I don't believe in Evolution because No Death before the Fall is in the scriptures

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

Okay, I really need some help here - How does anyone try to explain a fossil record like Earth's when it so clearly conflicts with the notion that there is no such thing as evolution?  How do you deal with the dinosaurs?  How do you deal with obvious changes in species over the billions of years?  For that matter, how do you deal with the decay of a carbon isotope used to date these things?  It's one thing to seek out spiritual evidence but, in this case, it requires the dismissal of an enormous amount of testable and verifiable evidence.

 It is a test from God, read Omphalos as a philosophical theory.  The scriptures, many General Conference talks, Gospel Topics on lds website, and church manuals teach No Death before Fall. Gordon B Hinckley confirmed that a No Death talk was inspired by God.   I don't believe there is something wrong with how revelation works, for me spiritual truth is the primary evidence. For me church teachings are a guide I can trust. 

It seems many latter-day saints have a testimony of No Death, here is a testimony found in Mormon.org  

"As a student of the life sciences, an integral part of my education has been the study of evolution. This is a sticky subject for many Christians, as well as for Mormons. Especially for Mormons, as we have scripture that not only suggests all living things were created prior to the Fall of Adam, but that that there was no death until after the Fall, whereas the current theory of evolution posits life and death occurring for millions, if not billions, of years prior to the arrival of man on the planet. I have my own understanding of how to reconcile revealed spiritual truth with revealed scientific understanding. It may be right, it may be wrong, but inasmuch as the Spirit continues to teach me of the truth of God and His creation, I am ok having a few unresolved conflicts" mormon.org 

Edited August 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Watchmaker Analogy is a fallacy.

Evolution as taught in Universities is a blind watchmaker, how do you reconcile it with Theism? 

On 8/28/2017 at 7:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

It is the only foolproof method recommended by the Lord (Matt 16:17): The personal witness of the Holy Spirit. Moroni recommends that method as well (Moroni 10:5).

Do you pray about every specific teaching in General Conference?     

[ttribe]

18 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 It is a test from God, read Omphalos as a philosophical theory.  The scriptures, many General Conference talks, Gospel Topics on lds website, and church manuals teach No Death before Fall. Gordon B Hinckley confirmed that a No Death talk was inspired by God.  Many latter-day saints have a testimony of Genesis, Book of Moses, and Abraham, see the Mormon.org testimony below.  I don't believe there is something wrong with how revelation works, for me spiritual truth is the primary evidence. For me church teachings are a guide I can trust. 

"As a student of the life sciences, an integral part of my education has been the study of evolution. This is a sticky subject for many Christians, as well as for Mormons. Especially for Mormons, as we have scripture that not only suggests all living things were created prior to the Fall of Adam, but that that there was no death until after the Fall, whereas the current theory of evolution posits life and death occurring for millions, if not billions, of years prior to the arrival of man on the planet. I have my own understanding of how to reconcile revealed spiritual truth with revealed scientific understanding. It may be right, it may be wrong, but inasmuch as the Spirit continues to teach me of the truth of God and His creation, I am ok having a few unresolved conflicts"  a testimony from mormon.org 

I'm not sure why I should consider someone's testimony from mormon.org as particularly authoritative, nor do I find your "test from God" explanation compelling.  You say "...church teachings are a guide I can trust" and then say there are things in the Journal of Discourses you don't agree with; that's rather inconsistent given that those were the "church teachings" of their times.  So, why is it you think your spiritual discernment is any better than anyone else's?

Edited August 30, 2017 by ttribe

[Robert F. Smith]

27 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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

Do you pray about every specific teaching in General Conference?     

No, of course not.  Most people I know save that for issues upon which they have serious questions.  Most people find the words of the Brethren right on target, even when they are merely expressing personal opinions.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

22 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not sure why I should consider someone's testimony from mormon.org as particularly authoritative, nor do I find your "test from God" explanation compelling.  You say "...church teachings are a guide I can trust" and then say there are things in the Journal of Discourses you don't agree with; that's rather inconsistent given that those were the "church teachings" of their times.  So, why is it you think your spiritual discernment is any better than anyone else's?

Read what the church says about Journal of Discourses 

Quote

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine.

https://www.lds.org/topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng

 

24 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not sure why I should consider someone's testimony from mormon.org as particularly authoritative

It is not, that is why I also quoted gospel topics, general conference talks, and manuals. I pointed to a Testimony from Mormon.org to back up my claim that many latter day saints do have a testimony. If you can find one in Mormon.org you will probably find many more in the wards. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No, of course not.  Most people I know save that for issues upon which they have serious questions.  Most people find the words of the Brethren right on target, even when they are merely expressing personal opinions.

For me and many others No Death before the Fall is not a question, No Death is something I accept because it is taught in so many sources of the church, even in lds.org gospel topics. Did you read the Testimony above from Mormon.org? 

Edited August 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Honest question, but do you apply that also to rejected doctrines like Adam/God or Blacks were fencesitters in the pre-existence?

Errors happen but over time are corrected. Further typicaly NDBF type things are incidental to the point the GA is typically preaching. 

Errors happen, but can you please point to a non-doctrinal (a mistake) teaching in many General Conference talks, lds.org Gospel Topics, and church manuals? CFR  The same No death teaching has been taught in the church for almost two centuries. 

As for Adam/God I have no idea, it is possible that Satan changed it, he has done it before read D&C 10. I don't think the changes mentioned in D&C 10:10-13 were obvious, it had to look real.  

Edited August 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

For me and many others No Death before the Fall is not a question, No Death is something I accept because it is taught in so many sources of the church, even in lds.org gospel topics. Did you read the Testimony above from Mormon.org? 

If it were not for the illogic and obsessive-compulsive approach which you apply to this matter,  I would not even comment.  Most people just don't take that approach -- except for evangelical fundamentalist christians, who do not believe in the seeking the Holy Spirit, but who instead believe that they can suss everything out through application of ordinary understanding of mere words spoken or in print.  Most of them bring apriori concepts to the discussion even before the discussion begins.  In addition to that, you also have the unenviable tendency to create a personal set of hidebound rules as to what is and is not acceptable -- so as to prevent a full discussion.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Watchmaker Analogy is a fallacy.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

Tell that to Dr Dawkins, who accepts it.  Of course it is  not a fallacy, unless you insert several unstated premises -- in other words if you cheat.  The bottom line is that a watch does not and cannot make itself, and cannot come into being without an intelligent designer.  That is clear to me and Dawkins, but not to you.  Why?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If it were not for the illogic and obsessive-compulsive approach which you apply to this matter,  I would not even comment.  Most people just don't take that approach

Let me ask you the same question. Can you please point to a non-doctrinal teaching in many General Conference talks, lds.org Gospel Topics, and church manuals that the church now admits it was a mistake? 

42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

who do not believe in the seeking the Holy Spirit, but who instead believe that they can suss everything out through application of ordinary understanding of mere words spoken or in print.

Intellectual Mormons teach (I quote because you like intellectual sources)"Furthermore, God’s house is a house of order. (D&C 132:8.) God will not inspire His leaders to give certain instructions, and then inspire His children to disobey those instructions. Therefore, one of the ways to verify the voice of the Lord is to test the inspiration one received for consistency with the words God has already spoken through his leaders in the scriptures, at General Conference, or in a private meeting with a bishop....Of course, God has His own timeline, and His ways are not our ways. (Isaiah 55:8.) We cannot force the hand of God either in immediately providing revelation or in sending us revelation that simply conforms to our own preconceived notions or desires. We should be careful in following feelings that simply confirm our own biases" 

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2011/08/28/fair-questions-2-recognizing-the-voice-of-the-spirit

Gordon B Hinckley confirmed a No Death talk as inspired by God, and I quoted a Testimony above. You will have an interesting point if you can answer my question above. Lastly, Elder Andersen taught "True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find"

Edited August 31, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[clarkgoble]

27 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Errors happen, but can you please point to a non-doctrinal (a mistake) teaching in many General Conference talks, lds.org Gospel Topics, and church manuals? CFR  The same No death teaching has been taught in the church for almost two centuries. 

As for Adam/God I have no idea, it is possible that Satan changed it, he has done it before read D&C 10. I don't think the changes mentioned in D&C 10:10-13 were obvious, it had to look real.  

Huh. I've no idea what you're saying on the last line. Satan changed what? The sermons of Brigham Young, the hymnals, all the sermons of many other GAs, etc.?

As for mistakes again fence sitter doctrine fits the bill as does the mark of Cain and quite a few similar teachings. 

I'd also quibble on the no death before the fall as being two centuries since of course there were GAs teaching other doctrines. You're more or less judging doctrine based upon who was on the manual committee which seems like an odd basis. But if you want errors in manuals there's tons of them that can easily be pointed out.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Huh. I've no idea what you're saying on the last line. Satan changed what? The sermons of Brigham Young, the hymnals, all the sermons of many other GAs, etc.?

It is possible Satan changed some passages in the Journal of Discourses, Satan even has power to create Serpents (Exodus 7:8-12). 

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

You're more or less judging doctrine based upon who was on the manual committee which seems like an odd basis. But if you want errors in manuals there's tons of them that can easily be pointed out.

 I understand church manuals are not perfect, I am asking for a teaching in Topics, General Conferences, and manuals, all of them,  I didn't say manuals only. 

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

As for mistakes again fence sitter doctrine fits the bill as does the mark of Cain and quite a few similar teachings. 

The mark of Cain as black skin taught repeatedly in General Conferences and church manuals? 

Elder Andersen taught "True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find" 

Edited August 31, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

By the way,

If God didn't need to use death and Evolution to create serpents in Exodus 7:8-12, why would he need to use it for millions of years? 

Edited August 31, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[ALarson]

42 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

It is possible Satan changed some passages in the Journal of Discourses, Satan even has power to create Serpents (Exodus 7:8-12). 

The Adam God Doctrine wasn't just recorded in the Journal of Discourses.  It was in hymns that were sung, the Deseret News, the Millennial Star and recorded in other early church leader's journals (and a few other records).

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

So I guess that makes me a proponent under particular conditions!

From the scriptures can it be shown that any living soul in Eden or in the garden died (spiritually or physically; eternally or temporally; figuratively or literally) before Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit? Or that any living soul was not cursed after?

I've sometimes wondered about the four rivers coming out of Eden, and what kind of life they were supporting, or were they just performing geological functions...

No Death Before the Fall though argues no death on earth. If the Garden of Eden wasn't on earth but was a terrestrial world then it's irrelevant what was going on in the garden. The alternative view is that Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden but that the garden was the same as it ever was. Adam and Eve were then put on our telestial world which was already in progress.

There are compelling reasons to think this by the way if you think to your movement in the temple. (This is more obvious in live sessions at the SLC temple or those temples that use multiple rooms with video like the Cardston temple)

The other compelling reason to think Eden still the way it was are scriptures about eating of the fruit such as Rev 2:7. There is a tradition that spirits awaiting the resurrection are in paradise. (See 2 Ne 9:13 - although this is a Jewish notion and likely the third heaven Paul talks of in 2 Cor 12:2-4 -- Rev 2-3 has interspersion where each church represents one of the seven levels in heaven along with typical merkabah practices such as eating the fruit)

The idea of the fall as a fall from a heavenly place still present is in Ezekiel's allusion for the King of Tyre as well. (Ezek 28:1-17 "You were in Eden, the garden of God;...So I have struck you down from the mountain of God, and I have destroyed you, O shielding cherub, from among the stones of fire. You grew haughty because of your beauty, you debased your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I have cast you to the ground. "

Of course there's an easy way to test all of this according to your own approach. Simply see if the passages related to No Death Before the Fall get eliminated from manuals as they are edited. Much like they've been editing them on race issues.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Tell that to Dr Dawkins, who accepts it.  Of course it is  not a fallacy, unless you insert several unstated premises -- in other words if you cheat.  The bottom line is that a watch does not and cannot make itself, and cannot come into being without an intelligent designer.  That is clear to me and Dawkins, but not to you.  Why?

That's not quite right. He argues that it conflates complexity in living things that can modify themselves with complexity in inanimate objects. (See The Blind Watchmaker) Quoting from it:

"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future porpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." (5) 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Let me ask you the same question. Can you please point to a non-doctrinal teaching in many General Conference talks, lds.org Gospel Topics, and church manuals that the church now admits it was a mistake? 

Once again, your obsessive-compulsive need to define everything in as narrow and superficial a way as possible is exactly what is so crippling in the anti-Mormon approach to any issue.  I fully expect that type of mistake from anti-Mormons, and see that it is probably simply a personal problem unique to you as a Mormon.  You have likely been very poorly taught and have adopted a number of self-justifying, rigid protective notions -- which are really much more likely to destroy your testimony in the long run.  Meantime, it means that you spend your time mistakenly attacking fellow Mormons.  Ultimately, however, it will likely lead to your own apostasy from the faith.

We have seen some pretty radical swings from one pole to the other within Mormonism, much of it attributable to very human flaws which we all possess.  A prime example of the problem with defining doctrine can be seen in the standard procedure taught by Joseph Smith in ordaining Black men, which was reversed by Brigham Young, and then reversed again in 1978 by Spencer Kimball and the Brethren.  Most people are unaware that Orson Pratt strongly opposed Brother Brigham's reversal in that case.  Pratt also opposed Brigham's Adam-God doctrine.  Today, of course, we have abandoned both of those Brigham young policies, and Pratt's view has prevailed.  As pointed out by Pres Uchtdorf, 

Quote

. . . to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes.  There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.
        I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings.  God is perfect and his doctrine is pure.  But he works through us, his imperfect children.  And imperfect people make mistakes.  D. Uchtdorf, October 5, 2013, LDS General Conference, Ensign, 43/11 (Nov 2013):22.

Quote

Intellectual Mormons teach (I quote because you like intellectual sources)"Furthermore, God’s house is a house of order. (D&C 132:8.) God will not inspire His leaders to give certain instructions, and then inspire His children to disobey those instructions. Therefore, one of the ways to verify the voice of the Lord is to test the inspiration one received for consistency with the words God has already spoken through his leaders in the scriptures, at General Conference, or in a private meeting with a bishop....Of course, God has His own timeline, and His ways are not our ways. (Isaiah 55:8.) We cannot force the hand of God either in immediately providing revelation or in sending us revelation that simply conforms to our own preconceived notions or desires. We should be careful in following feelings that simply confirm our own biases" 

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2011/08/28/fair-questions-2-recognizing-the-voice-of-the-spirit

Gordon B Hinckley confirmed a No Death talk as inspired by God, and I quoted a Testimony above. You will have an interesting point if you can answer my question above. Lastly, Elder Andersen taught "True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find"

So, what is the problem?  Not long ago, Apostle M. Russell Ballard recommended to LDS seminary and institute instructors that they exercise better methods and content in their teaching of young LDS students in order to prepare them for an increasingly hostile internet world in which students may be unprepared to confront false or out-of-context statements about their LDS faith.  Marianne Holman Prescott, “An evening with a General Authority: Elder Ballard introduces new initiative for seminary students,” LDS Church News, Saturday, Feb. 27 2016, online at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865648793/An-evening-with-a-General-Authority-Elder-Ballard.html?pg=1 .  I agree and wonder why it is that you insist on taking everything out of context.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[clarkgoble]

54 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

It is possible Satan changed some passages in the Journal of Discourses, Satan even has power to create Serpents (Exodus 7:8-12). 

Umm. First off it's not just the Journal of Discourses but was even in the hymnal. There's lots of articles on this.

Quote

 I understand church manuals are not perfect, I am asking for a teaching in Topics, General Conferences, and manuals, all of them,  I didn't say manuals only. 

The mark of Cain as black skin taught repeatedly in General Conferences and church manuals? 

The mark of Cain as being the mark of Africans. It's hard to get older manuals as they aren't on lds.org. But it's in several Liahona articles. A good resource for all of them is The Mormon Church and Blacks: A Documentary History.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

"It may be right, it may be wrong, but inasmuch as the Spirit continues to teach me of the truth of God and His creation, I am ok having a few unresolved conflicts" mormon.org 

How can you call it a testimony of that doctrine when he explicitly says it might be wrong or right?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's not quite right. He argues that it conflates complexity in living things that can modify themselves with complexity in inanimate objects. (See The Blind Watchmaker) Quoting from it:

"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future porpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." (5) 

Dawkins and I are not discussing natural selection or evolutionary theory, and thus you entirely miss the point, Clark.  Dawkins and I agree on the fact of intelligent design for the very logical and important reason that a watch cannot design itself.  So too, in the lab, when we use CRISPR we are engaged in intelligent design. -- which is what genetic engineering by humans is all about.  For operative LDS theology, that is the only form of intelligent design which is germane.  Why?  Because LDS theology is entirely naturalistic.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

How can you call it a testimony of that doctrine when he explicitly says it might be wrong or right?

 

He has a testimony of "No Death", but his solution to the conflict might  be wrong.

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Umm. First off it's not just the Journal of Discourses but was even in the hymnal. There's lots of articles on this.

The mark of Cain as being the mark of Africans. It's hard to get older manuals as they aren't on lds.org. But it's in several Liahona articles. A good resource for all of them is The Mormon Church and Blacks: A Documentary History.

Again, it was probably Satan. The scripture teach Satan has power. The only safe thing is what the church today considers as authoritative. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again, your obsessive-compulsive need to define everything in as narrow and superficial a way as possible is exactly what is so crippling in the anti-Mormon approach to any issue.  I fully expect that type of mistake from anti-Mormons, and see that it is probably simply a personal problem unique to you as a Mormon.  You have likely been very poorly taught and have adopted a number of self-justifying, rigid protective notions -- which are really much more likely to destroy your testimony in the long run.  Meantime, it means that you spend your time mistakenly attacking fellow Mormons.  Ultimately, however, it will likely lead to your own apostasy from the faith.

We have seen some pretty radical swings from one pole to the other within Mormonism, much of it attributable to very human flaws which we all possess.  A prime example of the problem with defining doctrine can be seen in the standard procedure taught by Joseph Smith in ordaining Black men, which was reversed by Brigham Young, and then reversed again in 1978 by Spencer Kimball and the Brethren.  Most people are unaware that Orson Pratt strongly opposed Brother Brigham's reversal in that case.  Pratt also opposed Brigham's Adam-God doctrine.  Today, of course, we have abandoned both of those Brigham young policies, and Pratt's view has prevailed.  As pointed out by Pres Uchtdorf, 

So, what is the problem?  Not long ago, Apostle M. Russell Ballard recommended to LDS seminary and institute instructors that they exercise better methods and content in their teaching of young LDS students in order to prepare them for an increasingly hostile internet world in which students may be unprepared to confront false or out-of-context statements about their LDS faith.  Marianne Holman Prescott, “An evening with a General Authority: Elder Ballard introduces new initiative for seminary students,” LDS Church News, Saturday, Feb. 27 2016, online at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865648793/An-evening-with-a-General-Authority-Elder-Ballard.html?pg=1 .  I agree and wonder why it is that you insist on taking everything out of context.

Yes, leaders make mistakes, but the mistakes are usually outside authoritative sources. If authoritative sources have many mistakes then why would we even need them or trust them?

and like I told Clark "Again, it was probably Satan. The scripture teach Satan has power. The only safe thing is what the church today considers as authoritative "

Edited August 31, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Again, it was probably Satan. The scripture teach Satan has power. 

What exactly do you mean by "it was probably Satan"?  It was Satan that put the teachings into Brigham Young's mind?  Or do you believe that Satan entered the quotes into the Journal of Discourses, wrote the hymns, recorded about it in other member's journals and so on?

I'm really not certain what you mean here.

Wouldn't it just be a simpler explanation to admit that Brigham Young was wrong and that even Prophets make mistakes?

Edited August 31, 2017 by ALarson

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

  Or do you believe that Satan entered the quotes into the Journal of Discourses, wrote the hymns, recorded about it in other member's journals and so on?

Yes! the scriptures teach Satan has power. There is a reason why the church doesn't accept the Journal of Discourses as"an authoritative source of Church doctrine."  

[Calm]

Has this been mentioned?....

"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]."

Evenson, who is credited as author, has reported this was actually drafted by Gordon B Hinckley.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution

 

Also this article about the Evolution packet...

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635188399/No-definitive-LDS-stance-on-evolution-study-finds.html

(Added:  see that Smac quoted it...for some reason it didn't show in my first search, will leave it anyway).  I have read the thread, but was phrasing out a few times, my apologies if duplicates.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Calm