Guest post by Joseph Green

I’ve been reading with interest the new book on evolution published by BYU’s College of Life Sciences, The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and Evolution. (While the print version has yet to be released, a free copy of the PDF is available now on the college’s web site.) As someone who accepts the science of evolutionary biology, I fully concur with the editors’ thesis that evolution is compatible with the restored gospel. However, because I have a degree in biblical studies, I’m also interested in how the authors interact with scholarship regarding the various creation accounts in Genesis. And it is in this area that I note a few assumptions that should be examined a little more closely. These assumptions appear to be closely aligned with conservative Protestant ideas about inerrancy and univocality when I believe that there should be more unique and nuanced Latter-day Saint approaches to the evolution of biblical texts rooted in the restored gospel. Let me just discuss two of these instances here.

The first discussion point comes from Joshua Sears’ observations about his educational journey pursuing first science and then biblical studies. Here Sears makes several valuable arguments, and he accurately represents biblical scholarship when he points out that the authors of Genesis, who came from different cultures far removed from our own, were aware of and reacting to older known creation accounts from the cultures that surrounded them (e.g., Babylon and Sumer). But I’m curious about his assumptions regarding “revealed truths” as he compares Genesis to these different accounts. For example, Sears provides a list of creation elements from these neighboring cultures that “Genesis considers to be false,” including these two: First, that “creation couldn’t happen until the creator god defeated the forces of chaos in a tremendous battle”; and second, that “divine beings often quarrel among themselves.”[1] These are elements from neighboring creation accounts that Sears insists “the revealed truths in Genesis 1” contradict: “Creation was not the result of an epic divine battle,” he says, “but rather God commanded, ‘Let there be!’ and creation obeyed.”[2]

Scholars have long recognized that there are two different creation accounts in Genesis –– the first (Gen. 1:1–2:4a) being a later priestly version, and the second (Gen. 2:4b–3:24) an earlier (possibly Judahite) narrative. So the first problem with Sears’ observations more generally is that he assumes that there is only one creation story in Genesis, conflating narrative elements from its first few chapters into a singular “the Creation account in Genesis.”[3] Unsurprisingly, this approach reflects what we see from many Evangelical scholars who feel that recognizing the disparate sources that underlie biblical texts could threaten traditional and comfortable approaches to the Bible, such as inerrancy[4] and univocality. But since Latter-day Saints do not accept these philosophical constructs, I think we should be curious about the different sources in Genesis and open to exploring what each of them can teach us.

The second problem is that Sears has privileged as “revealed truth” a creation account that features a more removed God speaking the creation into existence and being obeyed as opposed to one who creates through an “epic divine battle.” But this picture of God speaking creation into existence only represents the later priestly account in Genesis 1 (I’ll address the conflict/battle perspective below). The earlier account (Gen. 2:4b–3:24), however, has a more immanent and anthropomorphic God who is physically present on earth during creation and works not through words but through direct action. While the differences between these models sit in tension with one another, surely Latter-day Saints value elements from each of these.[5] Why should we feel the need to privilege the first model as opposed to the second (while often conflating the two and not even recognizing their differences)? While not strictly following either model, the creation drama presented as part of the temple endowment ceremony appears to combine characteristics of both approaches by representing God the Father as a more removed God who commands through spoken words and is obeyed by God the Son and other heavenly figures, who descend to earth, the Son providing immanence, physical presence, and action of some kind on earth (although the mechanics are not provided) throughout each of the creative periods.

The third problem is Sears’ argument that his notion of a singular creation account in Genesis must be “revealed truth” because it does not contain conflict/battle and quarreling among divine figures. However, there are many references to creation throughout the Hebrew Bible outside of Genesis where creation is represented as a result of divine conflict, quarrel, and chaos. These accounts often draw on the Canaanite creation myth (the Baal cycle) that features conflict between divine members of the pantheon when the chaos/sea god Yam attempts to usurp kingship over all of the other divine figures, after which Baal defeats Yam’s coiling sea monster Lotan (Leviathan) in the primordial chaos of Creation. The Israelite version of this myth appears to graft Yahweh onto Baal’s role in this framework, with Yahweh defeating the sea monster Leviathan/Rahab as part of conflict in creation (e.g., Job 40, 41; Psalms 74, 77, 89, 104; Isaiah 27, 51). At least some of these texts predate the final form of Genesis 1, and so I am curious as to why we should privilege as “revealed truth” the creation model of Genesis 1 that excludes conflict over that of, say, Isaiah, that emphasizes it. Especially when this conflict/battle model of creation appears to inform restored scripture. For example, the Book of Mormon priest/prophet Jacob references an Isaianic oracle fragment about Yahweh overcoming the sea monster/dragon Rahab during creation (KJV Isa. 51:9 as selected by Joseph Smith in 2 Ne. 8:9) then uses this creation monster imagery to refer to the resurrection and atonement as God overcoming “the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell …” (2 Ne 9:10). Jacob is borrowing language and imagery here not from the version of creation in Genesis 1 that is absent of conflict but from a different creation tradition in Isaiah where conflict is essential to the narrative.

Indeed, restored scripture clearly emphasizes a model of creation that is based on conflict, quarrel, and rebellion among divine personages in the premortal pantheon. In one key text, Abraham sees in vision a council linked to the plan for the earth’s creation where one of the figures tries to usurp authority over the others and rebels when he is not chosen for the central role. He “was angry… and at that day, many followed after him” (Abraham 3:28). Borrowing from language in Revelation 12 (a battle between Michael, his angels, and the primordial sea dragon/monster), Latter-day Saint tradition refers to this conflict in the premortal council as “the war in heaven,” where a third of the hosts of heaven rebel in a traumatic quarrel/conflict (whatever this “war” entails) and are cast out. Thus, the restored gospel does use this chaos/sea monster framework (courtesy of Abr. 3 and Rev. 12) to posit a premortal “epic divine battle” that is linked to the creation. Further, the creation drama presented as part of the temple endowment ceremony now references this text from Abraham 3 in order to emphasize that this premortal conflict/battle is important for the context of the earth’s creation.

The second discussion point originates with Avram Shannon’s observations about the two different creation accounts in Genesis that I mention above (Gen. 1:1–2:4a and Gen. 2:4b–3:24). Shannon accurately identifies that these two accounts from different eras, communities, and perspectives have been woven together by a later editor (referred to as “R,” for redactor), demonstrating “that there is not a unified Creation account in Genesis.”[6] I love this line, and I applaud Shannon for recognizing not only that there are different sources here but that there is tension between them, thus acknowledging the evidence from biblical scholarship. This perspective needs to be more widely shared by LDS scholars, who often overlook the evidence for multiple authorship and sources within biblical texts (see, for example, my comments on Sears’ approach above). However, what deserves a larger, more fruitful discussion here is Shannon’s assumption that the editing that brought these two traditions together must have been directed by God: “Because Latter- day Saints ‘believe the Bible to be the word of God’ (A of F 1:8), this implies that we believe this editor or redactor to be inspired.”[7]

This assumption is curious because it is a sweeping statement that would apply to all instances of editing. I.e., if the editing in Genesis must be inspired because the Bible is “the word of God,” then this would be true of all of the editorial activity of the Hebrew Bible. And this thinking is more closely aligned with evangelical scholars who might accept some of the evidence for the development of biblical texts through multiple stages of editing but still want to preserve dogmas such as biblical inerrancy and univocality that are crucial to their worldview and tradition. Further, the assumption that all the editors of the Hebrew Bible must have been inspired exists in tension with revealed truths from the restoration. In his vision, Nephi saw “plain and precious truths” edited out of the record of the Jews in a way that did not appear to be God’s intent (1 Nephi 13:23–27). And speaking of the development of the Bible, the prophet Joseph said that “ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.”[8] This does not sound like Joseph felt that all biblical editing was done through “inspiration.” Further, when Moroni referenced Malachi 4 during his visit to Joseph Smith, he quoted several verses “with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles” (JSH 1:36). Why did Moroni deliberately depart from the KJV text as we have it? Was it simply for rhetorical purposes? It certainly wasn’t a rhetorical pattern, since he also referenced other passages “precisely as they stand in our New Testament” (JSH 1:40). Was he, perhaps, unhappy with the final form of Malachi 4 and the editing that shaped it?

In other words, whatever Joseph meant by the Bible being “the word of God,” along with its striking caveat “as far as it is translated correctly” (A of F 1:8), must include room for the possibility of mistakes in editing, for theological adjustments that removed important truths, and for the idea that not all changes to these texts over time were “inspired” (however we define that term when it comes to the production of sacred texts). Rather, I think what we know from revealed truth should make Latter-day Saints uniquely open-minded and curious about each instance of editing or evidence of multiple authorship. In fact, biblical scholars have been able to identify various schools and traditions of editors operating in specific time frames within differing theological frameworks and agendas. Instead of defaulting to the framework of conservative Protestant scholars, Latter-day Saints could be developing uniquely restorationist approaches to this data. For example, what should we think about editorial activity that removed references to the divine feminine or that shifted Messianic models away from the Davidic king to corporate Israel and the priestly class? Or what about editing that conflated several deities (e.g., Elohim and Yahweh) within the pantheon of gods in ancient Israel? Or the redaction that eliminated the subclass of divine beings in heaven (the “hosts of heaven”) by changing texts that referenced the “sons of God” (in the proto-MT texts) into the “angels of God” (in the LXX) and then into “sons of Israel” (in the MT text)? All inspired? All not inspired? Or is it more complex than this simple dichotomy?

Circling back to Genesis, then, what would a uniquely restorationist approach to the editing that spliced these creation accounts together look like? I think it would start by being grateful that the editor provided both of these sources although curious about other sources might have been excluded and why. It would also recognize that revealed truth may be tempered through cultural perspectives but also fragmented and changed as previous texts were edited and updated to apply to new and emerging historical and theological crises. This should make us cautious about simply accepting one source or voice over others. And it should also make us reticent to align with perspectives that claim univocality for the entire corpus while denying the valuable disparate and competing voices that might help us piece the various fragments together.

Lastly, I think that pursuing a restorationist framework for understanding how these texts evolved (without presupposing inerrancy and univocality) would result in a better and more nuanced conversation about the connective tissue between evolution and the restored gospel, which is the authors’ stated goal in this new book. It would start by acknowledging that there is revealed truth underlying these texts but that much of it has been fragmented or changed through editing over long periods by different traditions with competing theological agendas (some “inspired” and some not). By explaining this up front, Latter-day Saints could deliberately move away from the two-dimensional Evangelical discussions about evolution that compare scientific data to a supposedly dictated and inerrant single account of creation in Genesis, sidelining the other valid accounts of creation in the Hebrew Bible as poetic language that really doesn’t rely on a creation tradition based in conflict (“these are not the droids you’re looking for!”). Instead, we could look at the data from science and then discuss the various models of creation presented in the disparate texts of our canon while treasuring what we learn (and how we learn) from each of them.

 

---

Joseph Green is an LDS chaplain employed by the non-profit Episcopal Community Services of Utah, working at St. Mark’s Hospital (Millcreek) and Lone Peak Hospital (Draper), providing spiritual care to patients, their families, and the hospital staff. He served an LDS mission in the Dominican Republic, married, and has four children. He received a BA in Spanish Translation and Interpretation from BYU, a Masters in Strategic Studies (Distinguished Graduate) from the US Army War College, and a Masters of Divinity (Biblical Languages) from Regent University. He retired from the US Army in 2024 as a Brigadier General.

---

 

Notes

[1] Joshua M. Sears, “From Biology Major to Religion Professor: Personal Reflections on Evolution,” in The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and Evolution, edited by Jamie L. Jensen, Steven L. Peck, Ugo A. Perego, and T. Benjamin Spackman (Provo, UT: College of Life Sciences, Brigham Young University, 2025), 36.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 32 (emphasis mine).

[4] See Ben Spackmen’s valuable observations about inerrancy and the LDS tradition in this volume: T. Benjamin Spackman, “(No) Death before the Fall? The Basis and Twentieth-Century History of Interpretation,” in The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and Evolution, 96–100.

[5] I prefer Avram Shannon’s perspective here: “Both of the Creation accounts present important viewpoints on the role of humanity in Creation, but neither presents a single authoritative statement on how humanity came into this world.” Avram R. Shannon, “The Genesis Creation Account in Its Ancient Context,” in The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and Evolution, 74.

[6] Shannon, “The Genesis Creation Account in Its Ancient Context,” 66.

[7] Ibid., 66 n. 18.

[8] History, 1838–1856, Volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844], p. 1755, Accessed April 28, 2025: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/127.