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

[_Tarski]

February 3, 1959
David O. McKay, President


...The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution.

But it appears that it already had. He could have just been unaware.

[_moksha]

But it appears that it already had. He could have just been unaware.

I think it means he was decertifying previous speculation.

[_Tal Bachman]

MOKSHA

The official FP statement I posted on here, according to the First Presidency who wrote it, was NOT "previous speculation". READ THE STATEMENT. It claims to present "ETERNAL TRUTH", as "REVEALED BY GOD" on the subject of "man's origin" - a topic which THEY claim is connected to the "fundamental principles of salvation". That's what the First Presidency, speaking as the First Presidency in an official First Presidency statements, states.

AND, the whole official statement was republished in the LDS church's official magazine as recently as 2002!

Besides Moksha - consider...you have absolutely NO grounds for viewing McKay's comment as even coming close in authoritativeness to a prior official First Presidency statement, do you?

No...you don't.

For example, McKay, as a president and presidency counselor, also said things about blacks that read like they're out of a KKK pamphlet. Yet you would dismiss those on grounds that he was "only speaking as a man" (even though he was writing letters in his official capacity, etc.). But those comments didn't form part of an official First Presidency statement, so you would dismiss them.

But now you change this line of reasoning. WHY? Of course we all know why: not even YOU can now believe the content of this official First Presidency statement, no matter how explicitly it asserts that it is presenting "eternal truth" "revealed by God" "intimately connected to the fundamental principles of salvation". Its authoritativeness doesn't matter, because you just can't believe it, can you? No - it has now, for better or for worse, become impossible to believe - even for most Mormons. Even for you.

So what do you do? You start spontaneously playing the same mindgames we all used to play on ourselves. You make that official FP statement "not matter". You make it all sort of fuzzy in your mind...you latch on to and magnify some offhand subsequent comment, which not even you could really argue comes close in authoritativeness than the authoritative statement you so desperately wish to ignore or dismiss, and somehow...

It is a mindgame, Moksha - to keep you believing - to protect you from the sting of realizing that there is something profoundly wrong, fatally erroneous, with this thing you've based your life on. Don't you see? If you can't....maybe that means you shouldn't. It's pretty painful.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't think we Mormons are so boxed into a corner regarding human evolution, that there is no way out. It is conceivable at some future date when the evidence regarding human evolution is so overwhelmingly undeniable, that an ongoing revelation will confirm it. Till then, perhaps God wishes his Apostles to take the Missouri "show me" approach.

I believe that most evolutionary biologists already think that the "evidence regarding human evolution is so overwhelmingly undeniable." That's likely because they truly understand the theory of evolution, and are unfettered by silly myths which help motivate the suppression and limiting of the number of details about the theory.

It cannot be stressed enough how a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution is one of the leading causes of people not believing it (I’ve personally experienced people’s ignorance during conversations on this subject too many times to count), and that misunderstanding is perpetuated by people who'd rather you didn't believe it.

One of the biggest ones is the idea, “it’s only a theory” as though a scientific theory is relegated to the status of hypothesis by the non-scientific world. For something to be a scientific theory, it has to have an incredible amount of backing evidence, and has to make numerous successful predictions, which evolution has/does. Another big misconception is the idea that it’s all random. There’s nothing random whatsoever about natural selection. Try telling that to a creationist though.

Evolutionary theory is a shining example of a subject which is misunderstood due to religion-inspired willful ignorance.

[_moksha]

MOKSHA

The official FP statement I posted on here, according to the First Presidency who wrote it, was NOT "previous speculation". READ THE STATEMENT. It claims to present "ETERNAL TRUTH", as "REVEALED BY GOD" on the subject of "man's origin" - a topic which THEY claim is connected to the "fundamental principles of salvation". That's what the First Presidency, speaking as the First Presidency in an official First Presidency statements, states.

If you think it to be an eternal truth in order to argue against it, then fine. Otherwise I will regard any religious pronouncements against evolution to be speculative. As President McKay said, the Church has no official position. He knew that science marches on and that the Church should not try to chain it in place.

[_bcspace]

Your "out" appears to be that LDS doctrine allows that human beings could have evolved from lower orders, but that they weren't "officially" "human beings" until a man named Adam appeared, who was the first human being that had one of God's spirits inside of him. Is that correct?

Correct.

If so, there are a number of things to be said about this. One is this: Would you be entertaining this "out" if this was 1833?

Probably not.

And if not...what should that suggest to you?

That people with less knowledge of science fill in the gaps differently.

I want to submit for your consideration that the creation story is now being "allegorized" or magically transformed into "metaphor" by you and other Mormons, for the same reason that the Book of Abraham translation, and the Book of Mormon itself, and the flood story, and the Tower of Babel story, and so many others are being so transformed: because scientific discovery has literally made these stories unbelievable to the modern mind. As you yourself have made so clear, the creation story is unbelievable even to you, for example.

I believe all those you listed are literally historical. Some parts perhaps might be metaphorical. I believe none are allegorical.

And therefore, it doesn't matter what an official First Presidency statement said about official LDS doctrine one hundred years ago, does it? It just doesn't matter - because you can't believe it.

Doctrine changes and may do so as long as continuing revelation is part of it.. What matters is what is doctrine today. However, not even the FP statements given on the issue are in conflict with evolution.

The evidence is too overwhelming that it's not true.

What is not true?

You simply must - like I used to, and presumably all of us - spontaneously search for any sort of way to make it alright...

I don't have to do anything but fill in the gaps where there is no doctrine.

and we end up building bizarre edifices in our heads, projecting all sorts of things, doing ad hoc reconfigurations, just to keep believing that in some way which we can't even articulate anymore, a story is true, while also being false. We all did it.

There is nothing theistically bizzare about my theory.

Your idea that Adam's body was the result of evolution, and just counted as "the first human being" by virtue of being the first one with a spirit,

No. A spirit child of God.

is flatly contradicted by every single LDS scripture on the topic, as well as an official First Presidency statement.

You can't show a single one.

Read the piece in its entirety, BCSpace,

The 1909? Done! (for the umpteenth time).

and tell us if there is really no conflict between your idea, and what a man who "cannot lead us astray" states when speaking as the prophet.

There is really no conflict between my idea, and what a man who "cannot lead us astray" states when speaking as the prophet.

Here are a few things you will notice about that official FP statement:

It claims that the question of the origin of man is "closely connected with the fundamental principles of salvation".

Sure.

It claims to present information revealed by God: "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."

Yes.

It claims to present "eternal truth".

Indeed.

It states: "These two points being established, namely, the creation of man in the image of God, and the twofold character of the Creation, let us now inquire: What was the form of man, in the spirit and in the body, as originally created? In a general way the answer is given in the words chosen as the text of this treatise. “God created man in his own image.” It is more explicitly rendered in the Book of Mormon thus: “All men were created in the beginning after mine own image” (Ether 3:15). … If, therefore, we can ascertain the form of the “Father of spirits,” “The God of the spirits of all flesh,” we shall be able to discover the form of the original man.

As though in reference to your preferred "out", it states: “'God created man in His own image.' This is just as true of the spirit as it is of the body".

Yes. How does this conflict with my theory? The physical body is created in the image of God by evolution and the spirit body is a literal spirit child of God. And God is in the form of a man, even the original man.

Again, it states: "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"

No statement as to whether or not these theories are wrong. I do indeed believe that Adam was "the first man of all men". Notice also from the same paragraph......

"and 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."

I believe it and I ask you, how does this conflict with my theory?

In your telling, BCSpace, Adam was "the original human being". Therefore, this explicitly, directly contradicts your "out".

How so?

Do you care?

Of course.

"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.

Even if your "out" wasn't contradicted by a FP statement and all LDS scriptures (which of course were written long before it became impossible to believe the stories they contained), your position still logically requires you to believe that every single human being on this planet - black, white, Asian, everyone - descended from one guy who lived in Missouri a mere 5700 years ago (according to every single authoritative LDS source there is).

No it doesn't. While it is true that the Garden of Eden being in Missouri is doctrine, the scriptural basis given for it is barely even circumstantial. CFR on doctrine that requires the Fall to be on a certain date.

Are you still sticking with that one, or have you come up with an "out" for that claim as well?

There is evidence of genetic change regarding skin color in the scriptures (Moses 7:8). I also seem to recall a PBS special on early humanity teaching that skin color becomes lighter or darker over some generations based on sunlight exposure and this becomes a genetic change. My apologies as it is just anecdotal on my part.

Sadly, official doctrinal pronouncements by the First Presidency, and the entire canon of LDS scriptures, aren't the only sources weighing against your preferred outs and a desire to reconcile the theory of evolution with (increasingly unbelievable, even to believers) LDS doctrine. There is also the official LDS Bible Dictionary on the matter of the Fall. It reads:

The Bible dictionary proclaims itself to not be doctrinal. See the intro.

"Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations.[/b] With the eating of the “forbidden fruit,” Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life.

"Adam became the 'first flesh' upon the earth (Moses 3: 7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal.

Despite the fact that the BD is not doctrinal, what is the problem here? There was a creative state and a created state in whcih God placed Adam into the garden. Since that was a state of no death, how is it unreasonable to think that the properties of Adam's physiology changed?

(This also explicitly contradicts your out, BC. Do you care?)

Sure. But I'm certainly not worried.

"Adam’s fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind (Hel. 14: 16-17).

As per my theory, yes.

"Latter-day revelation supports the biblical account of the fall, showing that it was a historical event that literally occurred in the history of man.

I believe it.

Just in case you'll be reaching for the "that ain't official doctrine" out on this one, note that the LDS church has had this in its official, canonized version of the scriptures for almost THREE DECADES. Note also that every single assertion is supported by references to canonized LDS scripture. Do you care?

Sadly for you, you missed the Church's own statement of nondoctrinality.

Note also - and this is a killer - that LDS doctrine is committed to the claim that prior to the fall of Adam, there was no death. You may invent some "earlier" period which somehow exists "prior to the fall of Adam", but which doesn't COUNT as being "prior to the fall of Adam", in which death is just fine...but every authoritative LDS statement on this contradicts you. Do you care?

There is no death prior to the fall of Adam in my theory. However, the context of this state is in the created world and doesn't include the creative state.

By the way, this matters because "evolution without death" is an oxymoron.

I agree. I hold to the standard scientific view of evolution.

That is, if you subscribe to evolutionary theory, then you MUST believe in death prior to 5700 years ago.

I do indeed. So? CFR again on the date requirement though.

But this is just what official LDS scriptures, reference aids, and First Presidency statements, say did not occur.

Where?

Honestly - do you care?

About your salvation? Yes I do.

[_bcspace]

...The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution.

But it appears that it already had. He could have just been unaware.

There really are none. Those that were released in response to the debate simply restated LDS doctrine which does not conflict with evolution anyway.

[_bcspace]

I'm going to have to leave off for now. I'm going to a soccer camp. I'll rejoin you as soon as I can.

Do you coach? That's so cool! Have fun! :)

I Luv you soccer coach BCspace!

Bond...Soccer Fanatic Bond

I coach a u13 girls team and assist on a u14 boys team. My son plays on the high school team.

I was stupid and quite soccer to play HS football. It just so happened that the HS soccer team (most players whom I had played with for years prior to HS) went and played a tournament in Moscow during the height of the Cold War (early 80's) and I missed it!

[_Sethbag]

Behold the Gospel of BCSpace. BCSpace, you, like my dad, have invented your very own gospel. How does it feel to be the only one in the world to really, really, truly know the real, actual truth? How does it feel to know what really happened in Earth's past in ways that even the Lord's Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, and all of the scientists in the world, don't know or understand?

Man, that must really be awesome to be you. Out of 7 billion people on planet Earth, you alone have succeeded in learning the truth God never saw fit to reveal to the 16 or so Prophets there have been in the LDS Church since 1830. What a feat.

ps: it really, really ought to raise red flags in your mind that you're seemingly the only one who has figured out how all this really happened. Seriously. What are the odds? What are the odds that you would figure out things even the Prophets don't know?

[_bcspace]

Behold the Gospel of BCSpace.

So the antimormons have taken to quoting lay members' opinions (expressly stated as such) as LDS doctrine eh?

BCSpace, you, like my dad, have invented your very own gospel.

How so? I do not teach my opinion for doctrine.

How does it feel to be the only one in the world to really, really, truly know the real, actual truth?

The only one?

How does it feel to know what really happened in Earth's past in ways that even the Lord's Prophets, Seers, and Revelators,...don't know or understand?

The Lord's Prophets Seers and Revelators have no doctrine that I am in conflict with. So far, none of you has been able to find any.

and all of the scientists in the world, don't know or understand?

LDS doctrine and science do not conflict.

ps: it really, really ought to raise red flags in your mind that you're seemingly the only one who has figured out how all this really happened. Seriously. What are the odds? What are the odds that you would figure out things even the Prophets don't know?

Pretty good odds it seems as I have met many LDS, locally and on boards such as MADB who accept evolution as not being in conflict with LDS doctrine. In fact, many of us recent spoke up in GD class a few Sundays ago when 2 Nephi 2 was the topic. All went well.