Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What do Mormons – Mitt Romney’s church – think about human evolution vs. Adam (and Eve)


Mitt Romney is down but not out, as far as the US prez race is concerned.*

Romney is – famously – a Mormon, and some have asked, well, given that the third-place possible kingmaker is Rick “Santorum Amendment” Santorum, where do Mormons stand on Darwinian evolution. A decade ago in February 2002 (and we haven’t heard that it has changed), the Ensign carried a piece straight from the top, clarifying the matter:

“God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” In these plain and pointed words the inspired author of the book of Genesis made known to the world the truth concerning
the origin of the human family.

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 declared 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.

This doesn’t sound like “Adam was just a figment, intended to get across the idea that we are all one.”
Of course, none of this may have any impact on any decision Romney makes, but this is the background against which devout Mormons will likely evaluate him.

(*and some of us think that Romney got Newtk’d in South Carolina mainly because of public fed-upness with alleged major media treating the election as daytime TV. Newt Gingrich – who had every reason, good and bad, to want his private past off the discussion table – stole the show by just outing the lazy hacks. He doubtless reaped as many votes, proportionately, as the standing o’s.

Thing is, that act won’t open every night in every theatre, especially if other candidates also refuse to play ball with the “daytime TV” media and demand time for issues Americans need to care about.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

My only comment is that you somewhat trivialize the idea that Father in Heaven can be a literal father. I understand your point of view which is held by many but clearly there is room for others: Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? rigby
I know who my literal father is and it’s not God.
The concept of God being our father isn't meant literally. That should be clear since the human writers of the Bible evidently knew where children come from. Many of them were fathers themselves. It is meant in a few different senses. One is descent. The Jews referred to Abraham as their father - not literally, but because they descended from him. Similarly, Christians believe the creator of their most distant ancestor to be God. Following that is the idea that God in some respects acts as a father toward us and expects us to act as children toward him. It is a way of defining the relationship. There are others. He is also called the potter while we are the clay. Shepherd and sheep. But the father/child illustration is applied foremost. And in some cases the Bible refers to God as an adoptive father. Although not literal children, some are invited to be viewed as such. Although even then it still describes a relationship, just more formalized. It is not referring to reproduction. In Galatians Paul does refer to a "mother." I won't go into detail, but it's also figurative, describing a relationship with God and one with his children. ScottAndrews2
You ask good questions. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that we are souls inhabiting physical bodies. Our souls are the literal offspring of God. We believe that we lived a spiritual existence, as male and female, in the presence of our Father before being born here. And, yes, such an idea leads to the notion of a mother in heaven. So we would say we have a literal spiritual Father and a literal physical father. Regarding the original comment by Bantay, we don't believe sex is evil or dirty (as apparently he does) unless misused. I repeat my original comment: thinking of the human family as the literal offspring of a Father in Heaven might be different from what most people believe but is it really deserving of vitriolic ridicule? rigby
Interesting, "companies" exhibiting the characteristics only people can have: avarice and greed. I don't suppose you consider "families" to be strictly people either. I'm only saying that corporations can be people in the same way families can. It's not unreasonable to speak of corporations as people...unless you hate the speaker. rigby
God is literally our father? What does that even mean? I know who my literal father is and it's not God. Are children allowed to grow up to be like their mothers in your religion? The same comment can be made for standard Christianity - if God is our father, who is our mother? Timbo
"True concern and anxiety" as expressed by a CEO towards his employees is very nice. Then again, there's Enron. WorldCom. Tyco. Goldman Sachs. Companies who through avarice and greed destroyed their employees and the nation's economy. If corporations are people, can they be held liable for fraud? Embezzlement? Cheating? Barb
The main thing that bothers me about Mitt is that he quit on Massachusetts. Within two years he was already focusing on the WH when he should have been focusing on his State. Had he put in two terms as Govenor of Massachusetts, he would have been out in plenty of time to run for this Presidential (primary) election and he would have had by far the best resume- that is if he did a good job in Mass for those 8 years. But now my thinking is what happens when in two years after becoming President of the US he wants something even more shiny? However, being a Mormon, he (being President) may be a boost for NASA... Joe
It might be helpful for you to understand Mormon doctrine in a simpler way since it seems too complicated for you. Simply put, Mormons believe the human family is the literal offspring of God. He is literally our father. When you follow that to its logical conclusions, such as children capable of learning can grow up to be like their father, then you will understand most of Mormon beliefs. Is that notion so awful that it deserves ridicule? Regarding Romney's fitness as President, I don't recall the residents of Massachusetts complaining about the influence of his beliefs. ..just sayin... rigby
This isn't hard to imagine. I work for a corporation, Western Digital, and I personally witnessed the true concern and anxiety expressed by the CEO, John Coyne, for the individuals and families dependent upon WD for a paycheck when the company was facing a downturn in the economy. Why is this hard for you to comprehend? rigby
The Mormon quote above seems a bit contradictory to another well known Mormon claim that god used to be a man on another planet near the star Kolob (or whatever). I wish they would get their story straight. But there is more about the prospect of a Mormon president that worries me. For example, what effect on international diplomacy or US interests would Romney's belief that his special Mormon underwear is sacred have? Or, that consistent with Mormon teachings, that Prez Romney believes he can become a god of another planet and have sex with multiple spirit-wives? Someone who holds to such beliefs, and who desires such power and selfish sexual fulfilment in the afterlife may not be good for America......just say'n...... Bantay
What worries me is not what Romney believes about evolution but that he once stated that corporations are people, too. Barb

Leave a Reply