Mormon: creationist or evolutionist?

As a Mormon, a question I am sometimes asked is whether I believe in the literal creation of man by God or in the theory of evolution. The answer is: both or perhaps neither.

It is my eternal pet peeve that religion and science are not opposites, but two different points of view on the same truth, because there can only be one truth are. Our church promotes the search for truth: both spiritually and scientifically. This is clear from Doctrine and Covenants 130:19:  “And if anyone in this life, by his diligence and obedience, acquires more knowledge and intelligence than another, he will to that extent benefit in the world to come.” So we are very clearly urged to learn, to study and to seek knowledge, because we will be able to use it in the hereafter.

Keeping this in mind, I will immediately give you my personal answer to the question. I believe that God is the creator of everything. He is the architect. But I also believe what science has irrefutably proven.

Nuances

Please consider for a moment the nuances in what I just wrote. I am not a black and white thinker and in that sense I am not going to say that I am a creationist who believes that Heavenly Father took a pile of clay and sculpted a human being out of it. At the same time, I also try to give everything a place in science: after all, there are many theories that are accepted as true, but have not been proven. Take the recently “discovered” Higgs boson. That particle has not been seen. One has only seen the consequences that one can expect if the particle exists. One predicts that if theory X is correct, one should see consequence Y. If one then sees Y, one must exclude all other alternatives so that one can only conclude that X is correct. Works very well, but you still need to pay attention. Because one can only do everything  known or at least  all conceived alternatives will be considered and excluded.
Think of it a bit like saying “if the Loch Ness Monster exists, then there must be ripples in the water” and then deciding from ripples on the water that the monster exists. Short-sighted and short-sighted, but it illustrates what I mean. In science, just like in religion, you have to dare to put everything in context and look at it soberly.

My upbringing and studies in scientific fields have made me religious. The beauty of creation, how everything is aligned, has made me decide that this cannot be a coincidence. My classic (simple analogy) is that if you throw a bunch of bricks and beams together, it will never just become a beautiful building. You need an architect for that and that architect does not build that building. For that you need a contractor and a lot of workers and supplies.

So that is also my idea about Creation. I believe in God as the great architect, but I have no idea how He did it down to the smallest detail. Science is unraveling piece by piece how He (maybe) did it, but I am humble enough to believe in a kind of catch 22: that we now not be able to to contain all that.

I would also like to first put the theory of evolution in its place. Ask 100 Flemish people where humans are attuned to according to their biology teacher and a large majority will say “from the monkeys”. Wrong, the theory of evolution actually says that there may have been a common ancestor. In fact, genetics shows that all living things have a lot of DNA in common. This also corresponds to the fact that I believe that we are all created by the hand of God.

But I also want to perfectly accept that He did this in the way that science now describes it. For those who would like to reflect on the fact that science and religion do not contradict each other, I recommend the small book  Genesis Evolution: A Unique Way of Uniting Christianity and Science, an LDS Perspective to read. It is fascinating to read a comprehensible scientifically accepted theory about the origins of our earth, step by step, next to the explanation in Genesis.

What does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say?

The question now is whether I agree with this position  “Bad Mormon” am. I am certainly not alone in my opinion. So there is the author of the book just mentioned, B. Russel McConkie, but there are many others. So it's time to do a study on the official answer from our church.

Let me start with the answer clearly here: the church does not give a black and white answer to this question. Our church does not say that we have to be creationists or believe purely in the theory of evolution. The church actually says more or less that both principles are valid: God is the Creator, no Mormon doubts that, but it is left unclear how He did it.

A lot of Mormons are probably standing on their hind legs right now. In the US it is estimated that around 70%. They will argue that there is a clear answer: Joseph Fielding Smith wrote a clear piece about the origins of man when he was still a junior apostle. He is very clear about this: the earth is 6,000 years old, there was no other human being before Adam and death did not occur on earth before the fall of Adam and Eve.
Joseph Fielding Smith even described this in great detail later in a book when he was a prophet  “Man, His Origin and Destiny”. Later, many points of view were taken from it in other books, whether or not published by church-owned publishers.

However, let one thing be clear: Joseph Fielding Smith has always been in this  personal opinion expressed and never expressed an official position; let alone doctrine. Doctrine in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only comes about after the prophet receives revelation and then his counselors and the entire Quorum of the Twelve Apostles also receive confirmation through revelation that the subject matter is doctrine. And as a final step, it must be supported by the members at a General Conference.
So that never happened with Joseph Fielding Smith's position on the origins of humanity.

Opposition

In fact, shortly after Joseph Fielding Smith published his position in 1930, there was an in-depth debate in the Quorum of the Twelve. Elder B. H. Roberts, then president of the Seventy, wrote a rather vehement letter in which he more or less defended that what science had proven could not be denied. He assumed, among other things, that there were people before Adam and that death was already present before the Fall.
After both gentlemen stated their positions, the First Presidency wrote a letter to the General Authorities stating that further dispute was unnecessary and would only create conflict and that there was too little revelation on the matter itself to take a position.

From certain accounts and events we can infer that there was division within the Quorum on this matter. It is even true that James. E. Talmage, also an apostle but also a geologist, felt that since Joseph Fielding Smith's position had been published in an official church magazine, the opposite position should also be made known. The First Presidency then gave Talmage permission to give a speech on this subject with attention to the theory of evolution - although it must be pointed out that there was a bit of a stretch because it is simply a theory that is not 100% proven (as I also indicated earlier). The argument here is that there is currently no real conflict between what religion teaches us and what science can still teach us.
Talmage's speech was later also published in an official church magazine.

Neither meat nor fish

The official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that there is no official doctrine regarding the theory of evolution and creationism. Until there is a possible revelation, every member is free to form an opinion for himself, to express that opinion, but not necessarily to want to convince everyone of his opinion.

For those who want to know more about this, I definitely recommend the book  “Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements” On. It is a collection of official and unofficial positions and documents regarding this matter. It is based, among other things, on a document used at Brigham Young University that serves as a guide for all faculty members so that no conflicting views are expressed. Since BYU is under the auspices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it would be abnormal for things to be taught there that would contradict doctrine. I would also like to point out that BYU teaches about the theory of evolution and that there is a paleontology museum that exhibits fossils that are older than 6,000 years.

I am not alone

I'm not a loner with mixed opinions on the origins of man. Let it be clear that I have simply expressed my opinion here, based on the research I have done on this matter. But I'm in good company when I think about, for example Henry Eyring. Eyring is a renowned Mormon scientist, chemist, and father of President Henry B. Eyring, currently First Counselor in the First Presidency. He has, among other things, the book  “The Faith of a Scientist” written, in which he indicates that he, like me, believes that what science discovers does not contradict what doctrine teaches us.

Eyring has also clearly indicated in letters and the like that he cannot and does not want to deny what science has discovered. Read this letter just once:  “In my judgment, anyone who denies this orderly deposition of sediments with their built in radioactive clocks places themselves in a scientifically untenable position.”
In a book  “Reflections of a Scientist”, also published by Deseret Book, we can the next read:  “Organic evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to the best of their ability. From my limited study of the subject I would say that the physical evidence supporting the theory is considerable from a scientific viewpoint.”

In a biography of his life  “Mormon Scientist” In fact, I read that the First Presidency asked for his opinion on this matter when they were asked questions of their own. His position was no different in his letters to the First Presidency than what I described above. And the same First Presidency subsequently asked Professor Eyring several times to speak on behalf of the Church at meetings about the relationship between Mormonism and science, where he expressed his opinion openly and honestly.

It doesn't matter

In short, it is clear that the church has no doctrine on this matter and in this we must have the humility to accept that we simply do not know for sure and that God will provide us with further explanation later.
Because, and this is most important, it makes no difference to our salvation. Believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ is separate from the fact that we know with 100% certainty how God accomplished His creation. And I can live with that perfectly.