← Church History Matters
Church History Matters
189 - Is Evolution a Threat to Faith? | Church History Matters I Science & Religion Series
01:24:46
Loading summary
Transcript95 lines
- [00:01]
A
What is the official position of the church on evolution?
- [00:04]
B
I was kind of trained to avoid controversy, but it seems like that's what.
- [00:08]
A
We swim it like moths to the flame.
- [00:10]
B
What's your doctrinal confidence level? That evolution is true or false based on the scriptures?
- [00:15]
A
If evolution is true, the church is false.
- [00:18]
B
I was a little bit surprised to see that Elder McConkie, who, you know, putting this in a talk called the Seven Deadly Heresies, sounds like a direct condemnation.
- [00:27]
A
Here's another one from Elder James E. Talmage, who was a member of the 12 and also a geologist. He said, quote, evolution is true.
- [00:35]
B
Good luck trying to figure out how time works for God.
- [00:37]
A
You and I see over and over again students who struggle in their faith.
- [00:41]
B
If there is one scientific issue that has been hotly debated both within and outside the church as possibly being in conflict with our religious views, it's. Hi, Scott Woodward. How are you doing?
- [00:58]
A
So great, man. Excited to talk today about a very controversial and marvelous topic, evolution.
- [01:09]
B
Yeah, yeah. We're not seeking controversy. I mean, I don't think we started this just because we. We do like to talk about stuff like this, but sometimes I feel guilty because in my early career I was kind of trained to avoid controversy. But it seems like that's what we swim in. Right. That's what we're like.
- [01:27]
A
Clothes to the flame. Yeah. We are drawn to the controversies, again, primarily because you and I see over and over again we see students who struggle in their faith because of this kind of stuff. And so we're trying to be helpful, not just controversial. So.
- [01:45]
B
Right, right. We're not doing this for the clicks. I guess you'd say we could do more sensational things if we were worried about the number of views we were getting. But this is one subject that can be really difficult for a lot of. And so our series on science and religion is continuing. In fact, let's start with a recap of what we've already said, because I think this is the fifth episode in the series, and this is where we're starting to get into some really meaty specific topics. So we've spent our last few episodes talking about the perceived conflicts between science and religion. In fact, we spoke last episode with an expert, Jamie Jensen, who believes in the legitimacy of both the scriptures and modern science. And Jamie is a very well known scholar of biology. She teaches biology at BYU and the building across from me. To summarize what we discussed with her, she just sees science and religion as two different epistemologies, two different toolkits for Learning and finding truth. In her expert opinion, Scientific truths and spiritual truths are simply sought after and measured in different ways. When we use the right epistemology for the question at hand, we really don't have a problem. The tools of science are meant to answer questions of mechanism, like what, when, where, why, and how. The tools of religion and philosophy are meant to answer questions of meaning, like why things happen.
- [03:07]
A
Yeah, and in our previous episodes, we talked about what to do when scripture and science appear to conflict. And we emphasized how important it is to have the right assumptions about scripture so that we avoid bringing false expectations to the text as we read. Because expecting scripture to be something that it's not is how we get into mischief. We want to get our scriptural hermit hermeneutic rite, as we talked about, so that we have the best chance of interpreting scripture the way that the original ancient authors intended it to be understood. And so, Casey, we came up with a sentence. It's our scripture hermeneutic sentence to try to help us stay on the right interpretive path as we read. And here's the sentence one more time for review. Quote, Scripture texts are the result of a human divine collaboration written by ancient authors embedded in their own cultures and crafted by those authors primarily for the purpose of doing theology, not science. And so with those assumptions in mind as we read scripture, we will rarely, if ever, mistake ancient text as challenging modern science and vice versa.
- [04:24]
B
Yeah, and in the last episode before we talked with Jamie, we talked about one pitfall to avoid when reading Scripture is being too extreme in your literal versus allegorical interpretation. On the one hand, there are what we called uber literalists that take every word in the scriptures literally. These are the plain reading of the text people. Their instinct is to trust scripture, which is really good, but they're approaching the text with maybe too many modern assumptions and not letting ancient authors act like ancient authors. This approach causes us to miss out on some of the beautiful and symbolic lessons found in the text, like in the early chapters of Genesis. To cite just one example, if a person believes that Eve was literally created from Adam's rib, they might miss the more moving symbolism that men and women are two halves of one whole meant to complete one another as they work, live, and love together.
- [05:28]
A
And then on the other extreme is the danger of taking what we called an ultra allegorical approach to scripture, where we basically dismiss anything that is supernatural as like, myth or allegory. We don't want to take the miracles out of the scriptures or turn epic stories like the Exodus of the Israelites or the journey to the Americas into just allegorical tales about how we can live better lives. Like scriptural figures like Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and especially Jesus are intended to be understood as real people. But at times, okay, at times, the telling of the stories of their lives have been mixed with some allegorical or maybe some literary twists in order to make theological points. Let me just cite one example. Like the author of the Gospel of John, he records chronological events in Jesus's life, like, way out of order when you compare them to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And he does this in order to make Jesus's identity as, like, the great I am and the Lamb of God really pop from the text. For this reason, sometimes John's Gospel is called a theological biography instead of a chronological one. Like John will move, for instance, the cleansing of the temple, which we know from Matthew, Mark and Luke happens at the end of his ministry. He puts it right up front in John, chapter two to establish Jesus authority over Jewish institutions. He even moves the day of the crucifixion of Jesus, instead of being the day after the Passover meal, like Matthew, Mark and Luke show, he actually moves it to the day just prior to the Passover, at the exact hour actually that Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the temple. He does this to align Jesus's death with the slaughter of the lambs, to accentuate his claim that Jesus is the Lamb of God. He's doing a lot of really interesting things in his book theologically to make points. And he plays fast and loose with the chronology because that's subservient to his major, like, thing that he's trying to do with this text. So that's just one example. But we talked about how there's not really like a universal rule of thumb to perfectly discern when Scripture authors are being literal or when they're being, like, symbolic. That requires a certain amount of skill in discerning, like genre as well as it takes a lot of thoughtfulness, it takes a lot of time, and I might add, it takes community. In fact, Casey, maybe studying Scripture in a thoughtful community of readers is something we haven't emphasized enough. Like, when it comes to scriptural interpretation, the good news is we don't have to go it alone. There are many thoughtful and skilled scripture readers who that we can and should learn from. A lot of them have written books and commentaries, and I'd recommend we look at those. And I'd recommend we don't stick with one commentary. In fact, I'd say that we should look at several. It's okay to have favorites, but as you look at a lot of different commentaries on scripture, you start to get a sense of the breadth of interpretation as well as areas of strong agreement across various commentaries. This can be really helpful.
- [08:43]
B
Yeah. And I should mention, when we're talking commentary, there's a lot of great resources on Scripture central that are there for free and they come from a number of different sources. Yeah. So like Brandt Gardner is one of the smartest guys I know. He wrote our Book of Mormon commentary. And other people we brought in, people like Avram Shannon, who's a great Old Testament scholar, to help with some of the materials we've prepared for this year. So take advantage of that. That's kind of what we've developed so far. Now for this episode, we're going to head in a little bit of a different direction in our continuing exploration of science and religion. Starting this week, we're going to begin tackling the history of science and religion within the church. As you know, our church is kind of unique in that we have leaders that are called the full time service from all areas of life. They come from all kinds of backgrounds, from the worlds of business, education, science, law, medicine, a ton of different fields.
- [09:39]
A
Yeah, there have been a number of even scientists who've served in prominent leadership positions in the church, such as Orson Pratt, James E. Talmadge, John A. Widtsoe, Joseph F. Merrill, Richard G. Scott and Russell M. Nelson. There have also been a lot of experts in the fields of law and religion, such as Parley P. Pratt, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkey, Jeffrey R. Holland, Dallin H. Oaks, D. Todd Christofferson, just to name a few. We're obviously not naming everyone, just given a couple samples of a wide range of expertise found among church leaders before their calls to full time service.
- [10:14]
B
And the story of science and religion weaves in and out of the experiences and teachings of church leaders. And while we don't want to seem like we're setting them against each other, we do want to be frank that there have always been differing views and opinions within church leadership on this and a lot of other topics.
- [10:35]
A
Yeah. And this is to be expected, right? Like as Elder McConkie once wrote, he said, men who wear the prophetic mantle are still men. They have their own views. And as President David O. McKay once said, he said when God makes the prophet, he does not unmake the man, suggesting that the personality, the biases, the training, the scientific and gospel understanding that a man has before he becomes an apostle, still remains with him after he becomes an apostle. So it's not surprising that apostles and even church presidents, as Elder McConkie said, quote, speak on occasion, their own opinions. And these opinions, he said, quote, may contain error. Right. And so that's. That makes it interesting.
- [11:19]
B
Yeah. And to be honest, I don't think that's a problem. Right. We can think this can be a good thing because it's something we can learn and grow from. We believe that it's actually one of our great strengths that church leaders come from diverse backgrounds and bring different knowledge, skills, and perspectives to their ministry.
- [11:37]
A
Yeah. And it certainly makes studying a topic like science and religion interesting as we sift through the teachings of church leaders throughout our history.
- [11:45]
B
And if there is one scientific issue that has been hotly debated both within and outside the church as possibly being in conflict with our religious views, it's the theory of evolution. There have been a variety of strongly held views by members on the grassroots level and on the highest levels of church leadership on this topic throughout the church's history. And to be honest, there still are a lot of divergent views on this subject. So we wanted to cut through some of that noise in this part of the series by asking today's burning question, which is, what is the official position of the church on evolution? So, yeah, that's today's burning question.
- [12:30]
A
What is the official position of the church on evolution? Ooh. Okay, now, before we start a discussion, we got to make clear, like, what our terms are. So we got to define what we mean by evolution, because, Casey, I've found a lot of people don't even agree on the definition.
- [12:49]
B
So.
- [12:49]
A
Yeah, now. Now you and I both bring, like, personal and religious biases to this question. So we decided to bring in a neutral arbiter just to define this term for us. A drum roll. We brought in ChatGPT. So, yeah, yeah. What is the AI craze, too? Yeah, we are. What is Evolution According to ChatGPT, here's the definition Chat gave to us. Quote, the theory of evolution explains how living organisms change over generations through natural processes. Individuals in a population vary in traits, and some of those traits affect how well they survive and reproduce in a given environment. Traits that improve survival or reproduction tend to be passed on more often a process called natural selection. Over long periods of time, these small changes can add up, leading to the adaptation of populations, the formation of new species, and the diversity of life seen on earth today, all driven by mechanisms such as mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and Gene flow. Close quote. And then I asked chat, will you just give, give it to me in one sentence. And here's, here's the succinct definition. Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Close quote. That's it. I like that. I like that. So changing heritable traits that you can pass on biological over successive generations. Like that's it. So again, don't take this as an endorsement or a non endorsement of AI, but we just wanted a neutral arbiter to define our terms today. So there you go.
- [14:32]
B
There's a lot of emotional and personal baggage that comes to the question of evolution. So we used AI because it's, it's relatively neutral. It's drawing from the Internet. You may agree or disagree with that. So now that we've defined that term, now that we've defined evolution, we need to face what might be just as complex a challenge, which is defining what constitutes an official teaching of the church.
- [14:58]
A
Yeah. What is the Church's official position on determining official positions?
- [15:04]
B
Yeah, yeah. Now this is complicated too. And a while back we did a series called Good Thinking in Church History and Doctrine. We did this at Education Week too, where we outlined a way to measure doctrinal confidence. We start with good sources. For instance, an official teaching of the Church will be found in most of the following places, and these are in no particular order. One, the Harmonized Scriptural Canon, which is the most critical source of church doctrine. Okay. Two, the cumulative, and I'm emphasizing the word cumulative, teachings of church leaders. So not just one person that said one thing one time, but over a long period of time, what a number of leaders of the Church have said on a particular subject. Three would be the current and correlated publications of the Church. We're a living church. Some teachings can change, so we probably give more weight to a current publication. And then correlation is the process that the Church uses to basically approve officially all of its materials. Something that's correlated will be in the Gospel Library app, for instance. And then the last one is documents that represent the United Voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Now again, this little system here, which we taught, is based on many teachings of church leaders, including an official church newsroom article titled Approaching Latter Day Saint Doctrine. Also, we went to talks by Diton Christofferson and Neil Anderson and a really good article on defining church doctrine by Anthony Sweat, Garrett DirkKmaat and Michael McKay, all friends and colleagues of ours. And we will post the links to each one of these in the show notes so that you can go and access them for yourself.
- [16:53]
A
And I like, Casey, that you said these are in no particular order except maybe number one, which is the harmonized Scriptural canon. Like for instance, President Hinckley, he once said it like this in a training for church leaders. I think this was for general authorities. He was training them. He said, when all is said and done, the test of the doctrine lies in the standard works of the church. These have been accepted in conference and assembled as our doctrinal standards is. Then what we note is the number two, three and four that you mentioned. The cumulative teachings of church leaders, correlated material, united statements from the First Presidency in 12 will often then draw from the canon as they seek to establish doctrine. And so I like always keeping that one. Number one, as President Hinckley said, if we start at this most critical source of church doctrine, the harmonized Scriptural canon, as we said, what do we learn about evolution? Does Scripture support evolution? And again, let's go back to our short definition. Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. So is there anything in Scripture to confirm or deny the truth of this statement? Right. This assertion about the change in populations over time. And so just right out the gate, Casey, I hope this is okay. I'm just going to say. No, I'm going to say. I'm going to say the scripture is agnostic on this issue there. I can't think of a single revelation in scripture that is intended to weigh in on the evolutionary proposition. I say intended because I don't think this is a question that prophets have ever brought up directly that we've got to canonize revelation on. That said, there are verses in scripture that some people bring up as possibly relevant. And so it might be fun to go through a couple of those passages. But I want to say at the outset here, no revelation I'm aware of in the canon was actually trying to weigh in on this question. And so I think that's important.
- [19:00]
B
You know, I'm going to agree with you and say I don't think there's a revelation intended directly to address evolution. But I'm going to push back a little bit and say there are some scriptures, scriptures that might push back on evolution. And I don't know if the scriptures are exactly agnostic. It's weird to use the word agnostic in relation to the scriptures, to be.
- [19:24]
A
Honest on that topic.
- [19:25]
B
Yeah, yeah, it sounds strange. Maybe the scriptures are unclear, but we'll go through some scriptures here. That could push you one direction or the other, either for evolution or against it. I, I think we'll get to that.
- [19:42]
A
Yeah. Maybe, maybe, maybe. I would say it like this. Okay, let me, let me try to modify my statements. There are no scriptures that are intended to weigh in on whether or not evolution is the change of heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
- [19:58]
B
Okay, you learned your way out of that one.
- [20:02]
A
But, but let's go through a couple, maybe kind of ping pong back, bit a little forth with verses that have been used one way or another, and then let's kind of weigh in on those. All right, this will be our opinion. So. Okay, so let's start with a quotation from Moses, chapter two. This is from Joseph Smith translation of Genesis 1. This is a passage describing the creation of plants. Okay, so it says this quote. And I, God said, let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit whose seed should be in itself upon the earth. And it was so, even as I spake. And the earth brought forth grass, every herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself after his kind. And I, God saw that all things which I had made were good. Now, because the church recently announced a new policy encouraging the use of other Bible translations. Casey, I'm going to throw in another Bible translation here. How about the esv? All right, the esv, English Standard Version. Okay, English Standard Version. And God said, let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit, in which is their seed, each according to its kind on the earth. And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit, in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Some like to read this passage where God is commanding the earth to bring forth plants as maybe a poetic way of describing an evolutionary process that God speaks and then it kind of, then it kind of evolves into the thing that God wanted it to be. But again, I would caution against reading a scientific mechanism into the text. Again, this was not written to explain that. All I think we could safely say from this text, and you can push back if you'd like, but I think all we're safe in saying is that God was the source of creation. I think this is what Genesis and Moses and Abraham are trying to emphasize. God was the source of creation. What we cannot say from the text is how God did it. He just Said it and then it was. So that's how it said. And it was. So it doesn't say, like, the mechanism. And so because this wasn't written to answer that question, I think pressing it into service to answer that question gets a little dicey.
- [22:34]
B
Yeah. And we've addressed this in one of our earlier episodes. But Genesis really isn't, you know, a how to. It's not a scientific handbook. It's primarily concerned with the question of why it's a different genre. But I am intrigued by that idea. Idea that it's not a direct creation. God commands the earth to bring forth plants, which is intriguing. Let me show you another one. This is the passage that describes the creation of animals. It's also found in Moses chapter two. And it reads, and I, God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life and fowl which may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And I, God, created great whales and every living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind. And I, God, saw that all things which I had created were good, doing the same thing you did. Here is the English standard version of the same passage. And God said, let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens. So God created great sea creatures and every living creature that moves with which the waters swarm according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind, and God saw that it was good. So I think this one isn't problematic either when it comes to evolution, even if you're reading the text a little bit more literally. God commanded the seas to bring forth living creatures. And that captures the power of God. But it could also suggest poetic description of an evolutionary process. So we're not closing the door on anything so far with the scriptures that we've read.
- [24:22]
A
Okay, what about the creation of man? Let's try that one. So Moses, Moses 2, 26, 27. I, God, said unto mine only begotten, which was with me from the beginning, let us make man in our image after our likeness. And it was so there's the mechanism. And it was. So, in other words, no mechanism. And I, God said, let them have dominion over the fishes of the sea, the fowl of the air, the cattle, the earth, the creeping things. And I, God, created man in my own image, in the image of my only begotten created I am male and female created I them. Again, no mechanism of creation articulated here. No, how just God just did it. It was so. So again, that's why I'd say scripture is kind of silent on the how. Right. So it doesn't really weigh in that I can see on how he did it. Like, here's a good reminder from President Hugh B. Brown. We quoted this in a previous episode, but just one more time. He said there are various opinions on the subject of the method employed in the great and continuing drama of creation, the biblical account of which is compressed into a few lines of print. And we just quoted some of the main ones ones. And then he says it seems obvious that the scriptures were not intended as texts in biology, anthropology, geology or any other of the sciences. It just, it almost, you can feel it, it just kind of skips that. It just says, and it was so. And God did it and it just happened. And it's not really trying to explain it the way that science would love to explain it and does love to explain it.
- [26:01]
B
And the means he used to do it are sort of left unspecified. We're just talking about why it's here, not how it got here. There are some scriptural texts that are often used to state that evolution can't be true. These are kind of the evolution busting verses. For instance, one of the most commonly cited texts comes from the Book of Mormon. And this is in second Nephi 2 where Lehi is explaining to his children about the conditions in the Garden, Garden of Eden. So Lehi is, we assume, pulling from the brass plates, but he doesn't say and he does give some game changing knowledge about what the conditions in the Garden of Eden were like, some of which might have implications for evolution. This is the verse specifically that's often cited by people that don't believe in evolution. 2 Nephi 2:22 which reads, and now if Adam had not transgressed, he would not have fallen, for he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created. They must have remained forever and had no end. So the key words or phrase there would be all things which were created would have remained in the same state which they were after they were created. This seems to suggest that there was no death before the fall of Adam and Eve. And evolution requires death. Changes to species over time requires death, it requires rebirth, it requires mutation, which means changes in species, inherited traits. So I don't know, is there a way to harmonize this with the idea or concept of evolution? What do you think?
- [27:41]
A
Yeah. Again, I just hear President Hugh B. Brown's caution. Like, was this text intended as a text in biology, anthropology, geology, or any of the other sciences? I think we can answer no. Lehi is not claiming to be an evolutionary scientist here. He's trying to make a doctrinal point, underscoring the significance of the fall, isn't he? Yeah.
- [28:04]
B
And I've also heard sometimes people play around with this and say, is this describing the condition of the entire world or is this describing the condition of the Garden of Eden? One of my old teachers, Joseph Fielding McConkey, called this the 40 acres theory, that these were just conditions within the place where Adam and Eve lived. And obviously, obviously there's other places because the story talks about them leaving the.
- [28:26]
A
Garden, being cast out into the lone and dreary world. Right.
- [28:31]
B
Where there is death, where there is decay, where there's all those things. So some people say, well, what Lehi's describing is just the Garden of Eden and not the entire world. And it's possible that God used evolutionary processes to create everything leading up to the Garden of Eden and then created that one particular spot where Adam and Eve would begin their journey, their experience. That's one way to reconcile it, is that death was present before the fall of Adam and Eve, but the place where Adam and Eve lived, or the earth at the time Adam and Eve were there when it was finally finished, did not have death and Adam and Eve reinstituted it. That might be one way to harmonize this with other scriptures.
- [29:13]
A
Yeah. And just as you were explaining that, I reread verse 22, and I think that fits well. And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed, he would not have fallen, but would have remained in the Garden of Eden. Next line. And all things which were created must have remained. So maybe you could insert. And all things which were created in the Garden of Eden must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created.
- [29:35]
B
Yeah, it's only talking about Eden, not what happened before the creation was finished or what. I mean, it is talking about what happens after the death leaves or death enters because of the actions of Adam and Eve.
- [29:48]
A
And I'm also okay just to say that this may just be how Lehi understood it. Like from, from Lehi's understanding. He's like, this is how it was, kids, you know? But this is also a one off passage, which is again why we need to use the harmonized canon in order to like, say, what does Scripture consistently say over time? What do multiple prophets interact with the canonized scripture, say over time, that's when our confidence is really going to go way up that something is doctrinally accurate. Like to have a one off statement like this that is not supported by any other prophets who've ever talked about the creation in the fall. Like it's kind of like, you know, again, we're not poo pooing Lehi. But I think he genuinely like this may have been how he understood it. And he could be mistaken if he was trying to weigh in on whether there was any death whatsoever before the fall of Adam. Like, you know that that's fine. He is, he is welcome to that opinion. But he could be, he could be wrong. And, and that by the way that that reality is stated right on the title page of the Book of Mormon. Right. Like Moroni wrote, if there are mistakes in this book, they are the mistakes of men. Please don't condemn the things of God because some prophets in here got a couple things wrong. So again, maybe he's not wrong. Maybe within the context of the Garden of Eden or maybe there might be ways to harmonize it. But even if he's dead wrong, that's okay in my opinion.
- [31:16]
B
The direction I would go is that he's right, but he's only describing conditions in Eden. And the whole story seems to imply that conditions were different outside of Eden. That's just the way that I read it. But I could be wrong too. I gotta have a little humility myself.
- [31:32]
A
No, that's totally cool. In fact, if you read all of 2 Nephi 2, there's a cool line where he says he's talking about a fallen angel where he says I must needs suppose from the things which I have read that there was an angel that fell. He starts talking about Lucifer who then tries to tempt Adam and Eve successfully does tempt them. But I just find that line pretty remarkable. I must needs suppose from the things, things that I have read. So you almost see Lehi kind of working this out in real time as he's explaining this to Jacob. Like, this is what I understand, son. And so again I think we should respect and value that, but weigh it against everything else that's in scripture too. Let's do another one that's I think even harder. This one's in doctrine and Covenants 77 and it's sometimes cited as imperial incompatible with evolution because it seems to fix the age of the earth at under 7,000 years old. Okay, so here's, here's the passage. The context is that Joseph Smith is asking about the meaning of some of the first chapters in the book of Revelation where John sees God sitting on his throne holding a scroll. And the scroll is sealed by seven seals. And so Joseph's actually asking about that. Here's the question. Verse 6. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals? We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries and the works of God, the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the 7,000 years of its continuance or its temporal existence. The scroll represents the Lord just said the 7,000 years of the earth's continuance or its temporal existence. Then Joseph asks, what are we to understand by the seven seals with which it is sealed? We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh. Okay, so Casey, does this mean. Can we use this verse to say that there have only been 6,000 plus years, or 6,000 or so years minus the millennium? That hasn't happened yet since the fall of Adam and Eve. I mean, could this be harmonized with science?
- [33:57]
B
I guess the big question here is what is meant by temporal existence, which. The easiest assumption is when Adam and Eve fell. This is when the temporal existence began. And the passage seems to be saying it's been about 6,000 years since that happened. That doesn't necessarily include the creative period of the earth when the earth was being brought into creation. And so there's probably a way to wiggle out of that a little bit. But I would just say I don't know if it's crystal clear to us what we mean by the temporal existence of the Earth. Like that. That term hasn't been defined clearly. We're making assumptions about what it means.
- [34:39]
A
I like what you just said about, like, this is not including, like the creative period prior to the fall of Adam and Eve, the preparatory period, the bajillion years before that. It's just saying if we. If we interpret temporal existence as like, since we started keeping time in the Bible. Since. Since, which is since the fall. Right. That's when we start kind of keeping time. We start measuring how long lifespans are and this person begat that person and live this long. That's. By the way, that's how we get to the 6,000 number. Lots of readers of scripture through time have gone through the chronology, which for the average reader is super boring. This person begat that person who lived this long. But by Doing the math, that's where we get the 6,000 or so years since the fall of Adam. And so whether or not those lifespans are accurate, et cetera, that's a whole other question. But that's how we consistently get that number, which is around 6,000 years. It's because of those chronologies. Right?
- [35:41]
B
Right. Another challenge I would suggest is even though this section of the Doctrine and Covenants appears to be speaking very literally, it's also talking about what is probably the most symbolic book in the entire scriptural canon, which is the Book of Revelation. And in Revelation, so many people kind of fixate on the Book of Revelation because it's really symbolic. And a lot of people claim, well, I know exactly what this means, and the Lord here is giving some very helpful insights. But I would also back up and say, hey, whenever we're talking about the Book of Revelation, we immediately need to be very cautious about our assumptions because we haven't always been given the meaning behind those things. This one seems plain, but there could be more at play here, too, so I'm willing to keep an open mind as well.
- [36:31]
A
One of the scribes of the Book of Abraham is W.W. phelps. And in a letter that he writes to William Smith, Joseph Smith's little brother, he says that our current system, he doesn't say the Earth, but the system of which our Earth is a part, is, quote, 2,555 million years old, or in other words, 2.55 billion years old. That's how old he is. He says, our system is that the Earth is a part of. And he says, this we know from the records found in the catacombs of Egypt referencing the Book of Abraham papyri. And while at first that might make us kind of scratch our heads and say, where is he getting us? If we look in the text like, that's not in the text that we currently have. However, there is this text, the text in the Book of Abraham that says that one day with God is like a thousand years to man. Right. So it seems like this is what Phelps is doing. So if you do this calculation, 7,000 years times 365 days times 1,000 years, that's where you get 2,555,000,000 years. So this is just Phelps crunching some numbers, which is so funny.
- [37:54]
B
I'm going to push back against this a little bit, too, because one of the most intriguing passages for me from the Book of Abraham is Abraham, 5, 13, where it makes this statement. It says, now I, Abraham saw that it was after the Lord's time, which was after the time of Kolob. For as yet the gods had not appointed unto Adam and his reckoning, which seems to suggest that time is more elastic and fluid. Relative might be the word that we would use here. That. Yeah, that. That it's more timey, wimey and stretchy than sometimes we assume that it is. So it's interesting that Phelps gives something that specific. When I would say the actual text of the book of Abraham that we have argues the opposite. Point. Point. It says that it's not that specific.
- [38:46]
A
Yeah. And I'm definitely not quoting Phelps to say that's the official position of the church. What I'm saying is it's interesting that even, what, three years after Section 77 was received, we have the book of Abraham, maybe shedding more light on this topic, saying, oh, maybe 7,000 years as you think of it, is not what this was about. Maybe this is 7,000 of God's years. And if you're doing 7,000 of God's years, that's like 2.5 billion of our years. And so you just. Again, point being, let's not read section 77, these verses, as though this is the final say on how old the earth is, because Joseph Smith and his contemporaries didn't seem to ever quote section 77 that way.
- [39:33]
B
Yeah. And before we get too specific into one day is a thousand years and so on and so forth, my fallback scripture is Alma 40, verse 8, where it just says all is, is one day with God and time is only measured unto men, which kind of throws everything out the window and saying, good luck trying to figure out how time works for God. It works differently for him than it does for us, so don't worry about it a whole lot. Now, we could go on and on and on on this particular point, but I think what we've done might be sufficient to say that the Scriptures aren't really clear on this question. There are some, like those passages we cited in the Book of Moses that you could push to say they support the idea of evolutionary processes used to create plants, animals, and maybe even the bodies that. That are used by God's spirit children. But a lot of these passages are written in highly symbolic ways or use terms that haven't been clearly defined. So, Scott, I'm just going to ask you point blank, based on the Scriptures, what's your position on evolution? Like, do we have a clear. What's your doctrinal confidence level that evolution is true or false based on the.
- [40:45]
A
Scriptures, based on the scriptures? Yeah, my confidence level. So I'm pulling out my meter and I'm trying to like detect scriptures that are actually weighing in on this topic. And it's like not, it's not even clicking. It's not like, like there's, there's not even. There's not a scripture. There's plenty of scriptures people use as. And we've tried to show a couple. But I don't, I maintain there are no scriptures that are weighing in on this question. And therefore from, from scripture itself. Like, evolution could totally be true and that would be totally fine, scripturally speaking. Like, there's, I think there's more of a tendency to say that scripture contradicts. Contradicts evolution than there is people arguing that Scripture confirms evolution. And so I would just weigh in basically in that way and saying there's nothing in scripture that I see that would contradict the possibility of evolution being true.
- [41:41]
B
Yeah. I would just say it seems like they're not incompatible. There's no definitive yes or no when it comes down to it. So if we can't use scripture, let's try another one of these reliable sources that we rely on.
- [41:57]
A
Yeah.
- [41:57]
B
Yeah.
- [41:57]
A
Okay. Let's. Let's go to the cumulative teachings of the leaders of the church. Now, we're not, we're not going to try to do this in an exhaustive way. That would take a couple hours. But we do want to just cite a couple representative statements made by different church leaders on evolution to kind of show you that maybe there's not a consistent teaching. Some took really extreme, strong stances against evolution. Evolution, for instance, Joseph Fielding smith, Bruce R. McConkie. We'll quote from them. And others were much more friendly to evolution, even saying this is probably true, like James E. Talmadge and John A. Widtsoe. Let's quote from them, too. So let me just start with a pretty strong statement against this is by Joseph Fielding Smith. He said, and by the way, this is still in the current institute manual used for the Old Testament, which is kind of controversial. But he said this quote, of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years, do not believe in Adam. Honestly, I do not know how they can. And I'm going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it, but they are inconsistent, absolutely inconsistent. Because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony with the revelations of the Lord that a man just Cannot believe in both. I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other. For they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so. Close quote here's another. Here's another do or die. One that's not in the. In the Old Testament manual, but it says this from Joseph Fielding Smith. If evolution is true, the church is false. If life began on the earth as advocated by Darwin and others of this school, whether by chance or by some designed hand, then the doctrines of the Church are false. Then there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, no fall. And if there was no fall, if death did not come into the world as the Scriptures declared that it did, and to be consistent, if you are an evolutionist, this view you must assume then there was no need for a redemption and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God and he did not die for the transgression of Adam nor for the sins of the world, then there has been no resurrection from the dead. Consistently. Logically, there's no other view, no alternative that can be taken. Now, my brothers and sisters, are you prepared to take this view? Close quote Holy cow. So I think that's on the far extreme end of evolution is false.
- [44:50]
B
Would you say there's no two ways with him? Like he just, it's not true. And I mean, I don't think he can be any clearer than when he said if evolution is true, then the church's faults, he just felt really, really strongly about it. Now he's kind of one end of the spectrum. There were other church leaders from Joseph Fielding Smith's own time who only disputed evolution if it was being directly used to disprove the existence of a personal God. For instance, this is John A. Widtsoe who was contemporary with Joseph Fielding Smith. John A. Widtsoe said, 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. So it seems like Winso's saying, if you're saying it was just evolution, but.
- [45:55]
A
Like Randomly without God being involved.
- [45:57]
B
If it all happened randomly without. With no involvement of God, which I don't think is a position taken by any member of the church. I think almost every member of the church would say evolution could be the means God used to create plants and animals and the bodies that Adam and Eve used. But, yeah, I'm with Widtsoe on this. And if that's how Joseph Fielding Smith is defining evolution, I'm with him, too. If you're saying it was completely random and there was no force behind it, there was no intelligent design, then I might have an issue with that.
- [46:29]
A
Yeah. In fact, can I quote another John, a widow quote, just to maybe represent the other side of the spectrum? He said, the law of evolution or change may be accepted fully. It is an established fact, so far as human power can determine. It is nothing more or less than the gospel law of progression or its opposite. Joseph Smith taught that men could rise toward godhood only quote, by going from one small degree to another, from a small capacity to a great one, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation. And then he said, all living things, plants and animals, are subject to change. Every observer of nature, certainly all plant and animal breeders, know this to be true. It is an unchanging fact of nature. Living things are not static. This is the law of evolution in the meaning of this law. Latter Day Saints are the foremost evolutionists in the world. They believe that the immortal spirit of man may eternally approach the likeness of God himself.
- [47:28]
B
Widtsoe had kind of a more nuanced interpretation. Let me cite someone else, and this is probably the one that gets brought up the most when we talk about evolution, and rightly so. It's a little bit more current and it's more strongly worded. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, the member of the Quorum of the Twelve, gave a talk called the Seven Deadly Heresies. And one of the Seven Deadly Heresies was evolution. This is a part of that talk. He said, there are those who believe that the theory of organic evolution runs counter to the plain and explicit principles set forth in the Holy Scriptures, as these have been interpreted and taught by Joseph Smith and his associates. There are others who think evolution is the system used by the Lord to form plant and animal life and to place man on earth. And then Elder McConkie's primary argument is using that passage in second Eph. Two that we talked about, which he interprets to mean there was no death anywhere on the earth, that there wasn't death at all. Before the fall of Adam and Eve. But I was surprised, Scott, when I read this, that even though he's calling it a deadly heresy, he does leave open room for discussion. Like he's saying, here's both sides. Then he says, these are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself and what he believed. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields. So I was a little bit surprised to see that Elder McConkie, who, you know, putting this in a talk called the Seven Deadly Heresies sounds like a direct condemnation, which he does. But he also at the end says, but this is the sort of thing that you do have to study for yourself. You have to kind of figure out, and I would urge people to seek light and knowledge in these fields. It's clear that he didn't believe in evolution, but I don't think Elder McConkie would say that if evolution's true, the church's fault. And maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm misinterpreting here. And if I am, I'm sorry. I have deep respect for the man and I just want to. I'm sharing his words directly.
- [49:28]
A
His book, Mormon Doctrine. He does dig deeper into it. And yeah, by the time you're done reading what he said in there, it's clear he does not believe in or evolution, certainly not as it applies to, to the origin of man. On the other hand, there are a handful of statements from church leaders that are friendly to evolution, as we saw with from Elder Widtso. Here's another one from Elder Stephen L. Richards from the Quorum of the twelve Apostles. He said, if the evolutionary hypothesis of the creation of life and matter in the universe is ultimately found to be correct, and I shall neither be disappointed nor displeased if it shall turn out so to be. In my humble opinion, he says the biblical account is sufficiently comprehensive to include the whole of the process. It's interesting putting that one right next to the Joseph Fielding Smith quote where Joseph Fielding Smith says, evolution contradicts the Scriptures. And then you have Stephen L. Richards saying, I think the Scriptures are sufficiently comprehensive to include the whole of the evolutionary process. So interesting. Both are reading the same Scripture but coming to very different concepts, conclusions. And here's another one from Elder James E. Talmadge, who was a member of the 12 and also a geologist. He said, quote, evolution is true so far as it means development and progress and advancement in all the works of God. Close quote. It's True. David O. McKay. He called evolution a beautiful theory. Beautiful theory. In fact, several people wrote very fervent letters to President David O. McKaywin as church president, asking about what they should make of statements by Joseph Fielding Smith about evolution. Like, for instance, here's one from 1957. It's a private letter that we now have published, but it's a Professor William Stokes, who wrote and was asking, what do we do about Joseph Hilding Smith's book called Man His Origin and Destiny, where Joseph Fielding Smith lays all out, like, why he believes evolution is false. Here's how David O. McKay responded to Brother Stokes, quote, Your letter of February 11, 1957, has been received. On the subject of organic evolution, the church has officially taken no position. The book Man His Origin and Destiny by Joseph Fielding Smith was not published by the church and is not approved by the Church. The book contains expressions of the author's views for which he alone is responsible. Sincerely, your brother, David O. McKay. So President McKay did not make any efforts to endorse those views of Joseph Fielding Smith. And he basically throws out a position of no position. Right. Which is fascinating.
- [52:19]
B
So it's clear that there wasn't total consensus among the statements of the leaders of the church. And I tried to find more recent statements too, because, you know, the most important prophet is the one we're serving with right now. It seems like in recent years, church leaders have sort of steered away from saying anything definitively about it. And again, this isn't exhaustive, but a couple examples. D. Todd Christofferson gave a talk in April 2015 called why Marriage, Why Family? And this is how he deals with evolution. He says, whatever the details of the creation process, we know that it was not accidental, but that it was directed by God the Father and implemented by Jesus Christ. All things were made by him and without him was not anything that was made. So he sort of brushes aside the specifics, saying, well, whatever the details of the creative process are, here's the essential stuff to know. One, that it was not accidental, that it was directed by God the Father and that it was implemented by Jesus Christ. Like, he's sort of. Let's cut through the noise here. Let's talk about what we can agree on. We agree that it wasn't accidental. We believe that it was carried out by Jesus Christ. We don't know the means by which it was carried out, which is a.
- [53:38]
A
Really responsible thing to say. I think that's exactly what Genesis and Moses and Abraham are saying. We don't know the mechanism. But we know it was by God, under God's direction, right?
- [53:47]
B
Yeah. And President Christofferson's a really thoughtful guy. I love his talks because he's so good at just like, outlining a position, weighing it carefully. Here's what I think Another statement, this one is by President Jeffrey R. Holland. It's from a talk he gave in April 2015 called Where Justice, Love and Mercy Meet. And this one kind of goes on both sides. For instance, you'll note he's arguing for Adam and Eve here, but he's also saying there's a lot that we don't know. This is the point he's trying to make. He said, in our increasingly secular society, it is as uncommon as it is unfashionable to speak of Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eden or of a fortunate fall into mortality. Nevertheless, the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the atonement and resurrection of Christ, and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of his death or his birth. In other words, there's no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter without understanding there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden with all the consequences that fall carried with it. Then he goes on to say, I do not know the details of what happened on this planet before that, but I do know that these two were created under the divine hand of God. That for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family. And through a sequence of choices they transgressed a commandment of God which required them that they leave their garden setting, but which allowed them to have children before facing physical death. In the same passage, he's saying there was an actual Adam, that's the word he uses, and Eve that fell from an actual Eden. But then the next thing he says is, I don't know the details of what happened on this planet before that. But here, like Elder Christofferson, here is the essentials. They were created by the divine hand of God. They lived alone in a paradisiacal setting, and that they left the garden. They made a choice which required them to leave the garden so they could have children before they faced physical death. So we could go on and on and show that there isn't really a complete harmony among the leaders of the church, especially the mid 20th century, which is the history we're going to be highlighting in the following episodes about whether or not evolution is compatible with the Gospel. It seems like the leaders of the Church today have sort of settled on saying, we just don't know, but don't miss the forest for the trees. The essential thing is that life was created by God, that it was not accidental, and that Jesus Christ played a role in creating it too. So, Scott, what's your level of doctrinal confidence based on these statements?
- [56:21]
A
Yeah, so for doctrinal confidence to rise, we need consistent teachings of the prophets over long periods of time. And I'm not seeing that consistent. See, Casey, I don't think we can say simply from the teachings of the prophets that, you know, one way or the other, we see extremes on both sides. There's definitely an openness to it, but there's also definitely some very adamant statements against it. I think President Christofferson is doing a good job just sort of stating as it is, like we don't know the mechanism, but what we know. We know God did it. And other Hollands, to his point, there was an Adam and Eve which is essential to the redemption story of Christ. Right. So doctrinally. Yeah. From the teachings of the church leaders, I don't have high confidence one way or the other.
- [57:15]
B
Well, we like to use one statement, right. To jab at the other side or take the position that we like or don't like. But the key here is the cumulative teachings of leaders of the church. And I think if you look at the cumulative teachings leaders the church, and we've only sampled a little bit here, we could have gone on further. It's clear that there's not a settled consensus among the leaders of the church about evolution in particular. Yeah, I'm with you. Elder Christofferson and Elder Holland, kind of scratch the itch that I'm getting, which is to just say we don't know the full details of the creative process. Here's what we do know, and then move forward with that.
- [57:53]
A
Okay, but let's try another one of the sources for doctrine. What about statements from the entire first principle presidency or quorum of the 12 that attempt to answer the question in a unified way, do we, do we have anything like that for this topic? And we actually do. That's kind of fun. Yeah. So just for context here, so Charles Darwin publishes his Origin of Species, his masterpiece on evolution. That kind of starts this whole thing right. In 1859. And yeah, and then it starts to the ball, kind of starts to slowly roll. And then some people start to see that as a threat to religion, as a threat to the creation story, as a threat to the scriptures and the fundamentals held by all the Abrahamic traditions. Right. And so different, you know, now Christians and Jews and Muslims, they start to pile on. And now we start to see this like, like science versus religions things start to happen. Darwin, to be, to be frank, like he said, I didn't see this as something that was attacking Christianity or anything like that. I just, I thought this was a beautiful way that God works. Right. That's kind of where he starts out. But by, by the turn of the century, it, I mean, it's made inroads into our church. There's church members that are like asking these questions. This is kind of a. The height of the fever pitch of evolution versus religion. And so the First Presidency weighs in on this. Any more context you want to add though, before I. Yeah.
- [59:30]
B
Early 20th century is when Darwin's theories start to cycle into public education. So a couple things are happening here. In the 1890s, the United States really expanded public education widely. And all of a sudden that starts into discussions about what the curriculum should be. And in the early 20th century, and it's kind of going to reach its Peak in 1925 with the scopes Monkey trial, there's intense discussions and people like William Jennings Bryan that are leading anti evolution crusades and other people that are speaking in favor of evolution. And so this was current events. I think the First Presidency just felt the need to have a doctrinal statement that gave church members a clear thing to stay with. And I should point out too, this is more than a century old, but it was republished by the church in 2002. And the note in the Ensign when it was republished was, we're studying the Old Testament this year. And so we felt like it was a good idea, had to review these principles. And then they republished the entire document in full in an official church magazine. So that's been, you know, not too long ago, about two decades ago.
- [60:47]
A
Yeah. And the document's just a few pages long and it quotes a lot from scriptures, some of which we've already cited. But let me summarize a couple main points without reading the whole document. But let's summarize, summarize a couple things. So number one, this First Presidency statement affirms that God created humanity in his own image. Right. Recites Genesis 1 and that this statement is literal rather than symbolic, meaning God really created us. God is understood to have a personal embodied form, they say. And humans, both male and female, were created to resemble God. That's an important point point. Also, they mentioned that creation is described as twofold in scripture. First, a spiritual creation. This is really Clear in the book of Moses in which all humans existed as spirits first and then later a temporal or a physical creation in which spirits then receive mortal bodies. A couple more points. Jesus Christ is presented as the express image of the Father, demonstrating that God has a human like form. Form because Christ appeared as a man before, during and after his mortal life. The Father, the First Presidency says, is likewise understood to be in the form of a man. All humans are the literal spirit children of heavenly parents, making Jesus Christ the elder brother of humanity. They say human spirits are in human form just as physical bodies are. Scriptural accounts, notably the vision of brother of Jared, are used by them to argue that spirits have bodily form and that humans were created after the image of Christ, even before mortality. Again, I'm just kind of zipping through some summaries of their points. What else would you add, Casey?
- [62:33]
B
Near the end, it does come closest to addressing organic evolution. One of the things that asserts is that the origin of humanity cannot be fully understood through human reasoning and has to be helped with divine revelation. And then it emphasizes that human beings are the direct offspring of God, that they're endowed with divine attributes, possessing the potential through eternal progression to become like God. The animals, though created and perfected by God, are not created in his image is one point that it makes. And I should state originally our intention was to just read the entire statement, but it's several pages long and it quotes a lot of the scriptures that we've already talked about. But there is one part that I want to quote directly because it seems to bear the most on what we're talking about here. So this is near the end of the document, and these two paragraphs seem to come the closest to addressing the idea of could mankind have developed the bodies they have through evolution? So. So let me read this directly. It says this. 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 the lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of Ben. The Word of the Lord declared that Adam was the first man of all men, 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 the Heavenly Father. Now, did you catch that language there? I heard you go. Because they're Leaving the door open a little bit where they say, does this passage refer to the spirit or the body or both? Which gives us a little wiggle room to say, well, maybe the body was created using evolutionary processes. Then it goes on to say this 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, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man or less than a human germ or embryo that becomes a man. So that second paragraph there, too, kind of does push the idea that Adam started out as a human, as we understand a human today, and that he didn't come from any kind of lower order. But I think there's still some wiggle room there, too.
- [65:19]
A
There's nothing to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, which would be, you know, Homo sapiens. Right. Began life as anything less than a man. So that's not really weighing in on whether or not evolution was used by God or not. It's just saying that by the time we get to our race, the human race, that's when God's spirit children begin inhabiting the bodies, basically. I don't want to read too much into it, but that's when the beginning of our race, the first of our race, began life, life as a man, not as anything less than a man. And I think, again, that's great either way.
- [66:01]
B
No problem with that. But again, it's not quite as definitive as sometimes people make it out to be.
- [66:07]
A
Yeah. And I find it really fascinating that this is the official church position on evolution. But then when you read it, it's like, you know, could be, maybe not.
- [66:21]
B
And I would push back.
- [66:22]
A
What's the position?
- [66:24]
B
Its title is the Origin of Man, which to them is a more complicated question than just evolution. Evolution is where our bodies came from. But they spend most of the document arguing that our spirits come directly from God, are the offspring of God, and that we're created in the image of God. So they seem to be suggesting I would read this and be okay with the idea that God directed evolution to create bodies that were in his image, but they're pushing back against the idea that it was random.
- [66:57]
A
Yeah. This statement certainly doesn't prevent someone from holding that position, does it?
- [67:02]
B
No, I don't think so. And so, I mean, it's interesting that the book Jamie Jensen was talking about when she was with us last time actually includes this entire statement as an appendix. So this was written by a number of religious and biological scholars, and they seem to have no problem placing the Origin of Man as an appendix in their book for thoughtful consideration by people.
- [67:25]
A
And here's another one too, another First Presidency statement simply entitled the Mormon View of Evolution. This is published by the First Presidency in 1925 in the Improvement era, which was the church magazine at the time. And let me summarize some of its main points. It's long too. I'll quote a little bit from it, but some main points. Let me paraphrase phrase. This statement affirms that humanity was created in the literal image of God as taught in Genesis, and that this teaching represents divine revelation rather than human opinion. All subsequent revelation is said to be consistent with that truth. Jesus Christ is described as the express image of God the Father. And because Christ appeared and lived as a perfect human being, God the Father is likewise understood to have a human form. You see here echoes in this 1925 statement of the the 1909 statement. They cite the first vision of Joseph Smith as confirmation that the Father and the Son are distinct and embodied beings. A God is identified as the Father of all humanity, with Christ as the firstborn spirit child of God and the only begotten in the flesh. Humans are therefore portrayed as literal sons and daughters of divine heavenly parents and in the likeness of both a heavenly father and interesting a heavenly mother. Adam is presented as the first man and a pre existent spirit who received a physical body and became a living soul, paralleling Christ's pattern of pre existence to embodiment. The doctrine of premortality is emphasized as key to understanding human origins, teaching that humans actually lived as spirits with God before mortal life and they came to earth to gain physical bodies and experience mortality. And then that statement ends by affirming our divine identity as children of God. And here's the direct quote from that. It says man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes. And even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable by experience through ages and eons of evolving. They use the word evolving here. So what do we believe about evolution? That mankind can evolve and become like God. That's what we believe. But again, this statement does not say definitively one way or the other what we believe about the mechanism by which God created the bodies of mankind. What they seem, especially both in this and the 1909 statement to be doing is pushing back against the idea, A, that was random, B, that mankind doesn't really have purpose. It's all just, you know, this is just, you know, the. The dividing of cells and random mutations and natural selection, and that's it. Like this idea that we. We don't have a purpose, we don't have a God, we don't have a premortality. We don't have, like, the things that evolutionary biology is not saying one way or the other. Evolution doesn't have the tools to say whether there was a premortality, doesn't have the tools to say whether or not life has a purpose. But some people were taking the science and trying to make it say that. And so that's what I hear. The first presidency. Pushing back hard against here is no, there was a premortality. We were made in the image of God. How God made our bodies, we don't know. But we do know mankind has purpose. We do know there is meaning to this life. Right. So it's interesting to kind of. It's almost a snapshot into the issues that they were facing with the evolutionary arguments at that time.
- [71:01]
B
Yeah, it was interesting to reread these. I've read them before, and I have my students read the Origin of Man every semester, but I never realized that. It seems like the primary thing they were concerned with was this idea that mankind is the result of random happenstance and that there was no overall design in creation, which. Which, yeah, if you believe that, you could have real problems with religion and everything like that. But that middle road where we say, well, this could be the means God used to create the bodies that we use seems to be something that they might be okay with, that it just doesn't address. It seems like the 1909 statement maybe hints at it, but the 1925 one just. Just doesn't say anything, says, no, we're just building children of God. So based on these first presidency statements, what's your doctrinal confidence?
- [71:59]
A
Yeah, again, it just seems like it's an open question based on these statements. Right. If you want to know what the official position of the church is on evolution and you read these statements, you walk away saying, okay, so it could be. It could be true. Like evolution could be true. As long as we don't forget the part about premortality and a God and a purposeful creation in God's image by heavenly parents. Right. Then how God created our body is still an open question. That's totally fine. So, yeah, how about you? What would you add to that?
- [72:37]
B
Again, it might go back to how you define evolution. I mean, if we're just looking at the process, that one sentence definition we got, it doesn't seem like they're contradicting it. But if you take evolution a little bit further and say, and thus it was all completely random. Yeah, they disagree with that. And they disagree with that forcefully. And I do as well. If you take it the other direction and say, well, this could be the process God used, then the doors open for that to be the case. And we don't necessarily have to disagree or see evolution as a threat to our faith. It could be reconciled. So we've done three of the four reliable sources and so far we're coming up more fuzzy. We got one left. We got one left. So let's go to the other one on the list, which was the current and correlated publications of the church. So has anything been said recently? Let's emphasize current and in an official church source like a magazine. Surprisingly, in 2016, an article appeared in the New Era, which was the church's magazine for youth at the time. I don't think the New Era doesn't exist anymore, but it was the thing at the time. And the New Era had a little section called Q and A where you could basically ask questions and they would write back. This article is pretty short and so I'm just going to read it in full. The article was titled what does the Church believe about evolution? Here's the answer, directly quoting. The Church has no official position on the theory of evolution. Okay, but. But then it goes on to say this. It goes on to say this. Organic evolution or changes to species inherited traits over time is a matter for scientific study. Nothing has been revealed concerning evolution, though the details of what happened on earth before Adam and Eve, including how their bodies were created, have not been revealed. Our teachings regarding man's origin are clear and come from Revelation. Before we were born on the earth, we were spirit children of heavenly parents with bodies in their image. God directed the creation of Adam and Eve and placed spirits in their bodies. We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, our first parents who were created in God's image. Then it goes on to say there were no spirit children of Heavenly Father on the earth before Adam and Eve were created. In addition, for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family. They're quoting Elder Holland's talk here. They fell from that state and this fall was an essential part of Heavenly Father's plan for us to become like him. So this is staking out some interesting ground. There's no official church position on evolution. They say that organic evolution is a matter of scientific study. So they're doing what Jamie Jensen did when we talked to her, saying that requires a different epistemology. But they do take an interesting position on one thing. Which is to say, well, our belief is that Adam and Eve were the first spirit children of Heavenly Father to walk on the earth and that their bodies were created in his image. So are we okay with the idea of earlier hominids being a means to create the bodies Adam and Eve were in then? Maybe. But what the article seems to be stating is that Adam and Eve were the first spirit children of God to walk the earth, which is interesting.
- [76:01]
A
Yeah. Okay, so there you go. So that latest correlated material states directly that the Church has no official position on the theory of evolution. But what's interesting is in that same issue of the New Era, there was also an article on science and religion which quoted Richard Gardner, who's a. A molecular and cell biologist, also an active member of the church. And Dr. Gardner said this in that same publication, he said, some people have believed in God because there are gaps in the fossil record, meaning to them that evolution cannot explain how we got there. But what happens to our faith when these gaps are closed by the discovery of new fossils? We talked about this with Jamie Jensen, right? Like, careful about the God of the gaps. It's a slippery slope that doesn't end well. Well, but Dr. Gardner goes on to say, rather, we need to obtain positive evidence of God through the Holy Ghost. Different epistemology here. And then we can rejoice in any scientific discovery instead of worrying about it. Close quote, Scriptures statements of individual members of the 12 and first presidency. Collective statements of the first presidency. And now we have some correlated material that we've quoted from, like, okay, so, Casey, so what's our doctrinal confidence based on correlated statements in church publications?
- [77:22]
B
This article appeared in 2016. We're recording this in 2026. So 10 years, which isn't a long time when it comes to church teachings, to be honest with you. I also looked this up to see if it had been quoted in any other official correlated publications. And it has. There's a. There's a church history topics article on evolution that directly quotes this 2016 statement that's even newer. So it seems like it's cleared correlation again in more recent years. And I mean, this, this little New Era article actually does the best job harmonizing what we've been spending over an hour today discussing, which is just to say it seems like there is no official church position on evolution. Take that for what you will. You might read the scriptures and say it seems like, nope, it's not right. Or you might read the scriptures and say, I'm okay with it, but it doesn't seem like you have to stake out a position. One thing I might mention is that in my classes we do this doctrinal model and it comes from Anthony Sweatt, Garrett dirkmautz and Mike McKay's article too. I just really like that where we say there's core teachings of the Church, there's supporting teachings, there's policy teachings that change from time to time, and then there's esoteric teachings. And if we're putting evolution in that model, I would say we've already identified a number of the core teachings that are linked to evolution, which it was not accidental. The way Elder Christofferson said it is probably the best summary. It was not accidental, it was directed by God and it was carried out by Jesus Christ. I would say that's the core stuff. You got to believe this to call yourself a Latter Day Saint. I would say. I would say the supporting teachings, which can be a big deal but are maybe less critical, would be things like Adam and Eve were the first spirit children of God to live on the earth. When it comes to most teachings about evolution, though, I would say it's esoteric, meaning we don't know right now. And until we get a little bit more knowledge, it's difficult for us to know. The non negotiables are that we're children of God, that our creation was purposeful, but the how is really something that we're free to explore on different avenues right now. Sometimes when we have these reliable sources, I'll add in a fifth one, which is just the doctrine of Christ. And the doctrine of Christ is elucidated over and over again, especially in the Book of Mormon, as just being what is essential to our salvation, faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, enduring to the end. And I would say the essential teachings here, the doctrine of Christ, is that we're children of heavenly parents and that God is our creator. But there's a lot of ambiguity, there's a lot that's esoteric about the processes God uses to create life, especially the physical bodies that we now inhabit. The doctrine of Christ doesn't mention the origin of our bodies, but it focuses on our spiritual rebirth through covenants with Jesus Christ. So how our bodies came to be and the creative processes that God used to form our bodies and even our ecosystem are esoteric questions for us. When we're approaching them theologically, when we're using the religious epistemology that we've talked about, we don't really know the answer. So in my mind, there's not really a conflict with science.
- [80:39]
A
Yeah, there is no conflict with science. Booyah. That's so good. Now, I 100% agree with what you just said there. But that isn't to say that there haven't been some really strong feelings about evolution and whether it points us toward God or whether it takes us away from seeking God and seeing the wonder of God's creations. Right. Like, throughout the history of even our church, there have been strong opinions on both sides of this debate. And so today we spent the day kind of setting the table for the debate to just show that even though there might be some strong opinions, there's no good guys and bad guys. What it really comes down to after, you know, that the church has no official position on this is you see that people are free to form their opinions, their own thoughts on the matter. And that goes all the way up to the highest levels of leadership in the church. And so we want to talk about that in our next episode. Okay. We want to talk about debates about evolution in our church's history, and we want to place those debates within the larger context of what was happening within Christianity during the 20th century. This has largely been framed as what was called the modernist versus the fundamentalist conflict that has defined many churches during the 20th century. But we want to talk about that. So in our next episode, Casey. We want to talk about strong opinions that church leaders have held and the ways that they have kind of worked through this, and maybe how we've gotten to some of these conclusions that church leaders today will say, listen, we don't actually know the mechanism, but what matters is X, Y and Z. Like, before that, we're talking about with figures like Joseph Hilding Smith, James E. Talmadge, John A. Widtsoe, even Henry Eyring, the father of our current member of the First Presidency, Henry B. Eyring, Heber J. Grant, and a lot of other really interesting figures in our history. Like, there are some cool stories and some, I think, eye opening stories that we need to talk about. Casey. And so we want to do that next episode.
- [82:50]
B
Yeah. And while it's fun to review the history and we may have spoiled the answer today by concluding that there is no official church position on evolution. But part of the reason why we did this before we started the story of how these discussions have kind of played out in the church, was we didn't really want to take a position on who was right and who was wrong. We just want to tell the story. And we can hope by the time that we're finished with the next few episodes, we can show how discussions like these can help shape our thinking. They can show how people who believe in evolution and people who don't could still worship side by side in the church. That that's part of it. That we agree on the essentials, but we can also have diversity when it comes to some of the non essential things in the way we look at the universe. That you can have a biology professor and a religion professor sit next to each other in the pews and not have open warfare breaks out because maybe they see things a little bit differently than the other does. That there's a way for us to come together.
- [83:55]
A
Yeah. And you can be a religion professor and believe in evolution and you can be a biologist and believe that mankind was created in the image of God and all of that is compatible. But it hasn't always been easy or popular to say such things in the church, Casey. And so that's what we get to talk about about next episode. And I will look very much forward to that discussion.
- [84:22]
B
Yeah. Okay. Well, I'll see you then, Scott. This has been fun.
- [84:26]
A
All right, thanks, Casey.