The Official Mormon View on Evolution

Deseret News recently carried an article titled "No definitive LDS stance on evolution, study finds" The article describes the findings of two Mormon scientists who have recently published a book titled Mormonism and Evolution: the Authoritative LDS Statements.

The Deseret News report was centered on a lecture that was given the day after the Utah legislators struck down a bill that would have required science curriculum to stress that evolution is a theory and is not empirically proven. The article states:

"Despite characterizations by some Latter-day Saints that their theology eschews the theory of evolution, two LDS scientists say their church has no definitive position on whether humans evolved from earlier life forms.

"William Evenson and Duane Jeffery told dozens of people gathered at Utah Valley State College on Tuesday that what definitely has evolved over time is the position taken by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the issue.

"They came to that conclusion after dissecting the history of statements made by past LDS leaders…"

This is interesting to me because in November of 1909 the First Presidency of the Mormon Church (then comprised of Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anthon H. Lund) released an official statement that addressed this issue: "The Origin of Man." The Statement begins,

"Inquiries arise from time to time respecting the attitude of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints upon questions which, though not vital from a doctrinal standpoint, are closely connected with the fundamental principles of salvation. The latest inquiry of this kind that has reached us is in relation to the origin of man. It is believed that a statement of the position held by the Church upon this important subject will be timely and productive of good."

Note that while the issue is not doctrinally "vital," it is nevertheless "connected with the fundamental principles of salvation."

The Statement continues,

"In presenting the statement that follows we are not conscious of putting forth anything essentially new; neither is it our desire so to do. Truth is what we wish to present, and truth-eternal truth-is fundamentally old. A restatement of the original attitude of the Church relative to this matter is all that will be attempted here. To tell the truth as God has revealed it, and commend it to the acceptance of those who need to conform their opinions thereto, is the sole purpose of this presentation."

So the First Presidency set forth a statement of "eternal truth…as God has revealed it" so that it could be accepted by "those who need to conform their opinions" to the position of God and the LDS Church.

The position statement that follows basically argues against scientific evolution based on the fact that, according to Mormonism, men are created in God's bodily image and therefore could not have evolved from a lower life form/a non-human body. Of course, the Statement makes clear that Mormonism does not discount evolution altogether, for 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 into a God."

In September of 1925 a new First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins and Charles W. Nibley) reiterated the Church's position when they issued a condensed version of "The Origin of Man" titled "'Mormon' View of Evolution." So far so good.

But in 1931, amidst continuing debate, this same First Presidency altered their "official" position. Deseret News reports:

"In the following years [after 1925], LDS apostles, including B.H. Roberts and James E. Talmage, wrote about the issue and presented their findings to the First Presidency with a leaning toward scientific theory, while junior apostle Joseph Fielding Smith vehemently opposed their views in his own writings and presentations to the First Presidency… Much of their disagreement came over whether 'pre-Adamites' walked the Earth before God created Adam, and whether death of any species had occurred prior to Adam. The debate became so heated that on April 7, 1931, the First Presidency called all the general authorities together and distributed a seven-page memo that 'said straight out the church has no position on pre-Adamites or death before the fall of Adam,' [Duane] Jeffery said."

According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the First Presidency minutes from that 1931 meeting state:

"Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church."

An earlier First Presidency said this issue was "connected with the fundamental principles of salvation" and it was therefore important to state the LDS Church's position "as God has revealed it" so that people could basically conform their thinking to God's truth. Just a few years later a new First Presidency says it doesn't matter anymore.

I would think this would be an easy thing for the LDS Church to put to rest once and for all. Indeed, it should have been settled in 1909 with the official statement from the First Presidency. According to the LDS Student Manual Teachings of the Living Prophets,

"…the First Presidency form the highest council of the Church and are the final authority on all matters" (page 23).

"…what the presidency say as a presidency is what the Lord would say if he were here, and it is scripture. It should be studied, understood, and followed…" (page 25).

I don't know why the Prophets of the Church haven't sought or received a more recent clarifying revelation on this since there seems to be so much confusion surrounding the issue. The fact that former First Presidencies have made official statements on the topic several times establishes the weightiness of the ideas connected to evolution and creation.

Though he has claimed no revelation, the current living Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley has given his authoritative opinion on the matter, which should bring comfort to wondering Latter-day Saints:

"'What the church requires is only belief "that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.'" President Hinckley added that scientists can speculate on the rest, and recalled his own study of anthropology and geology, saying, 'Studied all about it. Didn't worry me then. Doesn't worry me now.'"

Whew. I'm glad that's settled.

The Nature of the Godhead, part II

Yesterday I wrote about the LDS doctrine of deification as taught by Joseph Smith, and how the Church today seems to want to cover up that "basic belief" of Mormonism. There's another aspect of that doctrine I'd like to talk about.

As I wrote yesterday, the LDS Church has begun a new series of articles in the Ensign for the purpose of "explaining the basic beliefs of the restored gospel." The first article, The Nature of the Godhead, appears in the January 2006 issue on pages 50-51.

As with the doctrine on the nature of man that I discussed yesterday, there is something missing from the article regarding the LDS doctrine on the nature of God as well. The Ensign quotes Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse in order to aid in explaining Mormonism's "basic belief" about the nature of God.

"It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God,…and that He was once a man like us… When you climb a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation."

But the author of the Ensign article does not include Joseph's clear teaching "… I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea…"

In the LDS Sunday School book Gospel Principles the "ladder" portion of Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse is quoted. Then the book goes on to say, "This is the way our Heavenly Father became God." (p. 305)

[A separate issue, but one that I find interesting, is the fact that older editions of Gospel Principles are a bit different from the current edition. In my 1986 edition, page 293, it says, "This is the way our Heavenly Father became a God." (emphasis mine)]

The reason this captures my attention, apart from the heretical nature of the teaching, is because of some statements made by LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley in 1997.

In April of that year the San Francisco Chronicle's Religion Writer Don Lattin interviewed President Hinckley (13 April 1997). A portion of the interview went like this:

"Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?"

"A: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.' Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about."

"Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?"

"A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We're trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can."

A few months later Time Magazine's cover story was Mormons, Inc., the secrets of America's most prosperous religion (4 August 1997; only a preview of the article, Kingdom Come, is available online from Time Magazine). Time gave this report of its interview with President Hinckley (page 56):

"On whether his Church still holds that God the Father was once a man, [President Hinckley] sounded uncertain, 'I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it…I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."

Well, it looks to me like President Hinckley was either mistaken or trying to hide a basic LDS belief about the nature of God. Perhaps his appeal to ignorance in stating that he didn't know that the Church taught the doctrine was not a dodge to keep from answering the question asked by Time Magazine. And I suppose it's possible that Mormons just don't believe the doctrine so clearly taught by Joseph Smith.

Whatever the reasons for President Hinckley's statements in 1997, this article in the Ensign should help clear up any confusion. We still don't know if members believe the doctrine, but we do know that the LDS Church still teaches it as a "basic belief of the restored gospel."

For more information on Gordon B. Hinckley's 1997 interviews check out these online articles:
Dodging and Dissembling Prophet?
Lord of the Dance

The Nature of the Godhead

The LDS Church has begun a new series of articles in the Ensign which are for the purpose of "explaining the basic beliefs of the restored gospel, doctrines unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The first article in the series, The Nature of the Godhead appears in the January 2006 issue on pages 50-51.

The portion of the article that I find most interesting is the part titled The Nature of Man. It states, "…from this restored understanding of the nature of God flows the Latter-day Saint belief regarding our nature and potential." The author (who is not named) continues by quoting a portion of Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse. Joseph's teaching that God [the Father] was once a man is quoted, but the author leaves out much of Joseph's important doctrinal exposition on the nature of man and God. For instance,

"…it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea… Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you,—namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one;…"

This omitted teaching is important because, as the quote of Joseph's sermon in the Ensign article continues, readers are given the principle that

"When you climb a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation."

When Joseph's words are removed from their clarifying context, as they have been in the Ensign article, the doctrines he taught become veiled; this leaves the article's conclusion wide open for a more orthodox personal interpretation.

The author closes by quoting LDS Apostle Dallin Oaks: "…the purpose of mortal life is to prepare us to realize our destiny as sons and daughters of God—to become like Him." But what does it mean to "become like Him" if the only information we're given is the selective quoting included in the article? The reader may be able to go a step beyond thinking it means merely sanctification; but surely he will not understand he's being told that as he faithfully climbs the ladder he will one day become a God just like Heavenly Father.

Looking back in an older edition of the LDS Sunday School book Gospel Principles I find, "We can become Gods like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation" (1988 ed., p, 290. Emphasis mine.). But today's edition reads, "We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation."

Isn't it odd? What's the purpose of the LDS Church fostering doctrinal confusion among its members? Why not just spell it out clearly? Either Mormons accept Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse as true teaching on the nature of man and God, or they don't. But wouldn't it better accomplish the goals of the Church if leaders were to stop obscuring the "basic beliefs" of Mormonism and let people—both members and non-members—see what they really are?