Can Mormons Believe in Evolution? (Click here for the answer

[_Tal Bachman]

Can Mormons believe in evolution?

The answer is: YES. They can believe that human life evolved from lower life forms in the same way that they can believe that gays should be able to marry, that it's okay to drink beer every once in a while, and that it's okay to look at pornography. Or, like Mormon "intellectuals", that Joseph Smith's stories, while not technically true, are "true in a broader, metaphorical sense". Or, like Van Hale, that the Book of Mormon isn't an actual record of things which once happened.

Strictly speaking, "Mormonism" doesn't exist; only individual versions of what people enjoy imagining is "Mormonism" exist. Hence the comment on another thread on this site by a (pitiable) man who enjoys imagining he's a devout Mormon, that Mormons can believe that humans evolved from lower life forms - notwithstanding an official First Presidency statement declaring that this is not true.

Does that matter? No, not at all. All that matters, when we are devout Mormons, or devout anythings, is the effectiveness of the mind games we can play on ourselves.

Here is the LDS First Presidency statement, republished in the Ensign in 2002, explaining church doctrine on the matter of human evolution:
Gospel Classics: The Origin of Man

It reads in part:

"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."

The meaning of these words could not be clearer. Does it matter?

Judge for yourself by the comments which will be posted below by self-styled devout Mormons, who will still insist that belief in Mormonism doesn't exclude belief that humans today evolved from lower life forms. No doubt we'll hear all about B.H. Roberts et al...yet nothing that will come close to the authority of an official First Presidency statement on the matter.

And it won't matter at all - because logic, fact...nothing matters to the true believer, but to continue being a true believer.


[Mod Scottie Note: Altered REALLY long url so you don't have to scroll over to read]

[_Scottie]

So where does that leave the whole garden of eden story? Myth? Allegory?

I've also heard the popular theory that God allowed evolution to happen to all the other animals while earth was still orbiting around Kolob, and when conditions were juuuuuuust right, he placed man there. Thus, science can be right about evolution and the earth being billions of years old and Christians can be right about Adam being the first human.

[_moksha]

Here is the LDS First Presidency statement, republished in the Ensign in 2002, explaining church doctrine on the matter of human evolution:
Gospel Classics: The Origin of Man

There have been updates to this. Are you not aware that changes have been made?

[_bcspace]

The answer is: YES. They can believe that human life evolved from lower life forms in the same way that they can believe that gays should be able to marry, that it's okay to drink beer every once in a while, and that it's okay to look at pornography. Or, like Mormon "intellectuals", that Joseph Smith's stories, while not technically true, are "true in a broader, metaphorical sense". Or, like Van Hale, that the Book of Mormon isn't an actual record of things which once happened.

Sure, but the real question is does one believe in anything contrary to LDS doctrine?

In the case of evolution, there is no conflict with LDS doctrine whatsoever.

[_Tarski]

The answer is: YES. They can believe that human life evolved from lower life forms in the same way that they can believe that gays should be able to marry, that it's okay to drink beer every once in a while, and that it's okay to look at pornography. Or, like Mormon "intellectuals", that Joseph Smith's stories, while not technically true, are "true in a broader, metaphorical sense". Or, like Van Hale, that the Book of Mormon isn't an actual record of things which once happened.

Sure, but the real question is does one believe in anything contrary to LDS doctrine?

In the case of evolution, there is no conflict with LDS doctrine whatsoever.

That's one of the heresies. http://speeches.BYU.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6770

If not, how could McConkie be so dense on this issue/ Didn't he study the scriptures enough?

[_bcspace]

That's one of the heresies. http://speeches.BYU.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6770

Non doctrinal and did you even read it? He actually admits it's okay to believe what you will as long as you can reconcile it with doctrine and goes on to explain why he himself can't reconcile it.

Can you harmonize the theories of men with the inspired words that say:

.....

These are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself what he will believe. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields.

......

My reasoning causes me to conclude.....

I can harmonize evolution with LDS doctrine and I even base my harmonization on a key LDS scripture.

If not, how could McConkie be so dense on this issue/ Didn't he study the scriptures enough?

A better and more pertinent question would be is there any revelation on the subject? The answer is no. Different generations tend to fill in the nonrevealed gaps differently.

[_truth dancer]

In addition to the first presidency statement and teachings from prophets and leaders the scriptures are pretty clear.

Unless one wants to dismiss scripture as myth, and not official doctrine, seems to me there are conflicts.

~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

I think Mormons can believe God used evolution to create all life except for man. I think given the doctrine of the fall, the need for a redeemer and atonement evolution is problematic for the creation of man. But I think it is not only a problem for Mormon doctrine on these things but for all of Christianity.

[_Jason Bourne]

The answer is: YES. They can believe that human life evolved from lower life forms in the same way that they can believe that gays should be able to marry, that it's okay to drink beer every once in a while, and that it's okay to look at pornography. Or, like Mormon "intellectuals", that Joseph Smith's stories, while not technically true, are "true in a broader, metaphorical sense". Or, like Van Hale, that the Book of Mormon isn't an actual record of things which once happened.

Sure, but the real question is does one believe in anything contrary to LDS doctrine?

In the case of evolution, there is no conflict with LDS doctrine whatsoever.

That's one of the heresies. http://speeches.BYU.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6770

If not, how could McConkie be so dense on this issue/ Didn't he study the scriptures enough?

Here are McConkie's specific remarks:

Heresy two concerns itself with the relationship between organic evolution and revealed religion and asks the question whether they can be harmonized.

There are those who believe that the theory of organic evolution runs counter to the plain and explicit principles set forth in the holy scriptures as these have been interpreted and taught by Joseph Smith and his associates. There are others who think that evolution is the system used by the Lord to form plant and animal life and to place man on earth.

May I say that all truth is in agreement, that true religion and true science bear the same witness, and that in the true and full sense, true science is part of true religion. But may I also raise some questions of a serious nature. Is there any way to harmonize the false religions of the Dark Ages with the truths of science as they have now been discovered? Is there any way to harmonize the revealed religion that has come to us with the theoretical postulates of Darwinism and the diverse speculations descending therefrom?

Should we accept the famous document of the First Presidency issued in the days of President Joseph F. Smith and entitled "The Origin of Man" as meaning exactly what it says? Is it the doctrine of the gospel that Adam stood next to Christ in power and might and intelligence before the foundations of the world were laid; that Adam was placed on this earth as an immortal being; that there was no death in the world for him or for any form of life until after the Fall; that the fall of Adam brought temporal and spiritual death into the world; that this temporal death passed upon all forms of life, upon man and animal and fish and fowl and plant life; that Christ came to ransom man and all forms of life from the effects of the temporal death brought into the world through the Fall, and in the case of man from a spiritual death also; and that this ransom includes a resurrection for man and for all forms of life? Can you harmonize these things with the evolutionary postulate that death has always existed and that the various forms of life have evolved from preceding forms over astronomically long periods of time?

Can you harmonize the theories of men with the inspired words that say:

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.

And they [meaning Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. [2 Nephi 2:22­26]

These are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself what he will believe. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields.

I believe that the atonement of Christ is the great and eternal foundation upon which revealed religion rests. I believe that no man can be saved unless he believes that our Lord's atoning sacrifice brings immortality to all and eternal life to those who believe and obey, and no man can believe in the atonement unless he accepts both the divine sonship of Christ and the fall of Adam.

My reasoning causes me to conclude that if death has always prevailed in the world, then there was no fall of Adam that brought death to all forms of life; that if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; that if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, and no eternal life; and that if there was no atonement, there is nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. I believe that the Fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself, and that the Atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself.

[_truth dancer]

I believe that the atonement of Christ is the great and eternal foundation upon which revealed religion rests. I believe that no man can be saved unless he believes that our Lord's atoning sacrifice brings immortality to all and eternal life to those who believe and obey, and no man can believe in the atonement unless he accepts both the divine sonship of Christ and the fall of Adam.

My reasoning causes me to conclude that if death has always prevailed in the world, then there was no fall of Adam that brought death to all forms of life; that if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; that if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, and no eternal life; and that if there was no atonement, there is nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. I believe that the Fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself, and that the Atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself.

Just a little FYI... A few days ago I read in Lengthen Your Stride, a biolgraphy of SWK, that BRM's actual speech said... "WE" instead of "I" and "my" (see bold above). Kimball made him make the changes in the printed version. :-)

Regardless, BRM most certainly prayed for inspiration, and believed he was receiving help from the HG as he taught these "truths".

I think most faithful members believe the prophets and apostles when they are speaking in an official capactiy under the influence of the HG. I know several who hold the opinion that if one believes in evolution they do not have a true testimony of the LDS church and the plan of salvation.

~dancer~