The LDS Stance on Evolution
"On the other hand, to limit and insist upon the whole of life and death to this side of Adam's advent to the earth, some six or eight thousand years ago, as proposed by some, is to fly in the face of the facts so indisputably brought to light by the researcher of science in modern times, and this as set forth by men of the highest type in the intellectual and moral world... To pay attention to and give reasonable credence to their research and findings is to link the church of God with the highest increase of human thought and effort." - B. H. Roberts, Seventy, in The Truth, The Way, The Life
"I would like to know just what it is that a man must be required to believe to be a member of this Church. Or, what it is that he is not permitted to believe, and remain a member of this Church. I would like to know just what that is. Is it evolution? I hope not, because I believe in evolution." - David O. McKay, ninth President of the Church, to Sterling McMurrin
"I would like to know just what it is that a man must be required to believe to be a member of this Church. Or, what it is that he is not permitted to believe, and remain a member of this Church. I would like to know just what that is. Is it evolution? I hope not, because I believe in evolution." - David O. McKay, ninth President of the Church, to Sterling McMurrin
Although I'm no longer a Latter-day Saint (for reasons unrelated to evolution) and the discussion in this section is mostly irrelevant to me, I've left it up for the benefit of current Saints. If it's of little or no interest to you, skip ahead to The Consequences of Creationism.
In Honors U.S. Institutions, during my first semester of college, we were having a discussion on the religion/evolution debate. One friend of mine (incidentally, the lesbian that I later fell in love with, but that's a different story) asked, sounding kind of dumbfounded, "Why does there have to be a conflict? I know a lot of Christians who agree with evolution." My heart sank at that moment, yearning for something that could never be. (No, not her - that's a different story.) If only I could take that approach, like I used to, I thought. It's beautiful and reasonable and I wouldn't have to deal with so much cognitive dissonance. But my church has closed off that option to me.
A few months later I read Finding Darwin's God and the rest was history. I still thought evolution was against LDS doctrine, but I concluded that the doctrine was wrong. I didn't want to pick and choose what parts of the church to believe, because that seemed illogical, but I did it this one time. I had no other choice if I was to be honest with myself. Fortunately after a little more research I discovered that in fact, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no position on evolution. Many people are surprised to learn this and sometimes refuse to believe it. The church generally avoids the topic nowadays. For anyone who won't take my word for it or is merely curious, I have included a very one-sided historical overview of the topic to counterbalance the more (in)famous quotes that are adamantly against evolution and prove proves that they don't represent an authoritative position. I conclude with a look at evolution acceptance in the church today.
In Honors U.S. Institutions, during my first semester of college, we were having a discussion on the religion/evolution debate. One friend of mine (incidentally, the lesbian that I later fell in love with, but that's a different story) asked, sounding kind of dumbfounded, "Why does there have to be a conflict? I know a lot of Christians who agree with evolution." My heart sank at that moment, yearning for something that could never be. (No, not her - that's a different story.) If only I could take that approach, like I used to, I thought. It's beautiful and reasonable and I wouldn't have to deal with so much cognitive dissonance. But my church has closed off that option to me.
A few months later I read Finding Darwin's God and the rest was history. I still thought evolution was against LDS doctrine, but I concluded that the doctrine was wrong. I didn't want to pick and choose what parts of the church to believe, because that seemed illogical, but I did it this one time. I had no other choice if I was to be honest with myself. Fortunately after a little more research I discovered that in fact, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no position on evolution. Many people are surprised to learn this and sometimes refuse to believe it. The church generally avoids the topic nowadays. For anyone who won't take my word for it or is merely curious, I have included a very one-sided historical overview of the topic to counterbalance the more (in)famous quotes that are adamantly against evolution and prove proves that they don't represent an authoritative position. I conclude with a look at evolution acceptance in the church today.
Historical Overview
The release of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species appears to have caused little to no stir among the Latter-day Saints. The historical record shows virtually no allusions to it by church leaders, and certainly no widespread backlash or denunciation as there was in some other circles. By the fiftieth anniversary of the book, however, there was enough confusion and controversy going around that the church felt the need to issue a statement called "On the Origin of Man", drafted by Orson F. Whitney and signed by the First Presidency. Some members point to this statement as the official articulation of an anti-evolution stance. When my Sunday School teacher Brother Burnett rhetorically asked "What's wrong with evolution?" I scoured this document eagerly for something to refute him. I came away disappointed. It affirms that Adam and Eve were our first parents, that we are made in the image of God and that we had our beginnings in the spirit world, but not once does it say that evolution is false or evil. The closest it comes is to say: "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men."
In contrasting the origin of human bodies with the origin of human spirits, however, the statement was comparing apples to oranges, and this, along with the vaguely anti-evolution wording caused some confusion. Less than a year later an Improvement Era editorial (probably by President Joseph F. Smith) said, "Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God."
The First Presidency Christmas Message for 1910 said, "Diversity of opinion does not necessitate intolerance of spirit, nor should it embitter or set rational beings against each other. The Christ taught kindness, patience, and charity. Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy; but vain philosophy, human theory, and mere speculations of men, we do not accept nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense. But everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us no matter where it may be found."
Around this time a controversy was brewing over four professors who taught and enthusiastically promoted evolution at BYU. Though they were all loyal Saints, some faculty and church leaders accused them of confusing students and destroying their faith, and the decision was made to let them go. Over 80 percent of the student body signed a petition of protest reading in part: "We believe that it is not the proper attitude to fight a proposition by ruling it completely out of consideration. We feel that if our gospel is true it will triumph over error without any artificial protection. We understand that it invites us to investigate anything that is praiseworthy or of good report; hence to prohibit the investigation of a scientific theory so well established as the theory of evolution is scarcely living up to our understanding of the Gospel."
President Joseph F. Smith defended the decision in an April 1911 Juvenile Instructor editorial: "Some of our teachers are anxious to explain how much of the theory of evolution, in their judgment, is true, and what is false, but that only leaves their students in an unsettled frame of mind. They are not old enough and learned enough to discriminate, or put proper limitations upon a theory which we believe is more or less a fallacy. In reaching the conclusion that evolution would be best left out of discussions in our Church schools we are deciding a question of propriety and are not undertaking to say how much of evolution is true, or how much is false. We think that while it is a hypothesis, on both sides of which the most eminent scientific men of the world are arrayed, that it is folly to take up its discussion in our institutions of learning; and we can not see wherein such discussions are likely to promote the faith of our young people.
"On the other hand we have abundant evidence that many of those who have adopted in its fullness the theory of evolution have discarded the Bible, or at least refused to accept it as the inspired word of God. It is not, then, the question of the liberty of any teacher to entertain whatever views he may have upon this hypothesis of evolution, but rather the right of the Church to say that it does not think it profitable or wise to introduce controversies relative to evolution in its schools. Even if it were harmless from the standpoint of our faith, we think there are things more important to the daily affairs of life and the practical welfare of our young people. The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world, and much of the talk therefore, about the philosophy of Mormonism is altogether misleading. God has revealed to us a simple and effectual way of serving Him, and we should regret very much to see the simplicity of those revelations involved in all sorts of philosophical speculations. If we encouraged them it would not be long before we should have a theological scholastic aristocracy in the Church, and we should therefore not enjoy the brotherhood that now is, or should be common to rich and poor, learned and unlearned among the Saints."
During the Scopes Trial in 1925, when a high school teacher in Tennessee was being prosecuted for teaching evolution in violation of state law, the 1909 First Presidency statement was re-issued in a severely abridged form, retitled "'Mormon' View of Evolution" - even though the ambiguously anti-evolution sentences were among the omitted text. The title probably referred to the closing sentence of both versions of the statement: "Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God." Unfortunately, the original version was reprinted in the Ensign in 2002 without explaining the later changes, confusing a new generation. The original version wasn't "wrong" but it was confusing and it was changed for a reason.
In October of that year, Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency spoke in General Conference about the need for caution regarding science and religion, and that both realms of truth were important and would ultimately harmonize one way or another. He said, "The question most discussed in the present controversy is that phase which deals with the origin and destiny of man. Whence came man, and whither goeth he?
"Without reference to the many theories which have existed upon this question, and which still exist, I desire to refer briefly to the one which is today greatly disturbing the minds of the people. Was man created by the decree of God, our Father, and placed upon the earth in his present form, or is he the creature of some natural process of development, which has in the course of the aeons which have passed brought him to where he is?
"The suggestion of Darwin, the great scientist, that man, by a process of natural selection and gradual development, may have evolved from a lower order of animal life to what he now is, although he did not declare this a fact, but only a theory, has resulted in much discussion, and too often in bitter controversy.
"Closely allied to the Darwinian theory, but still quite different is the theory of evolution, which is being so widely discussed, and I sometimes think so generally misunderstood today.
"Evolution is the process of evolving, or becoming developed. An unfolding or growth, from a latent state, or from a pre-arranged plan.
"Naturally many, many people are asking, 'What is the attitude of the Church on this important question, as it applies to the existence of man?' Let me answer briefly..." He reaffirmed core doctrines such as man's divine parentage, the Atonement of Christ, and the premortal existence.
"The earth and all that is upon it, the sea and all that is in it did not come into existence by chance. Man is not the accidental product of chance. We admit the changes which have come, and believe that others of mighty import are before us, but in it all the Church sees not a thing of chance, but a definite plan, being shaped and moulded by a master mind, for the accomplishment of a divine purpose....
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And God said let us make man in our image, after our likeness. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.
"There is nothing hypothetical in this, nothing which admits of various interpretations, if we are to define words in their real meaning. It is a definite abstract statement of fact. The exact process by which this was accomplished we do not know, nor is it essential that we know it, the fact is sufficient, and it will never be disproved by scientific research or otherwise, because it is the truth."
The most explicit (albeit private) statement of official neutrality came in 1931, after a heated debate between Elders B. H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith over the existence of pre-Adamite races and death before the fall of Adam, both of which are readily apparent and essential for evolution. It ended with a First Presidency letter to all the General Authorities, reading in part: "Both parties make the scripture and the statements of men who have been prominent in the affairs of the Church the basis of their contention; neither has produced definite proof in support of his views...
"Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church. We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that presidents Joseph F. Smith, John Winder and Anthon Lund were right when they said: 'Adam is the primal parent of our race.'"
Elder James E. Talmage then wrote in his journal: "Involved in this question is that of the beginning of life upon the earth, and as to whether there was death either of animal or plant before the fall of Adam, on which proposition Elder Smith was very pronounced in denial and Elder Roberts equally forceful in the affirmative. As to whether Preadamite races existed upon the earth there has been much discussion among some of our people of late. The decision reached by the First Presidency, and announced to this morning's assembly, was in answer to a specific question that obviously the doctrine of the existence of races of human beings upon the earth prior to the fall of Adam was not a doctrine of the Church; and, further, that the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Preadamite races, and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church. I think the decision of the First Presidency is a wise one in the premises. This is one of the many things upon which we cannot preach with assurance and dogmatic assertions on either side are likely to do harm rather than good."
Elder Talmage was a geologist as well as an Apostle, and while agnostic about evolution per se, he had a more balanced view of science and religion and firmly believed that organisms had been living and dying on earth for millions of years. After this debate, he was assigned by the First Presidency to publicly share this opinion as a counterbalance to Elder Smith's views, in a classic speech called "The Earth and Man". I wish certain individuals had shared his caution and open-mindedness before writing their own books and speeches. (Of course, since I don't speak for the church, my dogmatic assertions aren't a problem.)
President David O. McKay thus kept his pro-evolution views to himself in public, though he hinted at them once in a while and divulged them in a private meeting with Sterling McMurrin (whose account of this meeting was verified by McKay's son Llewelyn.) In a speech to BYU professors while still an Apostle he said, "There is a perpetual design permeating all purposes of creation. On this thought, science again leads a student up to a certain point and sometimes leaves him with his soul unanchored... For example, evolution's beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind. Inevitably, a teacher who denies divine agency in creation, who insists there is no intelligent purpose in it, will impress the student with the thought that all may be chance. I say, that no youth should be so led without a counterbalancing thought... God is at the helm. God is the Creator of the earth. He is the Father of our souls and spirits. No question about it. You have your testimony - if you haven't you shouldn't be on the faculty - that God lives and Jesus is the Christ, and the purpose of creation is theirs."
Early in his tenure as President of the Church, Apostles John A. Widtsoe and Joseph F. Merrill - both scientists who had been somewhat supportive of evolution - died within the same year. Shortly afterward Joseph Fielding Smith, now President of the Quorum of the Twelve, published a strongly anti-evolution book called Man - His Origin and Destiny, from a manuscript he had written in the 1930s but not published due to the First Presidency's moratorium on discussing such things. Similar anti-evolution remarks were shortly thereafter included in Mormon Doctrine by Elder Bruce R. McConkie and Doctrines of Salvation, a compilation of talks and articles written by Elder Smith and compiled by Elder McConkie. The authoritative titles of these latter two books was particularly problematic. President McKay avoided a public controversy, but had Mormon Doctrine pulled from publication for its many other errors, and privately affirmed the church's neutral stance to confused or curious members asking about the books.
In contrasting the origin of human bodies with the origin of human spirits, however, the statement was comparing apples to oranges, and this, along with the vaguely anti-evolution wording caused some confusion. Less than a year later an Improvement Era editorial (probably by President Joseph F. Smith) said, "Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God."
The First Presidency Christmas Message for 1910 said, "Diversity of opinion does not necessitate intolerance of spirit, nor should it embitter or set rational beings against each other. The Christ taught kindness, patience, and charity. Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy; but vain philosophy, human theory, and mere speculations of men, we do not accept nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense. But everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us no matter where it may be found."
Around this time a controversy was brewing over four professors who taught and enthusiastically promoted evolution at BYU. Though they were all loyal Saints, some faculty and church leaders accused them of confusing students and destroying their faith, and the decision was made to let them go. Over 80 percent of the student body signed a petition of protest reading in part: "We believe that it is not the proper attitude to fight a proposition by ruling it completely out of consideration. We feel that if our gospel is true it will triumph over error without any artificial protection. We understand that it invites us to investigate anything that is praiseworthy or of good report; hence to prohibit the investigation of a scientific theory so well established as the theory of evolution is scarcely living up to our understanding of the Gospel."
President Joseph F. Smith defended the decision in an April 1911 Juvenile Instructor editorial: "Some of our teachers are anxious to explain how much of the theory of evolution, in their judgment, is true, and what is false, but that only leaves their students in an unsettled frame of mind. They are not old enough and learned enough to discriminate, or put proper limitations upon a theory which we believe is more or less a fallacy. In reaching the conclusion that evolution would be best left out of discussions in our Church schools we are deciding a question of propriety and are not undertaking to say how much of evolution is true, or how much is false. We think that while it is a hypothesis, on both sides of which the most eminent scientific men of the world are arrayed, that it is folly to take up its discussion in our institutions of learning; and we can not see wherein such discussions are likely to promote the faith of our young people.
"On the other hand we have abundant evidence that many of those who have adopted in its fullness the theory of evolution have discarded the Bible, or at least refused to accept it as the inspired word of God. It is not, then, the question of the liberty of any teacher to entertain whatever views he may have upon this hypothesis of evolution, but rather the right of the Church to say that it does not think it profitable or wise to introduce controversies relative to evolution in its schools. Even if it were harmless from the standpoint of our faith, we think there are things more important to the daily affairs of life and the practical welfare of our young people. The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world, and much of the talk therefore, about the philosophy of Mormonism is altogether misleading. God has revealed to us a simple and effectual way of serving Him, and we should regret very much to see the simplicity of those revelations involved in all sorts of philosophical speculations. If we encouraged them it would not be long before we should have a theological scholastic aristocracy in the Church, and we should therefore not enjoy the brotherhood that now is, or should be common to rich and poor, learned and unlearned among the Saints."
During the Scopes Trial in 1925, when a high school teacher in Tennessee was being prosecuted for teaching evolution in violation of state law, the 1909 First Presidency statement was re-issued in a severely abridged form, retitled "'Mormon' View of Evolution" - even though the ambiguously anti-evolution sentences were among the omitted text. The title probably referred to the closing sentence of both versions of the statement: "Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God." Unfortunately, the original version was reprinted in the Ensign in 2002 without explaining the later changes, confusing a new generation. The original version wasn't "wrong" but it was confusing and it was changed for a reason.
In October of that year, Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency spoke in General Conference about the need for caution regarding science and religion, and that both realms of truth were important and would ultimately harmonize one way or another. He said, "The question most discussed in the present controversy is that phase which deals with the origin and destiny of man. Whence came man, and whither goeth he?
"Without reference to the many theories which have existed upon this question, and which still exist, I desire to refer briefly to the one which is today greatly disturbing the minds of the people. Was man created by the decree of God, our Father, and placed upon the earth in his present form, or is he the creature of some natural process of development, which has in the course of the aeons which have passed brought him to where he is?
"The suggestion of Darwin, the great scientist, that man, by a process of natural selection and gradual development, may have evolved from a lower order of animal life to what he now is, although he did not declare this a fact, but only a theory, has resulted in much discussion, and too often in bitter controversy.
"Closely allied to the Darwinian theory, but still quite different is the theory of evolution, which is being so widely discussed, and I sometimes think so generally misunderstood today.
"Evolution is the process of evolving, or becoming developed. An unfolding or growth, from a latent state, or from a pre-arranged plan.
"Naturally many, many people are asking, 'What is the attitude of the Church on this important question, as it applies to the existence of man?' Let me answer briefly..." He reaffirmed core doctrines such as man's divine parentage, the Atonement of Christ, and the premortal existence.
"The earth and all that is upon it, the sea and all that is in it did not come into existence by chance. Man is not the accidental product of chance. We admit the changes which have come, and believe that others of mighty import are before us, but in it all the Church sees not a thing of chance, but a definite plan, being shaped and moulded by a master mind, for the accomplishment of a divine purpose....
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And God said let us make man in our image, after our likeness. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.
"There is nothing hypothetical in this, nothing which admits of various interpretations, if we are to define words in their real meaning. It is a definite abstract statement of fact. The exact process by which this was accomplished we do not know, nor is it essential that we know it, the fact is sufficient, and it will never be disproved by scientific research or otherwise, because it is the truth."
The most explicit (albeit private) statement of official neutrality came in 1931, after a heated debate between Elders B. H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith over the existence of pre-Adamite races and death before the fall of Adam, both of which are readily apparent and essential for evolution. It ended with a First Presidency letter to all the General Authorities, reading in part: "Both parties make the scripture and the statements of men who have been prominent in the affairs of the Church the basis of their contention; neither has produced definite proof in support of his views...
"Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church. We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that presidents Joseph F. Smith, John Winder and Anthon Lund were right when they said: 'Adam is the primal parent of our race.'"
Elder James E. Talmage then wrote in his journal: "Involved in this question is that of the beginning of life upon the earth, and as to whether there was death either of animal or plant before the fall of Adam, on which proposition Elder Smith was very pronounced in denial and Elder Roberts equally forceful in the affirmative. As to whether Preadamite races existed upon the earth there has been much discussion among some of our people of late. The decision reached by the First Presidency, and announced to this morning's assembly, was in answer to a specific question that obviously the doctrine of the existence of races of human beings upon the earth prior to the fall of Adam was not a doctrine of the Church; and, further, that the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Preadamite races, and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church. I think the decision of the First Presidency is a wise one in the premises. This is one of the many things upon which we cannot preach with assurance and dogmatic assertions on either side are likely to do harm rather than good."
Elder Talmage was a geologist as well as an Apostle, and while agnostic about evolution per se, he had a more balanced view of science and religion and firmly believed that organisms had been living and dying on earth for millions of years. After this debate, he was assigned by the First Presidency to publicly share this opinion as a counterbalance to Elder Smith's views, in a classic speech called "The Earth and Man". I wish certain individuals had shared his caution and open-mindedness before writing their own books and speeches. (Of course, since I don't speak for the church, my dogmatic assertions aren't a problem.)
President David O. McKay thus kept his pro-evolution views to himself in public, though he hinted at them once in a while and divulged them in a private meeting with Sterling McMurrin (whose account of this meeting was verified by McKay's son Llewelyn.) In a speech to BYU professors while still an Apostle he said, "There is a perpetual design permeating all purposes of creation. On this thought, science again leads a student up to a certain point and sometimes leaves him with his soul unanchored... For example, evolution's beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind. Inevitably, a teacher who denies divine agency in creation, who insists there is no intelligent purpose in it, will impress the student with the thought that all may be chance. I say, that no youth should be so led without a counterbalancing thought... God is at the helm. God is the Creator of the earth. He is the Father of our souls and spirits. No question about it. You have your testimony - if you haven't you shouldn't be on the faculty - that God lives and Jesus is the Christ, and the purpose of creation is theirs."
Early in his tenure as President of the Church, Apostles John A. Widtsoe and Joseph F. Merrill - both scientists who had been somewhat supportive of evolution - died within the same year. Shortly afterward Joseph Fielding Smith, now President of the Quorum of the Twelve, published a strongly anti-evolution book called Man - His Origin and Destiny, from a manuscript he had written in the 1930s but not published due to the First Presidency's moratorium on discussing such things. Similar anti-evolution remarks were shortly thereafter included in Mormon Doctrine by Elder Bruce R. McConkie and Doctrines of Salvation, a compilation of talks and articles written by Elder Smith and compiled by Elder McConkie. The authoritative titles of these latter two books was particularly problematic. President McKay avoided a public controversy, but had Mormon Doctrine pulled from publication for its many other errors, and privately affirmed the church's neutral stance to confused or curious members asking about the books.
Of the former work, Jim Bennett later wrote, "He tried to get the Church to publish the book, but my great-grandfather David O. McKay, who was a firm believer in evolution, death before the Fall, and geological time, disagreed with Joseph Fielding Smith on just about everything in that book." In July 1965 President McKay also approved the publication of a highly pro-evolution Instructor article entitled "The Relatedness of Living Things".
Dr. Howard Stutz started teaching evolution at BYU again in the 1950s, and Dr. Duane Jeffery opened the floodgates when he joined the faculty in 1969. Dr. Richard T. Wootton recalled that sometime during these early years, "The Hawaii Campus of Brigham Young University was being evaluated by an accreditation team of the Western College Association for its crucial first possible accreditation. Dr. Bill Priest of the team, a national leader in college administration, challenged me, asking, in effect, 'Dr. Wootton, this is the college of a very strict church: no smoking, no drinking, no sex. It seems fundamentalist. So do you allow your science department to teach evolution?' I replied that if any professor in our biological sciences department did not teach the theory of evolution, I would seriously question his competence. Dr. Priest asked if the Church believed that God used evolution to establish creatures. I replied that it does not believe so, or otherwise, officially. Members can choose. I referred to some of my doctoral findings, now stated in this book [Saints and Scientists], about how many Mormon scientists are both staunch members and believers in evolution.
"He noticed that I said 'members can choose'. He asked if top leaders could choose, and whether we could conceivably get a leader over the Church who opposed the teaching of evolution. My answer was, 'Possibly'. Dr. Priest then asked what I would do if that leadership expected me to have our biology teacher stop teaching any evolution. I replied that this was a hypothetical situation, which I did not believe would occur. But Dr. Priest continued to question what I would do if I were asked to 'shut down' our biology professor on evolution. I said I would answer honestly, but not meaning to presume any special courage, because I didn't think it would come up. 'I wouldn't do it.' He asked me whether that might not cost me this job. I said that in that case, I would work elsewhere. That was the end of his inquiry. I never knew whether my answers on this had any effect on the outcome. But the full accreditation was granted with considerable commendation to the college from the committee."
Dr. William Meservy wrote, "I distinctly remember hearing a story from a professor of mine, Paleontologist Brooks Britt, who still teaches Historical Geology at BYU: He said that when he applied for a faculty position at BYU, he was given a personal worthiness interview by one of the leaders in our church (as are all BYU professors before they are hired, regardless of their discipline). The first question the interviewer, who was Elder Wolfgang H. Paul of the Seventy, asked him was, 'Do you believe in evolution?' My professor (a little shocked) replied, 'I think that is how God did it.' The interviewer then responded, 'Me too'. They then continued the interview."
Since 1992 BYU has issued a packet to students with materials outlining the church's neutral position on evolution, including the aforementioned First Presidency statements. BYU's Board of Trustees, which approved the teaching and the packet, includes the First Presidency and three Apostles. The 2013 edition of the Latter-day Saint scriptures also made a couple of exciting changes to the non-canonical Bible Dictionary. The old entry for the "Fall of Adam" claimed that before the fall, Adam and Eve had no blood and that "there was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations". Now it omits the blood reference and the words "among any of the earthly creations". Likewise, the entry for "Death" used to claim "Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam", but it now omits the words "for any forms of life". (It should have omitted the words "on this earth" too, because the scriptures don't say that either. Quite likely it was just within the Garden of Eden.)
In addition to the scriptures themselves, the endowment ceremony in Latter-day Saint temples includes a symbolic ritual drama about the Creation and the Fall that some mistakenly regard as a historical reenactment and further confirmation that evolution is false. If that were the case, the First Presidency wouldn't be at liberty to add, remove, and/or change parts of it as they have periodically done through the years.
Dr. Howard Stutz started teaching evolution at BYU again in the 1950s, and Dr. Duane Jeffery opened the floodgates when he joined the faculty in 1969. Dr. Richard T. Wootton recalled that sometime during these early years, "The Hawaii Campus of Brigham Young University was being evaluated by an accreditation team of the Western College Association for its crucial first possible accreditation. Dr. Bill Priest of the team, a national leader in college administration, challenged me, asking, in effect, 'Dr. Wootton, this is the college of a very strict church: no smoking, no drinking, no sex. It seems fundamentalist. So do you allow your science department to teach evolution?' I replied that if any professor in our biological sciences department did not teach the theory of evolution, I would seriously question his competence. Dr. Priest asked if the Church believed that God used evolution to establish creatures. I replied that it does not believe so, or otherwise, officially. Members can choose. I referred to some of my doctoral findings, now stated in this book [Saints and Scientists], about how many Mormon scientists are both staunch members and believers in evolution.
"He noticed that I said 'members can choose'. He asked if top leaders could choose, and whether we could conceivably get a leader over the Church who opposed the teaching of evolution. My answer was, 'Possibly'. Dr. Priest then asked what I would do if that leadership expected me to have our biology teacher stop teaching any evolution. I replied that this was a hypothetical situation, which I did not believe would occur. But Dr. Priest continued to question what I would do if I were asked to 'shut down' our biology professor on evolution. I said I would answer honestly, but not meaning to presume any special courage, because I didn't think it would come up. 'I wouldn't do it.' He asked me whether that might not cost me this job. I said that in that case, I would work elsewhere. That was the end of his inquiry. I never knew whether my answers on this had any effect on the outcome. But the full accreditation was granted with considerable commendation to the college from the committee."
Dr. William Meservy wrote, "I distinctly remember hearing a story from a professor of mine, Paleontologist Brooks Britt, who still teaches Historical Geology at BYU: He said that when he applied for a faculty position at BYU, he was given a personal worthiness interview by one of the leaders in our church (as are all BYU professors before they are hired, regardless of their discipline). The first question the interviewer, who was Elder Wolfgang H. Paul of the Seventy, asked him was, 'Do you believe in evolution?' My professor (a little shocked) replied, 'I think that is how God did it.' The interviewer then responded, 'Me too'. They then continued the interview."
Since 1992 BYU has issued a packet to students with materials outlining the church's neutral position on evolution, including the aforementioned First Presidency statements. BYU's Board of Trustees, which approved the teaching and the packet, includes the First Presidency and three Apostles. The 2013 edition of the Latter-day Saint scriptures also made a couple of exciting changes to the non-canonical Bible Dictionary. The old entry for the "Fall of Adam" claimed that before the fall, Adam and Eve had no blood and that "there was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations". Now it omits the blood reference and the words "among any of the earthly creations". Likewise, the entry for "Death" used to claim "Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam", but it now omits the words "for any forms of life". (It should have omitted the words "on this earth" too, because the scriptures don't say that either. Quite likely it was just within the Garden of Eden.)
In addition to the scriptures themselves, the endowment ceremony in Latter-day Saint temples includes a symbolic ritual drama about the Creation and the Fall that some mistakenly regard as a historical reenactment and further confirmation that evolution is false. If that were the case, the First Presidency wouldn't be at liberty to add, remove, and/or change parts of it as they have periodically done through the years.
Views of Latter-day Saints Today
Latter-day Saint scientists, even those who served in the Quorum of the Twelve, have always had an easier time with evolution than the average membership, while Latter-day Saint biologists in particular have no more reason to reject it than any other biologist. In 1992 Dr. Wootton reported after an extensive survey, "In juxtaposition to the case of Strong Mormon Geologists who affirmed an 'aged' earth, almost none of the believers in Special Creation of the species were in fields that study the species. For instance, while most Utah biologists are Strong Mormons, we found none who believe in Special Creation as against evolution. It was more a belief of engineers and others whose fields have almost nothing to do with knowledge of the facts supporting evolution. There were many who were not deterred by this fact from holding opinions which contradict the knowledge of other fellow Strong Mormons' in their fields...
"To be a Strong Mormon isn't even necessary, religiously, by doctrine. This has been shown beyond question by the responses reported in this book. Being a Very Strong Mormon was compatible in 1992 with belief in a very aged earth and in evolution as apparently God's method of creating species. And while this was close to 100% true of those in the fields that study the earth and its creatures, it was also true of many Mormon scientists, no matter what their fields."
This poll on evolution acceptance conducted in 2007 is somewhat disturbing. Buddhists probably rank highest because they have no position on the existence of a deity, but Hindus have a creation myth of their own and Jews, obviously, have the same Old Testament that creationists use as their science textbook. Could it be that other faith groups can accept their holy books as inspired without applying them in ways that God never intended? Could it even be that Jews better understand the cultural and historical context of the Old Testament that was written by Jews? Perish the thought! The survey also shows Mormons beating only Jehovah's Witnesses. I find that humiliating, but it's not as bleak as it looks. Obviously the question was phrased poorly by making no mention of God, so those who believe in both evolution and God would hesitate as to whether it still constitutes the "best explanation".
"To be a Strong Mormon isn't even necessary, religiously, by doctrine. This has been shown beyond question by the responses reported in this book. Being a Very Strong Mormon was compatible in 1992 with belief in a very aged earth and in evolution as apparently God's method of creating species. And while this was close to 100% true of those in the fields that study the earth and its creatures, it was also true of many Mormon scientists, no matter what their fields."
This poll on evolution acceptance conducted in 2007 is somewhat disturbing. Buddhists probably rank highest because they have no position on the existence of a deity, but Hindus have a creation myth of their own and Jews, obviously, have the same Old Testament that creationists use as their science textbook. Could it be that other faith groups can accept their holy books as inspired without applying them in ways that God never intended? Could it even be that Jews better understand the cultural and historical context of the Old Testament that was written by Jews? Perish the thought! The survey also shows Mormons beating only Jehovah's Witnesses. I find that humiliating, but it's not as bleak as it looks. Obviously the question was phrased poorly by making no mention of God, so those who believe in both evolution and God would hesitate as to whether it still constitutes the "best explanation".
Anecdotally, however, through Facebook groups I've conversed with many of the church's youth and young single adults on this topic, and from the sampling of their views I've concluded that creationism within the church is in its death throes (just as it is everywhere else). Most youth either accepted evolution or had no opinion, while those who rejected it were unable to defend their viewpoint and obviously hadn't given it much thought. (Best statement: "I just have a problem with the idea that God would let an animal die just because it isn't adapted well enough.") They usually abandoned the discussion. Over time these discussions became rarer and rarer, and then one day someone polled one of the groups about it. This poll, though not scientifically rigorous, provided further evidence of what I had been coming to suspect.
