What is the LDS church's stance on evolution?

Mormon beliefs on evolution vary. There are millions of Mormons; some are scientists, some are professors, and many are just intelligent people who accept the evidence before them that shows that the biodiversity we see today emerged through the process of natural selection over a period of millions of years.

Faithful members that accept evolution will often say that the LDS church has no "official" stance or policy regarding evolution, so they're free to believe what they want. However, take a look at the following troubling figure from a Pew Research study:

It's clear that Mormons tend to accept evolution at a rate much lower than other religious groups. The percentage is less than half of the national average! This can't just be a coincidence, and I don't believe it is. It is clear to me that the Church is far from supportive of the concept of evolution through natural selection, and the statistics here show that something about church membership leads to a lower probability of acceptance of evolution, whether the church has an "official stance" on the matter or not.

(I couldn't find the exact phrasing of the question, but if it's anything like the title of the graph, I think it could have been worded better. Still, all groups were presented with the same question, so the fact that Mormons are so far below the rest is still very significant.)

Let's take a look at what past presidents of the church have said and classify their statements in three ways: explicitly against evolution, explictly for evolution, or unclear or not taking a position. We'll ignore Joseph Smith because he just wasn't aware of Darwin, and Brigham Young because, well, he was prone to rambling on anything and everything, and everyone always ignores Brigham Young.



Statements by presidents of the church


John Taylor: "The animal and vegetable creations are governed by certain laws, and are composed of certain elements peculiar to themselves. This applies to man, to the beasts, fowls, fish and creeping things, to the insects and to all animated nature .... These principles do not change, as represented by evolutionists of the Darwinian school, but the primitive organisms of all living beings exist in the same form as when they first received their impress from the Maker. ... [Man] did not originate from a chaotic mass of matter, moving or inert, but came forth possessing, in an embryonic state, all the faculties and powers of a God."


Wilford Woodruff: this is not very explicit, but in 1877, Wilford Woodruff had a vision of the founding fathers and "other eminent men and women." Included in these "eminent men" was Louis Agassiz, a scientist who was a prominent contemporary critic of Darwin and proponent of Biblical creationism.


Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."


Joseph F. Smith: he made a few wishy-washy statements, but mostly denounced evolution, most famously in this First Presidency statement (1909). The whole thing is worth reading, but here's a sample:

"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... Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."

According to the Ensign reprint in 2002, this statement "expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters." As an official First Presidency statement, it's the most authoritative thing we have from the LDS church so far.

Soon after the statement, he clarified that "the church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world" and "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 not matter where it may be found." But, he himself, through the office of the First Presidency, taught that it was incorrect. 


Heber J. Grant: made a statement called "'Mormon' view of evolution" which is not very explicit.


George Albert Smith: “I am grateful that in the midst of the confusion of our Father’s children there has been given to the members of this great organization a sure knowledge of the origin of man, that we came from the spirit world where our spirits were begotten by our Father in heaven, that he formed our first parents from the dust of the earth, and that their spirits were placed in their bodies, and that man came, not as some have believed, not as some have preferred to believe, from some of the lower walks of life, but our ancestors were those beings who lived in the courts of heaven. We came not from some menial order of life, but our ancestor is God our heavenly Father.”


David O. McKay: "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."

While clearly a proponent of what would today be called "intelligent design" (which is clearly different from natural selection), McKay spoke about, but did not take a strong position on, evolution, but did suggest that science "sometimes leaves [one] with [their] soul unanchored."


Joseph Fielding Smith: a quote from his book, Doctrines of Salvation: "I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so."


Harold B. Lee:  "I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, “What about the pre-Adamic people?” Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith.

I asked. “What about the pre-Adamic people?”

She replied, “Well, aren’t there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?”

I said, “Have you forgotten the scripture that says, ‘And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also. …’ ” (Moses 3:7.) I asked, “Do you believe that?”

She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error."

(First Presidency message, 1972)


Spencer W. Kimball: "We don't know exactly how [Adam and Eve's] coming into this world happened, and when we're able to understand it the Lord will tell us."


Ezra Taft Benson: "As a watchman on the tower, I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. There is more than one reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children, and if they become alerted and informed, these parents can help expose some of the deceptions of men like ... Charles Darwin."


Howard W. Hunter: "The Old Testament unfolds the story of the creation of the earth and mankind by God. Should we now disregard this account and modernize the creation according to the theories of the modernists? Can we say there was no Garden of Eden or an Adam and Eve? Because modernists now declare the story of the flood is unreasonable and impossible, should we disbelieve the account of Noah and the flood as related in the Old Testament? Let us examine what the Master said when the disciples came to him as he sat on the Mount of Olives. They asked him to tell them of the time of his coming and of the end of the world. Jesus answered: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” In this statement the Master confirmed the story of the flood without modernizing it. Can we accept some of the statements of the Lord as being true and at the same time reject others as being false? When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, and they discussed the matter of the death of her brother and the resurrection. Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” Both of these statements, the one regarding Noah and the fact of the flood and the one in which he declared himself to be the resurrection and the life, were made by the Lord. How can we believe one and not the other? How can we modernize the story of the flood, or refer to it as a myth, and yet cling to the truth of the other? How can we modernize the Bible and still have it be a guiding light to us and a vital influence in our beliefs? There are those who declare it is old-fashioned to believe in the Bible. Is it old-fashioned to believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God? Is it old-fashioned to believe in his atoning sacrifice and the resurrection? If it is, I declare myself to be old-fashioned and the Church to be old-fashioned. In great simplicity, the Master taught the principles of life eternal and lessons that bring happiness to those with the faith to believe.”


Gordon B. Hinckley: it's hard to classify Hinckley because he often made unhelpful statements like "I am not concerned with organic evolution. I do not worry about it. I passed through that argument long ago" that don't help us in determining whether he accepted evolution or not. My decision to color him red comes from this: "I believe in evolution, not organic evolution, as it is called, but in the evolution of the mind, the heart, and the soul of man. I believe in improvement. I believe in growth."


Thomas S. Monson: Monson is also somewhat on the fence, but the general theme of the following statement (which he's repeated multiple times in various settings, including a First Presidency message and in general conference) is belief in the Bible over "so-called science": "I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God's word. I wasn't with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it."



Other references to evolution by materials printed by the church


The 1909 first presidency statement by Joseph F. Smith was reprinted in the February 2002 Ensign. While the statement is old, this suggests continued support of the principles it taught.

The Old Testament study manual: "In the world another theory of how things began is popularly held and widely taught. This theory, that of organic evolution, was generally developed from the writings of Charles Darwin. It puts forth different ideas concerning how life began and where man came from. In relation to this theory, the following statements should help you understand what the Church teaches about the Creation and the origin of man." (It then quotes statements that denounce evolution by Joseph F. Smith, George Albert Smith, and others.)



Conclusion


A collection of other quotes by LDS leaders that were not president of the church at the time can be found here.

You'll notice a lot of red and purple but no blue. The LDS church has never publicly come out in support of evolution as some other churches have done. Whether or not any of the statements constitute "official doctrine" is not a productive discussion. It's clear that, official or not, the message sent by the church consistently leads members to deny evolution, resulting in a membership with a very low rate of scientific literacy compared to the rest of the country.

A minority of Mormons do accept the reality of evolution (BYU does have a Biology department, after all.) Others believe that evolution applies to plant and animal life but not humans, which to me (a biologist) is an untenable position due to the obvious similarity and shared evolutionary history between humans, earlier hominids and other primates. No one has to follow the teachings of church leadership, though I do think it raises the question of why the church would consistently teach and support a viewpoint that is incorrect, misleading the majority of the membership on an interesting and important question.

If you find any further evidence (particularly anything that could be classified as explicitly supporting evolution), please let me know, and I'll add it to this list.



Note: the caption of the Pew graph is "% who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth." I tried to find out whether this was the way they worded the question on the survey, but couldn't determine the exact wording used. If it is, it's not how I would have worded it; it's misleading, and some religious people that try to balance evolution and religion may answer no because they feel that the "best" explanation has to include god.

Still, this doesn't warrant throwing out the survey results entirely. People from any religious group taking the survey would have faced the same dilemma. The fact that Mormons are so dramatically below everyone else is still significant.