It is my humble opinion that there is no more valid, powerful, presentation of the essential structure behind human life and activity. And, indeed, the essential origin of all religious and spiritual manifestations in humanity.

It’s true that some, such as some of Pres. Packer’s comments reflect a naive common sense view of reproduction. (Obviously unaware of how much tiny changes can add up over time) That said I don’t think the moral issues make sense.

I do agree though that a common view of anti-evolutionists is the more Aristotilean reading of “kind” when reading scripture. Most don’t realize that they are adding to it via Aristotle latent in the culture.

I think Boyd K. Packer is representative of a fair amount of Mormons when he says things like:

“No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce “after their own kind.” (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor “do men gather … figs of thistles.” (Matt. 7:16.)

In the countless billions of opportunities in the reproduction of living things, one kind does not beget another. If a species ever does cross, the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life is the pattern of the parentage.

This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways, even an ordinary mind should understand it. Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles. (Although one can easily imagine that those who accept the theory of evolution don’t show much enthusiasm for genealogical research!) The theory of evolution, and it is a theory, will have an entirely different dimension when the workings of God in creation are fully revealed.”

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20november%201984%20.htm/the%20pattern%20of%20our%20parentage.

Boyd K. Packer is especially fond of the idea that if evolution is true, then that means we are merely animals, and if we are merely animals, then we are not bound by moral precepts and are free, nay should, give into every urge and impulse that comes out way. Again, I think that is not an uncommon thing for an LDS to think. It also is indistinguishable from the views of typical fundamentalist protestants in the United States.

Michael, I agree, but I think the big difference is that as a heavily prosylatizing Church we have a lot of influx who don’t stay that biases things a bit. Some of those eventually get taken off the roles. But by and large they don’t. So you have a lot of people who maybe only came to Church for two weeks counted as Mormon. That’s why I find the self-identification surveys so interesting since they exclude such people.

I also don’t think it is quite correct to say the Church’s position is one of neutrality. It’s closer to tolerance of those who believe in evolution with a definite recommendation against it. To be frank, that’s awful close to your average nondenominational Bible Church one might find Joe Evangelical at.

Most Christian churches are pretty liberal as well in counting “members on the books.” That is one reason why the attendance to membership ratio of the Southern Baptists is so low. On the converse side my previous church had a membership committee who had the responsibility of reviewing and updating the membership role each year.