12. Q: How should I respond to the widely divergent views about evolution held by persons I respect, especially teachers and leaders in the Church?

A: Any important idea of consequence deserves thoughtful consideration. Our difficulty lies in giving a fair hearing to ideas we seem to disagree with. We ought to conduct such an investigation with open minds, and in a spirit of humility and kindness for those whose opinions are different from our own. Latter-day Saints can properly expect unity on fundamental doctrines. On issues for which revelation is incomplete, a diversity of opinion is natural and valuable.

This may be the most important question in this list, and perhaps the most difficult to answer satisfactorily. The issues seem to be: How can one determine the truth when there are such large differences on the subject among reputable people? What weight should the views of the Church authorities carry; because they are entitled to special inspiration, shouldn't I yield to their views?

It is likely that most Latter-day Saints troubled by evolution have not taken the time to evaluate the chemical and biological data which support it, and likewise may not have carefully examined the relevant theological issues involved. The problem is that good people (parents, Seminary teachers, Church authorities, and others) have issued unequivocal denunciations of evolution and perpetuated the view that the idea is totally irreconcilable with the principles of the gospel. "From the day of their first announcement, these theories of organic evolution found themselves in violent conflict with the principles of revealed religion as such are found recorded in the scriptures and expounded by inspired teachers. . . . There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution." (17) Thus, for many the "evolution problem" is less a concern about biology and more directly an anxiety about not being in harmony with the doctrines and leaders of the Church.

It is my opinion that there are not unique anti-evolutionary arguments among Latter-day Saints. While taking some pains throughout out history to define and preserve the theological distinctions between us and other Christian faiths, the general membership of the Church has paradoxically tended to adopt wholesale the fears, antagonisms, and rhetoric against evolution which originated in conservative Protestantism. A better approach, I believe, would be to attempt to resolve the following questions.

On what issues is it reasonable for Latter-day saints to expect unity, and on what issues is diversity acceptable, even healthy? There is agreement among us on a number of aspects of religious principle and practical living (examples include the events of the Restoration, the cornerstone role of the Book of Mormon, the 4th Article of Faith, the Word of Wisdom, missionary work, the focus on family ideals). However, some of us are uncomfortable when that unity is incomplete, preferring that we be of one mind on all issues. As a result, we do not tolerate differences among us very well. (My sense, also, is that we are worse in this regard than we were earlier in our history.) If the arguments expressed above are valid, then evolution is among the issues about which revelation is limited and at least partly figurative. It seems only reasonable, then, that we would generate different interpretations of some scriptural passages, and diversity in how we relate them to the scientific facts. But whatever our differences, we ought to respond to one another with thoughtful consideration of ideas, courtesy, and do our best to prevent ill will.

When is it appropriate to appeal to authority in order to resolve uncertainty, and when is it more appropriate to arrive at a conclusion through individual study and analysis of existing data? The principle of continuing revelation is fundamental for Latter-day Saints, but it is also one subject to abuse. Perhaps this was the view of Brigham Young when he said,

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself should thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way (9, p. 131).

There are many students who when confronted with evolution are so fearful of making for themselves a wrong decision that they quickly defer to the security of adopting the view of a particular Church leader as their own. Differences are thus not settled on the merits of the arguments, but in the spirit of youngsters at play who attempt to solve their problems by recourse to "My General Authority can beat up your General Authority." The wisdom, experience and spiritual guidance of Church leaders can be very helpful, and we ought to pay respectful attention to their counsel. Ultimately, however, one is responsible for one's own salvation and for making individual decisions along the way. Consider these extraordinary sentiments:

"There is not enough of the attitude of the sincere investigator among us. . . . There are altogether too many people in the world who are willing to accept as true whatever is printed in a book or delivered from a pulpit. Their faith never goes below the surface soil of authority. I plead with everyone I meet that they may drive their faith down through that soil and get hold of the solid truth, that they may be able to withstand the winds and storms of indecision and of doubt, of opposition and persecution. . . . I have been very grateful that the freedom, dignity, and integrity of the individual are basic in church doctrine. We are free to think and express our opinion in the church. Fear will not stifle thought. . . . I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent - if we are informed. . . . We should be dauntless in our pursuit of truth and resist all demands for unthinking conformity. Now one would have us become mere tape recorders of other people's thoughts, . . .while I believe all that God has revealed, I am not quite sure I understand what he has revealed, and the fact that God has promised further revelation is to me a challenge to keep an open mind and be prepared to follow wherever my search for truth may lead." (18)