A 2009 Pew Research survey found that Mormons are more skeptical of evolution than any other religious demographic save Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Despite this widespread anti-evolution sentiment within the LDS Church, some Mormons claim that their faith and evolution can be reconciled. BYU biologists uniformly accept evolution as a fact, for instance. And several Mormon bloggers, too, have expressed and explained their belief in evolution. So obviously Mormons can believe in evolution. But given LDS teachings, should they?
The LDS Church claims to have no official stance on evolution. This neutrality stems from the bitter disputes among church leaders over evolution in the early 20th century. James E. Talmage, who was an apostle and geologist, and B. H. Roberts defended evolution, while Joseph Fielding Smith, George Albert Smith, and others vehemently rejected it. In 1931, President Heber J. Grant essentially called for a ceasefire:
Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the people of 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.
This and other professions of neutrality, however, did not deter some church leaders from wading into the evolution debate. Bruce R. McConkie and Ezra Taft Benson were among evolution’s most vocal Mormon detractors in the last half of the 20th century.
(The history of the evolution debate in Mormonism is fascinating, but I won’t recount it all here. Refer instead to this link.)
Anti-evolution sentiments are still present in church literature even today. In the March 2008 Ensign, President Boyd K. Packer wrote:
We are taught in Genesis, in Moses, in Abraham, in the Book of Mormon, and in the endowment that man’s mortal body was made in the image of God in a separate creation. Had the Creation come in a different way, there could have been no Fall.
If men were merely animals, then logic favors freedom without accountability. How well I know that among learned men are those who look down at animals and stones to find the origin of man. They do not look inside themselves to find the spirit there. They train themselves to measure things by time, by thousands and by millions, and say these animals called men all came by chance.
The 2009 Old Testament manual for seminary and institute teachers also denies evolution, quoting a few of the aforementioned anti-evolution church leaders.
Because it’s difficult to define what are authoritative LDS teachings, those Mormons who want to believe in evolution have largely dismissed church leaders’ anti-evolution statements as mere opinion. But, oddly enough, I think the conservatives like McConkie and Packer are on the winning side of a theological argument. Mormonism cannot be comfortably reconciled with evolution. I think the LDS understanding of the Fall precludes evolution. (Actually, any traditional/literal understanding of the Fall makes evolution impossible).
Mormons recognize the Fall to be an actual, historical event. From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
Latter-day Saints recognize the Fall of Adam and Eve as an actual event that occurred in the Garden of Eden and has affected the entire earth and everyone in the human family. … The creation of the earth was a multistep process in which the Fall of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden were the final necessary steps in bringing about the mortal condition. Without the Fall, Adam and Eve would have had no children (2 Ne. 2:23); hence, the human family would not have come into existence upon this earth under the conditions and circumstances in the garden. The prophet Lehi explained, “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25), and Enoch declared, “Because that Adam fell, we are” (Moses 6:48). … The Fall brought two kinds of death upon Adam, Eve, and their posterity: the separation of the spirit and the physical body, which the scriptures call the “temporal death” (Alma 11:42-43); and being shut out of God’s presence, which is called spiritual death (2 Ne. 9:6; D&C 29:41).
One relevant scripture the Encyclopedia of Mormonism omitted is 2 Nephi 2:22:
And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state [emphasis mine] in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
It is clear the Fall not only allowed reproduction, but also introduced physical death in the world. It follows, then, that there was no reproduction or death before the Fall. Evolution, however, is driven by those two things—without reproduction or death, evolution cannot happen. So Adam and Eve and all other living things present in the Garden of Eden could not have been the product of evolution.
The conflict between Mormonism and evolution is magnified when you consider that D & C 77: 6 revealed the “temporal existence” of the earth to be only seven thousand years old.
Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was asealed on the back with seven seals?A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, bmysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this cearth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.
In Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith explains the significance of these verses.
Here is a definite statement by revelation to us that this earth will go through 7,000 years of temporal existence. Temporal, by all interpretations, means passing, temporary, or mortal. This, then, has reference to the earth in its fallen state, for the earth was cursed when Adam, who was given dominion over it, transgressed the law.
This interpretation jives with early church leaders’ statements about the temporal age of the earth as well.
The Lord Almighty never created a world like this and peopled it for six thousand years, as He has done, without having some motive in view. (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, p. 8, January 6, 1884)
After passing over the ages and generations of the children of men for about six thousand years, we will come to the present congregation and say the right of heirship is the same now that it was in the beginning. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.307, Brigham Young, April 8, 1853)
The world has had a fair trial for six thousand years; the Lord will try the seventh thousand Himself;(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Five, p. 252, 1842-43)
So at best, Mormons should only believe that evolution has occurred in the past six or seven thousand years (which is itself untenable, given the fossil record and extent of biodiversity). Mormons are welcome to take another view, of course. Talmage maintained that there was evolution, even human evolution, before the Fall. It just seems, though, that this view requires a blatant disregard for what the LDS scriptures plainly say.
“It just seems, though, that this view requires a blatant disregard for what the LDS scriptures plainly say.”
This has me wondering, can a Mormon not believe or agree with certain scriptures and still be Mormon?
Given how hard it is to define both “Mormon” and “Mormon doctrine”, I would probably say you can still be a Mormon. But at some point, those terms become so elastic that the lose all meaning. To define something is to make something limite/finite. That’s the origin of the word define. So there has to be lines drawn, but I’m not so sure where to draw them.
Jon, you might be interested to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance
Essentially the same question is asked of every member of any organized religion. My answer is that every single person believes in their own personal, unique definition of what Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, etc is. Every single person has a unique set of experiences, and has unique responses to and beliefs about those experiences. 100 people reading the same scripture will see it 100 different ways, however small the difference. So some people have a different understanding of what “scripture” is, how it relates to your faith life, how it relates to your secular life, what you do with it, etc. It’s difficult to pin down one definition of what makes a person Mormon, or any other religion.
I don’t think there’s an answer to your question.
I am a practicing Mormon and I believe that Evolution is very real. The evidence of it is in almost every organ of my body and the fossil records from an earth that is most certainly more than 6,000 years old bear that out. As you stated, the Church has no official position so I chose to decide for myself. How evolution and Genesis work together? I have NO idea. But I’m not really worried about it. My religion does not have to fully reconcile with Science. If it did. . . it wouldn’t be Science any more and we would be reading about how Joseph Smith met the Godhead in our history books.
“I have NO idea. But I’m not really worried about it. My religion does not have to fully reconcile with Science.”
So is the Eden story just a useful myth? Or is it a literal account with some sketchy details our ancestors? Or do you just not care?
Doesn’t the cognitive dissonance kind of make your head hurt?
*our ancestors guessed at
As a practicing Mormon, I proudly admit that I accept evolution and feel that it doesn’t significantly conflict with my religious views.
I particularly find the relationship between economics and evolutionary biology to be a fascinating subject of study.
Interesting post, nonetheless. Check this link out: http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/harmony/chapter9.htm
I’ve read that book before, Marc, and I just don’t think it’s responsive to my arguments here.
I tried to wrap my head around this a lot when I was growing up and finally decided I couldn’t fully reconcile the two. Although…I was never inclined to take the Bible as literally as they probably thought I should have. Thus my dissention, I suppose. Anyway, here are some of my favorite attempts at (slightly bogus) rationalization:
1. The fossils are pieces of the dead planets from which the earth was assembled (7000 years ago)
2. The fossils came from another planet that was the blueprint for earth
3. Evolution occured before the Garden of Eden and Adam’s was the first Homo Sapien body to contain one of God’s spirit children
Personally, I always took issue with the story of Adam and Eve but was able to ignore it until I got acquainted with the endowment ceremony. I never understood why God would set up a plan where Adam and Eve HAD to fail in order for things to be set in motion. Why would his plan require them to fail and then he would still punish them for it. Anyway, rant rant rant. I agree with you Jon, there’s a little bit of wiggle room for Mormons to believe in evolution (the basics, not fully) but the arguments against are much stronger in the doctrinal context.
Slightly bogus?
Jon,
Three thoughts:
1. I don’t see these two concepts (evolution and creationism) as being contradictory at all. To me, its a false dilemma. Can God create through evolution? Doesn’t the theory of evolution track pretty close to the creation story in terms of events? (water creatures -> land creatures, etc.)
Mormons recognize the term “day” in Genesis refers to a period of time and not a set 24 hours. I don’t see why this is an issue.
2. The Church’s statements have always referred to two key doctrines from the First Presidency’s message on the subject:
a. Adam was the first man.
b. Man is the literal offspring of God.
These are the only definitive doctrines the church has ever had on the subject. I don’t see either as inconsistent with the idea of evolution.
3. I think most Mormons will tell you they believe that God created the earth and all the animals through evolution and then put Adam here in the Garden of Eden.
1. A god could create through evolution, but not the Mormon god. You failed to respond to my arguments about how the LDS understanding of the Fall precludes evolution. Second, why, if god is good and all powerful, would he create through evolution? Evolution is a painful and inefficient process of creation.
As for the definition “day”: I never argued that Mormons had to hold to a literal 24-hour definition of day. I never mention the Genesis account in my post. However, it’s worth noting that Joseph Smith received a similar account of creation in the Book of Moses. The Book of Moses still speaks of a seven day creation. I accept that the Hebrew language allows for day to be interpreted as a period of time, but why wouldn’t god just reveal to Smith the actual amount of time it took to create the world? Why would god still use the poetic Hebrew use of the word day when addressing Joseph Smith?
And no, the Genesis/Moses account does not accord with evolution. They speak of whales being among the first creation, for example, when whale evolved from land animals.
2. The Book of Mormon and the D & C have implications for evolution, and those too are doctrinal.
3. God couldn’t have created the animals in the Garden of Eden via evolution because there was neither death nor reproduction before the Fall.
I think the fall issue, which is the one raised by Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of Salvation is a question of what the fall itself means. Did no death exist on earth at all? or was that simply a condition of the Garden of Eden after the creation of the earth was finished?
If it was the latter, then evolution works. If its the former, then Pres. Smith and Elder McConkie are correct. The church has never had a distinct doctrine on the subject, and it’s pretty clear this is speculative either way.
Regarding the scriptures you quote… all those calculations are post fall and understood to be such by every Mormon scholar.
I think God didn’t tell Joseph Smith how many hours it took to create the earth for the same reason he didn’t tell Moses… it didn’t matter. We are taught the creation story to understand a few key principles:
1. God is our literal father and He created the earth
2. We are created in His image.
3. Because of the fall, we are mortal and can only be saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ.
When you understand the style of the writers of the time period in the Old and New Testaments, you will notice that they are less concerned with specific details of the stories and more concerned with the principles they are teaching. Hence the differing lineages of Christ, the varying accounts of His life and other disagreements. The point is that we know the story to teach an eternal principle, not chemistry.
While some specifics of the creation story may disagree with what some scientists currently believe, the trends are pretty close.
Tyler:
I submit that evolution is not compatible with the concept of a personal God, a deist view perhaps and if you disagree than I don’t think you appreciate the ramifications of evolution. Secondly I do not accept the claim that the biblical creation story is simply a dumbed down version of the history of humanity, or of the earth or the universe. For one I don’t care how long how long a day is to god But his monday and tuesday can’t be billions of years old and his saturday be a few thousand years old and finally God would have made whales before mammals and flying insects after primates according to Genesis. It’s a cop out. Mankind didn’t appear suddenly in the fossil record so God must have ‘made’ those fossils in his image though too
I will admit, I get pretty happy when I hear church leaders say evolution and Mormonism are incompatible. This means that in order to get someone to reject their religion, you simply have to prove evolution (which is soooo easy with all the evidence).
Jon,
God just put the fossils there to test your faith. Epic fail there, buddy
Jon,
I don’t think you can pull off this argument.
There’s a gigantic difference between showing (1) that things (life forms) can change, do change, and the change is correlated with environmental factors and, maybe, survival; and (2) that the presence and physical composition/structure of a species on this earth is the result of a series of these changes. Essentially, micro-evolution is evidenced by scientific experiments, the fact that population sizes adjust to environmental factors is well known, and the idea that things are constantly changing is common sensical; but the FACT that man evolved from X which evolved from Y which evolved from…which evolved from A which sprang to life in a pool of prehistoric goo (or however you want to describe it) is a Historical Fact.
Now consider what sources man adopts to “prove” Historical Facts. We place heavy consideration on witness testimony and adopt positions often on that source alone. Now, consider that macro-evolutionary theory does not provide any witness testimony. The scriptural account provides several witness’ testimony. Based on man’s frequent use and reliance on witness testimony to prove historical facts, it appears the strength of evidence does NOT lie with the scientific macro-evolutionary community.
I recognize that to many this is a bold assertion, but when you reflect upon human experience, it really isn’t. How often has “science” (or, perhaps a better characterization is “scientific theories”) been wrong? Frequently! The world is flat. Objects fall to the earth a rate proportional to their size. Even Newton’s laws were shown to be only close approximations. Between scientific theory and scriptural doctrine, the former’s history of mistakes makes it significantly less credible.
I could go on but I think this is sufficient to make the point.
While we’re on the subject of Adam & Eve, how do we solve the inbreeding problem?
Of course some mormons believe in evolution, look at this fine specimen who is typing this right now. I’m one highly-evolved chunk of man-flesh let me tell you!
It’s nice to know, based on the survey results posted above, that only 22% of the members would be excommunicated for apostasy if Packer takes over and requires belief in creationism. I at least agree with Packer that the fall and atonement are incompatible with evolution. I gave up trying to create preadamite scenarios a long time ago.
Though evolution is a good idea, I have good faith that what it says in the LDS scriptures is correct. That’s why I’m Mormon.
Jon,
Unsurprisingly we find agreement. The theory that man’s existence on earth is the result of macro-”evolution” is incompatible with LDS doctrine. In addition to the quotes you’ve provided, I would add the final two sentences of the Bible Dictionary’s entry under the heading “Death.”
“Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall.”
Because current macro-evolutionary theories of man’s origin necessitate death, they cannot be consistently adopted by a proponent of Latter-day scriptures and revelation.
I do not think this is a problem for the Church, its members, or the doctrine.