Talk:Mormon views on evolution

Abbreviation

I'm wondering whether LDS Church is the proper abbreviation for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Why is the term Mormon not used as the abbreviation if one must be used. LDS Church reads a bit awkwardly. Even Church of LDS would be better. Didn't want to change it without getting peoples' opinions. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the standard abbreviation used in Wikipedia and is used as a disambiguator when necessary. See main article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which consistently uses "LDS Church". See also Area (LDS Church), Adam and Eve (LDS Church), etc. "Mormon Church" can be used but I think the church favors "LDS Church" if an abbreviation must be used, and WP seems to comply with that. I've never heard "Church of LDS" being used anywhere. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"LDS Church" is also used most often by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. --124.40.63.122 (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to drop this in without a citation, but the actual abbreviation the church itself favors is "Church of Jesus Christ." However, much to the dismay of the church, hardly anyone uses this abbreviation. Even the local newspapers in Salt Lake City use the abbreviation LDS Church. 205.127.162.156 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

I'm a lifelong member of the LDS Church, and I have never once heard that the Church favors "Church of Jesus Christ" as an abbreviation. Unless and until it's sourced, I suggest we go with what we officially know, and that is that it is acceptable to use the term "LDS Church." --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think what the IP address editor is referring to here is the LDS Church's style guide on the church's name, which is here. It asks that media to "Please avoid the use of 'Mormon Church', 'LDS Church' or the 'Church of the Latter-day Saints'" and says that "When a shortened reference is needed, the terms 'the Church' or 'the Church of Jesus Christ' are encouraged." However, it's also correct that no one uses "the Church of Jesus Christ". Even the church-owned Deseret News uses "LDS Church" pretty consistently, and that is what WP has opted to go with in our guidelines. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Along this same line of discussion, it would be best to change the names of articles like this one to have "Latter-day Saint" rather than "Mormon", which is offensive to many members of the church. Like previously discussed, "LDS Church" is also not ideal, and the church has recently made great efforts to ensure the correct name is used. ReedJMerrill (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Quotes

I reverted an edit which was essentially an extended collection of quotations from various sources, some of which are relevant and some less so. The article should not become an extended collection of quotes. It may be relevant to include the views of some more church leaders, but publication in the Ensign or a CES manual does not make something church "doctrine", as the edits suggested. And if included, the quote should be discussed in text, not simply quoted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Church Doctrine and Publication Quotes are relevant

In the LDS church there are levels of strength of church doctrine. The current First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles are the highest level. Second is the Standard Works (Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price). Third is official publications of the church. Any personal opinions expressed beyond that even if by apostles are not considered doctrine. If there is any contradiction, the highest level is considered the doctrine.

As you quite nicely point out about "Mormon Doctrine" the phrase at the beginning of the book signifying that it is not doctrine, nor a work of the church, but represent his views and are his responsibility. Such a statement is conspicuously missing from the Institute Manuals, Ensign Publications, and Bible Dictionary. They are published by the church, and unless contradicted by the Standard Works or a revelation, are included in the principles that comprise the teachings of the Church. The other way to recognize these as teachings of the church is to note the number of times in different sources that it has been published. In the church it is usually referred to as the "Law of Witnesses" and refers to 2 Cor 13:1.

Many of the statements from Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie were originally published as a private undertaking and were not doctrine until they were taken from those sources and placed in official church publications. That changes their status and gives the responsibility of the publishing over to the church for those particular quotes.

I find it unusual that you would refer to and quote from a "church approved encylopedia" which was indeed looked over by a couple of apostles, but published by Macmillan and for which the church doesn't take responsibility, but find it objectionable to quote from official church publications which have been thoroughly reviewed by the curriculum department and has the church's endorsement. I don't believe any of us adding to the article have been authorized to represent the church on official doctrine. To help the student who wishes to know what the Mormon church has said about the subject, I have changed the title from "Official Church Doctrine" to "Official Church Publications," for they may not know the hierarchy of doctrinal statements.

In encyclopedic works, sources also have degrees: Primary, secondary, and tertiary. Many statements in this article appear to be the author's opinion about a primary source. Such an example is a simple reference to the pamphlet by James E. Talmage, and the inference that he supported the idea of Pre-Adamites. After looking for such support in the article itself, I have come to the conclusion that you must be referring to the part of the pamphlet when he is beginning his paragraphs with words such as, "Geologists believe . . ." or "Scientists believe . . " He doesn't really ever support the idea. Such inferences have the tendency to lead people to believe to your inference, even if faulty.

Many of the sources cited have been secondary in nature. If this article is about Mormonism and Evolution, then perhaps it would be wise to let the church publications speak for themselves instead of interpreting them. The church is authorized to speak for itself and has done so in many different venues on the subject. The sources I have included are primary. You can't get better sources than that, so I believe they are better representatives of the church than I would be.

Finally, we come to the relevance of the quotes. I am surprised that you find the quotes only tangentially relevant. One of them indicates that it is impossible to believe in evolution and the fall of Adam as a doctrine of the gospel at the same time, that the gulf between them is to large. I don't think that you could get a more relevant quote. In particular, evolution is permeated with the idea that creatures lived, reproduced, and died for many years before man came on the scene and Adam fell. The quotes speak directly to these crucial elements of the theory of evolution; they are at the very center of the debate of Mormons as to whether evolution could be a viable theory.

Obviously, the quotes go against the bias with which the article was initially written, but such a position doesn't make them irrelevant. If you would like to paraphrase them or cite them in a different manner, you are certainly welcome to, but don't leave them out.

An encyclopedic article is not simply a blog or discussion about relevant source material. It is intended to represent crucial source material. Any article that would leave out references to official church publications, and then falsely claim through a secondary source that such statements simply aren't in existence is not accurate. Any discussion of Mormon belief and the connection to evolution needs to include these references. When I began my study of what the church believed, I read the article before the entering of these church publications, and though surprised, used the information as the beginning of my study. I was quite disappointed to find out all of the information that was. Not only did the article mislead me as a reader, it was completely false in some of its claims of there being no statement since 1925.

Please feel free to or edit, cite or discuss any of those quotes, but please don't leave them out and imply that there aren't teachings of the church currently in practice.Bedes (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with using solely primary sources is that it often runs afoul of WP:OR. We need secondary sources that tell us how to interpret the primary sources. I don't see any of that. All the extended quotes that were included talk about death before the Fall of Adam, etc., but they say nothing directly on point about evolution. Without a secondary source linking the statements to evolution, they have to go. Sorry. Please review WP:OR and WP:RS. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The primary sources and use of them are in direct compliance with WP:OR. The problems with primary sources are noted and then the policy is given:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

This policy is exactly the reason why they were not discussed or analyzed. In particular, the "good judgement" and "common sense" requested in WP:OR require the use of the primary sources. The subject of this article deals with the LDS church position, which is not determined by scholarly works or other "reliable" sources. The only sources that can represent the Church are published by itself, so primary sources are essential in any article that attempts to summarize such a position. Any secondary source is, by nature, not authorized to represent doctrine. Thus the very topic of this article requires the use of primary sources (otherwise it cannot claim to discuss the church's position) in the appropriate, and approved, manner without explanation or analysis. In summary, this appears to be the exact situation in which a primary source is necessary, so care must be taken to let the source speak for itself. I have taken out my statement about the connection and replaced it with the published statement. That should put it right in line with the policy.

Finally, there is still some question as to how closely the quotes actually connect to the theory of evolution. Here is the summary of the connection using one of the quotes:

“. . . Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:141–42.)

The LDS teachings about the Fall of Adam and the theory of organic evolution are in direct contradiction. All of the quotes about death before Adam fell are central to the summary of the LDS position. Specifically, they make "descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." WP:OR Without the quotes, the article simply doesn't represent a true summary of what the church currently teaches.Bedes (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that discusses these quotes or issues in the context of evolution? That is the issue, not whether what you are saying is "true" or "correct". If you don't have a source, then they don't belong, regardless of how much you believe they are an accurate representation. The Mormonism and Evolution book references all of the information that was in the article prior to your additions. Unless you can provide a secondary source that discusses the quotes or ideas, they will be properly removed. I'll give you a few days to add such references; if none are added within the week, the information will be removed. (In the meantime, I have removed the extensive quotes while retaining the citation to the primary source in which they are found. WP articles are not collections of long quotes. A reference is sufficient.) (On second thought, I'll just leave the article as is while I await the sourcing. This will hopefully prevent edit-warring in the meantime.)

As a final note, I would point out that the Bible Dictionary does indeed carry a disclaimer in its preface that it does not constitute church doctrine, so on that point at least you are just wrong. And it is a controversial and not widely-accepted position to state that Institute manuals and the Ensign are expressions of church doctrine! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Bede, the quote your gave above from Doctrines of Salvation as it is quoted above needs some interpretation to be used. I have not looked at the source, but if it started with something like in the theory of evolution, death was in the world. Then Adam, and by that... then it could be used as a primary source to report what Smith thinks of the concept. HOWEVER, it is not doctrinal and could only be used to explain Smith's personal position.

Primary sources are only of value if they have no need of interpretation. If the interpretation is needed, then the source should be secondary by a reliable source.

I disagree with some of your layers of doctrine above. This is a murky area because there have been conflicting thoughts. If the prophet speaks, and it is supported by the 12, it becomes doctrine and is then entered into the scriptures and becomes part of the canon. Leaders (prophets and apostles) may interpret scripture, but by themselves, alone or individually, they cannot create it. Nothing they say becomes doctrinal until it is entered into the scriptures. This is part of the reason Brigham Young said so many things, but none of it was entered into the canon. In fact, many of the leaders say things that are not entered into scripture. I have not covered every angle, there are holes to what I have said, but I think the gist of it is sound. Over time it has gotten progressively more difficult for doctrine to be made within the LDS Church.

I woudl encourage you to use secondary sources for the article; the primary sources I know of all need some interpretation to tie it to evolution. Cheers. --^StormRider 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving the quotes up while the discussion continues. Storm Rider, I agree that if I had used quotes published solely in books expressing personal opinion, you would have a great point. All of the quotes are from books officially published by the church. Please see the Citations and links for further information.

Good Ol'factory brought up a great point with regards to the disclaimer at the beginning of the Bible Dictionary. We return to the topic of doctrinal source hierarchy in the church. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are the highest authority, then comes the standard works, then come the teachings of the church as published by the Church. Personal opinion (as you have well noted) is not doctrinal. Each is subject to the authority of the previous. If a revelation comes contradicting what the church has previously published, then the revelation takes precedence (i.e Priesthood revelation in 1978 and Manifesto in 1890). This is exactly what is said in the disclaimer at the beginning of the Bible Dictionary. If there is "reevaluation based on new research and discoveries" or "new revelation" then those publications are subject to it. These are the exact reasons that I had titled the heading, "Official Church Publications." Without doing any sythesis or analysis of sources (prohibited by WP), it allows the church to speak for itself and to change the publications at its leisure where it is not subject to the "doctrinal" interpretation of individuals like myself or yourself. One last request. You note that the quotes will be "properly removed," which kind of implies that they are not properly included. Please include official WP policy in your reasons for removing it. I have inculed the policy in my reasons for including it.

Since there appear to be three major points of discussion, I have made three distinct sections, so we can discuss any of them individually. Thank you much. Bedes (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

LDS Church publications and doctrine

On the subject of doctrine. Your points are well taken that calling something doctrinal could be somewhat murky. Doctrine as a layman's term simply means, "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated" or "a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject". In that sense the publications of the church represent teachings of the Church. Obviously the word, "Doctrine" as used in reference to the teachings of the LDS Church or its leaders includes more than this definition. This is where, as Storm Rider, points out the subject gets a bit murky, and as Good Ol'factory pointed out can get controversial. Certainly no debate there. The LDS Church accepts the following statement as revelation regarding what constitutes scripture.

"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

To determine if someone is moved upon by the Holy Ghost when speaking is a bit hard to get a handle on for the purpose of studying, so the Church has published certain statements to help illustrate what works are to be used by the members and considered teachings of the Church.

This ambiguity and individual understanding of "doctrine" is the main reason that I haven't claimed any of the quotes were doctrine, and I changed the title of the section in which they were included to "Official Church Publications." This draws a clear line between say Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine and the June 1982 Ensign article. One is the opinion of a single man, who perhaps shares opinions with other men. As soon as that quote is published by the Church officially, its status changes and is now from the Church and official. Also, the denotation of whether something is published by the church makes the verification quite simple; just look at the publisher. There is no ambiguity whatsoever, and the debate of doctrine is left to those that have a definition.

Specifically, there are two sources for using official church publications as criteria for use in the article. The first comes from the Church manual titled "Teachings of the Living Prophets," in answer to the question, "When are the words of prophets to be considered as scripture?

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such” ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 278). Prophets have the right to personal opinions. Not every word they speak should be thought of as an official interpretation or pronouncement. However, their discourses to the Saints and their official writings should be considered products of their prophetic calling and should be heeded."

And the second comes from the Church manual "Gospel Principles", again discussing modern scripture:

"In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders."

Thus we see that the church itself supports its official publications and considers them to be the method of spreading the teachings of the church. I don't think there is much debate about that either.

Now, we come back to the word, "doctrine." What makes a statement doctrinal? Unfortunately, without an agreed upon definition of, "doctrine" as used in this context, declaring something as "doctrinal" or "not doctrinal," simply doesn't make sense. If you would like to suggest that the official church publications aren't doctrinal, you will need to find a good definition, and please use an accepted source of the LDS Church. This is especially crucial for those that aren't familiar with the jargon of those that study LDS Teachings.

Including the quotes from official Church publications is exactly what it purports to be, a collection of teachings officially published by the Church; no commentary or ambiguity. Bedes (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WP articles are not intended to be a collection of quotes without commentary. That is the purpose of Wikisource, not Wikipedia. If you want them included, all we need to do is say something like, "church publications contain statements that there was no death before the Fall of Adam", and then cite the statement. No need to include the extensive quotes, which is my main problem with your edits. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WP articles include lists of many things and do so appropriately when those lists are the subject matter about which the article is written. In the case of "Mormonism and Evolution" the quotes are, themselves, the subject matter. These aren't quotes about Mormonism and Evolution(which would appropriatley be accumulated in Wikisource), these are actual teachings of the LDS Church with regards to evolution. Examples: The article on the United States contains a list of actual states, without summary, explanation or reference to another page to find the list. The article on Kings of France contains a list of those kings. Similarly, This page is about the teachings of the LDS church with regards to evolution, and should properly contain a list of those teachings. I can see your point about making the article more concise, but such a summary or interpretation of primary sources is contrary to the WP guidelines as listed in the next section. Any such summary or synthesis of the information would have to use a secondary source for that synthesis. Once primary sources are used, they need to stand on their own. See next section for more comments. Bedes (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Which I think exactly reinforces our need for a secondary source that discusses the quotes you've included. When there are secondary sources out there that discuss this topic—Mormonism and evolution—and they discuss a variety of sources and quotes—but not these—I think that's a strong sign that there's WP:OR going on. This presumption can, of course, be rebutted by providing some secondary sources about the topic which do include discussion of these sources and quotes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Primary Sources are necessary in this article

The subject of this article is "Mormonism and Evolution", and discusses the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its teachings regarding the theory of evolution. The Church has not authorized any other entity to officially represent its teachings. Thus to adequately discuss the teachings of the Church, it is necessary to include quotes produced by the Church itself. Secondary sources are not authorized to represent the church, and as such, are not sufficient in this article.

With the necessity of using Primary resources, the guidelines set up by WP need to be adhered to so that there is not the bause that WP is worried about the abuse that accompanies the interpretation or analysis of such. Good Ol'factory made a good point of referring to WP:OR for the policy. For the purpose of this discussion, I will repeat it here:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

It is that "common sense" that suggests that in a discussion of Mormonism, the actual publications of the Church should be included. There are certain conditions under which primary sources are to be used without secondary sources. The primary sources have been included and follow the guidelines. The lack of need for interpretation will be discussed in the next section. Bedes (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See section below for my comments on "common sense". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation of Primary Sources

There still seems to be some question as to whether these quotes really address the subject of evolution. Storm Rider made a good point about putting that part of the quote from the CES manual that ties all of the quotes to the theory of evolution. I will do that. For those who still need some explanation, I will be happy to establish it. I do not profess to be a scholar of biology or LDS Theology, so I make these connections as I think anyone without specific expertise would be able to.

A central element of the theory of organic evolution is the reproduction and death of organisms as creatures for many years before man came on the earth.

A central theme of all of these quotes is that there was no death or mortality before Adam fell, which is in direct contradiction to the central element just stated. Death before man on one hand, no death before man came on the other. Bedes (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a little bit more complicated than that, which is why secondary sources with commentary is necessary. In other words, your "common sense" interpretation of the quotes probably differs from mine, which probably differs from Storm Rider's, which probably differs from readers' in general, etc. As soon as we start to assume something is "obvious" or "common sense" on WP, that is a great sign that we are probably using our own biases to interpret and we can be sure there's people out there who would disagree with us. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your point is well taken that upon reading these quotes found in LDS Church publications, interpretations can be as unique as the individual who is reading them. This is the main reason that WP has such strict standards when it comes to use of primary sources. They are to be used without any synthesis, explanation, or interpretation by anyone. They need to stand on their own, so that individuals can read them without the influence of some other author's comment. That is why they have been included free of evaluation or summary.

The WP criteria for including primary sources is that they:

"may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."

If there are specific quotes that you feel don't meet this standard of making descriptive claims, then bring them up and we can discuss them individually.Bedes (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

See my comment two sections up. Your approach of using primary sources would make sense to me if there were not secondary sources that explicitly discussed the topic of Mormonism and evolution. But there are a number of such sources. So if these quotes and sources are important, they should be discussed in these secondary sources, and we should be able to use the secondary sources as citations for anything the article says. When an editor adds primary sources in an area that is well-discussed in multiple secondary sources, it's usually a pretty good sign that there is an WP:OR problem, which is what I'm getting the sense of here. My mind could be changed by seeing some secondary sources on Mormonism and evolution that refer to these sources and quotes, but otherwise, I still think they should be removed as OR. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OR is defined by WP as: "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Since every quote was published and any synthesis is withheld, we don't have that issue. The point is well taken that there appears to be a lack of discussion of these quotes in the secondary sources. Most of the sources in this article are actually primary sources, and their inclusion in the article is based on the author being a leader of the church. Of the few that are true secondary sources that discuss the overall position of the Church, "Mormonism and Evolution" is a collection of primary sources with historical context added and a minimal amount of analysis or interpretation, which has been noted in the article. As to the issue of why all statements of official publication aren't included in this publication is mentioned in the "Cover Page." Their responsibility was to assemble all of the formal statements of the First Presidency. The quotes in the Old Testament Student Manual do not have that status, and thus weren't considered at all. The other source that seems to be a true secondary source is the Tim S. Reid one. In looking it up, it specifically cites the Old Testament Student Manual. It will take a little time to read through and find the reference and analysis, but it may be what you are looking for so that the entire list won't have to be there.Bedes (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. As I've considered this I think I'm OK with having these quotes in for now. I mean, personally I do think they are relevant, but I remain a bit concerned that allowing them in at this point will lead to OR synthesis/commentary eventually appearing on the page. I appreciate that you've been very careful to avoid this—more careful than almost any other editors would be, I have to say. So I'm not so much concerned with what you have done here, but rather what it's likely to lead to in the future. But I'm willing to keep them on for the time being and see where it goes with future edits. I do think it's good to have sections by source if we're going to have extended quotes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I found the quote we were looking for in the "Reid" article (p.232) that I think does a nice summary, which allows most of the quotes to be taken out, yet still represent that the church is currently publishing material. Reid doesn't discuss the reason for the conflict, so one primary source has been left in to illustrate. Out of deference to the status of First Presidency Statements and the introduction of the Ensign Feb 2002 reprint of the 1909 statement, I have put the First Presidency statements in the official doctrine section. Because of the emphasis the LDS church places on use of manuals for "keeping doctrine pure" (Teaching: No Greater Call) and the instruction to seek in official publications for modern scripture (Gospel Principles), these quotes need to be represented in the article in their own section. Hopefully, that last edit gets the article closer to what it needs.Bedes (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OR and extensive quoting again

Above, about quoting from primary sources, I said: "... I remain a bit concerned that allowing them in at this point will lead to OR synthesis/commentary eventually appearing on the page. ... I'm not so much concerned with what you have done here, but rather what it's likely to lead to in the future." Well, my fears were realized, and now there is another editor who wants to add extensive quoted material to the page. The user emailed me and acknowledged that they had spent "hours" digging up some quotes from primary sources. This is original research to the nth degree. Unless these quotes are used in a secondary source to talk about Mormonism and evolution, they don't belong in a WP article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from presidents of the church

I have removed a bunch of material from this section because they were quotes from apostles who later became the president of the church, but were not the president oft he church when the statement on evolution was made. This kind of defeats the purpose of the section, since apostles can speak for themselves, but when a president of the church speaks he often speaks for the entire church. We could include countless quotes from church leaders who were not the president of the church. The purpose of the section is to include statements by men about evolution who were presidents of the church when they were president of the church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Quote

I don't think the quote from Joseph Smith really applies to evolution. It's a stretch to make a statement about a principle of reaping what you sow into a statement about evolution. Joseph Smith was appealing to a natural law as he understood it to describe a spiritual law as he understood it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.132.135 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This article looks great!

Wow! This article looks really good. I see no POV bias or unreliable sources used in the article.

Sure the article may need a little work, but compared to MOST of the other Mormon-related articles - this article is the best I've seen.

Great job! --CABEGOD 22:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It is very biased. It makes it look as if Mormons do not believe in the creation. It's awful! They made sure to heavily place quotes that show obscure little quotes that make it appear as if the church has no stand on creation or on evolution, and makes it look like Mormons are fence-sitters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.253.11 (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

On the specific issue of biological evolution, the church has not taken an official position. That does sound like fence sitting to me. Individual Mormons have all sorts of individual opinions on the matter. Of course the church affirms that the earth and its creations were created by Jesus, but it takes no position on exactly how that creation was performed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

See my comments below - I think that although the things this article says are correct, there are other things that can and should be said on the subject. It's not biased, but it is incomplete. Eran of Arcadia (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Signed statements from the First Presidency aren't an official position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.9.32 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, First Presidency statements are generally regarded as official positions. However, no First Presidency statement makes comment on the truth or falsehood of biological evolution as it applies to living things in general. What is addressed by the statements is the origin of humans, not the general principles of evolution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

1910 editorial

The information was removed from the Joseph F. Smith section regarding the 1910 editorial in the Improvement Era because "it was not signed by JFS. JFS always signed his articles in the Era (please check).". I've restored this because it is material that is cited to a reliable source (Evenson and Jeffrey). As it says there, it has been presumed that it was written by Smith or the First Presidency. If it was written by the First Presidency, that would explain why Joseph F. Smith did not sign it. But in any case, we can't delete it just because we personally suspect it wasn't written by him—we need to rely on what the reliable sources say. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

And I don't believe that a blog questioning the attribution would be considered a reliable source. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional Sections?

This is a fairly well-written page, but I think it is somewhat incomplete, in terms of presenting the whole view of LDS views on evolution. Like a lot of things I have seen (some more objective than others), it seeks to answer the question "what do Mormons think" by quoting general authorities from a century ago, which doesn't say a lot about what the average Mormon thinks. I don't really have the time to look up some of this myself, but I think it would be useful to add:

• 1. Any quotes by general authorities that are more openly favorable to the idea of evolution. I believe that such quotes exist, though I can't remember who said them; but they would go along with the quotes that say it isn't true, and those that say it doesn't matter.
• 2. What Church-run schools teach on the matter. This is, in practical terms, how the modern church ultimately views it. Doesn't BYU have a fairly prominent paleontology department? Presumably they accept evolution, at least as it relates to non-humans. And are there any scientists deal with evolution who are LDS?
• 3. What the average member thinks. In my completely subjective experience there is a correlation between level of science education, interest in science, and acceptance of evolution; but I have seen one study that suggested Mormons accept it less than even evangelicals. (That study based its data on a single badly-worded question, however). Given that the official stance of the church is currently more or less "let science figure that one out", I think that showing the range of views this leads to is the best way to show "Mormon views on evolution" in the fullest sense. Eran of Arcadia (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that currently the page largely reflects opinions/statements that have come through "official channels" of the LDS Church. It does not contain much on the issues that go beyond that, but it could. I'm not sure if there is much written about the unofficial views of Mormons on evolution, however. Most sources focus on what has come through official statements or documents. This is an area where original research could be tempting, but that should not be done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

The church has two official statements signed by the entire first presidency and the first line of this page says there is no official stance?? Please show me the other signed statements declaring there is no official stance. If the presidency has only signed in one direction then this should be a no brainer.

• 1. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity."
• 2. "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. 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), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.9.32 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Biological evolution is about more than just the origin of Homo sapiens. The statements say nothing about the truth or falsehood of biological evolution in general. The First Presidency statements address only the specific issue of the origin of humans. The reason the article says there is no official stance is because that is what is generally reported in reliable, secondary sources on the topic. On WP, we try not to use our own interpretation—we rely on reliable, secondary sources written by others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

How could anyone interpret the above two quotes any differently? Searching LDS.org confirms this is exactly how all of the 12 apostles have interpreted it. Please link me to a source where a member of the 12 has spoken differently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.9.32 (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I encourage you to take a look at the secondary sources listed in the notes section of the article. They may help in answering your question as to how anyone could interpret the two quotes to mean that the church has no official position on biological evolution in general. The article is fairly well cited. You may not agree with how commentators have interpreted things overall, but in WP we represent what these commentators have said, not how we think things should be interpreted. The article also contains quotes from some apostles, presidents of the church, and general authorities which could be interpreted to mean the question of biological evolution in general is not one that the church takes a stand on. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I must be missing it, the only I see is one from someone in the seventy who was against what the 12 had spoken. The first presidency and the 12 should trump how anyone else interprets these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.9.32 (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• A 1910 editorial in an LDS Church magazine that enumerates various possibilities for creation is usually attributed to [Joseph F.] Smith or to the First Presidency.[7] Included in the listed possibilities were the ideas that Adam and Eve: (1) "evolved in natural processes to present perfection"; (2) were "transplanted [to earth] from another sphere"; or (3) were "born here ... as other mortals have been."
• Another of the apostles, geologist James E. Talmage, pointed out that Smith's views could be misinterpreted as the church's official position, since Smith's views were widely circulated but Roberts's views were limited to an internal church document.[7][21] As a result, the First Presidency gave permission to Talmage to give a speech promoting views that were contrary to Smith's.[7] In his speech on August 9, 1931 in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, Talmage taught the same principles that Roberts had originally outlined in his draft manual.[25] Over Smith's objections, the First Presidency authorized a church publication of Talmage's speech in pamphlet form.[7] In 1965, Talmage's speech was reprinted again by the LDS Church in an official church magazine.[26] As Talmage points out in the article, "The outstanding point of difference ... is the point of time which man in some state has lived on this planet." With regards to evolution in general, Talmage challenged many of its aspects in the same speech. He said: etc. etc.
• At a 1975 church women's conference, church president Spencer W. Kimball stated that "we don't know exactly how [Adam and Eve's] coming into this world happened, and when we're able to understand it the Lord will tell us."[46]
• In a 1997 speech at an Institute of Religion in Ogden, Utah, church president Gordon B. Hinckley said: "People ask me every now and again if I believe in evolution. I tell them I am not concerned with organic evolution. I do not worry about it. I passed through that argument long ago."[50]

Of course, there is also much on the other side. According to the secondary sources, the crux of the issue is what constitutes official church doctrine, and they conclude that probably only canonized material, official statements of the First Presidency, and joint statements of the First Presidency and Twelve constitute official doctrine. If we limit our examination of these, the commentators come to the conclusion that the church takes no official position on biological evolution in general, though it does have a position on the origin of man. That's what the article reflects, and then it gives examples of "non-official church doctrine" sources, such as manuals, statements of individual leaders, etc. Given the dispute between Talmage and Smith in the Quorum of the Twelve, it's probably best to state that the Twelve has spoken with mixed messages—it certainly has not issued a joint statement at any point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say these are all valid points, but origin of man is signed by all the members of the first presidency. it is an official statement. And it is the only official statement on the matter yes? The quotes above show a few people 'speaking as men' but nothing like the signed document from the First Presidency 76.23.9.32 (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Origin of Man" is considered official doctrine by everyone who I have seen write on the topic. But "Origin of Man" only talks about the origin of man (humans); it doesn't talk about the creation/evolution of other animals, or of plants or other living things. It is quite specific in its scope, whereas the topic of "evolution" is broad and covers all living things. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

'largest church within Mormonism?'

I grant that there is much controversy here, and the subject is delicate in multiple ways. I have a quibble, about the phrasing of the first line: 'The largest church within Mormonism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), takes no official position on etc..'

My concern is about who defines 'Mormonism', and what is the definition. Apparently, the definition of 'Mormonism' here, is taken to be something like 'the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity which began with Joseph Smith'. Now, I offer my view, for whatever it is worth -- I think that 'Mormons' are understood to be members of, and the word refers to members of, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Let me guess at a reply to this. I say that Mormonism is defined by the leadership of the LDS Church, and the reply could be that 'well, you are thinking only of mainstream Mormonism'. Or, 'you are thinking of what the word *most often* refers to'. And there is something at stake here beyond mere semantics, because the LDS Church seeks to distance itself from 'other branches of Mormonism' (as it were), particularly those that practice polygamy. Indeed, the church maintains a degree of orthodoxy by excommunicating or disciplining its members who take positions or engage in practices viewed as apostasy. For example, the LDS Church excommunicates members who practice polygamy or who adopt the beliefs and practices of 'Mormon fundamentalism' (as it were). Today, polygamy is practiced within 'Mormonism' (as it were) only by people that have broken with the LDS Church.

So it seems like maybe we are, logically, at an impasse. Somebody perhaps offers to quote Alice in Wonderland:

--"When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” --“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” --“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

However, understanding that point, I don't think it's necessarily the last word in this case. I'll point out, as an analogy, that it would be silly to get into a dispute about defining the word 'Christian', because there is no formal definition, and no copyright. Of course, I get that. I agree. However, guess what. Intellectual Reserve Inc., the holding company for the LDS church, has a trademark on the word 'Mormon'. As well as "Book of Mormon", "Mormon.org", "Mormon Tabernacle Choir", "The Mormon Church", "Mormon handicraft" and an outline of the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City, Utah.

I'm not going to insist that this point is relevant, I offer it for whatever people think it is worth. In terms of intellectual property infringement, the issue can be settled, by litigation. I am at least half-serious! I'm not an expert on what is supposed to be the point of trademark law, or specifically on whether one group can claim to have exclusive rights to those words. I'm not trying to have that debate, I'm just saying..consider, for example, that "Scientologist" is registered at the U.S. Patent and Trademark office. What if I claim to be the pope, and it's all just semantics? this isn't up to me it's, as far as I'm concerned, nbd, I'm just sayin'..DanLanglois (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this important issue here, but, as you've observed in your comment above, there are other religious denominations that claim the appellation of Mormon, and previous discussions have borne out that the neutral point of view is to apply that assignation to other churches within the Latter Day Saint movement, which, as you've stated, includes all churches and sects that trace their origin back to Joseph Smith. This has been hashed and rehashed over and over again. If you really feel that this issue must be raised again, you could start a discussion at this page and ask for comments. Hope this post has been helpful to you, and thanks for your efforts to ensure accuracy in such articles. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. No church has a trademark on the name "Mormonism". And even if they did, trademarks only apply within the particular area of commerce or activity involved. For instance, the restaurant owns the trademark of "McDonald's" when it comes to restaurants and food, but that would not prevent a piano company from calling its pianos "McDonald's". Wikipedia is not selling anything—it is a repository of information. Nor is Wikipedia is not claiming to offer religious services. Trademark law has no relevance here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Let us agree that Wikipedia is not claiming to offer religious services. I'm being sarcastic when I add that I'm glad we got that cleared up. Lots of red herrrings, here! Another one, is I wonder why I have to consider your point that no church has a trademark on the name 'Mormonism', which does not contradict my true assertion that 'Mormon' and 'Book of Mormon' are trademarks and service marks, and are registered in the United States and other countries. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not selling anything-it is a repository of information. I agree, if that seemed to be in dispute. Some of that information, then, might be that the Mormon church is claiming rights for 'Mormon' to describe a Mormon, and that the whole point of trademark law is to prevent consumer confusion. Also, my understanding is that “fair use” of a trademark is determined on a case-by-case basis. I actually don't mind stipulating that there are dozens of breakaway sects that call themselves "Mormons" who do practice polygamy, and I am even willing to tarry to be instructed about their respect for the law. DanLanglois (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Block quotes

There are too many block quotes in this article, which greatly impedes the article's reading flow. I will be summarizing some of the block quotes and integrating smaller quotes into prose to promote readability. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Archive link not fully working

Some text can be seen through copy/paste or the source code although otherwise the page looks only white. Working versions of the same content would be appreciated... I have seen the same issue whereby the javascript is not linking however this can be fixed in the future. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Altanner1991: Does this version of the link work for you: link? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have fixed the reference. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)