Introduction

This essay reviews the chapter “Accepting Evolution with Joy Is Possible” by T. Heath Ogden, from The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and Evolution, a new volume authored by BYU scholars. The collection appears to be an important and valuable resource at the intersection of evolution and LDS theology. Although I have not yet read the entire volume, I am familiar with the work of most of its contributors and have high expectations. I also follow Ben Spackman’s work closely and found both of his chapters to be excellent.

I appreciate Dr. Ogden’s goals and commend his efforts to reconcile science and LDS faith. He makes several compelling arguments, particularly in presenting strong evidence for human biological continuity with other primates and in suggesting that later First Presidency statements moderated the anti-evolution stance of the 1909 declaration. His reasoning on these points is persuasive and well-argued.

However, while I respect his attempt—and believe that such a reconciliation, if successful, would be among the most valuable contributions this volume could offer—the core of his reconciliation, as it currently stands, is less persuasive to me.

Ogden states his purpose succinctly:

“I will attempt here simply to demonstrate that what the scriptures say about Adam and Eve can be reconciled with evolution.”

I argue that his proposed reconciliation ultimately falls short in two major respects:

  1. He treats the data concerning when, where, and how Adam and Eve lived as “nebulous.”
  2. He interprets “first man” narrowly, reducing it to a description of Adam and Eve as the first spiritual offspring to receive covenants rather than the first biological humans.

When, Where, and How

On page 156, Ogden writes:

“The specifics of when, where,[15] and how Adam and Eve lived are nebulous as described in the Creation stories of our scriptures and the temple. Currently these details are indecipherable.”

While it is true that scriptural accounts are not comprehensive, LDS teachings offer more specificity than Ogden acknowledges.

The “Where”

Footnote 15 references Bruce A. Van Orden’s 1994 Ensign article, which surveys the Garden of Eden’s location. While Van Orden allows for interpretive nuance, the thrust of his article—and the broader historical teaching—strongly affirms that Latter-day Saint leaders consistently located the Garden of Eden in Jackson County, Missouri, based on teachings attributed to Joseph Smith and reaffirmed by subsequent prophets (see this resource page). Therefore, the “where” is not entirely nebulous.

The “When”

Modern LDS scripture also suggests a relatively constrained timeframe for Adam and Eve (discussed in more depth here):

  • Agriculture: References to “tilling the ground” (Moses 4:29), “keeping flocks” (Moses 5:17), and “offering firstlings” (Moses 5:5, 19–20) imply a post-agricultural society, placing Adam and Eve no earlier than about 11,000 BCE.
  • Writing: Moses 6:5–6 describes a “book of remembrance” and a “pure language,” implying the existence of writing, which historical evidence suggests arose no earlier than 5,500 BCE.
  • D&C 77: Early Latter-day Saints interpreted the seven seals in Revelation as literal thousand-year periods, suggesting that Adam lived around 4,000 BCE.

Thus, the “when” is constrained by scriptural and historical contexts.

The “How”

Ogden references the 1910 Priesthood Quorum’s Table to argue for the possibility of human evolution within Church doctrine, attributing the table to the First Presidency. However, this attribution is problematic, as I discuss in this essay. The table was unsigned, was not included in the official BYU Evolution Packet of First Presidency statements, and was likely a product of the General Priesthood Committee rather than the First Presidency itself. While the 1910 table does illustrate that some leaders were open to various views, presenting it as an official First Presidency statement misrepresents its status. Without stronger evidence linking it directly to the First Presidency, its authority to temper the 1909 statement is diminished.

First Man

Dr. Ogden further proposes a reinterpretation of Adam’s title as “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34) to mean that Adam and Eve were the first spiritual offspring of Heavenly Parents to inherit physical bodies and to enter into covenants with God. On this reading, Adam and Eve were not necessarily the first biological humans, but the first to engage in covenantal relationships with Deity.

While this approach seeks to harmonize faith with scientific findings on human origins, it introduces significant theological and semantic problems. The traditional LDS view, reflected in scriptural texts (e.g., Moses 1:34; D&C 27:11, 138:38) and official statements (e.g., 1909 and 1925 First Presidency declarations), presents Adam as the chronological and biological progenitor of the human race, with the Fall transmitted through physical descent. Ogden’s proposal decouples Adam’s “firstness” from chronology and biology, relocating it exclusively to a covenantal domain.

This move involves a semantic shift that redefines the natural meaning of key scriptural terms:

Traditional Ogden
“First” = chronological order (before others existed) “First” = covenantal status (while others already existed)
“Man” = biological humanity “Man” = spiritually adopted being
“Father of all” = biological ancestry “Father of all” = symbolic spiritual fatherhood

Such a shift is not merely a subtle interpretive move but a reconfiguration of doctrinal fundamentals. LDS theology depends on Adam’s role as the primal ancestor through whom mortality, the Fall, and the need for redemption are transmitted. Severing Adam’s biological parenthood requires a fundamental revision of LDS soteriology rather than a reconciliation.

The core problems with Ogden’s model can be summarized as follows:

Problem Description
Theological Overhaul Shifts Adam’s role from biological to merely covenantal, undermining the doctrine of the Fall.
Semantic Distortion Redefines basic terms like “first,” “man,” and “father” against their plain meaning.
Historical Inconsistency Contradicts Joseph Smith, the First Presidency (1909, 1925), and other prophetic teachings.
Analytical Breakdown Produces a theological system that no longer coheres with traditional LDS doctrine.

Thus, while Ogden’s reconciliation is earnest and thoughtfully presented, it ultimately falls short of maintaining doctrinal integrity. Rather than bridging the gap between science and faith, it dismantles foundational theological and semantic structures of the restored gospel.

Conclusion

Dr. Ogden’s chapter offers thoughtful contributions toward reconciling evolution and LDS theology. However, his treatment of scriptural data concerning when, where, and how Adam and Eve lived understates the specificity found in Latter-day Saint teachings, and his proposed reinterpretation of Adam as merely the first covenantal human requires significant semantic and theological redefinition. A more persuasive reconciliation—if it is even possible given the constraints and inherent tensions between LDS scripture and the human evolution/migration data—would need to more fully account for the historical scriptural framework while preserving the traditional doctrinal structure.

Notes

Ogden’s citation 15: Bruce A. Van Orden, “What Do We Know about the Location of the Garden of Eden?,” Ensign 24, no. 1 (January 1994): 54–55. Available here.

Summary of Van Orden’s article:

  • Before the Fall, the whole earth was paradisiacal; the Garden of Eden was a “center place.”
  • Joseph Smith taught the Garden was located in Jackson County, Missouri.
  • Brigham Young and other early leaders reaffirmed this location.
  • Primary documentation is limited due to gaps in early recordkeeping.
  • D&C 116 identifies Adam-ondi-Ahman in Missouri as a key post-Edenic location.

disclaimer: this is a topic I have been studying for decades, but I used chatgpt in focused ways to help me formulate and better articulate my response, as well as condense some of my arguments. I take full responsibility for the contents of the essay.