The Church has taken no stand one way or the other on this subject other than to say that God has not revealed the answer. As such we are free to believe what we will on this topic. Personally, I favor intelligent design. I take the account of creation in Genesis as being symbolic. Remember, that the creation story was given to a people that did not have the understanding of science that we do. Because of this, God gave them a story whose purpose was to say, "I created the Heavens and the Earth and everything that is in them. I did it in an orderly way and with a purpose. Let Me tell you what I expect of your in exchange." From the religious point of view, this all that we need to know about the creation. The life cycle of stars, the processes that produce the solar system and the Earth, evolution, etc., are all interesting areas of study, but in the eternal scheme of things they really have no baring on our salvation. There are, of course, members of the Church that choose to take the creation story as literal fact. Since the Church has not taken an official stand on this subject, that is their right. This debate did spur some rather heated arguments between the religion and natural sciences departments some decades ago at my alma matre (sp?), Brigham Young University. The leaders of the Church eventually had to tell both sides to cool down the rhetoric because those on one side were condemning those on the other. So, the final answer is that this is a matter of personal conviction. It is up to each of us to decide what we believe with respect to this. ************** "John Pacella: There is only one right answer here. It is not up to us to determine the Truth." I agree that there is only one right answer. The problem is that God has not chosen to clearly reveal what that answer is. Some people believe that the account of creation in Genesis is literal. It does not matter how they twist it, science just does not support that conclusion. An omnipotent God could have created Earth with all of the things that science sees as indicating that it is much older than the Bible indicates, but why? In light of what we learn from our examination of Earth and what the Bible says on this subject I don't think that we have the whole story. We won't have the whole story until God provides the knowledge needed to clear up the contradictions. I have faith that someday He will, but it will be in his own time. ************** "BluePen: It is quite clear that Intelligent Design is taught. Some church literature even calls evolution foolish. Both are not true" The Church's official stand is to say that we don't know. Various members of the Church leadership, have written various things expressing their personal opinions on the subject. For example one apostle, James E. Talmage, wrote a paper called The Earth and Man (http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/Talmage1931.html) in which he defended the theory of evolution. (It should be noted that Talmage was a geologist by profession.) A later apostle, Bruce R. McConkie, in another work stated that evolution was a false belief. (McConkie had been a Lawyer by profession.) Neither one of their views was ever adopted by the Church. In both cases, these were personal opinions expressed by the individuals. Either way, both did acknowledge that God was the creator. The only debate is in just how the creation was accomplished.

Anon: Don't be like that. Let's talk about it. Glenn, I don't think that is correct that the church has no position on this; it just doesn't say much today, because the debate is so often controversial and heated, and anything it would say would not change anything 'out there', in education, etc., etc. ... AND if one undertakes the Spirit of the temple teaching, one will not be led away from God by its being "out there". So, it is as well that it says little on it, while it concentrates on the work of the Kingdom and preparing for our Lord's 2nd Coming - now that we are quite close. However, 100 years ago, it made quite a statement through the First Presidency declaring that evolution was false. Just because it was 100 years ago does not now nullify it. If that was the case, in years to come we might have some social, world need to nullify the Family Proclamation of 1995. It may be added to, but I'm absolutely certain that it will not be retracted. Many of you may be aware that following quite some labour on my part on another subject - with some base build in to evolution, the Lord inspired me personally to make a certain discovery that snakes were the precise antithesis of Man. Now, I am not a General Authority - nor an apostle of the Church. No one need take the least notice of this discovery if they so choose, and it probably won't impact on their salvation, but, nevertheless, what Gifts God has given each of us, let us acknowledge them and use them for the benefit of our fellow-man. So, I would lay before you now, just a Brief on this Discovery, and I would like your feedback please, as it has been the culmination of 10 years part-time work. Thank you everyone: (a) Is this the Best way of going about this, or is there a better?? (b) How would you improve upon this presentation OR upon any explanation?? THANK YOU greatly for your much-needed and much-appreciated help. CONSIDER: 1. Uniquely: NEW DISCOVERY strongly supports ALL Biblical verses and texts that even remotely relate to the Biblical Adam and Eve account!! 2. Also … EVOLUTION?? For myself, I do not just Believe ‘Biological Evolution of the Species’ NOT to be true, I have literally and uniquely PROVEN that it is NOT – Scientifically! There are 2 "animals" that specifically and comprehensively disprove evolutionary theory beyond all doubt: Snake & Man. WHY?? They are Precise opposites in everything - both behaviourally and anatomically!! As a Specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist, I undertook a comparative study over nearly 10 years, firstly discovering, then proving, this great, yet simple, phenomenon. ‘WHY DO YOU SAY THEY ARE OPPOSITE??’ you may ask. The query also often arises: "Well, if they are precise opposites, Why do they both have backbones and breathe air, and have many other apparently similar internal organs?” In answering this, it needs to be both - recognized and acknowledged that "kinds" of organism [or species] cannot simply defy the Higher overall laws of nature and basic requirements of life itself, in order to, simply, ‘differentiate species’. That is the number 1 rule of comparative science. What I am saying here is that because of their size, and land-dwelling nature, etc., they are, necessarily, Both vertebrate, and require some similarity for survival – alimentary system, and other basics viscerals, etc. – to live efficiently and satisfy the very requirements of effective survival, according to their overall land-dwelling nature. (Most specifically, I speak particularly of venomous ground snakes in this study.) There, after satisfying the fundamental laws of survival itself and of living an effective existence, their 'similarities' completely end! Thereafter, they are total opposites in everything – in terms of all possible differentiating factors among the beasts that exist. In fact, a very close examination will reveal that snakes cannot be more unlike other beasts, either, if they tried! For that matter, neither could Man be more different than everything else!! ... and that is, despite all the claims of genetics, etc., that various species [of ape, etc.] possess 99% similarity with the DNA of Man. Despite all this supposed similarity, there is nothing that really well compares to Man at all among the beasts that exist. OBJECTION BY ANOTHER ANSWERER RE MY DISCOVERY: You don't appear to understand the math involved in evolution or genetics. We may have 99% similar DNA to a Chimpanzee, but we also have 80% similar DNA to a banana. MY RESPONSE: Well, really, I DO believe I understand the maths in genetics! As a mathematician myself, what you're saying is precisely what I am saying. The whole concept of opposites is purely mathematical. The claims by geneticists that we all (Man and Beast, more particularly) spring from the same evolutionary derivatives/tree/chain simply because our DNA's are so alike - especially, chimps and humans being so close is my particular point – is precisely why I say that that % DNA similarity does not make us similar or of the same background – especially when you consider the considerably close % of the banana, as well – at 80% similarity. Despite the ‘DNA similarity’, the point is that this DNA similarity has to actually evidence properly in nature – Both, behaviourally and anatomically. Bananas?? I don’t think so! The similarity re DNA merely proves that ALL life has to have certain characteristics and similarity of feature simply in order to satisfactorily survive, alive in nature – so that it exists and operates efficiently. After all, God is a God of law and order. Is He not?? Snakes and Man, therefore, share DNA similarities, so does the banana, but only so far as to make them live effectively in nature. There, having accomplished necessary efficiency and life survival apparati, similarity totally ends! Specie-wise, Man and snake are precise Opposites – even among those similar survival organs and features – lung/s, heart, mouth, alimentary canal, etc. – a close study shows there is great opposition between the two. Now this extraordinary discovery of total opposites tends to disprove random chance mutation – per evolutionary theory – in defining the types of life that exist. It also confirms a deliberation in Creation – it tends to most powerfully support that there is a God in nature – determining the nature of matters and designing them for His own specific purposes. Similarly, it also powerfully supports the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, wherein it was the very serpent, itself, in fact, which was used by Satan to oppose God to Eve. As you may recall, as a result of this act by the serpent, God cursed all things – changing them – but none so greatly as the snake!! [See Holy Bible – Genesis, Chapter 3] Obviously, as this study shows, among all the changes that were made was the symbolic representation re the snake that epitomized this very act – its Opposition to Man and God!! … all the more so when we consider, as well, that that same record declares that Man was created in the express image of God. [Genesis, Chapter 1] This recognition and acknowledgment makes the whole proposal of expressed symbolic opposition between Man and snake all the more significant, given the Biblical history. Now, may I acknowledge, immediately, that God was the reason for and avenue of, enabling this Great Discovery re early Biblical Proof … it came about totally, under His direction, guidance and revelation! Hence, His Great name: “The Master”. SO VIA HIS GRACE TO US, LET’S JUST SIT BACK AND ENJOY JUST A BRIEF LIST RE OPPOSITION BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE FROM THE BOOK, “TWO BIRDS … ONE STONE!!” (Denis Towers) SNAKES VS MAN: Horizontal flat ambulation vs upright, vertical. Lies flat along the ground vs. stands erect Indented penis (lies pushed into the inside of the body when ‘flaccid’) vs external in Man Forked divergent tongue vs convergent [narrowing] While on the tongue: no apparent taste buds vs Yes…. Tongue: Much external time vs mostly within mouth Flattened head vs domed high skull No appendages vs greatest appendicular/axial skeletal ratio of all vertebrates In rest/reclination: human - supine, straight, or zig-zagged position vs coiled, etc In movement: snake – zig-zagged, random vs direct, deliberate, straight ahead Ears? Has none (possible internal mechanism) vs Ears & external reception Nose? Has none – excellent internal mechanism vs external reception, but weak Vocalization? Has none – is a ‘hiss & a byword’ vs… Eyes? Venomous groundsnakes: mainly monocular vs binocular Food gathering & living practices? Nocturnal vs diurnal Hibernates & seasonal vs all year around performer… Dormant hidden lifestyle vs active [!], healthy[!] open Almost still sex copulation for hours vs acceleratory [in health & vitality] Eyes covered-hidden by own skin [that is, internal, weak] vs momentary blink, direct contact with external environment, strong vision… Audio: internal & almost non-existent vs external entry – prime means of communication Smell: internal, powerful vs external [weak, by comparison with beasts, generally] Touch: thick scaly skin - insensitive vs great sensitivity… TASTE?? Apparently, non-existent vs opposite… Multi-coloured ‘skin’ vs great uniformity Also tremendous variation in size [6” – 30’] vs…comparative uniformity [in health] Copulating penis? Hooked & downward pointing vs. upward & erect, etc. Only erectile structure/s [fangs] initiate death vs only erectile structure in Man initiates life 2 peni vs singular penis Mainly [deadly groundsnakes, that is] oviparous vs viviparous birth to young Consumption? No chewing all in 1 great gulp vs boundless chewing & into small pieces Head 1st consumption of victim vs. rarely eat heads Retractible, curved, sharp teeth, pulling long-ways vs fixed, non-curved, mostly molar teeth, which effect direct up & down crushing effect on food Food totally meat – eaten alive vs mainly ‘picked’ and cleaned fruit & veges, etc. Any meat is killed, prepared and cooked. (Note that even among other carnivorous beasts, most include some vegetation) And the hits just keep on coming between the opposition of Man & snake!! VESTIGIAL APPARATI: Some snakes have miniscule, Internal, unobservable, (supposed) less active pelvises. Again, in typical opposition between Man and snake, a man’s (woman’s, in particular) is more outwardly obvious, and forms part of the system of the leg. In similar opposite manner, again, snakes possess outwardly-displayed, tails; Man’s is considered ‘vestigial’ and ‘buried’ to outside nature. This notice inadvertently, recently came by way of another objector, “MvL”: Thanks to his observation, I learned, or realized, more particularly, yet this further opposite between the two. (He was actually trying to introduce a point for the opposition camp[!], ‘poor fellow’): re the “Vestigial structures” he pointed out; I hadn’t thought of it previously. So that was, as all else, very useful to our cause. Yes; I must admit, I originally pointed out in my ‘work’ that in Opposition to snakes, humans have no tail - and certainly, in outwardly visual terms, this is so. However, I'm glad MvL highlighted these structures vestigially. Now we can report that Man’s ‘tail’, being internal, is not visible externally, whereas the snake’s, of course, is external throughout. Conversely, Man’s pelvis, etc. is externally ‘present’, whereas, in typical opposition, the snake’s is buried. You'll note, accordingly, that the vestigial structures of the snake - its pelvic - lie laterally across its body, whereas, in complete opposition, Man's – his vestigial tail bone – lies vertically, along his longitudinal plane. So, this was, inadvertently, a good further point for our cause! NOW, further [Behavioural considerations re this new anatomical observation]: Man's vestigial apparatus here, assists his "REST" Mode in life – that is, sitting. Snake, in the true Opposition that he seems to epitomize across every feature of life, uses his vestigial apparati for active purposes – balance in movement and assistance in the sexual act. As most simply curl or coil up in rest, his miniscule pelvis is obviously, not needed for his rest periods! SO ONCE AGAIN, IN DECISIVE MANNER, THE SNAKE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF QUITE OPPOSITE MAN IN ALL THINGS! Good ol’ MvL, God bless him, then proposed that he could also prove that pigeons or dogs were also ‘opposite humans’. I responded in the following manner: You are right, MvL. One thing I learned from all my 9 year research into this matter is that animals are quite unlike humans - if not, opposite humans in so many aspects themselves! In like manner (re our hypothesis), however, snakes appear to be even more unlike anything else that exists on earth than even humans do!! ... including their [supposed] ‘nearest cousins’ (lizards), if you really study them very closely, that is. They are at considerable variance with one another. Whereas, if you made a comparative study of the oppositeness of feature between [say] a cow and a bird, or a snail and a dog, you would not access nearly as many opposites by comparison. Perhaps, somewhat surprising, but true nonetheless, if you examine them closely feature by feature! 3 THINGS ... three things virtually decide the issue quite firmly [well, 4 really] but one always holds his Trump card for more opportune situations: 1. Diametric opposites over so many countless characteristics and sub-characteristics such as are involved within the enormous Complexities of Man & the snake = mathematical impossibility via Random (chance) mutation to achieve, especially given that even evolutionists declare that mutations, meaning "’successful’ mutation” as in successful transfer of increased information via some kind of “mutant” are rare to the point of being almost impossible – in other words, they virtually, Never happen! 2. THEN, if one has managed to pretend to that mathematical impossibility, he THEN has to have BOTH of these creatures "select" for all those exact Opposites of characteristic in ALL of their ultimate life-environment choices!!!!!!!!!!!! Having ‘achieved’ mathematical denial already twice, why not go for the ‘hat-trick’ – 3 in a row!! 3. So, having previously denied the odds involved against the first two ever occurring, why should he not simply deny the substance of mathematics in his 3rd inescapable dilemma?! The next mathematical burden – yet the next enormous task: Explaining How on earth these 2 opposite creatures happened to live on earth at the very same miniscule period of the overall evolutionary process between the two[??!!!!] – seeing that the claim of evolution is that Species CONTINUOUSLY change – forever! If that be the case, then surely, rather than both being here at the very same miniscule time-period, either, one should have already moved on millions/100,000's years ago, or, if that be not the case, BOTH should still be coming, but almost certainly, at different rates, to some point where they may have been opposites had they both existed simultaneously! So, how is it that they happen to both be present here at the very same time!! BASICALLY, WHY ARE THEY BOTH HERE AT THE VERY SAME POINT IN “EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY” – THAT IS, AMONG THESE (SUPPOSED) MILLIONS & MILLIONS OF YEARS OF RELENTLESS CHANGE????!! Now, the Final point [not the 4th card, for that is ‘trade secret’] is that ONLY an act of deliberation could possibly account for such diametric oppositeness between 2 creatures like that. Now, fortunately, practically everyone I speak to about this discovery draws that final conclusion for themselves. Only the religiously anti-religious BLINDS HIS MIND TO GOD TO THE POINT THAT ‘GOD JUST DOES NOT EXIST’ [FULL STOP]! From my experience of such an one, it is merely his ‘determination to close on the recognition or acknowledgment of a God’ that prevents him drawing the only natural conclusion that can be drawn from the results of this entire study. For further clarification, you might try the Book, as mentioned above. JUST A SPAT RE A FEW MORE OPPOSITES BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE: Ratio of Brain size to mouth: extremely low – only a fraction vs. most pronounced of all known creatures [a case of ‘mind over matter’, I believe] Sheds its ‘skin’ in 1 whole piece vs. in total opposition, not so Snake sleeps with open eyes vs. shut-eye Arrangement of internal organs: Mostly in single file vs. paired Accordingly, lives mostly alone vs. in pairs/families Deserts its young even before birth [eggs] vs. constant nurture and parental nourishment Cold-blooded vs. warm… Head in dirt vs. head nearest the heavens, etc. Here, you have but a mere mini-list of the all-encompassing complete oppositeness: Man vs. snake! May God Bless You ALL PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS SIMPLE YET ASTOUNDING DISCOVERY WORLDWIDE! THANK YOU.

Here is what the church has said on the matter: "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...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... Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said:Adam is the primal parent of our race." (First Presidency, 1931).

denidowi, I would readily believe that your degree IS in mathematics, because your writing and grammar is flat-out terrible. However, had you not pointed out that you are a mathematician, I would have assumed that you have no degree at all, because this argument is completely devoid of any common sense or any sense of learnedness AT ALL, for that matter. Where to start? Whe you say "that % DNA similarity does not make us similar or of the same background", as your reason for not buying into the chimp/human relation, do you suggest that if there was 100% genetic similarity between 2 creatures, you would not believe them to be the same? And let's be clear: when we say genetic similarity, it means SAME DNA. You must either completely invalidate genetic similarity, or you must completely embrace it. There is no in-between. As for the diametric opposites even existing, nevertheless at the same time, you are writing this based on the presupposition of a young earth. In that case, you are right: in a young-earth scenario, there is no possible way evolution could exist. However, if you DO buy into the crazy idea of dinosaurs existing over a hundred million years ago, I don't see how you could rationally discount evolution. Both man and snake (and any other species, for that matter), had plenty of time to evolve from fish over hundreds of millions of years, in a tree-like scheme (fish are the roots, we are the tips of the branches), so OF COURSE the various branches representing genetic orders, families, genii, species, etc, are going to be pretty far from each other, relative to where they started from. In any event, I am already bored with this conversation. reply if you can come up with something coherent and intelligent.

Based on the answers provided so far, it would seem that Mormons can believe in any combination of literal Genesis creationism, intelligent design (creationism lite) and evolution. Or, if they wish, it appears that they can believe in all three. The answers here provide a great example of the mental gymnastics (read muddled thinking) that many adherents to religion must engage in when trying to rationalize the ever changing tenets of their religion with the reality represented by facts and science.

This is what the Mormons believe in: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/70372/ ROFLMAAO! I laugh till I pee in my pants every time I watch this!

I believe in all three "pyramid power" is the key.

Mind, this is my personal opinion, not to be taken as the view of the Church, but so far as I know not in conflict with its doctrines. - I believe God is the supreme intelligence, and that he deliberately designed and created our world. I also believe that he has used evolution as a part of the process. - I believe that, like the famed blind men who went to see the elephant, when all the truth is known we will see that these three supposedly incompatible views are each a limited and incomplete view of a wonderful whole we do not yet understand.

When, oh when, O Lord, are people going to understand that the stories of creation in ANY scripture are STORIES?!?! They are not fact. Seems the whole religious world is impervious to metaphor. honestly, how dumb are we getting??

Now I had always thought creationism and intelligent design went sorta hand in hand, creationism meaning God Created the Universe and Intelligent Design meaning there was a thinking being behind the creation of the universe... But it seems to me that the notion of evolution as a means of creating man or the animals ought to be right out the window for Mormons. If I remember correctly in evolution a species undergoes a series of mutations over millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations. The strong mutations survive and become a new species and the weak mutations die out. Well lets take a peak at 2 Nephi Chapter 2:23 which states a universal and basic mormon belief: if Adam and Eve had not fallen "they would have had no children" Which means they had no children before the fall (at which point they were very much human), and implies very strongly that they were not begotten children. So there goes the generations required for evolution. 2 Nephi Chapter 2:22 says "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." So they would have no end forever, this takes away natural selection, the weak do not die out. And they would remain in the same state which rules out mutation so no new species are created. So Mormon's do not believe that the 3 most critical elements required for evolution existed before the fall, hence they can not believe in evolutionary creationsism. Unless Lehi was speaking only symbolicly here in which case it kinda deminishes the signifigance of the Fall.

Actually, we believe in all three. Although we as a Church do not get involved much in scientific fields of endeavor. However, we do believe in creation, and support intelligent design by God, who created all things from existing matter. And as for evolution, we believe things can evolve, or at least adapt to changing environment, within their own species. But they cannot evolve from one species to another, as many scientists claim...Later