LDS Non-position on Evolution
DN has a refreshingly direct article entitled No definitive LDS stance on evolution, study finds. The “study” refers to a review of “the history of statements made by past LDS leaders,” performed some years ago by two BYU faculty members. The result was the famous “BYU packet” and, more recently, a short book by the same two faculty members entitled Mormonism and Evolution: the Authoritative LDS Statements. The book, published by Kofford Books, includes all materials from the “BYU packet” plus some additional statements made by LDS leaders over the years.
The “conventional wisdom” has it that the LDS Church looks very unfavorably on evolution. The informed view is generally quoted as something like this: “The LDS Church takes no position on evolution.” The article suggests both these statements are incorrect. The authoritative statements by LDS leaders suggest the Church has taken a variety of positions (rather than no position) over the years. One of the authors is quoted in the article as saying the materials in the book provide a “fair sampling of diverse viewpoints among LDS Church leaders.” The views expressed in the four “official” statements reflect a similar diversity of viewpoints.
My father was a professor of biology/zoology at BYU, so we had multiple copies of “the packet” lying around the house. One day in AP biology, a student made a vocal comment that evolution “false doctrine.” When I told my dad, he — with true missionary zeal — made multiple copies for me to distribute. I was, of course, too cool to pass them out, but I did offer one to my biology teacher who seemed grateful for the reinforcement. Such episodes were nothing new to him . . .
Comment by Deborah — March 1, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
While I’m grateful for books like these, to be fair, it does tend to pick and choose a bit. It also tends to de-contextualize or re-contextualize the quotes somewhat. As has been discussed ad nauseum on various blogs.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 2, 2006 @ 12:16 am
Yep. You can have it all or you can have it consistant, but you can’t have both…
Comment by Ben S. — March 2, 2006 @ 8:53 am
I totally believe that if you are an evolutionary biologist at BYU, that you will always be biased towards evolution. That said, it is interesting that the story is told from an evolutionary biased side- not really fair don’t you think? What are we trying to do as a church? Sell out to the worlds view of things? Some would sure like it that way!
When they put that packet together at BYU, they put it together with the thought in mind already to have it sway in favor of evolution. If we were to say that BYU has the official say on the subject, then we are truly in a world of conflict with each other.
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 2, 2006 @ 10:42 am
Sad. Anyone preaching against evolution is a false prophet. No rigid doctrinal purity is required for salvation/exaltation. We are saved by faith alone in Christ alone.
OK, NDBF Gary, have at me.
Comment by Steve EM — March 2, 2006 @ 10:57 am
Rob, I think you’re missing the point of the book (and the BYU packet) which is to help all of us distinguish between the content of our own personal opinions about evolution and the content of the most reliable or “official” statements made by LDS leaders and publications. The book is quoting LDS leaders, not BYU professors, so I’m confused why you think the book represents the view that “BYU has the official say on the subject.”
Comment by Dave — March 2, 2006 @ 11:07 am
When they put that packet together at BYU, they put it together with the thought in mind already to have it sway in favor of evolution.
Rob, you seem to be saying that the packet is biased. You do realize that Robert Millet, then dean of the religion dept, was consulted and that it was approved by the Board of Trustees (which included the First Presidency and many members of the QofT) right?
You can accuse people of misinterpreting the packet, but I don’t think you can accuse the compilers of bias.
Comment by Jared — March 2, 2006 @ 11:15 am
I shall defend myself now,
The packet which BYU produced contains a heading to it that states that there is no official statement on organic evolution. The statements although, clearly show that there is a stance on organic evolution. Duane Jefferey even has stated that in his book. It makes one wonder that a First Presidency can come out and make a statement and then have it shuffled around in such a manner that it becomes no official doctrine at all.
Maybe I am missing the point. And maybe my beef really is with Duane Jeffery. [edited] I hear Duane Jefferey is on the board over at the NCSE (National Center for Science Education) which I find quite disturbing really. The NCSE is the leading cause for keeping God out of the school system. The organization is heavily beefed up with their lawyers to bat for them (the ACLU of all people).
I find it quite strange that if this is true, that Duane Jefferey is both affiliated and sided with the church on one hand and sided and affiliated with the constitution destroying ACLU on the other.
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 2, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
Rob, it sounds like your real beef is with BYU and LDS leaders who, for some strange reason, seem inclined to support the teaching of science at BYU and to support BYU’s science faculty rather than whatever strange and dated notions you subscribe to.
Comment by Dave — March 2, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
I particularly liked the quote from President Hinckley in the Deseret News article: “…and recalled his own study of anthropology and geology, saying, “Studied all about it. Didn’t worry me then. Doesn’t worry me now.”"
Amen!
Comment by BrianJ — March 2, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
It should be noted that it is not at all clear that Rob Osborn is actually a real person. These doubts arose both at the T&S discussion on evolution as well as Geoff’s discussion with him over at NCT.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — March 2, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
Jeffrey, I’m not sure I agree with Rob, but it seems a little harsh to call him a non-person. You’re real, aren’t you Rob? FWIW, I did some quick Googling and came up with what looks to be a real person.
Comment by Dave — March 2, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
What do you want Jeffrey? A Post card? would that make you happy, eh eh.
Ya, maybe I do have a little beef with the science department at BYU, especially the likes of Duane Jeffery. He seems to have a lot of clout over there. The point that disturbs me isn’t so much that he believes in evolution, that’s fine with me. My beef is that he seems to have an axe to grind with the church’s stance on the issue. And to top it all off, he is affiliated with organizations that seem to go against the church’s position on what God has to do with our creation.
As far as the Church leaders go, I do not find anything that goes against the true teachings. The problem is, that BYU is affiliated with the church and Duane Jefferey is also to some limited degree a representative of the church, and to have the kind of ties he has seems to me that he is walking on both sides of a very fine line.
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 2, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
Rob,
The packet is available here. The first couple of pages are an explanation by Evenson. The cover letter was written by the Board of Trustees.
I think you may be judging Duane Jeffery a little harshly. It may not change your view, but you may find this post of mine interesting.
Comment by Jared — March 2, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
Jared,
thanks for the clear up of the packet issue.
As far as Duane Jeffery goes- I am going to have to break down and contact him because since I have been researching this issue over the past couple of years, it has become more and more apparent that his views along with others at BYU and F.A.R.M.S. are what appears to be a great heist of the doctrine found in the written word.
Now I do not and I stress that I DO NOT believe that BYU or FARMS are bad institutions. I love both, but there are those in high positions that you can trace to having some strange allies (like the NCSE). The trend in the church amongst future scholars goes, usually comes from BYU and FARMS. If these institutions are allowde to sway our young scholars away from the written word with trends to make it all allegorical or mystical then like I said earlier We are in a world of hurt if the teachings that come out of BYU and FARMS become the leading authoritive work that the world will tend to believe.
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 2, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
One of my best friends is (get used to it) a biology major and taught at the high school level. We were sitting in Relief Society once listening to a teacher put down evolution. My friend, whose husband was our bishop, sat quiet.
So I raised my hand and said, “how do you explain the dinosaur bones? And gave my Henry B. Eyring quote “I believe God organized the world and how He did it doesn’t give me grief.” Well, that’s not exact, but I’m too lazy to look it up.
My friend took heart and explained more intelligently than I the principles of evolution.
I lean on Reflections of a Scientist for a lot of stuff like that.
Comment by annegb — March 2, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
Just out of curiosity Rob, have you researched the evidences for evolution?
Comment by Clark Goble — March 3, 2006 @ 12:21 am
Jeffrey,
As odd as his positions generally are, I have actually decided that Rob Osborn probably is a real person. We even added his new blog to the “Nascent Islands” feed at ldsblogs.org. (You better be real, Rob!)
Comment by Geoff J — March 3, 2006 @ 12:30 am
Clarke,
And what evidence is there? I have looked for years and years, on the internet, books, movies, even went to the giant crack in the ground the grand canyon- It was there I picked up a book that explained the global flood and it’s explaination of the canyon- best read I have ever read.
All of that supposed evidence of the fish with fingers and whales with legs……..I mean really c’mon.
Nowhere on the earth right now or in recorded history has a new species come about through the offspring of it’s parent- Now that is eveidence isn’t it?
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 3, 2006 @ 1:29 am
Thanks Geoff,
Ya, I am crazy, zany rob with my off the deep-end doctrine. But ya I am real- look me up in the phone book or I can also send ya a postcard with a big spud on it!
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 3, 2006 @ 1:33 am
Ooh, ooh!
Rob, tell these guys that theory you like about the Grand Canyon being completely formed by sediment deposits from that global flood 6000 years ago. I couldn’t do it justice if I tried (of course it make might them think you aren’t real, so be careful…)
Comment by Geoff J — March 3, 2006 @ 2:17 am
I believe that’s possible, Geoff. I think I got it from Science and Mormonism, but maybe I read the same book as Rob. It made sense to me. Although I think time is a relative term all the way around.
Comment by annegb — March 3, 2006 @ 3:36 am
Rob Osborn,
While I am convinced that you are a real person, I am not at all convinced that you have really studied evolution. Not, at least, with any effort to actually understand or listen to what experts say and mean. You show this elsewhere and above (post #19):
“And what evidence is there? I have looked for years and years, on the internet, books, movies, even went to the giant crack in the ground the grand canyon- It was there I picked up a book that explained the global flood and it’s explaination of the canyon- best read I have ever read.
“All of that supposed evidence of the fish with fingers and whales with legs……..I mean really c’mon.”
First, I would like to call attention to your use of the word “evidence.” In your first paragraph you make a demand for it, then in your second paragraph you dismiss all the evidence as “supposed.” I think you show your hand here: anything that supports evolution is far-fetched and anything that offers an alternative to evolution is immediately believable.
This is exemplified by your acceptance of the Grand Canyon book (I assume it is “Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe”) without putting it through any rigorous testing. Can you think of any problems with its theory? Have you scrutinized it as much as you have Darwin?
Second, you said:
“Nowhere on the earth right now or in recorded history has a new species come about through the offspring of it’s parent- Now that is eveidence isn’t it?”
Again, this comment is evidence that you ignore the basic, fundamental definitions in evolutionary science. What you demand–that a parent give birth to a different species–is not called evolution and so it would not be evidence for evolution at all. If such a thing happened–say, two wolves mate and have a litter of monkeys–it would actually be evidence against our current understanding of evolution.
Comment by BrianJ — March 3, 2006 @ 9:36 am
The LDS Church does not rely on BYU faculty members or private publishers like Kofford Books to announce its position on anything. The Church’s position on evolution was announced in the November 1909 Improvement Era and reprinted in the February 2002 Ensign. This formal, Church-published First Presidency statement is the Church’s current position on evolution — and yes, it is easily and usually interpreted as anti-evolution (more information here).
All but three pages of the “official” BYU Evolution Packet either are the 1909 First Presidency statement, or are taken from it. The Church’s 2002 reprint of the 1909 statement outlines “the Church’s doctrinal position on … evolution,” (Ensign, Feb. 2002, 26)
Comment by Gary — March 3, 2006 @ 10:01 am
Gary,
Do you think that the 1909 statement rules out all evolution, or just the organic evolution of man?
Thanks.
Comment by BrianJ — March 3, 2006 @ 10:36 am
BrianJ,
Although there has never been a formal declaration from the First Presidency addressing the general matter of organic evolution as a process for development of biological species, the 1909 statement makes clear the official position of the Church regarding the origin of man.
Comment by Gary — March 3, 2006 @ 10:48 am
Brianj,
The book was actually called “Grand Canyon a different view” The reason I am skepticle on evolution is the mere fact that billions upon billions of creatures everyday keep having exact replications of themselves. Sure, sometimes they have offspring that are mutants, but they are not a different species. The current following in evolution is punctuated equalibrium. This states that rather than having intermediate representations between two species, they change rather quickly and sometimes suddenly. You should be able to take this hypothesis out in the world and find evidence for it, after all, there are millions upon millions of creatures being born every day.
And that you see is actually evidence against the theory- it cannot be tested without modifying or changing genes in the lab. They just don’t change in a normal setting. In fact it has been proven that offspring carry a genetic makeup of there parents only. Only one set of blueprints.
As far as the flood goes- I am afraid that there are very few who really believes the bible’s literalness anymore so I am not going to bring it up at this time.
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 3, 2006 @ 10:59 am
Gary,
Thank you for a clear and concise answer to a sincere question. I have always enjoyed reading your thoughtful comments.
Comment by BrianJ — March 3, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
Rob Osborn,
“…[species] change rather quickly and sometimes suddenly.” I think your idea of quickly and suddenly is quite different than that of scientists. You want someone to “prove” evolution by seeing a species evolve. Given that the theory has been around for less than 200 years, you are asking for something extremely fast.
Punctuated equilibrium states that changes between generations are still incremental; the usefulness of this theory is that it explains that individual species change at very different rates. Therefore, one species could go completely unchanged over millions of years whereas another would give rise to several new species.
To put your time frame in perspective, 20,000 years is considered a very brief time geologically, so the 200 years since Darwin would be only 1% of that time. Expecting a new species to develop within 200 years is like putting a cake in the oven for 20 seconds, then pulling it out and upon finding that it is not cooked, declaring the recipe a failure!
Comment by BrianJ — March 3, 2006 @ 5:44 pm
BrianJ,
The supposed time it took the earth to do it’s stuff according to current science is purely ridiculous. In just 6000-7000 yrs. God has- arranged the earth to bring forth life, brought forth life, peopled it, then took a section away from it, destroyed it with a gigantic flood, peopled it again, divided the continents, caused the mountains to rise, and then peopled all of the various isles. When he comes again he will- destroy the mountains, raise up the valleys, cause the flood waters of Noah to go back into north countries, bring all land back together, bring back the portion of earth he took, burn the entire earth, renew the earth for life, people it once again. This is all stuff science and their long ages just laughs at. and all this happens in the fractional percent of about 0.0001 of the time geology says it takes to do these kinds of events.
You refer to the science book and I refer to the scriptures- which book is more true? Joseph Smith states that they are the most correct of any book.
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 3, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
By the way,
I was able to contact Duane Jeffery and had a nice conversation with him. I asked about his involvement with the NCSE and he politely told me that the First presidency has never approved of his involvement with that organization although he has the full support from BYU. He also stated that the movement of intelligent design has not produced any new insight to our understanding of the universe. He also stated that LDS members are largely misinformed about the chuch’s stance on evolution- something I see as really quite interesting.
I believe though that it was an insightful and constructive comunication with the man even though we both are clearly on opposite teams.
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 3, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
I think the problem Rob, is that many of us would see your appeal to scripture to consist of questionable readings.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 3, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
Rob,
First presidency has never approved of his involvement with that organization
Does that mean they disapprove, or just that they have never approved?
I don’t know why the NCSE is on your Satanic list. It is derived from a grass-roots campaign in the early 80′s to defend teaching evolution in schools. On second thought, I guess I do know why they are on your Satanic list–the science they defend is different from the one you believe in. Does that really make them so evil? (Their website has some good resources, by the way.)
For background on creationism, see this recent post of mine.
Comment by Jared — March 3, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
Re #31,
Don’t underestimate Duane Jeffery’s thinking on this. For the past thirty years, he has been a de facto spokesman for Mormon evolutionists. I think he, of all people, would be least likely to overstate any anti-evolution sentiment in the Church. In fact, if anything, I think he might play it down. And this isn’t the first time he has made such a statement. Last year he estimated that “probably 90 percent of people who are LDS think the church is against evolution.” (See “Utah’s non-war over evolution,” Deseret Morning News, Mar. 19, 2005, pp. E1 & E3.)
Why would 90 percent of Mormons mistakenly think the Church is against evolution? Do they possibly think the Church Authorities are against evolution? And if that isn’t true, then why isn’t the Church’s stand clarified better in Church publications or in General Conference talks? Why don’t the Brethren state their neutrality publicly instead of allowing this confusion to continue?
According to the Deseret Morning News article mentioned above in the first paragraph of Dave’s post, Duane Jeffery acknowledges that the 1909 First Presidency statement contains a couple of paragraphs that are “quite anti-evolutionary, yet they don’t come right out and say it’s false, but it doesn’t take much to say that’s what the intent was.”
Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, the Melchezidek Priesthood and Relief Society manual for 2001, contains those paragraphs of the 1909 First Presidency statement which suggest that evolution is contrary to the gospel. The 2002 Ensign reprint of the 1909 First Presidency statement without noting any of the intervening statements — especially those statements Jeffery is fond of quoting — implies a rejection of evolution on gospel grounds.
So could it be that Jeffery’s “no definitive position” position was created by him “out of whole cloth?” Ask yourself this question: Why does the 2005 Jeffery/Evenson book (also mentioned in the first paragraph above) portray the 1909 First Presidency statement as the oldest statement of the Church on the subject and not mention its 2002 reprint? Why does he say, as quoted in the Deseret Morning News article (also mentioned in the first paragraph above), that what is less well-known “is what has happened since then”?
If what’s happened since is important, why does the Jeffery/Evenson book fail to mention that the 1909 statement was published by the Church in its official magazine four years ago as the Church’s current doctrinal position on the subject? Maybe 90 percent of LDS members simply recognize that the 2002 reprint updates the 1909 statement and gives it focus directly to the 21st century.
Comment by Gary — March 4, 2006 @ 1:11 am
Clarke,
The reading in the scriptures are quite clear that Adam was the first flesh of all flesh and also the first man. There is nothing questionable about that. The flood covered the entire earth, there is no question about it. The lands were divided by oceans, no question about it.
I just do not know how one can interpret it differently.
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 4, 2006 @ 1:42 am
Rob: I just do not know how one can interpret it differently.
Nor are you willing to make a serious effort to find out, apparently. That is the problem.
Comment by Geoff J — March 4, 2006 @ 1:56 am
Geoff,
Seriously, how can one interpret it differently? I have tried to take the scriptures from many different view points. There is just no way to interpret differently something like in the PoGP where- ” and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also”
There are three indisputable facts here. 1. Man became a living soul. 2. Man was the first flesh on the earth. 3. Adam was the first man on the earth.
Is there some other way to interpret it? I am all ears.
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 4, 2006 @ 2:52 am
I would like to apologize on this board for causing a disruption. I am sorry for the negativity that I have portrayed and will be more humble in the future.
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 4, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
Rob, perhaps the dispute here just boils down to a difference of opinion in the proper way to read scripture. It’s clear that even conservative LDS opinion admits that not all scripture can be taken literally. In D&C 77, Joseph Smith gave some interpretations of Revelation, for example, in which some descriptions are held to be literal and others held to be “figurative expressions.”
I believe many reasonable Mormons would take the passages related to the Flood and a young Earth as the same sort of figurative expressions. No one takes hyperliteralism to its logical conclusion. Do you really think the Earth stopped turning for 24 hours in the days of Joshua (Joshua 10)? Do you really think there are stores of liquid water hiding behind the canopy of the sky that pour down upon the earth when literal windows of heaven are opened? Do you really think we live on a flat earth that is going to roll up like a sheet some day? So everyone draws the line on literalism somewhere.
Comment by Dave — March 4, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Dave,
You bring up some very valid points, I like the inquiry. You mentioned D&C section 77. I like that section particularly- many insightful things.
There is a somewhat obscure passage in that section- it is in verse 12- It states that man was formed from the dust of the earth on the seventh day. If this is true then that would put Moses chapter 3 in perfect harmony stating that Adam was truly put on the earth on the seventh day and that he was the first flesh (all animals included).
The implications of this are very dramatic. For instance- With Adam being here first, he truly would have dominion over all things. He would also be the oldest of all living things ever created on this earth which would completely throw a monkey wrench into things.
I would like to question the validity of a local flood- If it were localized, how did that ship get so high up in the mountains?
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 4, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
Rob,
The verse also harmonizes with every book in the standard works and every creation narrative that man was created out of the dust of the earth. Except for very few Church leaders have accepted that literally–in spite of its plain wording. Brigham Young had the guts to call it a baby story!
So we have another example of Dave’s point.
Comment by Jared — March 4, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
With Adam being here first, he truly would have dominion over all things.
Huh? Why would being here first give one being dominion over those that followed? I don’t follow that logic…
Comment by Geoff J — March 4, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
Thanks Rob, you just gave me the impetus to join the NCSE. It’s only $30 for a full year.
Comment by Darren — March 4, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
Rob Osborn,
I can see now that my approach to the scriptures is fundamentally different than your own. While I disagree with your interpretation, I should commend you for holding the scriptures in the highest esteem and trying to follow their teachings. It is clear that we will reach different conclusions on some matters, but staying close to the scriptures–as you do–is always a good choice.
Comment by BrianJ — March 4, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
So are you guys saying we should not take anything literally then? I understand about determining what is or is not literal- I was made from the dust of the ground.
The flood of noah’s day gets a lot of criticism because it is hard to try to imagine something that catastrophic. The mind has a hard time putting together events without first putting them in the right order. For instance-The need for the waters to cover Mt. Everest is hard for the mind to comprehend. But to first realize that the mountains we have today are not the same as in preflood geology, then it makes more sense. The waters never had to cover our Mt. Everest because they formed after the flood.
As I have mentioned in other posts, if you believe in evolution you cannot believe in a global flood, there is no room for a belief in both. I will explain. Evolution requires that the fossil record found in the watery sediment laid rocks were deposited over millions upon millions of years. The implications of a global flood however would create a massive event that would mimick the evidence we see- here lies the true issue- If there really was a global flood, the fossil record is very much the direct evidence we would see of testimony of it. Get the drift? With a global flood the evidence for evolution and millions of years of uniformaty disappears. It is no wonder that the evolutionists want to discredit the biblical flood as their #1 goal because the reality of it would put a complete an sudden halt to their search. Thus, yoou cannot believe in both.
Comment by Rob Osborn — March 5, 2006 @ 2:09 am
Rob, if you want to start a discussion of “flood geology,” you should start a new thread at your own weblog.
Comment by Dave — March 5, 2006 @ 11:57 am