Posts
FARMS Review on the Book of Mormon, DNA, and Creationism
FARMS Review Vol. 22 No. 1 is up on the FARMS website. Two reviews are of particular interest here.
First is The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint by Ugo A. Perego, who is a geneticist at the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation. This article does not review a particular publication; rather, it is more of a topical review. Actually it has been available at FAIR for a few months now, and I have been remiss in not pointing it out. In fact, I recommend that you look at the FAIR version because it has some figures not contained in the FARMS version. (The FARMS PDF version has the figures, but the resolution is better at FAIR.)
This article ranks high on my list of authoritative articles about DNA and the Book of Mormon. It's written for lay people, but I'm afraid many will still find it too technical. (If anyone need help translating the jargon, I'm happy to help.) One of the things I love about the article is that from what I can tell it is straightforward and true to the science. For example, let's look at Figure 1.
This figure shows how mitochondrial DNA lineages are related to one another. Not only does the Y axis show the appropriate timescale (200,000 years), but it also helps to show how we know that all of humanity originates in Africa. See that cluster of lineages on the left? Those are African lineages. The extended group of lineages on the right are the rest of the world. You can see that they are basically a subset of the African lineages. (See also Figure 4.) Anyway, kudos to Perego.
Next there is an extended, withering criticism of Rod Meldrum's book, Rediscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant through DNA, in Often in Error, Seldom in Doubt: Rod Meldrum and Book of Mormon DNA, by Gregory L. Smith.
Meldrum quit his day job to become a full-time for-profit (but still amateur) Book of Mormon geography researcher. He has formed his own organization, The Foundation for Indigenous Research and Mormonism (FIRM) Foundation--OK, really. FIRM? And yes, the redundancy of FIRM Foundation is of his own making--that has three emeritus Seventies on its board. Meldrum places the Book of Mormon in the Great Lakes area (dubbed the "Heartland model.") and FIRM sells a variety of books and videos pushing their view (along with right-wing politics). This model has previously been highly criticized by FAIR, and others.
Smith's criticism extends beyond issues of geography to the young earth creationism (YEC) pushed by Meldrum, and the sanctimony it is all wrapped in. The connection between evolution, creationism, and Book of Mormon geography may seem strange at first glance, but it ultimately makes sense. In order to make his theory work, Meldrum has to savage multiple fields of science because they are interconnected. He can cherry-pick certain scientific findings to support him and justify it by asserting that scientists have been interpreting the facts all wrong because they labor under an atheist conspiracy. I should also note that evolution often serves as the whipping boy for all of the natural sciences. Got a problem with the Big Bang, or radiometric dating? Blame evolution.I find this sort of fundamentalist thinking and distortion extraordinarily troubling, and it is one reason why I consider Meldrum's theories worthy of review. He distorts the status of this teaching for the Latter-day Saints, refrains from quoting any authorities who differ with his views, portrays his sources as more authoritative than they are, and insists that the scriptures require it, making any other reading or view "impossible." Therefore, anyone who disagrees is ignoring the "clear" teachings of scripture. And anyone who differs is automatically less zealous in upholding the scriptures than Meldrum. "There are faithful members of the Church that have a deep belief in evolution and have been able to reconcile their beliefs. . . . Please know that your beliefs are respected," we are assured (p. 149). Yet if my beliefs differed from Meldrum's absolutism, I wouldn't find much respect in his caricatured treatment.
It seems clear that Smith does not share Meldrum's (YEC) views. With that in mind, I think Smith hits the nail squarely on the head with this passage.At the same time, we cannot always allow misrepresentation of a point of view to proceed unchallenged, lest some be misled. Those given false information often learn later that their trust was misplaced. They then complain that "the church" (rather than "a member of the church") taught them falsehoods because misinformation was presented in a church context draped in the trappings of the gospel. Even if evolutionary theory is false in every particular, we do the cause of truth no service by creating strawmen, misrepresenting it, or minimizing the evidence offered in its behalf. We must deal with its most robust case if we are not to lead others to assume we were either ignorant or disingenuous—neither state being a good apologetic. And if we are right to oppose evolution, any efforts that do not fully address the depth and breadth of the best evidence are doomed to failure.
I have not read the whole review yet, but what I have has been excellent, and I already know that I will have more to say, either about it or based on it.
Also, check out the Editor's Introduction where the "Heartland model" is compared to a weed that needs to be pulled from the garden of Mormon scholarship.
Finally, I offer my praise to FARMS and FAIR for providing a platform for the criticism that this kind of stuff deserves, and for joining the atheist conspiracy taking a general stance that is largely consonant with science.
45 comments:
I wanna join the atheist conspiracy, too -- are you holding meetings yet? collecting dues?
This may be the first time I've ever said anything remotely positive about FARMS, but it should be noted that this review is remarkably free of the withering sarcasm that so often mars FARMS reviews. I appreciated that very much.
Thanks for this post!!
Indeed, the Book of Mormon is NOT precise enough in its genealogies to make any useful DNA predictions.
But, isn't it great that the precision of genetics shows we originate from Africa!!!! Two-hundred thousand years ago our ancestors were just transitioning into a new species: Homo sapiens.
Jared*,
Those are some great quotes. Thank you for posing them.
It is good to see the backing of correct science and the critique of the theory of a man... mingeld with scripture.
I am not acquainted with Rod Meldrum or his work. This comment is directed solely to the quotations from Gregory L. Smith's article.
Brother Smith: I don't get it. The Church is 100% consistent on this. Every apostle of this dispensation, in statements published by the Church, agrees that man did NOT come to earth in the posterity of the brute creation. Do you find this thinking troubling? Do you refrain from quoting latter-day apostles with whom you differ on man's origin? Tell me, Brother Smith, where and when has the Church published an apostolic statement endorsing the idea that organic evolution explains the origin of man?
R. Gary ,
I assume you are directing your comment at me even though my last name is not smith, but close enough. :) (But I got Rob in R. Gary messed up too.)
"The Church is 100% consistent on this."
Actually, the official position of the church is and has always been that they have *no* official position on organic evolution and you *darn well know* this to be the case.
You should also know, when trying to put forth as the true teachings of the church anything other than what the church officially endorses: "And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them."
So there you go. The church has *no official position* on organic evolution . And if you continue to quote GAs and pretend that it does and the church is against organic evolution you will be falling into the exact trap Christ warned about.
R. Gary,
My apologies. I think you were refereing to Gregory L. Smith and not me.
I do *DEEPLY* apologize, but I stand by my comment that to declare more or less than the Church's official position on evolution as if it is the Church's position is to be declaring "more or less" then what the Lord desires and so it is not wise.
I find it interesting that man's creation from the dust happens first -- and is accounted for by deity -- and subsequently his spirit is placed in him. There seems to be a two step process. Why cannot the first step -- being formed from the dust of the earth -- be attributed to an evolutionary process while the latter might be the instant where the the family of Adam has a beginning of sorts?
On Meldrum: Trash.
Jack
Uh oh. Joseph, that's like pouring water down a badger hole.
Maybe I can defuse some of Gary's fury by briefly stating his position, which is that the position of the Church is determined by the statements of Church leaders and what is published in approved publications (of which he has collected many). To the extent that those sources contradict evolution (and he can cite many) and fail to support it, that is the official position of the Church.
Battle on.
Thanks Jared* for your brief but mostly accurate summary of what I've been saying on the web for the past six years. Sadly, it's obvious that Smidt doesn't care or pay attention to such trivialities. Now, since you brought up the subject of "the official position of the Church" (and please note that my earlier comment didn't), I'll go ahead and respond, but be aware that it contains links which may require you to release it from blogger's spam filter.
The Church's official position on evolution was announced in the November 1909 Improvement Era. Reprints in 2000-2001 and 2002 make it the Church's current official position (identified as such here). Regarding the notion that Adam descended "from lower orders of the animal creation," this official pronouncement states: "These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was ' the first man of all men ' (Moses 1:34)."
Gary,
I think your criticism of Gregory Smith is misplaced. He discusses President McKay's 'no position' letters in the context of President Packer's remarks about the 1909 statement.
"Given this important clarification, then, I am inclined to view President McKay's remarks about the lack of an official position as referring to any matters not set forth by declarations from the First Presidency."
I agree that there is no official position on "matters not set forth by declarations from the First Presidency." The origin of man, however, is not one of those matters (see my previous comment). Criticism of Gregory Smith on this matter is therefore NOT misplaced.
R. Gary,
I really appreciate your passion for this issue and mean no ill will. As we are both on the Good Ship Zion we will be together for a *long* time.
I also appreciate you sticking to various quotes by the first presidency as that is the right thing.
However, as there are multiple of such documents and they are long enough that it is still easy for members to cherrypick various sentences to key in on to suit their opinions the church has simplified things such that if you write them a letter they will say this in reference to their official position (Quoted in fulness to prevent cherrypicking.):
"The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. . . . Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes .”
The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, the First Presidency said:
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."
To establish anything more or less than this as the Church's doctrine is unwise for the very reasons put for the Jesus Christ above.
Jared*, I also agree with Boyd Packer that no Church leader can negate a previous First Presidency statement by what he says in personal, private correspondence.
What's the official position? Who knows. It's a pretty muddied up issue. I would say, IMHO, that R. Gary defines the LDS position better and has more authoritative statements and scriptures to back it up.
But R. Gary would also be wrong about evolution itself. The theory of evolution is one of the most well supported theories/facts in science today. Denying it is like denying the germ theory or the atomic theory or the theory of gravity. Why doesn't the Church clear up the issue by actually TAKING a position IN FAVOR of evolution? It would solve a lot of these debates pretty quick. Maybe it's irrelevant to people's salvation. But then why did they say so much about it in the past? Maybe we'll hear something this October to clear up the issue once and for all. But probably not.
Josh,
I think you are confused. The official position is set forth in what I quoted. If you write the church and ask for their official position you will find their official position is the statement I just quoted verbatim.
It is fine to side with R. Gary and think his position is more closely related to the church's official position... but we live in a world where you can write and ask the church yourself. It's not hard.
Unless, of course you don't think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will send you their official position when they respond to you... I'll let you wrestle with that.
Joseph Smidt,
William E. Evenson, a college professor, wrote the article on evolution for Macmillan Publishing's Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Macmillan is in New York, not Salt Lake City. When the 1992 First Presidency (as members of the BYU Board of Trustees) went looking for statements issued by the First Presidency on science, evolution, and the origin of man, they found three, and the Evenson article wasn't one of them.
The same 1992 First Presidency (still speaking as members of the BYU Board of Trustees) also emphasized that "formal statements by the First Presidency are the definitive source of official Church positions." The 1931 quote has never been part of a formal statement by any First Presidency past or present. The memo (from which the quote is taken) closed the Church’s lengthy evaluation of a priesthood manual submitted in 1928 by Elder B. H. Roberts, a Seventy. In an effort to reconcile fossils with scripture, the manual quoted the latest conclusions of geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology. The final decision was, as you quoted, that science didn’t belong in the manual. Applied to our day, the 1931 counsel means members shouldn't stretch the gospel to fit the latest theories of science. If you've received that counsel from Church headquarters, why haven't you followed it?
Those who have been authorized to teach and interpret LDS doctrine, members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, have been 100% consistent on this: man did NOT come to earth in the posterity of the brute creation. Brother Smidt, tell me, please, where and when the Church has published one single apostolic statement endorsing the idea that organic evolution explains the origin of man.
R. Gary,
I don't know why you bring up a BYU physics professor as I'm not quoting William E. Evenson, I'm telling you what the actual Church says in response to an inquiry of what their position is on evolution. This has nothing to do with a professor.
The Church has no official position on organic evolution despite your opinion. ***And every commenter/reader of this blog is free to write the church directly and ask them without having to chose between my claims and that of R. Gary.*** I encourage everyone to do so as I know the Church will verify my claim with exactness.
I have nothing to prove. I just want the Church's position to be represented on this blog with the same exactness it is represented with when it responds to inquiries. I did this be giving the exact response myself.
I will let others say establish more or less than what the the Church does as the Church's doctrine as I want to avoid the trap Christ warns of.
" please, where and when the Church has published one single apostolic statement endorsing the idea that organic evolution explains the origin of man."
Again, you don't seem to understand, I'm not going to point to statements endorsing evolution (some of which exist) and claim that these represent the Church's doctrine as the Church's doctrine as of Sept. 26, 2010 is they neither endorse nor condem evolution.
That is the most honest and correct way to say it. Anything else does not adequately represent the official position of the church. You can decide if the Lord wants it said in *any* other way.
If you want to know what scientists think, that is a whole different matter.
Joseph Schmidt: I agree with you about evolution. But I think it is YOU who are confused about the LDS position here. Did the Church let you know it's official position by private letter without telling anybody else? What did they say? Do I have to write them a letter and get it individually too? Would it be more authoritative than previous First Presidency Statements? I'll leave it to R. Gary to continue to spell out the LDS position. But you are ignoring 150 years of authoritative positions and scriptures that support R. Gary's point.
Josh,
"Did the Church let you know it's official position by private letter without telling anybody else? What did they say?"
I'm not special. They tell everyone the same thing and I quoted what they say. In fact, here is another who apparently quotes the same thing that one obtains from inquiring:
http://www.tungate.com/Official_statements.htm
You can always write to them yourself and find out.
It's not some deep secret that the church has no position on the matter. I have no idea why so many people are fighting this. The Church itself will tell you it has no official position.
Okay, now that I am becoming a broken record I will stop commenting on this matter. (Unless someone has an honset concern I have not addressed that will be helpful and uplifting.)
I have stated what the Church will tell you is the Church's official position. Do whatever you want with it. And to declare more or less than this as being the Church's official postion is a mistake.
Josh,
By the way (and this is entirely separate issue) my Father is a Jag officer in the Army.
Joseph Smidt,
The letter you keep quoting is, in the end, still just a letter. And letters to individuals are not the channel for announcing the policy of the Church. So either your letter quotes an official Church published policy statement or your letter isn't official policy. Besides, the message in your letter isn't neutrality anyway. It is that Mormons should all stop trying to stretch the gospel to fit the latest theories of science.
Where do Mormons look to find official Church policy? Here is what the Church is telling the national media.
"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications." (Approaching Mormon Doctrine.)
In official Church publications. That's pretty clear and straightforward.
And guess what? No official publication has ever proclaimed Church neutrality on the origin of man. So stop hiding behind private letters and identify even one Church published apostolic statement endorsing the idea that organic evolution explains the origin of man.
Gary,
"Regarding the notion that Adam descended "from lower orders of the animal creation," this official pronouncement states: "These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was ' the first man of all men ' (Moses 1:34)."
If we are going to be sticklers about what the 1st presidency says, it must be confessed that this particular quote does NOT say that evolution is false. It says that it is the theories of men, but it has never claimed to be anything but.
I do acknowledge that it takes a distasteful tone toward evolution, but it does NOT come out in full opposition either.
I don't think this is the best example of the church's non-neutrality toward evolution.
Jeff G, it's always good to have you join in. And, as usual, I agree with you. NDBF is much better than THATTOM.
It seems to me that as a practical expression the fact that the Church won't do much beyond quoting the early 20th century text and then appears to interpret them in a fairly neutral way is an example of its neutrality. Clearly many GAs are far from neutral although those opposed to scientific conclusions appear far more willing to speak. I think it'd be helpful to have a more overt statement of neutrality though, if only to answer the line of reasoning Gary defends so well.
However as others point out, the problem with opposing evolution is that it's kind of like denying the law of gravity. The level of science in 1909 and the level of science now, after we can do genetic analysis of so many creatures, is pretty different. Those earlier texts were simply written in a far, far different world of knowledge.
I also think though, that in the big picture, debates about the literalism of Genesis 1 are kind of silly. It's really not at all a key component of the gospel and both defenders and critics of evolution ought keep that in mind. For reasons I don't quite understand it's taken as a kind of litmus test on things by both sides.
Man, I'm racking my brain trying to figure out what THATTOM means and coming up with nothing. A little help?
Or is it "that theory of men"? If so, I think the point that so many believing evolutionists try to demonstrate is that the word of the Lord, NDBF, isn't necessarily in conflict with this particular theory of men. The passage that you and I both quoted certainly seems to allow for that.
I guess I only mention it because sometimes you don't seem to allow for this non-contradiction, so I'm wondering if you might acknowledge that your position goes beyond that of the church?
Clark Goble, in several ways I find your comment encouraging. Even so, I doubt it makes much difference that science has had a century to advance in its terrestrial knowledge. The 1909 Presidency had access to heavenly knowledge. Their declaration is that Moses spoke for God himself and that his words are "for all time and for all people."
Jeff G, I'm sorry about the confusion. Let me say it this way: I've gone a lot further with No Death Before the Fall (NDBF) than I probably would have with These However Are The Theories of Men (THATTOM). No need to rehash it all here, but as I understand them, Packer and Nelson both see a deathless paradisiacal creation as disallowing the possibility of evolution. And I don't think their position "goes beyond that of the Church."
oooooh! That makes more sense.
I'm not, as of right now, convinced that Elder Nelson's position is that of outright contradiction to evolution, but I will agree that Packer's is.
The problem I then see is this: While Packer may not limit his views to personal correspondences and McKay did, it doesn't seem that either should count as being on all fours with a 1st Presidency message.
(Of course, if you could produce a 1st presidency message which is in outright contradiction to evolution then my whole line of reasoning will be moot.)
Ugh. Yet another promising discussion killed by the Mormon version of Godwin's Law.
What's the Mormon equivalent of Goodwin's law?
Gary, I'm not sure the 1909 statement was based upon any particular new revelation or insight into physical law or history. Indeed I see evidence to the contrary.
In any case I've yet to see anyone rejecting evolution propose even a moderately believable way of accounting for the overwhelming and abundant evidence God put forth around us. I'd take such positions a bit more seriously if there was even a remotely workable model.
The problem with the paradisical model is, as has been noted, the problem that the Garden of Eden (i.e. paradise) was still there after the fall and reasonable reasons to think the fall wasn't the fall of the whole world but just Adam and Eve. So there is a very workable model for the other direction.
Clark Goble, regarding "the overwhelming and abundant evidence God put forth around us."
In an anonymous comment last month on my own blog, it was correctly pointed out that God is not trying to trick us by putting false evidence out there. Consider these two statements: (a) my wife made me a birthday cake this morning; and (b) cakes are made by baking a mixture of sugar, flour, eggs, vanilla, etc. in the oven for a certain amount of time.
Based on these two statements, "cosmology is like looking at the kitchen and seeing that there are eggshells in the trash and that flour is spilled on the floor and drawing inferences from the data."
Based on the reported evidence (eggshells in the trash and flour spilled on the floor), the inference that your wife made you a birthday cake seems reasonable. But the same inference will probably seem ridiculous after you (1) listen to a voice message left that morning by your son reminding his mother of her promise to bake a batch of his favorite cookies for his school class, and (2) find a credit card payment dated that same day to Cakes Unusual.
You see, the problem isn't false evidence, it's incomplete evidence. Neither you nor anyone else can be sure today's science has all the evidence. And your wife obviously wasn't trying to trick anyone.
I think a better analogy would be that of a murder trial when 1000 eye-witnesses come forward and independently testify of the exact same thing and a jury member being afraid to convict because he can't be sure of what the 1001st eye-witness might say.
R. Gary: No scientist proposes that they have all the evidence. That's why we still have scientist today doing research. But the evidence for evolution by natural selection is enormous and extremely convincing. All new lines of evidence, from various new branches of science, continue to support Darwin's original theory.
A few statements against evolution by 19th and 20th century prophets (who probably shouldn't have been speaking against it) does not mean it's not true. Your cake analogy was a little cryptic. Are you saying you don't believe in evolution because of these prophetic statements?
Jeff G, there are no "eye-witnesses."
Josh, heavenly knowledge revealed to prophets carries more weight with me than terrestrial knowledge.
Josh, Boyd K. Packer once said in general conference that "the theory of evolution, and it is a theory, will have an entirely different dimension when the workings of God in creation are fully revealed." If this statement is false, it isn't because it is old.
I think the knowledge about our origins are being revealed - but by scientists, not our religious leaders. Elder Packer is entitled to his opinion. But stating his opinion does not make it fact.
Josh, the Church's current official position statement on evolution states:
"Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race — God alone can reveal them."
It's okay if you disagree on this, but I believe you'll also be disagreeing with the current First Presidency and Twelve.
R. Gary,
Your right, except you are missing out on all the things the Lord is revealing through science.
If evolution is true, it won't be that the Church was wrong. (Especially because they have no official position.)
What it will mean is there will have been members who cleave to scriptures using incorrect interpretations saying in effect "We have a gospel (Bible) and we need more more gospel" cutting themselves off from all the grander the Lord is currently trying to reveal. Sectarian christians accused Joseph of doing the same thing.
*Embracing further revelation from whatever source the Lord intends to bring it is not the same as changing the gospel.*
But, fortunately this attitude will not stop the work from progressing.
Joseph Smidt has no official position. And there is no official Church position that Smidt is willing to accept. We're all clear on that. However, the LDS Church itself has published again and again its official position on evolution. In addition, other statements by Church Presidents and members of the Quorum of the Twelve corroborate the official declarations of the First Presidency. Taken together, these formal declarations and authorized corroborating statements speak to the world in unison. No offense, Smidt, but I'm sticking with what they say.
R. Gary,
And you should follow the Church and not me as they will not lead you astray. (Though I am still baffled why you think they have an official position *against* evolution when officially the Church and all statements you have quoted are neutral.)
But in all of our exchanges I hope you know I love you brother. I always appreciate your passion and love for the Church.
We're going around and around here. I'll make one last comment, and then bow-out:
R. Gary: It doesn't matter how many church leaders statements you bring out that are against evolution. Their opinion, if it was against evolution, was and is wrong. It's misinformed. They were not privy to the vast amounts of scientific research we have today (although todays leaders are, and they are still not in favor of evolution). Someone's opinion, whether or not they are called a prophet or not, does not make it fact. If all prophetic statements were fact, simply because they were uttered by a prophet, there would be a lot of mutually inconsistent statements that you would not be able to explain. They are mortal men, they have opinions, they speak them from the pulpit. And they can be wrong.
Gary, there are plenty of eye witnesses to most of the evidence that demands evolution as a theory. Saying something like that is akin to saying that we can disbelieve gravity because no one's seen it - they've just seen falling objects.
It's very indicative that even the Christian fundamentalists who attempt to deny evolution (and raise that "eyewitness" charge) are unable to deny the history of evolution but at best are able to deny a particular process of evolution. As I've oft mentioned there's little theological reason for Mormons to embrace this ID movement (although obviously some do for reasons of their own). But once you embrace the history of evolution and fossils it's pretty hard to adopt the "no death on the planet before the fall" position.
Clark Goble, I think I understand your point of view. Here's mine: On the one hand there's evidence, and on the other, there are the conclusions that are based on the evidence. One is fact, the other isn't. Given today's evidence, evolution may well be the only logical explanation. In the future, new evidence (discovered by man or revealed by God) could easily suggest a better explanation for all of the evidence. No mortal witnessed the origin of man. There are no "eye-witnesses."
"but as I understand them, Packer and Nelson both see a deathless paradisiacal creation as disallowing the possibility of evolution."
Maybe I misunderstand the scriptures, but my reading of the Garden of Eden account is that the earth became mortal *after* Adam and Eve partook of the fruit. Evolution is a study of the mortal world. Hence, evolution only concerns the creation after Adam and Eve partook of the fruit. To apply evolution to the creation of the Garden and of the creation of Adam and Eve (prior to the Fall to mortality) is a misunderstanding of the scriptures.
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity"
I think that 1909 statement of the First Presidency applies to our spirits not our mortal bodies. I don't understand how our mortal bodies would be the "direct and lineal offspring of Deity".
Post a Comment