Is there an official church doctrine
on the subject of evolution?
In spite of what many CES personnel may mistakenly teach, there is no official declaration on the subject. If you were to write to the church today about the subject, which I have, you will receive a letter (or your Stake President will receive the letter to read to you) that the church takes no stand on the subject. The letter will clearly state that the church leaves to science the things that are of science and the things of the spirit to the church.
Claims that the 1909 manuscript is the official declaration, are clearly contradicted by a number of facts.
Fact 1. The 1909 manuscript was re-issued by the first presidency some years later without the controversial paragraphs after discussion with members of the twelve including James E. Talmage and John A. Widsoe. The First Presidency understood that the paragraphs could be taken as anti-evolution in sentiment and rescinded the paragraphs.
Fact 2. In the 1910 publication of The Priesthood Quorums' Table, the prophet Joseph F. Smith who had released the1909 manuscript, responded to the question "In just what manner did the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve come into existence on this earth?" in the following manner:
" This question comes from many High Priests QuorumsŠ 'the God's formed man from the dust of the ground and took his spirit and put it into him'ŠWhether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of GodŠwhether they were born here in mortality as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God." The question was still unanswered according to Joseph F. Smith himself less than a year after the 1909 manuscript was released.
Fact 3. The church published an address by James E. Talmage, "The Earth and Man" given in 1831. This has been re-published and quoted a number of times since in church publications including the Improvement Era and the Ensign. The talk was considered by Talmage to have the churches "stamp of approval" on the subject and clearly disputes the incorrect interpretations of the removed paragraphs of the 1909 manuscript.
Fact 4. David O. McKay issued numerous letters on the subject in the 1950's. Here is a composite quote including information from two of these letters (you can read them in full on the Eyring website or our website):
"The church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution. Neither 'Man his Origin and Destiny'[which McKay told Smith not to publish], nor 'Mormon Doctrine' are official publications of the Church,Š" "Š.and [are] not approved by the church Š" "Š.any conflicts which may seem to exist between the theory and the truths of revealed religion can well be dealt with by suspending judgment as long as may be necessary to arrive at facts and at a complete understanding of the truth."
There are numerous other quotes on the subject by church leaders which are found elsewhere on this site in addition to official church statements found on the BYU and Eyring websites. We simply wanted to clearly establish that the church never considered the 1909 manuscript an "official statement" on evolution by the church.
In spite of this, non-sanctioned websites that outline church doctrine and even CES employees have continued to purport that there is an official church doctrine on the subject. Some of the reasons for this are discussed in the section "Why is the Church Educational System so anti-evolution?" Because some of the editors of the Ensign were not sufficiently educated as to the history of the 1909 document, the unedited original document accidentally slipped through the cracks and was re-published this year (2002). After calling the Ensign myself, I was told by the staff that the office had been inundated with letters and calls, many from church scientists, that were pointing out the mistake. At present, I have not heard an explanation as to how this got past the editors. Some suggest links between the publication and CES employees who are aggressive on this subject.
