I recently taught a 90-minute Institute class in Berlin with very little prep time.
About 40 attended, ranging from investigators to missionaries to newish converts and long-time members. I first tried to gauge what the class was familiar with in terms of Church history and publications on this topic, and then polled them on whether they’d rather do more scripture or Church history, and ended up with about a 70/30 split. I introduced the idea of concordism and implicit contexts (post 1, post 2), the idea that past scripture might be for us, but it was not written to us, and then discussed Genesis 1 in context of the Babylonian Enuma Eliš to draw out its teachings that would have been important to Israelites living in a highly polytheistic environment: Genesis answers four questions, none of which have to do with science or natural history.
I wanted to make sure they knew the relevant Church publications, so I used my laptop connected to a large TV to introduce the following.
- Some chapters dealing with science and religion in Saints vol 3, which in the published version ran from about chapter 8-22, but especially chapter 21.
- I helped with internal reviews of those chapters, and was invited onto the official Saints podcast to talk about the Church, science, and evolution in the 1920s and 30s.
- Saints also generated a number of shorter side-essays to flesh out people, ideas, and events which couldn’t be addressed in the main text. These are Church History Topics. One such was written for those same Saints chapters on Organic Evolution, here. I was asked to review a draft and did so; after publication, I wrote up some commentary and expansion on that essay here.
- I pointed the class to the new detailed discussions of Answering Gospel Questions, with fantastic subtopics like “Recognize that Revelation is a Process,” and “Consult Reliable Sources,” and “Work to Understand the Past.”
- These steer us away from simplistic assumptions about the nature of revelation, scripture, prophets, and history, something I’ve addressed formally here.
- There were two relevant articles in 2016, “What does the Church believe about evolution?” and “What does the Church teach about dinosaurs?”
- These both assert an old earth, the reality of death and reproduction long before 4000BC, and that the Church has no position on evolution. This is all, of course, an implicit rejection of “no death before the fall,” if one dates the fall to 4000BC. As Elder James E. Talmage wrote on this topic,
I cannot agree with [the] conception that there was no death of plants and animals anywhere upon this earth prior to the transgression of Adam, unless we assume that the history of Adam and Eve dates back many hundreds of thousands of years. The trouble with some theologians — even including many of our own good people — is that they undertake to fix the date of Adam’s transgression as being approximately 4000 years before Christ and therefore about 5932 years ago. If Adam was placed upon the earth only that comparatively short time ago the rocks clearly demonstrated that life and death have been existent and operative in this earth for ages prior to that time.
The Church today seems to have adopted Talmage’s position.
- These both assert an old earth, the reality of death and reproduction long before 4000BC, and that the Church has no position on evolution. This is all, of course, an implicit rejection of “no death before the fall,” if one dates the fall to 4000BC. As Elder James E. Talmage wrote on this topic,
- A recent Church manual introduces the idea of “over claiming” i.e. making claims that go beyond what scripture actually says and means. It uses “the Church opposes evolution so it’s false” as an example of over claiming. The left column is the over claiming example, center column analysis, right column a potential response.
- The Church has recently added some Q&A on Science and Religion to the Gospel Topics. These are well worth reading for short positions of the Church on questions of evolution, human origins, the compatibility of science and religion, and reconciling scriptural teachings with science. I also was part of the internal review process for these, and wrote up some thoughts and analysis for the Salt Lake Tribune, because they asked.
- Lastly, I wanted to make these international Saints aware of our new publication from BYU
Life Sciences on LDS faith and evolution. This free book is an anthology, with chapters on the nature of science and the evidence for evolution, but also Church history and scripture. I have two articles therein, one on the 1909/1925 First Presidency statements on the origin of man (they weren’t intended as doctrinal statements ruling out evolutionary science) and one on the history and philosophy of the “no death before the fall” idea. There are some follow-up interviews here (general about the book), here (me on First Presidency statements), and here (on D&C 77, the age of the earth, and continuing revelation.)
It turned out, I felt, to be a rather a decent class. We did lots of Q&A, and lots of personal questions afterwards. I left quite pleased, and I hope the students felt like they’d learned and been exposed to some solid material that helped to understand scripture and Church history, and undermined obstacles to faith.
July 14, 2025 at 9:36 am
Why would anyone trust a chapter titled “Consult Reliable Sources” in a book authored and published by the church to be “reliable” let alone “fantastic?”
Whenever anyone or any organization—especially the church—recommends that I only “consult reliable sources,” my spidey sense begins to tingle. And when I see such counsel appear in “faith promoting history,” such as “The Saints,” each volume of which contains glaring omissions of historical episodes and policy decisions that reflect poorly on the church and its leaders, I put that book on my “do-not-waste-your-money list.”
July 14, 2025 at 9:45 am
Well, that’s your loss, due to your biases. Perhaps you should look at what they *mean* by “reliable resources.”
July 14, 2025 at 10:25 am
I have looked at what the church means by “reliable sources,” and I find it woefully inadequate. For example, the first bullet point concludes as follows:
“If you have questions about official Church teachings, look first at what current Church leaders have and have not said. This will help you evaluate other, earlier statements.”
What have church leaders said about the origins of the Priesthood Ban? Here is a brief sampling of what church leaders have said in response to this question over the past 15 years:
1. “However well-intended [past] explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. … We simply do not know why that practice [the Priesthood Ban] … was in place.” Jeffrey Holland, 2006 & 2018.
2. “The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear.” “Race and the Church: All Are Alike Unto God,” (Feb. 29, 2012, mormonnewsroom.org).
3. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Official Declaration 2 in the 2013 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.
4. “To concern ourselves with what has not been revealed or with past explanations by those who were operating with limited understanding can only result in speculation and frustration. … Let us all look forward in the unity of our faith and trust in the Lord’s promise that ‘he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness;…” Race and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” Church and Gospel Questions, March 21, 2025.
In sum, “We are totally clueless as to how this pesky Priesthood Ban came about and we really don’t to talk about this anymore!!”
You and I both know that these statements are patently false. Oh, let’s be honest: they are prevarications. Anyone who has read the work of Paul Rees—including his short treatise, “Let’s Talk About Race”—knows these statements are not true.
Young announced the Ban during a joint session of the Utah territorial legislature in 1842. In unrehearsed remarks, Young grounded his doctrine of a cursed race in the story of Cain’s murder of his brother Abel. Cain’s punishment for this foul deed, according to Young, was to put a mark upon him. That mark, Young said, “you will see … on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth or ever will see.” (Seven years later in another sermon, Young was more particular about the mark, describing it as “a flat nose and black skin.”)
Then, invoking his authority as a prophet of God, Young unequivocally declared: “If there never was a prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called Negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know they cannot bear rule in the priesthood.” Young never claimed he received a revelation on this question. He simply felt it was and didn’t want to bother the Almighty with this nonsense.
All of this is recounted in scholarly works of multiple authors, including, as noted above, Rees’s book, “Let’s Talk About Race,” which was published by … wait for it … DESERET BOOK!!
So thanks, but no thanks, when it comes to seeking counsel from the church about what is and what is not reliable.
July 20, 2025 at 6:35 pm
Ben, I appreciate every post, outline, associated links, plus all the study, research & thought that precedes them.