I’ve been involved in a few discussions online lately, wherein I found myself in the odd position of attempting to explain actual Latter-day Saint doctrine to a member of the LDS church who refused to believe me, the scriptures, historical leaders, or affirmations by present leaders.
The topic in question this time was Creationism. The LDS position is that there was no death in the world before the Fall of mankind, the Fall brought about physical (and spiritual death), and the Atonement can return mankind to the exalted state in which he existed prior to the Fall. You would find very few Sunday School, Priesthood, or Relief Society classes in which that doctrine would be disputed.
However, such a doctrine, at the very least, precludes abiogenetic evolution of humankind, and possibly animals. Periodically, LDS leaders have reaffirmed the Divine creation of mankind in a way that precludes the “theory” of evolution. Right around every ten years since 1909 they’ve released another statement that they have no opposition to “true” science, but where a scientific theory appears to contradict revelation from God, one should trust the revelation over the flawed scientific theory.
Online LDS apologists cannot be convinced of this fact of LDS doctrine that would be readily affirmed in any classroom in LDS meetinghouses on a Sunday, and which has the repeated endorsement of the highest leaders of their church. The apologists would have one believe these statements don’t actually mean what they clearly state. While doing some hunting for some way to reason with the unreasonable, I came across a wonderful clarification from a fellow named “Cinepro” that helpfully nailed down the definition of “doctrine” according to online LDS apologists.
(From http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=22 )
- You are bound to believe the things required by the temple recommend questions (if you want to go to the temple).
- You cannot public disagree with any doctrine held by a current apostle.
- New “doctrines” do not have to be reconcilable to old “doctrines”.
- Old doctrines taught by apostles that have not be renounced or contradicted by later apostles may well have expired without further action.
- There is an “unwritten order of things” both doctrinal and procedural that you may be held to.
- The current brethren may be “speaking as men” but you can take no action on this fact. This only applies to dead apostles.
- The scriptures are not necessarily a doctrinal bind since non scriptural commentary on the scriptures by later brethren my change or obsolete the scripture.
Nailed it!
interesting
You should really hop over to sciencebysteve.net (Mormon Organon). I almost sent everyone there on the global warming discussion. His views are unconventional for a Mormon, I think, but probably reflective of Mormon intelligensia. He’s a bit of an enigma to me because we take the same approach to ontology, but our outcomes are very different. I think you will find him equally interesting–especially the older posts.
Matt, This seems incomplete.
Matt,
This seems incomplete. For instance, where you state:
How does it do this? And if it does, what are the ramifications associated with that?
Also, you mention that this doctrine “would be readily affirmed in any classroom in LDS meetinghouses on a Sunday, and which has the repeated endorsement of the highest leaders of their church.” Agreed, but what is the apologists point of view on this and why? I have heard many members of the church oppose evolution, so this seems like it would be an issue they would confront, not run from.
Abiogenesis
Definition: Abiogenesis. To sum up: abiogenesis is the process of creating organic material from inorganic material. The First Presidency statements explicitly claim divine, lineal descent of Man from deity. Unless they are claiming God evolved, that precludes abiogenetic evolution.
Bruce R. McConkie said it best in his speech, “Seven Deadly Heresies” (entire section included for clarity, sorry for the length):
Heresy two concerns itself with the relationship between organic evolution and revealed religion and asks the question whether they can be harmonized.
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 that evolution is the system used by the Lord to form plant and animal life and to place man on earth.
May I say that all truth is in agreement, that true religion and true science bear the same witness, and that in the true and full sense, true science is part of true religion. But may I also raise some questions of a serious nature. Is there any way to harmonize the false religions of the Dark Ages with the truths of science as they have now been discovered? Is there any way to harmonize the revealed religion that has come to us with the theoretical postulates of Darwinism and the diverse speculations descending therefrom?
Should we accept the famous document of the First Presidency issued in the days of President Joseph F. Smith and entitled “The Origin of Man” as meaning exactly what it says? Is it the doctrine of the gospel that Adam stood next to Christ in power and might and intelligence before the foundations of the world were laid; that Adam was placed on this earth as an immortal being; that there was no death in the world for him or for any form of life until after the Fall; that the fall of Adam brought temporal and spiritual death into the world; that this temporal death passed upon all forms of life, upon man and animal and fish and fowl and plant life; that Christ came to ransom man and all forms of life from the effects of the temporal death brought into the world through the Fall, and in the case of man from a spiritual death also; and that this ransom includes a resurrection for man and for all forms of life? Can you harmonize these things with the evolutionary postulate that death has always existed and that the various forms of life have evolved from preceding forms over astronomically long periods of time?
Can you harmonize the theories of men with the inspired words that say:
“And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
“And they [meaning Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
“But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
“And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall.” [2 Nephi 2:2226]
These are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself what he will believe. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields.
I believe that the atonement of Christ is the great and eternal foundation upon which revealed religion rests. I believe that no man can be saved unless he believes that our Lord’s atoning sacrifice brings immortality to all and eternal life to those who believe and obey, and no man can believe in the atonement unless he accepts both the divine sonship of Christ and the fall of Adam.
My reasoning causes me to conclude that if death has always prevailed in the world, then there was no fall of Adam that brought death to all forms of life; that if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; that if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, and no eternal life; and that if there was no atonement, there is nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. I believe that the Fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself, and that the Atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself.
For the record, I believe Bruce R. McConkie was spot-on in his analysis, and I thoroughly agree with him, except that I fall on the other side of the equation: death has always and will always exist.
Here are some apologist quotes regarding creationism in the LDS church — and complaints about those who point out the holes in this theory — from this thread on MADB regarding creationism and a world-spanning flood:
There’s more, but that’s about the gist of it.
IMHO, the religious and scientific should exist in independent spheres. Science should not make religious claims, nor should religion make scientific claims. A worldwide flood and literal Creation are, unfortunately, testable scientific claims.
—
Matthew P. Barnson