Evolution/Creationisim

[Hala401]

I'm wondering what the official LDS stance is on the issue. For me it is one of those things that I think we lack the evidence to prove evolution, but if it happened, someone managed it and I think that God is the one who would.

There is a lot of emotion around the issue, and I am not sure why people waste the energy.

Hala

[Backroads]

I don't think there is an official church stance.

If anyone can prove me wrong, I'll accept it.

[Maureen]

...For me it is one of those things that I think we lack the evidence to prove evolution, but if it happened, someone managed it and I think that God is the one who would....

All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors.

The big issues

M.

[Vort]

I'm wondering what the official LDS stance is on the issue. For me it is one of those things that I think we lack the evidence to prove evolution, but if it happened, someone managed it and I think that God is the one who would.

There is a lot of emotion around the issue, and I am not sure why people waste the energy.

Hala

Backroads is right; there is no official LDS Church stance. But I believe an intelligent and unbaised observer who examined the evidence would conclude that it is overwhelming in favor of the idea.

[Guest]

Backroads is right; there is no official LDS Church stance. But I believe an intelligent and unbaised observer who examined the evidence would conclude that it is overwhelming in favor of the idea.

There is an official LDS Church stance in my understanding.

From an Old Testament Student Manual:

In the world another theory of how things began is popularly held and widely taught. This theory, that of organic evolution, was generally developed from the writings of Charles Darwin. It puts forth different ideas concerning how life began and where man came from. In relation to this theory, the following statements should help you understand what the Church teaches about the Creation and the origin of man.

“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 declares 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; 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.” (First Presidency [Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund], in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 4:205.)

“Any theory that leaves out God as a personal, purposeful Being, and accepts chance as a first cause, cannot be accepted by Latter-day Saints. … That man and the whole of creation came by chance is unthinkable. It is equally unthinkable that if man came into being by the will and power of God, the divine creative power is limited to one process dimly sensed by mortal man.” (Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 1:155.)

[estradling75]

Wikipedia has a decent summary.

Mormon views on evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I like the section on the Roberts–Smith–Talmage dispute on the subject.

If some notable General Authorities can have very different opinions on the subject, it seems only fair to let more Lay member have their own too

[Vort]

There is an official LDS Church stance in my understanding.

From an Old Testament Student Manual:

What stance do you interpret this passage as attributing to the Church?

[pam]

Is something from a student manual considered a church stance?

[Hala401]

Is something from a student manual considered a church stance?

So judging by the tenor of this discussion so far, there is not a lot of dogma attached to the issue? How refreshing.

[MarginOfError]

The Church's official stance is that we should have evolved to accept evolution by now.

[Guest]

What stance do you interpret this passage as attributing to the Church?

The evolution of creation is not random chance. It is part of God's plan. Any theories on how we evolved, therefore, centers on one theological fact - that God created mortal life and that Adam was the first spiritual man.

That's the LDS stance as I understand it.

The beauty of LDS doctrine as it pertains to creation is the doctrine of pre-mortal existence. No other Christian Church hold this doctrine. Therefore, all other Christian Churches have the Spirit and the Body created at conception which makes it a more difficult concept to have man evolve from something without spirit. Pre-mortal existence distinguishes the spirit from the body so that it may have taken eons for the body to evolve into the human body before the Spirit joins it.

[Guest]

Is something from a student manual considered a church stance?

Let me understand this question... because I may have a different understanding of the word Stance.

My understanding of the word stance is that it is the position of the Church on the matter of Evolution.

Now, if we're using the same definition of stance, then your question is - whether what the Church teaches on our Sunday lessons is the Church stance... I would think it would be silly to think otherwise.

[Guest]

When we say "create" it is not "ex-Nihlo" create though, we define create as transform...

so - "God transforms mortal life" I think is a better statement (just because the word "create" has so much ex-Nihlo baggage associated with it, best to use another word)

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:29)

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

The D&C reference only addresses the Spirit - which is neither created nor made. It doesn't apply to the mortal Body. Note that the Spiritual Body is not the same as the Mortal Body.

Mortal Body begins at birth, ends in death. So, if you're saying that when I gave birth to my son I didn't create him, I only transformed him from my husband's existing sperm and my existing egg... then okay, I can understand that. But, normally, when we refer to mortality and anything within the mortal sphere, we call it God's Creation with us as co-creators.

But you're right, creation does have the associated ex-nihlo baggage but we can't just not use the word because it is prevalent in our teachings. We need to just make sure we understand what the word creation implies as an LDS person.

[prisonchaplain]

It's my perception that LDS are often creationists, but it is easy to embrace theistic evolution, precisely because creation is not "out of nothing." There are Protestants and Catholics who also believe God used evolution, but the more conservative we are, the less likely we are to accept evolution. Personally, I'd call myself an "Old Earth creationists." I think the world is more than 6000 years old, but not sure it is billions and billions...and I am sure that God made it happen by design.

[Hala401]

It's my perception that LDS are often creationists, but it is easy to embrace theistic evolution, precisely because creation is not "out of nothing." There are Protestants and Catholics who also believe God used evolution, but the more conservative we are, the less likely we are to accept evolution. Personally, I'd call myself an "Old Earth creationists." I think the world is more than 6000 years old, but not sure it is billions and billions...and I am sure that God made it happen by design.

I can be at peace with what you say. And there is so much that we do not know, but there is no harm in trying to figure it out. I just wish more scientists would observe the rules of science, "Hypothesis, Theory, Law", yaknow?

[Blackmarch]

I'm wondering what the official LDS stance is on the issue. For me it is one of those things that I think we lack the evidence to prove evolution, but if it happened, someone managed it and I think that God is the one who would.

There is a lot of emotion around the issue, and I am not sure why people waste the energy.

Hala

THe church does not have an official stance on it.

the big reason so many people get heated about it is that the application of evolution theory tends to upset various intrepretations of scripture.

For myself it really doesnt as God hasn't given us a detailed account of how he technically handled things in minute detail yet.

We can prove short term evolution, we can't prove long term evolution, but there is a lot suggesting that it happens.

[RMGuy]

I have faith in evolution.

-RM

[HiJolly]

THe church does not have an official stance on it.

You're right, but the CES (Church Educational System) does. And they're wrong. So sad to see!

the big reason so many people get heated about it is that the application of evolution theory tends to upset various intrepretations of scripture.

Right again!

For myself it really doesnt as God hasn't given us a detailed account of how he technically handled things in minute detail yet.

Right. The scriptures tell us WHY all things were created, but not so much HOW.

We can prove short term evolution, we can't prove long term evolution, but there is a lot suggesting that it happens.

I would say that the evidence for long term evo is compelling. Just add time to what we see in the lab everyday.

HiJolly

[Guest]

You're right, but the CES (Church Educational System) does. And they're wrong. So sad to see!

HiJolly

HiJolly, I thought what we are taught (I linked to the OT student manual in a different post) was pretty good. In what sense are they wrong? Can you explain, or point to a link somewhere so I can peruse it? Thanks.

[Hala401]

You're right, but the CES (Church Educational System) does. And they're wrong. So sad to see!

Right again!

Right. The scriptures tell us WHY all things were created, but not so much HOW.

I would say that the evidence for long term evo is compelling. Just add time to what we see in the lab everyday.

HiJolly

But what do we do if evolution has a major flaw? I just don't like it when a bunch of people stand around yelling at each other over things that we do not know everything about. And I just don't care if God, Jesus, or an Angel comes to visit in a planet sized space ship or just pops out of a dimensional rift. I don't care if he looks like a Corporate President, or a homeless man. Though, it might be fun if he came on a big white horse carrying a huge sword.

[prisonchaplain]

I do find it ironic that hardcore Darwinian Evolution is treated with almost as much religious reverence in most universities, that any professor or academic professional who expresses the slightest interest in or respect for Intelligent Design could be viewed as a willing martyr. Dissent from Darwin

[Hala401]

I do find it ironic that hardcore Darwinian Evolution is treated with almost as much religious reverence in most universities, that any professor or academic professional who expresses the slightest interest in or respect for Intelligent Design could be viewed as a willing martyr. Dissent from Darwin

Ironic? I think it is criminal! Many of us struggled greatly because we thought critically about things, I did. And then we get to college and the Profs want to stamp out the critical thinking and make us think just like them. It makes my head spin.

[HiJolly]

HiJolly, I thought what we are taught (I linked to the OT student manual in a different post) was pretty good. In what sense are they wrong? Can you explain, or point to a link somewhere so I can peruse it? Thanks.

I thought they were pretty good too, until a few things became apparent over a few decades of study: [1] Bishop Ussher was wrong in his chronology of the Bible. [2] The earth really *is* billions of years old. [3] people's physical bodies really were formed to their current state via natural selection. (ie, our bodies are indeed related to the bodies of chimps and apes) [4] A global flood did not literally occur [5] The scriptural story of the confusion of language (Babel) is metaphorical, not literal. I realize this requires some interesting re-evaluation of what we find in the book of Ether. [6] Over the millennia, many honest & sincere believers have taken the scriptures too literally, and/or out of context.

And more. My view is that these things are not a Satanic effort to cause us to lose faith, but a reflection of what has actually happened in the earlier millennia of the earth's history. Or, God is a major deceiver of men. I prefer the first explanation, which leaves all the deceiving of men at the hands of men, intended or unintended.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

But what do we do if evolution has a major flaw?

To my understanding, the flaw is related more to what we plug into the science out of our own world-view, and not the science itself. On both sides of the debate.

I just don't like it when a bunch of people stand around yelling at each other over things that we do not know everything about. And I just don't care if God, Jesus, or an Angel comes to visit in a planet sized space ship or just pops out of a dimensional rift. I don't care if he looks like a Corporate President, or a homeless man. Though, it might be fun if he came on a big white horse carrying a huge sword.

Well, you've got to admit we don't know *everything* about very many things, if anything, at this point. Especially when the have the influence of the Light of Christ *and* the Holy Ghost surrounding us, and no way to measure or examine it in a physical or scientific way.

HiJolly

[Hala401]

To my understanding, the flaw is related more to what we plug into the science out of our own world-view, and not the science itself. On both sides of the debate.

Well, you've got to admit we don't know *everything* about very many things, if anything, at this point. Especially when the have the influence of the Light of Christ *and* the Holy Ghost surrounding us, and no way to measure or examine it in a physical or scientific way.

HiJolly

Yes, this should keep us humble. :)