillions of spirits mapping out the evolution of life from it's primordial stages to the wonderful plants and animals we know today, including the countless extinctions (and dinosaurs?).

So, those are three things taught in the standard works which some feel contradict the theory of evolution. I readily admit that with an ample dose of creativity, word re-definition, and dedication, these and the other teachings can be overcome and we can believe evolution fits together with the gospel like a hand in a glove. I only post these so, in our eagerness to champion such a harmony, we don't forget the path we took to get there.

Here's another way to look at the problem of "spiritual pre-creation":

As the evidence for evolution mounts, more and more LDS are looking for the middle ground and adopting some hybrid theory of creation, usually adopting some form of “Theistic Evolution” in search of a middle ground that doesn’t make their heads explode.

I’ve heard many interesting and creative theories that blend the two (evolution and “God”), but most avoid one really uncomfortable aspect of evolution: If you know what you want to make, Evolution is an inefficient and inexact way to get there. Basically, it is the wrong tool for the job.

The whole idea behind evolution is that you don’t know how it’s going to end up. It’s gradual change over time, with improvements being made bit by bit (or with punctuated big

bits).

But supposedly God knew all along exactly what the end product was supposed to look like (namely: like Him). He knew the form and function of all the organs, and the total anatomy from head to toe. This idea is most explicitly outlined in the LDS doctrine of “Spiritual Creation“, in which things are actually created in spirit form before their physical creation. But how can that be possible with evolution?

This theory would suggest that God using evolution was a process with a goal; it had to come out just right so it would look just like Him. It couldn’t result in humans with three arms, or one eye. That’s not what evolution is.

So what is the purpose of spending millions of years just kind of nudging the process along, with false starts and dead ends? It would be like trying to make chocolate chip cookies, but instead of just using the Nestle Toll House recipe from the back of the package, you make thousands and thousands of different batches, trying to figure out how to make Nestle Toll House cookies. Then, finally, after years and years of experimentation, you arrive at the exact cookie that you could have made the first time by looking at the package. Even if you used that method, you wouldn’t say that you “evolved” the cookie. You would say you developed the cookie using trial and error. Do we really want to suggest that God created our physical world using “trial and error”?

The other problem is the ongoing nature of evolution. The story of the creation gives the idea of a creative “period”, and then the state where things are “created”. 2 Nephi 2:22 certainly frames the creation in such a way. But evolution doesn’t have an end. How could it? How could God be evolving thousands of different species, each moving slowly towards their intended finished design, and then find that one moment in time where a species is “created”, and then have it keep evolving? And what happens when some speices are fully evolved/created after 20 million years, but other species need 80 million years, or 100 million years? Do some animals get their spirits first? Are there animals even today who are not yet “created”, and are spiritless lifeforms waiting to evolve into their final “spiritual” form?

And what happens if a species evolves away from it’s spiritually created form? Does it become “uncreated”?

Sure, God could use evolution (a time consuming and wasteful process) to “create” life to the exact specification he had alreay prepared, but why would He? Other than the fact that some LDS need to reconcile the evidence for evolution with a belief in God-centric creation, why would anyone believe that?

Thank you cinepro for your thoughtful and coherent posts.

[David T]

When dogma contradicts fact, I feel morally and spiritually justified with letting fact trump dogma in my personal beliefs. I don't feel guilty about it all as a faithful, active Mormon. Mormonism doesn't constrain us to believe anything that isn't true, but it often will ask us to tolerate many who believe things that are not (Articles of Faith 11). That doesn't mean I have the right to teach anything speculative as fact in official Church settings in an official Church role, nor does it constrain me to teach something I don't personally believe to be true, or important - even if it is in a manual somewhere.

Some feel that the more unfounded, contradictory and unbelievable or unprovable or unexeperiencable the things they affirm (or a leader has asserted) are, the more holy or righteous their faith is. Some pride themselves on not reading any actual history or scientific studies. They view their intentional ignorance as a sign of devotion. That just may be.

As for me and my house, we don't buy it.

Edited January 15, 2012 by nackhadlow

[cinepro]

(With respect to Elder Packer, his talk contains extremely common elementary fallacies and mischaracterizations of evolution, showing that he too has simply not examined the evidence. )

But he's still an Apostle, speaking in General Conference (and the talk is still found on the Church website). As far as I know, a talk from a living apostle in conference is worth 4 unpublished memos from the First Presidency, 11 articles from the unoffical Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 14 Dialogue articles and 23 Sunstone articles.

And with all due respect, if a believing LDS has to choose between an Apostle and JeremyOrbe-Smith when it comes to who has "examined the evidence" for matters concerning the doctrine of the creation, I'm not sure it's a tough decision.

Maybe President Benson really was a Prophet after all because he totally called this...

The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven’t yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject. We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing.

............................................................................

Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on.

How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.

[David T]

Keanu Reeves, in the role of Cinepro.

Edited January 15, 2012 by nackhadlow

[cinepro]

In other words, our doctrine does not rely upon a review of old magazines in order to verify what doctrine is and what doctrine isn’t. There are many things in those magazines and magazines we have today that speak of well thought out opinions for our times, opinions by wise men who often receive counsel from Christ, who also receive revelation. This does not mean every utterance in agreement among the First Presidency is an “official declaration”. Anymore than ” Proclamation to the World” is an “official declaration”. Proclamation to the World is not doctrine. It is a well-reasoned document that uses doctrine. It is not the canon or doctrine of our church which holds an obligatory stance that we should follow it exactly and reflect that such doctrine is part of what defines us as Latter-day Saints. The “Improvement Era” of 1909 does not do that. It does not create doctrine.

Uh, the newsroom definition of "doctrine" explicitly includes official declarations and proclamations.

So while you may not view it as official doctrine, I'm pretty sure the Church does.

[zerinus]

When dogma contradicts fact, I feel morally and spiritually justified with letting fact trump dogma in my personal beliefs. . . .

Then I would say you have got your "facts" wrong. Evolution is not a fact. Fossils are facts; DNA is a fact; carbon dating is a fact; even "natural selection" (or a limited form of it) is a fact; but Evolution isn't. Evolution is a way of interpreting those facts; and there are perfectly good reputable scientists who disagree with that interpretation.

Edited January 15, 2012 by zerinus