- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hi again. I need something for my quote collection.
I need a good short official statement that the church has nothing for or against evolution. The ones I have found are lengthy and not great to share quickly.
Anyone know if any exist?
Thanks a lot!
From “The Origin of Man” – the last official statement from the Church about evolution, written and signed by the First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anton H. Lund) in November 1909, the key paragraph says that Adam might have begun his life as an embryo. The statement takes no official stance on evolution; it emphasizes that Adam was the first “man” – but it defines that term as the first combination of physical, mortal body and pre-mortal spirit, so it says nothing about how that physical, mortal body was created. The statement is a refutation of the idea that we evolved strictly from the animal kingdom and are nothing more than intelligent animals – an assertion that we have pre-mortal spirits that are God’s children and, thus, are not only a product of evolution as a natural process that occurred without God’s involvement. The key paragraph, with my own
boldingand [parenthetical comment], is: Quote:True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ 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 [Adam], 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. This doesn’t say the Church teaches evolution, but it does say our theology doesn’t exclude evolution as the process by which our physical bodies were created.
Wow, that quote is quite interesting. That is something I have speculated at as well, that Adam was just the first modern human with a “human” spirit. Sometimes I refer to his mother as Lucy 🙂 (after that first humanoid found in Africa and nicknamed “Lucy”). Although I’m not sure if the Adam and Eve story isn’t more of a symbolic myth than a true story. . . .It might be my English but doesn’t human embryo or germ just refer to the sperm cells/eggs? I can’t find mackay11’s thread. Is it called Useful Quote of the Day? There might be some short-ish quotes there. Quote:It might be my English but doesn’t human embryo or germ just refer to the sperm cells/eggs?
Yep – which means the statement says nothing in our theology prohibits the possibility that Adam’s physical body was conceived through sexual intercourse. It doesn’t say it happened that way, but it says our theology doesn’t exclude it.
Back when I was in the old mission home in SLC in 1964, Joseph Fielding Smith came over to answer questions. One elder asked him what the church’s position was on evolution and his answer was “the church’s position on evolution is that it is a great fake”. I wasn’t much of a believer even back then so I just filed it under “interesting”.
Joseph Fielding Smith was the biggest anti-evolution church leader we have ever had. Fact is, BYU teaches evolutionary theory. Steven Peck, who also blogs occasionally at BCC, teaches life sciences there and has written several great OPs about evolution: If you prefer podcast, there’s a two-parter:
I also blogged about my son’s seminary teacher who was anti-evolution which I found shocking. However, she was from Texas where creationism is taught in the schools:
http://www.wheatandtares.org/4963/evolution-vs-creationism-in-seminary/ I find it incredibly discouraging that lds.org uses anti-evolution as evidence of member faith in several stories I cite in my OP. Some people must really love being confidently on the wrong side of science where they will inevitably look like idiots in time. As SteveP put it: “literalist creationism, where it exists in Mormonism, is a leak from sources other than the Restoration that misunderstands the scriptures’ purpose.”
And the best source of all, an absolute must read site called Mormon Organon. As Steve has told me, there isn’t a biology professor at BYU who doesn’t believe in evolution. Because they wouldn’t be biology professors if they didnt’:
http://sciencebysteve.net/ Oh, and here’s a quote from Joseph F Smith that concluded my OP: “In reaching the conclusion that evolution would be best left out of discussions in our Church schools we are deciding a question of propriety and are not undertaking to say how much of evolution is true, or how much is false. The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world.” Found one more for you, a great OP with several links that was in T&S right around the same time I did my post on W&T. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2011/09/creationism-and-lds-seminary/ Old-Timer wrote:Quote:It might be my English but doesn’t human embryo or germ just refer to the sperm cells/eggs?
Yep – which means the statement says nothing in our theology prohibits the possibility that Adam’s physical body was conceived through sexual intercourse. It doesn’t say it happened that way, but it says our theology doesn’t exclude it.
I think this is a misapplication of this quote. The preceding paragraph in the statement says:
Quote:
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.
It is clearly stated that Adam was the first man on this earth and that he was the original human being. Now we can say that Adam’s father was not fully “human”, but I don’t think that is what Pres. Smith meant we he said it. I think it would be misreading Pres Smith greatly to say that he was allowing for the possibility that “Adam’s physical body was conceived through sexual intercourse.”
For an official statement you could try the Encyclopedia of Mormonism which quotes first presidency minutes as follows:
Quote:Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….
Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were
right when they said: “Adam is the primal parent of our race” [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].
This too is quoted out of context though. During the late 20’s and early 30’s, Talmage, BH Roberts and Elder Joseph Fielding Smith had a row about the age of the earth and “Pre-adamites.” Basically BH Roberts and Elder Talmage proposed that there was a previous creation of “Pre-adamites” and Elder Smith disagreed. Both BH Roberts and Elder Talmage were opposed to organic evolution.
As a staunch evolutionist and as a church member, I have looked for quotes that woulds support the position you are interested in and there are none from official sources. The ensign is still publishing articles on a global flood (
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng Quote:When confronted by evidence in the rocks below, rely on the witness of the heavens above.
If you want something to support evolution you have to be a little more subtle. You could point to BYU’s teaching of evolution with the full knowledge of the board of trustees (which includes the first presidency) (see here for a counter point
http://ndbf.blogspot.com/2008/05/byu-evolution-courses.html David O McKay was the closest thing we have to a supporter of the theory of evolutionary. His statements appear only in unofficial publications venues though:
At a funeral
Quote:
Among the generalizations of science, evolution holds foremost place. It claims: ‘Man is a creature of development; that he has come up through uncounted ages from an origin that is lowly.’ Why this vast expenditure of time and pain and blood? Why should he come so far if he is destined to go no farther? A creature which has traveled such distances, and fought such battles and won such victories deserves, one is compelled to say, to conquer death and rob the grave of its victory. Darwin said…’Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued, slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful.
A little more officially at BYU (emphasis added):
Quote:
There is a perpetual design permeating all purposes of creation. On this thought, science again leads a student up to a certain point and sometimes leaves him with his soul unanchored…For example,evolution’s beautiful theoryof the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind. Inevitably, a teacher who denies divine agency in creation, who insists there is no intelligent purpose in it, will impress the student with the thought that all may be chance. I say, that no youth should be so led without a counterbalancing thought … God is at the helm. God is the Creator of the earth. He is the Father of our souls and spirits. No question about it. You have your testimony—if you haven’t you shouldn’t be on the faculty—that God lives and Jesus is the Christ, and the purpose of creation is theirs.
You might also be interested in the some interplay between Elder Reuben Clark and Elder Joseph Fielding Smith here:
http://signaturebooks.com/2010/11/excerpts-elder-statesman/ My quotes Quote:From the “Priesthood Quorums’ Table”, Improvement Era, 13, p. 570 (April, 1910)
“Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.”
First Presidency, 1910 (Joseph F. Smith, President)
“The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world, and much talk therefore about the philosophy of Mormonism is altogether misleading.”
Joseph F. Smith, “Editorial Thoughts”, Juvenile Instructor 46(4), pp. 208-9 (April, 1911).
“The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution.
Neither ‘Man, His Origin and Destiny’ by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, nor ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, is an official publication of the Church.”
David O. McKay, President
(letter to Dr. A. Kent Christensen, Cornell
University Medical College, 3 Feb 1959)
“I have also been directed to say that the book to which you refer in your letter (Man, His Origin and Destiny by Joseph F. Smith) expresses the views of the author, for which he assumes full responsibility. The book was not published, approved, or authorized by the Church, nor did the author intend that it be.”
A. Hamer Reiser, Asst. Secretary to
The First Presidency (letter from the Office
of the First Presidency to Robert C. Stones,
21 Apr 1960–David O. McKay being the then
current President)
“Man became a living soul–mankind, male and female. The Creators breathed into their nostrils the breath of life and man and woman became living souls. We don’t know exactly how their coming into this world happened, and when we’re able to understand it the Lord will tell us.”
President Spencer W. Kimball, “Speaking
Today . . .”, Ensign, March, 1976, pp. 70-72.
Thanks a lot for your time. Too bad there isn’t a short (or even a new quote) by FP saying something to the effect that pro or anti evolution doesn’t matter. End of story. It always seems to be ” pro or anti evolution doesn’t matter…….but don’t believe in it” that’s at least what I seem to read between the lines.
I would love to be able to say in a class that the church doesn’t have an opinion on evolution but if confronted with it, the only official thing I can quote is some lengthy thing that says that for or against evolution is nothing to worry about – but don’t really believe it.
I don’t know – it might be me but that’s the general feeling I get from reading the newest official declaration. And if I get that feeling how will the black/white thinking person read it.
Or is it just me?
If you write a letter to the FP (or any GA) asking what the church’s position is on evolution, your SP will get a letter from the office of the FP that says Quote:The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. . . . Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes
The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,
Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church. . .
Your SP will be instructed to share the contents of the letter with you, but not give you the letter. This was the protocol during GBH’s tenure. I do not know how TSM does it. I have a transcription of the letter, made with a help of a SP that did not follow the instructions!Also, the above quote appears in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
I guess I’m curious as to why this continues to be an issue.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.