Anddenex

Yes, and they are a lot more different than that, enough for us to use the term "eternal progression" and not "eternal evolution" -- imagine spirit children mutating (or otherwise changing), entering mortality as such and then resurrecting, the gods evolving into different beings from their ancestor gods! There is a very fundamental difference between continuation of the seed ("species") and "origin of the species"!

This isn't necessarily true, that "anything outside the realm of official church doctrine is speculation." Otherwise we would have to accept that "all" witness from the Holy Ghost is speculation. When a person learns truth, even not yet revealed doctrine, it isn't speculation; however, in saying this, if a person has received truth that has not yet been revealed by the Holy Ghost it is wise to keep it to him/herself until a prophet reveals it. As it isn't our place to reveal new truth, and we technically step the bounds of our stewardship when we reveal truth not yet revealed (except in matters of prophecy which the Spirit may direct the heart and mind to bear witness of).
Here is a perfect example from the life of Lorenzo Snow, "
Lorenzo Snow was not speculating. He knew exactly what the Spirit taught him, and he guarded it reverently and with respect. Should we teach anything outside of revealed doctrine, we must remember that people can say that we are speculating as that is their right (and is often wise), as they have not yet received witness and it is not coming from the keys of those who are able to reveal knew doctrine to the Church as a whole.

So, in my ward, the Teachers Quorum is assigned the task of coming up with the Cleaning Schedule.  My son was the only Teacher in our ward for almost a year.  So he had the sole responsibility of the Cleaning Schedule.  I know FOR A FACT how hard it is to come up with a Cleaning Schedule.  People decline, people don't respond, people commit but not show up... it was starting to look like we have all these awesome people in the ward yet we can only count on the same 10 people to do everything outside of regular church callings - calling on volunteers to to help with a move, set up and clean up for a ward activity, make meals for a sick member, and yes, clean the ward building too.  So, for that almost-a-year period, we ended up cleaning the ward building at least once a month because my son just couldn't find anybody else.  Sad, huh?

The church doesn't clean itself, regardless of the color of its skin.
 

All depends on when you joined the Church I suppose. This latest wave of helping maintain the Meetinghouses ("maid" jobs) is relatively new, a couple years old.
Rewind a couple years earlier and we may have been asked to actually 'build' the meetinghouse let alone simply clean it.
"Service and sacrifice help us gain a testimony of holy things."

The age and arthritis might be a good reason not to assist with cleaning the chapel but I don't think they would be a good reason to leave the church.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/77.2?lang=eng#p1
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/3.5?lang=eng#p4
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/29.31-32?lang=eng#p30
The notion of "life" without spirit is, in my opinion, an impossibility.  Life is synonymous with "spirit".  Something which lacks spirit is not alive, animated, capable of moving and thinking and acting.  It appears you believe things can be created and even animated physically without having spirit.  I believe scripture counters this idea.
(posted without yet reading beyond the post I quoted - apparently there are more than 20 posts to go still)

Sometimes I think the nature of this discussion is not reduced to lowest terms so that we consider upon what really is the key elements of the debate.  One way of stating it is that we have two perspectives equally unprovable from an intellectual perspective. Evolution is first and foremost a theory. It postulates certain conditions that have yet to fulfill the expectations of scientific verity. Thus from this perspective when one chooses between two unprovable positions one is really revealing their own state more than anything else.  One perspective tolerates faith as a defining priority while the other perspective preferences proofs.  From the theological expectations of "without faith it is impossible to please God" the proof perspective desired by those of the scientific model is a strong indictment against their capacity to find favor with the Lord while the faith priority compromises in many instances those of the community of faith 's ability to find the favor of man.
The LDS theological perspective will tolerate some overlay's of the scientific model in terms of time frames but it will not and cannot yield on certain other conditions.  One is that which you mention of Adam And Eve being first flesh and first death and not evolutionary products of progressive development.  If one is thoughtful, the reasons for theologies intolerance of certain conditions are profound and compelling.  The first reference provides for consideration of perhaps the most significant and severe implications of the evolutionary model. Please consider these observations by Elder Boyd K. Packer:
For those who have not internalized the profound impact of the atonement, Elder Packers statement will not create the sense of alarm that would cause them to evaluate with great care their loyalties to a priority of evolutionary process which they might claim as sources of Adam and Eve's origins.  However, those of a theological, spiritual priority will recognize that if this creation did not start as an eternal sphere of existence where two eternal beings fell to a self-unredeemable position of subjection to Satan then there could be no necessity of the Son of God redeeming mankind through the blessings of an atonement.  From the theological perspective these are self-existent necessities that cannot brook a pre-Adamite state where death has always existed.  Without an actual fall there is no need for an actual redemption.   
In this next observation by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, one must appreciate his unyielding commitment to a faith based paradigm.  However, he also offers up  some interesting considerations for further pondering.
The idea that one of the flawed aspects of the theories of evolution is found in the considerations of "time" is extremely sensible based on what we can see in the theological model.  I have no difficulty with the evidences and proofs of the scientific model - something obviously produced the visible / tangible evidences that we do have for consideration. However, it seems logical that a condition defined as more or less impossible from the scientific model of a fall in time and space of the earth, or in other words the processes of transitioning from an eternal sphere to that of a mortal sphere might have conditions that would be completely misinterpreted from a model that sees no potential for such alterations in the laws of physics that differentiate the two conditions. Time is the question, and time is the answer.  While for the majority of this era of scientific evaluation the laws of physics have been accepted as static and without differentiation there is nonetheless a question or two popping up in the minds of the scientific community.  Please consider:
While these considerations are noted they are not main stream accepted for the implications that are implied.  Change the rates of decay and every time based evaluation we have ever made becomes suspect.  These kinds of concerns, I believe is what Elder McConkie is inferring as situations that will completely alter our perceptions of the passage of time - and interestingly it is not outside of the possibilities of science to acknowledge such based on the above observations.  However recent analysis provided by a team of astrophysicists points to other very interesting possibility.  Please consider:
 
 
For those who believe in Fall theology, scientific observations such as this above, only seem obvious in consideration conditions which must have transitioned this world from an eternal to a mortal state. Studying the life spans of the descendants of Adam and Eve clearly speaks to conditions of change which resulted in the reduction of lifespans to current levels.  These changes could easily implicate our theories of unchanging laws of physics which form the basis of our models of time.  And while theology can never bow to the expectations of an evolutionary model, I suspect as does Elder McConkie that the day will come when the better understandings of the time model will illustrate the primary areas in which we err in our current scientific preferences. 
 
 
 

Isn't this statement somewhat dependent upon how narrowly or broadly one defines "man" or "men" and "race"?
For example, if one defines "man" as those born under the Adamic covenant (i.e. the offspring of Adam and Eve), thereby making the  children or descendants of Adam and Eve the "race" in question, then this leaves the door open to compatible beliefs in evolution and renders the 1909 declaration less a means of abominable dogama or creedalism. Right?
Also, if one defines "man" as those possessed of a higher state of consciousness or they are endowed with the Light of Christ (moral conscience), then that opens the door as well.
Granted, these terms can rightly be defined more broadly, but then one runs into the dilemma of deciding  where to draw the line DNA-wise. Is the line drawn scientifically at the species level, or subspecies, genus or subgenus, tribe or subtribe, or family? Is a chimp a man given that it shares 96% of human DNA? 
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
 

At the risk of my sanity, salvation, and exaltation, I will dip my toe into this.
Part of me agrees with Rob and Anddenex. The simplest reading of J. F. Smith's statement is that he (on behalf of the Church) does not believe that man evolved from apes. It is not difficult to find others after him (his son J. Fielding Smith may be the most prominent) who rejected the 20th century scientific cosmology and evolution of life theories. It would not surprise me to find some among our current leadership who also reject these beliefs (Elder Nelson has said a few things that suggest that he is not fond of modern cosmology and evolution of life theories). I am not sure that this is The Only True (TM) way to read these statements, but it seems the simplest.
IMO, the deeper question that this exposes is around prophecy, discernment, and how do we discern The Truth (TM) from scripture and prophetic statements. Does scripture contain factually incorrect information and history? Does scripture contain elements of the mortal opinions of its authors? Are modern Church statements without error or without the influence of the opinions of their authors? How does one use scripture and Church pronouncements in discerning The Truth (TM)?
Has anyone noticed that it seems like a key characteristic of scripture is that there is often just enough ambiguity in it to allow humans to endlessly debate its meanings? It seems interesting to me that there is just enough ambiguity in J. F. Smith's statement to allow us to endlessly debate exactly what the Church really believes and what Church members should believe about the origins of man. Is this kind of ambiguity a feature or a bug of the process of revelation?
I don't believe that this more literal reading of the 1909 statement is truth, even if the Church may believe it (and is only tolerating those of use with dissenting opinions for now). For myself, I am going to believe that this statement is strictly about the "spiritual" (whatever that might be) origins of man and not the physical. I don't find anything in my reaction to this statement that compels me to believe that it should be taken as literally as others have taken it.

I don't know why some of you have a problem understanding these guys.  They were pretty clear.  Only a dunce couldn't understand what they said.  I don't think people here are dunces, but I think some may be mean.  It seems clear to me that the Mormons officially do not believe Adam was a product of evolution from Apes.
That isn't bad to me.  He posted the words that they said, and they said that Adam was not from evolution.  I think you know this, so why are you picking at this?
I think it is also clear that a lot of Mormons also believe in evolution.  I think many Mormons believe Adam was a product of evolution.  I think the Mormon prophet does not.
I think we can both see everyone's point and agree to get along instead of fighting about this.
I do not know.  I think that some Mormons take Luke 3 literally.  That means many things.  It does not mean Adam is begotten, but it says he was a son.
I think some Mormons do not take it literally.  They are like other Christians like that. 
Biology teaches me about evolution in school.  Our teacher also believes in Genesis.  I'm not sure he was supposed to tell us that.  He doesn't see a problem.  I think some Mormons are like him.  I think other Mormons are not like him.  I think some Mormons are like creationists.  I don't know what I think yet.  I don't think it's very important.
I think Jesus is more important.  I think Jesus is what we should think about and focus on.  His teachings are what are important in our lives.  We should follow his example. 

Yep. I'm sure all of us can agree with that.

Just a side note, that 1909 statement was reiterated in 2011 with the published book, "Teachings of the President of the Church: Joseph F. Smith," which would have been accepted by the apostles and prophets as this was Church curriculum. This should give us a longer and more in-depth look as to how many times this proclamation from 1909 has been reiterated by the Church.
This is my mind and heart, whatever is truth is truth. At this moment, it seems pretty clear the stance of the Church regarding human evolution; however, I don't have any problem with people believing as they want to believe. Here is one quote from this same teaching of the prophets, "True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ or embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."
And here is one of the questions proposed, "How does revealed truth about the origin of mankind differ from the theories of men on this subject?"
Yes, on this forum there are many great minds, very intelligent people who are read and provide great insight to many things with multiple thoughts. It is what attracted me here not so long ago.
And if an official statement came out, although I doubt it, that human evolution is true -- it wouldn't shake my testimony, and I would be similar to other members who then say, "Well, I was wrong." And move along.
 
 

One item I find interesting is how a person at one point will completely say, "Follow the prophets," and then disregard their words at another point (especially when lds.org points out this as official doctrine of the Church). As pertaining to Adam evolving from a "lower" order of species has been declared false in 1909 and was reiterated in 2002, as has been mentioned:
"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."  (emphasis added) As pertaining to our parentage, we did not evolve from a lower order of species -- this is clear -- and has been reiterated by the Church. The argument ends there for me.
As pertaining to what educated men/women seek to discover, it is the arm of flesh. I will always fall back to, "The theories of science and the theories of religion will often be at odds. The truth of science and the truth of religion will be one." I would believe 100%, the prophetic revelation over the arm of flesh any day. The boy Joseph new more about the nature of this world, its creation, then any other scholar during his time.
As pertaining to fossils, age of earth, etc... man's wisdom is so very limited to what now exists, and to what can be observed. The Book of Mormon is true. The experiences and stories in the Book of Mormon are true. Would you be able to name, from the the group of scientist/archeologists you study, who would claim by scientific evidence that it is true? Horses? I remember reading one member of the Church who said something to this nature, "When ever researches find horse remnants they toss it aside because they already know it wasn't during the time of the Book of Mormon."
In light of this, I find this statement, "I tend to trust the widely accepted consensuses reached by a large group of intelligent people who have devoted their lives to scientific studies in their specific fields," in error; although, I respect your desire to believe as you may. As to the theory of evolution, I can totally see the evolution within kinds (e.g. horses evolved from one horse earlier on -- still a horse (kind)). The concept within the theory of evolution that changes "kind," at this moment I don't see any reason to believe it, nor have I read any convincing argument to do so. I look at it very similar to global warming research. These scientists, "a large group of intelligent people," are giving all kinds of evidence that proves global warming is a crisis!
One day all will be known. The science will be known. Until then, I trust more the prophetic rather than the arm of flesh. As pertaining to human fossils, we have members who once stated something to the nature of "replenish" being the earth was once populated and Adam and Eve replenish, re-populated the earth. We have others providing a different definition to replenish. I am good to wait for revealed truth, and fine to say "I don't know" (as others) with things that have not yet been revealed.

One item I find interesting is how a person at one point will completely say, "Follow the prophets," and then disregard their words at another point (especially when lds.org points out this as official doctrine of the Church). As pertaining to Adam evolving from a "lower" order of species has been declared false in 1909 and was reiterated in 2002, as has been mentioned:
"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."  (emphasis added) As pertaining to our parentage, we did not evolve from a lower order of species -- this is clear -- and has been reiterated by the Church. The argument ends there for me.
As pertaining to what educated men/women seek to discover, it is the arm of flesh. I will always fall back to, "The theories of science and the theories of religion will often be at odds. The truth of science and the truth of religion will be one." I would believe 100%, the prophetic revelation over the arm of flesh any day. The boy Joseph new more about the nature of this world, its creation, then any other scholar during his time.
As pertaining to fossils, age of earth, etc... man's wisdom is so very limited to what now exists, and to what can be observed. The Book of Mormon is true. The experiences and stories in the Book of Mormon are true. Would you be able to name, from the the group of scientist/archeologists you study, who would claim by scientific evidence that it is true? Horses? I remember reading one member of the Church who said something to this nature, "When ever researches find horse remnants they toss it aside because they already know it wasn't during the time of the Book of Mormon."
In light of this, I find this statement, "I tend to trust the widely accepted consensuses reached by a large group of intelligent people who have devoted their lives to scientific studies in their specific fields," in error; although, I respect your desire to believe as you may. As to the theory of evolution, I can totally see the evolution within kinds (e.g. horses evolved from one horse earlier on -- still a horse (kind)). The concept within the theory of evolution that changes "kind," at this moment I don't see any reason to believe it, nor have I read any convincing argument to do so. I look at it very similar to global warming research. These scientists, "a large group of intelligent people," are giving all kinds of evidence that proves global warming is a crisis!
One day all will be known. The science will be known. Until then, I trust more the prophetic rather than the arm of flesh. As pertaining to human fossils, we have members who once stated something to the nature of "replenish" being the earth was once populated and Adam and Eve replenish, re-populated the earth. We have others providing a different definition to replenish. I am good to wait for revealed truth, and fine to say "I don't know" (as others) with things that have not yet been revealed.

Thank you. I am enjoying what I am reading thus far.

I think Gordon B. Hinckley sums up my understanding of church doctrine  clearly and succinctly in this quote:
"What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can speculate on the rest."
Thanks for civilly agreeing to disagree with me haha. Either of us could easily be wrong, and that's totally ok. 
(Side note, "The Earth and Man" by James E. Talmage is a more thorough read containing a positive view of evolution held by a church leader if you're interested)

Just a side note, that 1909 statement was reiterated in 2011 with the published book, "Teachings of the President of the Church: Joseph F. Smith," which would have been accepted by the apostles and prophets as this was Church curriculum. This should give us a longer and more in-depth look as to how many times this proclamation from 1909 has been reiterated by the Church.
This is my mind and heart, whatever is truth is truth. At this moment, it seems pretty clear the stance of the Church regarding human evolution; however, I don't have any problem with people believing as they want to believe. Here is one quote from this same teaching of the prophets, "True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ or embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."
And here is one of the questions proposed, "How does revealed truth about the origin of mankind differ from the theories of men on this subject?"
Yes, on this forum there are many great minds, very intelligent people who are read and provide great insight to many things with multiple thoughts. It is what attracted me here not so long ago.
And if an official statement came out, although I doubt it, that human evolution is true -- it wouldn't shake my testimony, and I would be similar to other members who then say, "Well, I was wrong." And move along.
 
 

I think you read a little too far into my statement. I said I "tend" to trust scientists, and directly afterwords admitted that they could easily be wrong. I trust far more in God than in the arm of flesh. I also trust far more in God than in his fallible prophets. Don't take that the wrong way, I love trust and support the prophets, and believe they are God's true prophets on the earth, but they are imperfect mortals. They make mistakes. I do not have blind faith in any imperfect mortal, to do so would be to trust in the arm of flesh. God doesn't want us to have blind faith in his prophets, he wants us to listen to the Spirit and find out for ourselves the truthfulness of their words. That being said, I fully support the official doctrine of the church on this subject, and every other subject for that matter. We appear to have a different understanding of what that doctrine is however, at least regarding this subject, which is totally fine, especially considering how unimportant it is to our salvation. 
Really, God hasn't revealed much on this subject. We don't know the details of the creation, only the reality of it. We have the creation story, but we don't know how much of it is figurative, and how much is literal, save a few parts of it that the church has declared as literal or figurative. For example church leaders have said that Eve being created from Adam's rib is meant to be understood figuratively. We also have the 1909 statement in which they say Adam was the first of all men and the primal parent of our race, a literal understanding of the text. I don't disagree with this. It is my opinion that human evolution is compatible with this truth, although for now we don't know exactly how. Certain church leaders also hold, and have held this opinion. Remember that that's all it is though, an opinion. 
The entire purpose of this thread was to seek others views about how evolution could be compatible with a literal historical Adam and Eve. It's all pure speculation and assumption. None of it is essential to salvation, and none of it is certain. I'm just interested in hearing others ideas on the subject, and they've been pretty interesting and satisfactory so far. 

Now, now. Don't play games. Nothing you quoted said, "That there idea is false." Quit pussyfooting around. Just point out where it says what you claim.

One item I find interesting is how a person at one point will completely say, "Follow the prophets," and then disregard their words at another point (especially when lds.org points out this as official doctrine of the Church). As pertaining to Adam evolving from a "lower" order of species has been declared false in 1909 and was reiterated in 2002, as has been mentioned:
"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."  (emphasis added) As pertaining to our parentage, we did not evolve from a lower order of species -- this is clear -- and has been reiterated by the Church. The argument ends there for me.
As pertaining to what educated men/women seek to discover, it is the arm of flesh. I will always fall back to, "The theories of science and the theories of religion will often be at odds. The truth of science and the truth of religion will be one." I would believe 100%, the prophetic revelation over the arm of flesh any day. The boy Joseph new more about the nature of this world, its creation, then any other scholar during his time.
As pertaining to fossils, age of earth, etc... man's wisdom is so very limited to what now exists, and to what can be observed. The Book of Mormon is true. The experiences and stories in the Book of Mormon are true. Would you be able to name, from the the group of scientist/archeologists you study, who would claim by scientific evidence that it is true? Horses? I remember reading one member of the Church who said something to this nature, "When ever researches find horse remnants they toss it aside because they already know it wasn't during the time of the Book of Mormon."
In light of this, I find this statement, "I tend to trust the widely accepted consensuses reached by a large group of intelligent people who have devoted their lives to scientific studies in their specific fields," in error; although, I respect your desire to believe as you may. As to the theory of evolution, I can totally see the evolution within kinds (e.g. horses evolved from one horse earlier on -- still a horse (kind)). The concept within the theory of evolution that changes "kind," at this moment I don't see any reason to believe it, nor have I read any convincing argument to do so. I look at it very similar to global warming research. These scientists, "a large group of intelligent people," are giving all kinds of evidence that proves global warming is a crisis!
One day all will be known. The science will be known. Until then, I trust more the prophetic rather than the arm of flesh. As pertaining to human fossils, we have members who once stated something to the nature of "replenish" being the earth was once populated and Adam and Eve replenish, re-populated the earth. We have others providing a different definition to replenish. I am good to wait for revealed truth, and fine to say "I don't know" (as others) with things that have not yet been revealed.

"In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters. A reprinting of this important First Presidency statement will be helpful as members of the Church study the Old Testament this year."
"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 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity."

Contrary to some beliefs the church actually does have an official position in regards to Adam and Eve and the first humans on earth. The church has made it clear that its official teaching regarding Adam and Eve were not the result of a lower order of animal evolution. Neither was there death on the earth before the fall. Im not sure why LDS scholars such as those professors at BYU cont8nue to not acknowledge this fact.

fwiw: https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-manual/introduction-to-the-gospel-according-to-st-luke/chapter-18-luke-15-17?lang=eng
 

I think @Carborendum asks a great question: What then of the motivation? It sounds like Jesus was advocating a fear-based teaching methodology. I thought that was bad (or perhaps the poorest motivation for gospel obedience)?