Doctrine regaurding evolution?


DigitalShadow
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not sure what the Church's official position is.

I tend not to worry about things like this (not to suggest that you shouldn't) because I trust that God has it sorted-out, and that is "enough" for me.

As far as I know, our Church believes that this world, and everthing in it, was organized by God, vs being "created" from nowhere or out of nothing. The material was already there -- God just organized it.

Whether man came to be through evolution, or by a one-time event of organization, in the end -- does that really matter as far as our salvation? Our bodies are just composed of atoms that are organized in certain ways. It's God holding it all together from moment to moment anyway, lending us breath and lending us the ability to think and move and do according to our will. If He were to stop preserving me from moment to moment, then I would disintegrate immediately. Do you kind of see my point?

Not really on topic, but interesting nonetheless, is the possibilty that Adam and Eve were created, literally, by Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. Heavenly Mother carried Adam and Eve just as any mother would, in her womb. Gods can create spiritual offspring, physical offspring, or in the case of when Father created our Savior, can participate in a mix of the two. Jesus' literal Father, both of his spirit and his body, was Heavenly Father. This seems to suggest that Gods can participate in both kinds of conception - both spiritual offspring as well as physical, or a mix of the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In past discussions here, I've come to the conclusion that LDS theology has less difficulty with theistic evolution (evolution is true and God is the Designer) than does evangelical Christianity. Creation ex nihilo does not mesh well with evolution (though there are Christians from many sects who believe in it). However, with the doctrines of eternal premortal existance, and the belief that our God himself progressed, theistic evolution seems far less faith-challenging.

On the other hand, I've also encountered LDS who insist on a literal and historical reading of Genesis 1 & 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what I originally assumed, but there are many Mormons who do not dispute evolution. Since Genesis and evolution appear to be mutually exclusive theories, I was just asking for come clarification.

There are many Mormons who believe abortion is acceptable too. That doesn't make it so. When investigating beliefs of the Church, look to the written scriptures and the leaders, not your ordinary run of the mill member.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can tell based on a previous posting by Rameumpton, there is a policy of neutrality between the realm of science and religion. He pointed out that some hardliners such as Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie have taken a non-science position, but that is not the Church's official stance.

I think it great that believers from both the 21st and the 12th Centuries can share the same pews on Sunday. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are both sides to the argument. As was stated Joseph Fielding Smith's book “The Origin and Destiny of Man” is really all about his views on evolution. It does try to stay closer to the scriptures then science so its kind of a matter of the reader to take sides. On the other hand James E. Talmage taught different views that point closer to some evolution.

That is kind of really the problem with trying to have any official deceleration, is because we don’t know if there is (or how much) truth there is to the idea of Evolution. Is there parts of it that are true (that we can evolve) or do we just stay the same as we were created to. The closest thing that we have to any thing official about evolution is from the First Presidency’s statement titled “THE ORIGIN OF MAN” Part of it reads:

Adam, our progenitor, "the first man," was, like Christ, a pre-existent spirit, and like Christ he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a "living soul." The doctrine of the pre-existence,-revealed so plainly, particularly in latter days, pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man's origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality. It teaches that all men existed in the spirit before any man existed in the flesh, and that all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner.

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.

(James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 4: 205.)

If you want a copy of the whole thing just let me know.

I kind of side more on the scriptures, and not really Moses or Genesis, but 2 Nephi 2, where it teaches that there was no death until the fall, and no children until after the fall. To me that means evolution at the soonest until after the fall. (Even others take this idea to mean just Adam and Eve, not all the rest of the animals).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really is no "official" stand on evolution as a whole. Scriptural verses say specifically that man did not come from anything but man (Genesis). Science has proved that everything else in the world has basically "evolved" to some extent in that things have had to adapt over time. We know for a fact that the earth went through many changes in its time even before Adam was put on it and over that time some of the stuff we have proof of but don't see anymore, like dinosaurs, did actually exist. Hardliner evolution explains dinosaurs and man like skeletons as evolution to current day. Hardliner Christians see man as we are and the stuff like dinosaurs as "whattheheckdidhesayaboutthatitsnotinmyscriptures?" What the heck? I think its a little of both.

Think about it this way... and this is MHO BTW...Book of Grant stuff. Scripture says the earth was created in basically 5 days Gods time...lets say 1000 years to His day for giggles. Thats 5000 years before MAN showed up. Then there was another couple thousand years before Adam was tossed out of the garden. There is not a reference that I know of about a Tyranasaurus running through Jerusalem...or even the garden of Eden for that matter so I'd have to let common sense dictate that they didn't exist by then. As the earth was evolving for mans stint on it, so did the life on the face of it. We are STILL evolving. We know our earth is changing and so is every form of life on it. It will do so until the end of its use by God. I know that I am oversimplifying and romanticizing it a little here so understand that its opinion and a little dreaming. Its all plausible though and NOT DOCTRINE:eek:

So... who's perfectly right? Who knows. But somewhere in between the truth lies... and only God knows the whole truth to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of side more on the scriptures, and not really Moses or Genesis, but 2 Nephi 2, where it teaches that there was no death until the fall, and no children until after the fall. To me that means evolution at the soonest until after the fall.

I think this is a key point. The world, as described in Genesis 1 & 2 was a creation without death. The earth at that time was not a mortal earth. Death came into the world after Adam & Eve partook of the fruit (Fall of Adam), and this is the place in the time line of the earth that evolution could have been used by God to create the mortal earth. I have an essay that explains this in more detail. Keep in mind that this essay is not presented as doctrine. It is just my attempt to reconcile the Fall of Adam with science. It may be true or it may not be true. It does make sense to me, though.

One Mormon's View of the Science -- Religion Debate evolution "fall of adam"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've gathered so far, there are some in the church who are creationists and some who are not. Is there any official church position on the matter? It seems that if the theory of evolution were true, it would conflict with the Old Testament which is still part of the LDS belief system, is it not?

All "believing" members of the Church are creationists. It is not debatable.

All or most all members that are informed on the science are likely evolutionists as well.

I believe the Old Testament. I believe in evolution. There is no conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many Mormons who believe abortion is acceptable too. That doesn't make it so. When investigating beliefs of the Church, look to the written scriptures and the leaders, not your ordinary run of the mill member.

It's unclear what your point is but if your point is that the scriptures address evolution, you are mistaken. They do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's unclear what your point is but if your point is that the scriptures address evolution, you are mistaken. They do not.

While the scriptures don't specifically address evolution, they do provide an explanation of how life on earth began and many stories regarding the origin of our species. It's possible to accept that evolution happens while not conflicting with the scriptures, but accepting evolution as the likely origin of our species seems to directly conflict with Genesis. If we evolved, it was a slow progression to humanity and we didn't start as 2 humans directly created by god.

I asked this because it has been one of the main sticking points of me joining a Christian religion. There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that not only supports evolution, but that evolution was the origin of every species on the planet, including humans. To me, this doesn't rule out the possibility of God, but it does rule out the possibility of the God described in the Old Testament. I was wondering how this is reconciled with LDS beliefs.

Are there any people here that belive evolution was the origin of our species and also hold all the scriptures as true? If so, how do you reconcile Genesis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the scriptures don't specifically address evolution, they do provide an explanation of how life on earth began and many stories regarding the origin of our species. It's possible to accept that evolution happens while not conflicting with the scriptures, but accepting evolution as the likely origin of our species seems to directly conflict with Genesis. If we evolved, it was a slow progression to humanity and we didn't start as 2 humans directly created by god.

I asked this because it has been one of the main sticking points of me joining a Christian religion. There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that not only supports evolution, but that evolution was the origin of every species on the planet, including humans. To me, this doesn't rule out the possibility of God, but it does rule out the possibility of the God described in the Old Testament. I was wondering how this is reconciled with LDS beliefs.

Are there any people here that believe evolution was the origin of our species and also hold all the scriptures as true? If so, how do you reconcile Genesis?

I can tell you categorically that no one that TRULY believes in the LDS faith believes in evolution of man from Darwin's point of view. The church itself proclaims that stand by supporting whole heartedly the Bible in its fullness (New and Old Testaments). It is probably the same way in Christianity as a whole as everyone that claims to believe in God, has a testimony of the scriptures as the word of God, also believes that genesis IS the answer to evolution of man. People "evolve" just like everything else in the world in the form of adaptation but I know of no Christian (LDS or otherwise) that believes in the Darwinian theory of evolution in regards to mans part in it and still claims to be a Christian because for the most part they would be run out on a rail by their fellow believers.

Now I won't be so bold to say that there may not be anyone out there in the Christian world that MAY harbor questions about it but I don't know any of them. It just seems odd to me that there could be such a conflict on such an obvious topic. I see it as either believing in God and his word or just not believing in any of it. Gods word says that evolution is a crock. Science says its not. No man can serve two masters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the scriptures don't specifically address evolution, they do provide an explanation of how life on earth began and many stories regarding the origin of our species. It's possible to accept that evolution happens while not conflicting with the scriptures, but accepting evolution as the likely origin of our species seems to directly conflict with Genesis. If we evolved, it was a slow progression to humanity and we didn't start as 2 humans directly created by god.

I asked this because it has been one of the main sticking points of me joining a Christian religion. There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that not only supports evolution, but that evolution was the origin of every species on the planet, including humans. To me, this doesn't rule out the possibility of God, but it does rule out the possibility of the God described in the Old Testament. I was wondering how this is reconciled with LDS beliefs.

Are there any people here that belive evolution was the origin of our species and also hold all the scriptures as true? If so, how do you reconcile Genesis?

Genesis has two differing creation accounts. Obviously both cannot be literally true. One or both have to be allegorical. In my opinion both are obviously allegorical. Scientifically, neither makes any sense, except as allegory.

I accept the scriptures as the true word of God. I accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation of the origin of the species. The Church's official position is that the origin of the species is not a crucial matter to our salvation and therefore has no other official opinion about it.

Besides which, a literal reading of the bible would place the age of man at about 6 or 7 thousand years. We know from the fossil record and other scientific disciplines that homo sapiens date from 150,000 BC, homo neanderthalenis (not our direct ancestor but cousins) date from 350,000 BC, while earlier hominids date from the millions BC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you categorically that no one that TRULY believes in the LDS faith believes in evolution of man from Darwin's point of view. The church itself proclaims that stand by supporting whole heartedly the Bible in its fullness (New and Old Testaments). It is probably the same way in Christianity as a whole as everyone that claims to believe in God, has a testimony of the scriptures as the word of God, also believes that genesis IS the answer to evolution of man. People "evolve" just like everything else in the world in the form of adaptation but I know of no Christian (LDS or otherwise) that believes in the Darwinian theory of evolution in regards to mans part in it and still claims to be a Christian because for the most part they would be run out on a rail by their fellow believers.

Now I won't be so bold to say that there may not be anyone out there in the Christian world that MAY harbor questions about it but I don't know any of them. It just seems odd to me that there could be such a conflict on such an obvious topic. I see it as either believing in God and his word or just not believing in any of it. Gods word says that evolution is a crock. Science says its not. No man can serve two masters?

That's an patently false and absurd claim. I TRULY believe in the LDS faith and I believe that evolution best describes the possible origin of the species. Utah produces more scientists per capita than any other state in the nation. It's not a coincidence that the majority of the population is LDS. Mormons are attracted to science because it is a disciple that seeks after truth. Think those scientist don't accept evolution? Think again. Think educated and rational Mormon don't accept evolution? Think again.

The great thing about being Mormon is that you don't have to believe anything that isn't true. One may accept logic and science if it describes reality better than dogma. The ONLY reason to reject evolution is dogma - not revealed truth, but dogma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genesis has two differing creation accounts. Obviously both cannot be literally true. One or both have to be allegorical. In my opinion both are obviously allegorical. Scientifically, neither makes any sense, except as allegory.

I accept the scriptures as the true word of God. I accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation of the origin of the species. The Church's official position is that the origin of the species is not a crucial matter to our salvation and therefore has no other official opinion about it.

Besides which, a literal reading of the bible would place the age of man at about 6 or 7 thousand years. We know from the fossil record and other scientific disciplines that homo sapiens date from 150,000 BC, homo neanderthalenis (not our direct ancestor but cousins) date from 350,000 BC, while earlier hominids date from the millions BC.

Thank you for answering my question. The only thing that still doesn't make sense to me now is the significance of Adam and Eve. I do attend church most of the time with my wife and from what I've heard, Adam holds a special position. If the story of Adam and Eve was simply an allegory, wouldn't this conflict with some LDS teachings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam is not allegorical. Genesis is not allegorical. All standard works of the Church agree on the importance of Adam, the Fall, and the resulting need for the Atonement of Christ. If there was no creation, there would be no Fall. If there was no fall, there was no reason for an Atonement. Literal creation and the literal Fall were essential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents worth. 1. The two creations discribed in Genesis are the Spiritual creation and then the Physical creation.

2. Dr Stewart at 72 languages.com gave a good overview of what scientest are facing. He said that through the years they have speculated and hypothysized about evolution and the big bang theory and other "theories" but have yet to firmly document the actual occurances. What has happened is that their theories have become actuallity in their minds and so in the minds of the world have become reality. Scientific theory is just that and has yet to be proven.

Scriptural discription of the creation gives a view of the the way things were created and thus a leverage point for our faith when acted upon by the Holy Ghost.

I agree in limited evolution or adaptation but disagree that man evolved from amoebas or apes.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam is not allegorical. Genesis is not allegorical. All standard works of the Church agree on the importance of Adam, the Fall, and the resulting need for the Atonement of Christ. If there was no creation, there would be no Fall. If there was no fall, there was no reason for an Atonement. Literal creation and the literal Fall were essential.

You would be an excellent candidate to have a discussion with Socrates. Socrates liked to explore absolutely insisted upon premises such as these. I would be a bad candidate for I hold no such absolute insistence on any of these items. Even more, I think that much of what we understand of any of this is allegorical and that we will be in a better position to view the handiwork of God, when we explore His methods through science.

It was absolutist thinking that made it seem reasonable to embrace the concept of Earth being the center of the Universe. No doubt Earth Centrists found all the standard works agreed with this position as well. While I would support the rights of the Earth Centrists to hold their 12th Century position, I do not like them saying I must hold to this as well by declaring it is something naturally flowing from our common religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we were able to board a special “space ship” capable of constant acceleration without propulsion and take off from earth with the acceleration necessary to escape the acceleration of gravity and continue to accelerate constantly in one direction we would at one point exceed the speed of light. If we continued in our ship (in one direction) because we exist in a universe that is a 4 dimensional sphere we would eventually end up back where we started. One more if – if we began to decelerate half way through our journey and with a slight course correction for the dynamics of our solar system; we would then be able to land again on earth. Those that took the journey in the space ship would count the time of about a week. Those that stayed on earth would count the time in hundreds of thousands of years – perhaps even millions of years (depending on how large the universe really is). This is all outlined in the theory of relativity that has for the most part been proven.

So – asking the question of which clock is correct is absurd. I would also point out that the original Hebrew can be translated in the creation to read “time period” rather than “day”. And which clock is to be used to describe that time period is likewise absurd. Often men attempt to apply what they will to scripture in order to prove they are correct. 15 years ago it was discovered that a small speck in the night sky was actually larger than any thought the universe was, just 100 years ago. We live in an age of discovery and information. Those that refuse to use the knowledge of creation from this time of discovery will find them selves as far from the truth as those that once taught that G-d created a “flat” earth.

Evolution is a fact of nature that touches every living thing (and I am assuming that life created on an on going basis is the same and created by the same G-d as that Adam and other things spoken of in Genesis). If evolution destroys your G-d I would strongly suggest you consider the possibly of a G-d that is a master of evolution (among other things) and is far more capable of genetic engineering that we scientist are.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in the end we will see the science and religion go hand in hand as we learn more about both!

On Dino's and such, we have no idea what all happened outside of Eden or how long a "day" was. Its very possible that they lived during that time until the fall. Another theory is that if (as was mentioned by a previous post) that the earth was organized instead of being created, its very possible that some of the things we are digging up are actually not of this world and never lived on this earth.

With reguards to how Adam was made in the image of God, there is a theory that might work for hardliners on both sides. When you bake a cake, you dont just start out with a cake. You have to get all the stuff right and mix it for a certain amount of time under certain conditions. We all know that Adam was taken from the dust but we do not know the exact process to which the dust was made into a man. It could be that it was very much like baking a cake and in some peoples eyes, that could be a form of evolution from dust to man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share