Evolution and the Atonement

Mc Conkie's sixth objection is where he really wants to lay down the gauntlet. If you accept evolution, you must reject Christ. I have already posted my thoughts on the subject, but since they apparently were not clear enough, perhaps I can elaborate here.

Our Lord's atoning sacrifice is the cornerstone on which the whole gospel of salvation rests. For this atonement to come to pass, two things were necessary: 1. Christ had to come into the world as the literal Son of an immortal, personal Father, a Father who had life in himself and from whom his offspring in mortality would inherit power over death. 2. The fall of Adam had to introduce temporal and spiritual death into the world, for the atonement in its very nature was designed to ransom all things that fell from the effects of that fall. All forms of life are ransomed from the temporal effects of the fall in that they are resurrected and become immortal.
Now if Adam did not fall and bring death into the world, there would be no need for the atoning sacrifice of Christ. If there were no atonement to ransom fallen beings and creatures from the effects of the fall, there would be no resurrection, no immortality, no salvation, no eternal life; and if all these things should vanish away, we could discard God himself and our faith would be vain.

I imagine that to anybody who has been following my posts, my response will be fairly predictable.

This is where I accused Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R. Mc Conkie of trying to score easy wins against evolution. For instance, consider Elder Smith's ultimatum:

If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?

Clearly JSFII and BRM had their reasons for rejecting evolution. I have been trying to address them in every post so far. But statements like these can hardly be considered shining examples of calm reasoning. They intentionally present a dichotomy (which we are assuming must be false) so as to push their intended and obviously biased audience away from evolution. It is because of statements like these, I have noted, "that these people now feel obligated to act like idiots in the rest of the worlds opinion by denying carbon dating, fossil records, the age of the earth and so on. And all this through no great fault of their own."

That said, let's briefly address the objection. We saw that there are versions of the fall that preserve the necessary doctrines without the popularized stories of the Garden. We all came here from an immortal, spiritual paradise in God's presence to this "lone and dreary" world. We all sin. We all die. Thus regardless of whether there was an actual Adam or not (a topic which I have not yet addressed) we all still need salvation. "We believe that mankind will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."

We still need to be saved from the effects of the fall, but the fall that we need to be saved from is our fall, not Adam's. As I also mentioned earlier, this problem results from JSFII's and BRM's using the Garden story as a form of theodicy. Adam did not introduce sin. It has always existed, even in the spirit world. Adam did not introduce death, it has always been part of life here on earth. But we were all introduced to both death and a significantly greater degree of sin upon our fall from heaven to come here.

Summary: Some have unfortunately declared any attempt at reconciliation between evolution and the gospel to be a lost cause. This, they think, is due to evolutions rejection of the Garden story and consequently the Atonement. Such fears, however, are without foundation.