(by Dennis B. Horne)
We now conclude
the posting of 58 blogs meant to refute and correct the false teachings of some
misguided and mistaken BYU faculty, among others, regarding macro-evolution. These
posts have been seen by many thousands of readers over some 5 months. The first
introductory blog ran April 6, and we conclude with this one as August
comes to a close.
What has
been found?—that the formal, official and settled doctrine of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is clear that God created mankind/Adam and
Eve in His image; that He is the original progenitor, of both body and spirit,
of all “who belong to the family of Adam” (2 Nephi 9:21) and that Adam’s family
includes “all men [and women]” (2 Nephi 9:22). Adam and Eve are therefore
mankind’s ultimate mortal ancestor (after the fall) and that God is Adam’s
father and Heavenly Mother is his mother and Eve’s mother (Moses 6:22; Luke
3:38). Not only do the scriptures teach this, that we sustain as doctrinally
binding upon us, but prophet after prophet and apostle after apostle have also
taught this truth. (None of this
doctrine is taking a position on the scientific theory or theories of macro-evolution,
which the Church does not do and would be imprudent to attempt—since it changes
with the next study or journal article.)
It has not yet been openly revealed by scriptural text (and I do not know) where dinosaurs and so-called Neanderthals fit into the scheme of things relating to our earth. I do not know how past or current or future scientific interpretations of fossilized findings fit with the fact that all things were created first as spirits and then in an un- or imm- or amortal state where they could have existed forever, before the fall. But I know God knows and I know that some of the greatest prophets from past (and the present) dispensations have known. I believe the Prophet Joseph Smith knew but was not permitted to give this knowledge to the Church and hence the world (see D&C 76:114-117 and 3 Nephi 26:6-11).
Elder Marion
G. Romney had this to say to the Church about people trying to place
anything but God our Heavenly Father before Adam, or the first man, in his
ancestral line:
I
have an assignment from the First Presidency to serve on the Church
publications committee. This committee is expected to read and pass upon the
literature proposed for use in the study courses of our auxiliary
organizations. It would please me immensely if, in the preparation of this
literature, we could get away from using the language of those who do not
believe in the mission of Adam. I have reference to words and phrases such as
"primitive man," "prehistoric man," "before men
learned to write," and the like. We sometimes use these terms in a way
that offends my feelings; in a way which indicates to me that we get mixed up
in our understanding of the mission of Adam. The connotation of these terms, as
used by unbelievers, is out of harmony with our understanding of the mission of
Adam.
"Adam
fell that man might be." (2 Nephi 2:25.) There were no pre-Adamic men
in the line of Adam. The Lord said that Adam was the first man. (Moses
1:34, 3:7; D. & C. 84:16.) It is hard for me to get the idea of a man ahead
of Adam, before the first man. The Lord also said that Adam was the first flesh
(Moses 3:7) which, as I understand it, means the first mortal on the earth. I
understand from a statement in the book of Moses, which was made by Enoch, that
there was no death in the world before Adam. (Moses 6:48; see also 2 Nephi
2:22.) Enoch said: . . . death hath come upon our fathers; nevertheless we know
them, and cannot deny, and even the first of all we know, even Adam.
For
a book of remembrance we have written among us, according to the pattern given
by the finger of God; and it is given in our own language. (Moses 6:45-46.)
I
understand from this that Enoch could read about Adam in a book which had been
written under the tutelage of Almighty God. Thus there were no prehistoric men
who could not write because men living in the days of Adam, who was the first
man, wrote.
I
am not a scientist. I do not profess to know anything but Jesus Christ, and him
crucified, and the principles of his gospel. If, however, there are some
things in the strata of the earth indicating there were men before Adam, they
were not the ancestors of Adam.
Adam
was the son of God. He was our elder brother, not older than Jesus but he
was our brother in the same sense that Jesus was our brother, and he
"fell" to earth life. He did not come up through an unbroken line of
organic evolution. There had to be a fall. "Adam fell that men might
be." (2 Nephi 2:25.)
The sealed
portion of The Book of Mormon, which has not yet been translated and given
to the Church, has full particulars of the creation of the earth and mankind/Adam
and Eve, as revealed to the brother of Jared.
We have
quoted prophet after prophet and apostle after apostle, and general authority
after general authority, and a few highly-regarded BYU religious educators. We
have quoted the scriptures and these doctrinal authorities interpretations of
those scriptures. All of it has dismissed evolution as accounting for the
origin of man. We have reviewed why the Church doesn’t
take a position on evolution, but why it does on the
origin of man. We have reviewed the teachings of the First Presidency and Quorum
of the Twelve in detail. We have seen how strong they feel about this
doctrine and how strong and persuasively they speak against an amoeba being mankind’s
common ancestor, and instead bear witness that Adam is our common mortal
ancestor (and Eve) and that Almighty
God is his Father (“we are of the race of the Gods”) and not
some animal or monkey or ape or neanderthal.
We expect
no BYU biologist to be persuaded by these scriptural truths; they are too
locked into the false
theories of men. BYU Studies may well still publish a journal
promoting evolution (or theistic
evolution) and the theories of men, whether those theories originate with
Latter-day Saints or not. Such is so very sad; but when a person spends their
career studying and pushing something, it is hard to accept the word of the
Lord over their own field. Some seek any speck of hope they can find anywhere
in church literature to say the Church is not against evolution providing for
mankind, or that President
McKay believed in evolution (or Elder
Talmage or Widstoe), or other such nonsense, and come up with schemes to
support their theories. How anyone could buy that bunk, after reading all these
blogs, is beyond me—but some will. (A correlation to this is Book of Mormon
Geography. Some people at BYU have spent their entire career promoting certain
geographic locations for Book of Mormon events in the western hemisphere. Then
the Church released a formally approved statement stating neutrality—that made
those theories irrelevant.)
Others
dismiss everything President Joseph Fielding Smith or Elder Bruce R. McConkie
or President Boyd K. Packer or President Marion G. Romney or Elder Mark E.
Petersen or President Harold B. Lee or President Ezra Taft Benson taught (whether
in private/commercial books or approved church manuals) about the origin of man
with a wave of their hand; they call these men dismissive political names and
then suppose they don’t have to deal with true doctrine that opposes their views.
Another tactic that I have seen used is to contextualize matters related to
evolution and the origin of man as history, and being historical, they figure
they don’t have to deal with it as gospel truth. I guess that is one way to do
things.
One
defender of evolution said he found no church leader declaring their teachings
about the origin of man to be revealed to them. His homework and research was
insufficient—I found three that had; plus, all of them based their teachings on
scripture.
Neither God
the father, nor our Heavenly Mother, nor Adam and Eve, nor their descendants
(the family of all the earth) are products of macro-evolution, but are parents
and children of the race of the Gods. Such is the doctrine of the Church. Such
has now been thoroughly conveyed by 58 blog posts of varying length, all filled
with quotations teaching the truth doctrine; all refuting and correcting BYUs
false teachings.
Elder Holland
Rebukes BYU Faculty and Staff (August 23, 2021)
I thought
it remarkable that as I was in the midst of writing this concluding piece
refuting and correcting BYUs false doctrinal teachings on the origin of man,
that Elder Holland visited BYU and in his powerful address rebuked all of the
misled activist faculty and staff who push all kinds of false doctrines and
philosophies while being paid by tithing. He mostly concentrated on rebuking
LGBT rebellion and activism at BYU, but his words also cover the teaching of
macro-evolution as fact and truth instead of as unproved man-made theory/philosophy/postulate
in contradiction with the scriptures. (“while I have focused on this same-sex
topic this morning more than I would have liked, I pray you will see it as emblematic
of a lot of issues our students and community face in this complex, contemporary
world of ours.”) And he also talked about how such teachings have cost some
students their faith. From
his inspired address:
Then, imagine the pain that comes
with a memo like this one I recently received. These are just a half-dozen
lines from a two-page document:
“You
should know,” the writer says, “that some people in the extended community are
feeling abandoned and betrayed by BYU. It seems that some professors (at least
the vocal ones in the media) are supporting ideas that many of us feel are
contradictory to gospel principles, making it appear to be about like any other
university our sons and daughters could have attended. Several parents have
said they no longer want to send their children here or donate to the school.
“Please
don’t think I’m opposed to people thinking differently about policies and
ideas,” the writer continues. “I’m not. But I would hope that BYU professors
would be bridging those gaps between faith and intellect and would be sending
out students that are ready to do the same in loving, intelligent and
articulate ways. Yet, I fear that some faculty are not supportive of the
Church's doctrines and policies and choose to criticize them publicly. There
are consequences to this. After having served a full-time mission and marrying
her husband in the temple, a friend of mine recently left the church. In her
graduation statement on a social media post, she credited [such and such a BYU
program and its faculty] with the radicalizing of her attitudes and the
destruction of her faith.”
Fortunately,
we don’t get many of those letters, but this one isn’t unique. Several of my
colleagues get the same kind, . . .
Now, Elder
Holland did not specify the department and faculty that caused this young
person to lose their faith, but the Biology Department has shown itself to be
right in the mix of the worst offenders. And BYU Studies is moving in
that direction also, having recently published issues trying to redefine and alter
the established narrative of the great apostasy, and do the same with the
restoration of the priesthood. And soon it seems they will do so with a number
promoting macro-evolution as compatible with the gospel—which we have so thoroughly
shown is not.
And so
Elder Holland further taught:
I
said then and I say now that if we are an extension of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, taking a significant amount of sacred tithes and
other precious human resources, all of which might well be expended in other
worthy causes, surely our integrity demands that our lives be absolutely
consistent with and characteristic of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. At a
university there will always be healthy debate regarding a whole syllabus full
of issues. But until “we all come [to] the unity of the faith, and . . . [have
grown to] the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ,”[7] our next
best achievement will be to stay in harmony with the Lord’s anointed, those
whom He has designated to declare Church doctrine and to guide Brigham Young
University as its trustees.
In
2014, seven years ago, then-Elder Russell M. Nelson came to campus in this same
setting. His remarks were relatively brief, but tellingly he said:
“With
the Church growing more rapidly in the less prosperous countries, we . . . must
conserve sacred funds more carefully than ever before.
“At
BYU we must ally ourselves even more closely with the work of our Heavenly
Father. . . .
“A
college education for our people is a sacred responsibility, [but] it is not
essential for eternal life.”
A
statement like that gets my attention, particularly because just a short time
later President Nelson chairs our Board, holds our purse strings, and has the
final “yea” or “nay” on every proposal we make from a new research lab, to more
undergrad study space, to approving a new pickup for the physical facilities
staff! Russell M. Nelson is very, very good at listening to us. We who sit with
him every day have learned the value of listening carefully to him.
Three
years later, 2017, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, not then but soon to be in the First
Presidency where he would sit, only one chair — one heartbeat — away from the
same position President Nelson now has, quoted our colleague Elder Neal A.
Maxwell who had said:
“In
a way[,] [Latter-day Saint] scholars at BYU and elsewhere are a little bit like
the builders of the temple in Nauvoo, who worked with a trowel in one hand and
a musket in the other. Today scholars building the temple of learning must also
pause on occasion to defend the kingdom. I personally think,” Elder Maxwell
went on to say, “this is one of the reasons the Lord established and maintains
this university. The dual role of builder and defender is unique and ongoing. I
am grateful we have scholars today who can handle, as it were, both trowels and
muskets.”
Then
Elder Oaks said challengingly, “I would like to hear a little more musket fire
from this temple of learning.” He said this in a way that could have applied to
a host of topics in various departments, but the one he specifically mentioned
was the doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and
a woman. Little did he know that while many would hear his appeal, especially
the School of Family Life who moved quickly and visibly to assist, some others
fired their muskets all right, but unfortunately didn’t always aim at those
hostile to the Church. A couple of stray rounds even went north of the point of
the mountain!
My
beloved brothers and sisters, “a house divided against itself . . . cannot
stand,” and I will go to my grave pleading that this institution not only
stands but stands unquestionably committed to its unique academic mission and
to the Church that sponsors it.
So no
matter what the vain and false philosophy or scientific theory or worldly doctrine
that some at BYU promote, we can rest assured and comforted that the First
Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are aware of and are trying to correct the
error so prevalent in some places at BYU (BYU Studies, the Neal A.
Maxwell Institute, the Biology Department, a few in the Religion
Department—thankfully only a few, and all the LGBT activists on campus). Most
of those teaching and promoting false things will try to continue doing so,
since they will take no correction from the Brethren. But that is their problem
and also their consequences. Those that listen to and learn from Church leaders
are eternally benefitted. An Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ has spoken; let
us heed his words and be blessed thereby.
And let us
hope that those, normally mostly good people, that simply must push macro-evolution
on others, can take the continual and constant direction and correction heaped
on BYU by the prophets and apostles every year, and repent and change and
correct themselves and their course. But I do not hold out much hope. Again and
lastly from Elder Holland: “My Brethren have made the case for the metaphor of
musket fire, which I have endorsed yet again today. There will continue to be
those who oppose our teachings and with that will continue the need to define,
document, and defend the faith.” So I have now done 58 times; do what is right,
let the consequence follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment