In 1909 and 1925, the First Presidency stated that the Church has no official position on evolution. Shaped by their historical contexts, these statements reflected a range of views among Church leaders at the time. Decades later, Joseph Fielding Smith reinterpreted the statements, promoting a rigid anti-evolution stance that was not originally intended. Due in part to his prominence, this interpretation soon became the prevailing view among many Latter-day Saints. In this interview, Dr. Ben Spackman discusses his chapter about the First Presidency statements in a new BYU evolution book.
Sign up to be notified when we publish new content, like articles about faith and science, Joseph Fielding Smith, and the Adam-God doctrine.
Table of Contents
- Context and Cast
- Understanding the Statements
- Conflict and Complexity
- Doctrinal Implications
- Reconciliation and Reflection
- Further Reading
Context and Cast
Why was The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and Evolution published?
We set out with a distinct goal of removing obstacles to faith for Latter-day Saints where evolution was concerned. We wanted to bring the best science to the conversation, of course, but especially historical and scriptural scholarship to Latter-day Saints.
We also wanted to make it as accessible as possible, which meant writing clearly and concisely for non-specialists (it’s very difficult to do both) and making it readily available. We hope many students and Seminary and Institute (S&I) teachers will use it, particularly as we head into the Old Testament again in January 2026.
Evolution tends to bring many key assumptions and feelings about science, religion, politics, and education to the forefront, and a significant number people have lost faith because of it.
The science debate is treating a symptom.
Much of the American public, including Latter-day Saints, has taken in a lot of misinformation about science in general—that is, the nature of science—and evolution in particular. Combine that with an American religious tradition of “every man his own interpreter” and mainstream biblical and historical scholarship not trickling down to the people in the pews, and you have a recipe for the messy status quo, really.
I have argued that while young-earth creationism (and its accompanying anti-evolution perspective) looks like a scientific argument, responding with scientific argument is really treating a symptom and not the cause. We needed to talk about history, scripture, and interpretation.
Who were the key church voices in the evolution debate?
Several Church leaders approached evolution from different angles—some cautiously open, others staunchly opposed. The voices below played especially influential roles in shaping the early 20th-century Latter-day Saint debate about evolution:
- President Joseph F. Smith thought evolution likely false, said the Church had no position on it, but considered Darwin “one of the most able and devoted students of Nature the world has known, and as an investigator whose labors have been of incalculable good to mankind,” and encouraged evolutionary science in a limited setting.
- Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, son of President Smith, called as an Apostle in 1911, was deeply opposed to evolution on a scriptural basis, at least when read through his assumptions.
- Elder Orson F. Whitney strongly opposed evolution, based on both scriptural interpretation and scientific misunderstanding. He wrote an article on it in 1882 and, after his call as an Apostle in 1906, was chosen to draft the 1909 First Presidency statement on the origin of man.
- B.H. Roberts, a President of the Seventy, heavily self-taught, learned, and intellectually creative, strongly supported the ideas of an old earth and pre-Adamites, which created strong friction with Joseph Fielding Smith in 1930-31.
- Adam Bennion, the Church Commissioner of Education in the 1920s and later an Apostle (1953-58), repeatedly taught evolutionary concepts to S&I teachers in a reconciliatory way.
- Elder James E. Talmage, a British convert and geology PhD, was consulted by the First Presidency multiple times before and after his calling as an Apostle in 1911 about his old-earth and quasi-evolutionary views.
- Elder John Widtsoe, similarly a convert (Norway) and PhD (chemistry) was also consulted on his old earth and quasi-evolutionary views by the First Presidency multiple times before and after his calling as an Apostle in 1921.
- Frederick Pack—a Latter-day Saint geologist and paleontologist who taught an old earth and evolution. He served as a scientific consultant to the First Presidency, who encouraged his evolutionary research, called him into the General Sunday School Presidency in 1920, and published his views through the 1930s.
- Seventh-day Adventist George McCready Price, the “father of modern young-earth creationism,” provided Joseph Fielding Smith with many of his scientific arguments. They exchanged letters while Smith read Price’s books.
Understanding the Statements
What led to the 1909 statement on the origin of man?
The 1909 statement arose in response to mounting public interest—both within and outside the Church—about its position on evolution. BYU had recently celebrated Darwin Day, and broader cultural currents were stirring up questions about science, scripture, and authority. In that context, Church leaders felt it would be timely to restate core doctrines about divine creation, without attempting to settle scientific specifics.
It’s extremely important to recognize that Church leaders authored these two statements on evolution not as timeless and abstract thoughts in a vacuum but in the midst of significant intellectual, social, and religious turmoil.
Scientific Change and Cultural Anxiety
The 1800s largely saw the invention of modern science and its rise to dominance as the primary way of knowing. This displaced traditional religious authority from its dominant position to some degree, which then took another hit when two authors popularized the idea that science and religion had always been the same, and always at war with each other, with religion obstructing scientific discovery, the so-called “Warfare hypothesis.”
The idea of evolution long predated Charles Darwin; his grandfather Erasmus wrote poetry about it. However, Darwin’s new work convinced most scientists of the reality of evolution, though significant scientific objections were raised about his proposed mechanism driving evolution, i.e., natural selection.
This “eclipse of Darwin” (c. 1880-1920s) meant many laypeople mistakenly understood that scientists were rejecting evolution entirely, not simply questioning natural selection.
Scriptural Upheaval and Religious Response
At the same time that science gained dominant cultural power and propelled evolution forward, Christianity wrestled with scripture itself. For example, German biblical scholarship entered the American consciousness, strongly suggesting that many traditional understandings—e.g., Moses authored Genesis—were incorrect. New archaeology and rediscovered ancient Near Eastern texts suggested the Bible was neither unique nor correct in some ways and had been misinterpreted, which added to the feeling of shaken foundations.
Some Christians responded to all this by downplaying Jesus’ divinity, miracles, atonement, and resurrection to focus on the “social gospel” of feeding the poor, building schools, and engaging in charitable works. Others, especially in Universities, pushed back with scholarly and theological arguments that such things constituted the very fundamentals of the Gospel, which gave rise to the shifting term “fundamentalism.”
Latter-day Saints also swam in this churning river of discoveries, ideas, claims, and counter-claims.
The Church Responds to the Moment
Like many other universities, BYU celebrated “Darwin Day” in early 1909 to commemorate Darwin’s hundredth birthday and the fiftieth anniversary of his On the Origin of Species. Many Latter-day Saints had questions about the Church’s take on evolution, prompting the writing of the 1909 First Presidency statement.
Given all of the challenges above, it is perhaps surprising that the statement is so general in its assertions, but this speaks to the self-awareness and intellectual humility of Church leaders in staking out official positions.
How do the 1909 and 1925 First Presidency statements compare?
Put simply, the 1909 statement was longer, more doctrinally general, and more internally debated. The 1925 version was a heavily shortened public-facing version that omitted key language and context.
What I find interesting is what they don’t say; there’s nothing about the age of the earth or death before the fall, nothing denouncing evolution as satanic or bad science.
1909 First Presidency Statement
The 1909 statement concerns the origin of man, whereas evolution is more about the origin of species and the relatedness of living things. The statement echoed scripture as the “old truth” that God created man in His image, both spiritually and physically.
It says nothing about what that might entail, nor how God created (if implied, it is subtle). The closest thing to a direct denunciation is this: “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.”
1925 First Presidency Statement
The 1925 statement “‘Mormon’ View of Evolution” is a simple edit of the 1909 statement. The unknown editors (approved by the First Presidency) cut 80% of the word count of the 1909 statement to produce the 1925 statement.
The two lines quoted above did not survive the cut and are lacking in the 1925 statement, which was publicized much more heavily than the 1909 statement (see below).
What evidence clarifies the First Presidency’s intent in 1909?
There is strong contemporary evidence that the First Presidency did not intend the 1909 statement to condemn evolutionary science or place it beyond the bounds of Latter-day Saint orthodoxy. This includes softened language in the final draft compared to Orson F. Whitney’s initial version, and a follow-up article that explicitly allowed for divinely guided evolution as one possible view.
Edits to the Original Draft Show Softened Language
First, we have an earlier draft from Elder Orson F. Whitney and John A. Widtsoe’s feedback on it to the First Presidency.
Whitney’s draft included several strong and unambiguous statements ridiculing evolution, committing the Church to the “fixity of the species,” and speaking ill of Christians who, as he saw it, were making “concessions to Darwinism…. The Latter-day Saints make no such concession.”
Widtsoe’s lengthy feedback pointed out, for example, that Whitney engaged in strawman arguments regarding evolutionary science. It is, therefore, significant that none of Whitney’s bright-line condemnations survived the review process and First Presidency approval.
A Follow-up Article Allowed for Evolution
A few months later, an apparent follow-up question was published in The Improvement Era: “In just what manner did the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve come to exist upon this earth?”
The response is anonymous, and some have supposed—not without reason—that the First Presidency authored it. We don’t know. Regardless, the answer shows that the contemporary Church writer(s)/editor(s) understood the 1909 statement (which they referenced) to allow for divinely guided evolution.
It answered the question with three potential options, one of which was that human bodies evolved “in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God.”
The question of the origin of the human body, it stated, was not “fully answered in the revealed word of God.”
Joseph F. Smith Said That the Church Had No Stance on Evolution
Merely two years later, the same President of the Church who signed the 1909 statement did two things that make little sense if we understand it to outlaw evolution.
Publicly, President Joseph F. Smith wrote that the First Presidency, with regard to BYU, was:
not undertaking to say how much of evolution is true, or how much is false…. The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world.
Joseph F. Smith
Private Encouragement of Evolutionary Research
Privately, the First Presidency encouraged evolutionary science.
Geologist Frederick J. Pack had been appointed to the Deseret Chair of Geology at the University of Utah in 1911 and was very open about his scientific and religious views. He was a very active Latter-day Saint and also argued for an old earth with death, reproduction, and the malleability of the species.
Church leaders were aware of his views, as he frequently interacted with them on this subject. In 1911, the First Presidency created a standing committee to discuss Pack’s research.
The committee included:
- Horace Cummings (Church Commissioner of Education)
- Charles Penrose (member of the First Presidency)
- David O. McKay (Apostle)
- John A. Widtsoe and James E. Talmage (outside scientists who would later become Apostles)
The First Presidency’s directive stated:
Dr. Fred J. Pack… has endeavored to show the harmony existing by the record of the creation by Moses, and what geology teaches. And he believes that evolution, when rightly understood, is in harmony with revelation with revelation, and is studying with a view to be able to prove this. We encouraged Dr. Pack to continue his studies along this line of thought.
First Presidency directive to a committee discussing Frederick Pack’s evolution research
The First Presidency continued consulting Pack on evolution and other science questions, and was apparently pleased with his work.
They called him into the General Sunday School, published his pro-evolution book Science and Belief in God, and put him on the radio representing the Church. In all of these, he continued arguing for evolutionary science.
None of this makes sense if the purpose of the 1909 statement was to repudiate evolution.
None of this makes sense if the purpose of the 1909 statement was a definitive repudiation of evolution as heretical or completely incompatible with the Gospel.
Together, these examples—editing out anti-evolution rhetoric, allowing for divine evolution in The Improvement Era, and encouraging pro-evolution scientists like Pack—strongly suggest the 1909 statement was not meant to reject evolution.
How does the 1925 statement shed light on the original purposes of the 1909 statement?
The 1925 statement helps clarify the original intent of the 1909 version by showing what Church leaders chose to retain, emphasize, and omit. Released in a more public-facing format during a time of national debate, it reinforced the idea that the Church intentionally avoided declaring evolution as incompatible with its doctrine—despite external pressures to do so.
A Public-Facing Reframing
Certain aspects of World War I (1914-1918) and the Scopes Trial in 1925 prompted massive national interest in and increased opposition to evolution. Church leaders were asked to provide the Church’s official position, and the result was the 1925 First Presidency statement, “The ‘Mormon’ Position on Evolution.”
What Was Removed—and Why It Matters
The text is identical to the 1909 statement on the origin of man, but with 70% of the wording cut. Nothing was added, except new signatures and a new title.
In other words, it was not presented as a reprint or an edit; it has a new more evolution-specific title, makes no reference to the 1909, and is signed by a new First Presidency.
The 1925 Statement as the Church’s Public Voice
Whereas the 1909 statement appeared once in the Deseret News and was never again referred to, the 1925 statement appeared in “many newspapers throughout the country.”
The 1925 statement is what Church leaders wanted the public to know about the Latter-day Saint position on evolution.
Americans felt themselves in the midst of a battle, and wanted the Church’s official position on evolution. This was an opportunity for Church leaders to draw a line in the sand, to express a clear and unambiguous message to the world that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rejected evolution.
Just as in 1909 with Whitney’s draft, the First Presidency was presented with an opportunity to speak clearly against evolution and did not do so, even though it might have been expected, even welcomed, in that 1925 zeitgeist.
It’s clear that Church leaders saw the 1925 statement as replacing or superseding the 1909 statement— completely unknown to the readers of those “many newspapers throughout the country”— and this perspective is what Church leaders wanted the national public to know about the Latter-day Saint position on evolution.
How did church members come to misunderstand the 1909 statement on the origin of man?
What’s interesting is that the 1909 statement doesn’t appear to be publicly quoted, reprinted, or even referenced—aside from the follow-up question in The Improvement Era—until Joseph Fielding Smith brought it up in 1953. He wasn’t an Apostle during its drafting or involved in the review process, but his words carried weight as Church Historian and President of the Quorum of the Twelve.
Joseph Fielding Smith began portraying the statement as a rejection of evolution—a reading not supported by the original context or language.
In doing so, he effectively misrepresented its intent and retrojected his own doctrinal assumptions onto it. Other General Authorities followed suit, focusing their teachings on Smith’s usage and framing of the statement rather than the First Presidency statement itself. This trickled down to how many Church members understand (or misunderstand) the Church’s position on evolution today.
Among contemporary Latter-day Saints, awareness of the 1909 statement is hit-and-miss. Even when people are familiar with the statement, it’s about 50/50 whether they think it rules out evolutionary science.
Conflict and Complexity
How did a 1931 First Presidency letter influence how the earlier statements were understood?
In 1931, the First Presidency quietly issued a memo instructing General Authorities to “leave geology, biology, [etc.]… to scientific research.” Though unknown to most Church members for decades, it drew a clear boundary between doctrinal fundamentals and scientific questions—signaling that questions about evolution did not impact core tenets of the faith.
Joseph Fielding Smith’s Scripture-based Paradigm
Joseph Fielding Smith argued that you could derive more reliable facts of science from a face-value reading of scripture than from scientific activity, and he based his scientific conclusions on that principle.
For example, he wrote in 1931:
I have my own views as to the age of this earth. They do not by any means agree with the teachings of geology, and I do not say that I am right; but I have based my conclusions on the scriptures…. the scientist is wrong in his deductions regarding the age of [the] earth… They have a right to their opinions and I suppose I have a right to mine, but I think I have better grounds for mine.
Joseph Fielding Smith on his views about evolution
The First Presidency’s Contrasting Approach
Numerous sources show clearly that the First Presidencies from 1909 to 1931 thought you needed to consult scientists to get the best facts and understandings possible, implicitly rejecting Smith’s paradigm that the best science was found in scripture. This was formalized in the 1931 memo to all General Authorities, which followed the boundary lines between science and religion that Pack, Talmage, and Widtsoe had argued to the First Presidency as early as 1909.
They implicitly rejected Joseph Fielding Smith’s paradigm that the best science was found in scripture.
In essence, science belonged to the domain of scientists and could not be established the way Smith claimed. They enjoined Church leaders to stick to the “fundamental doctrines” of the Church and “leave geology, biology, Archaeology, and Anthropology” alone.
Notably, regarding “death before the fall” and “preadamites,” these directives were understood by Apostles at the time that the Church had no doctrine on them one way or the other, and they did not constitute “fundamental doctrines.”
Modern Reaffirmation in Gospel Topics and Encyclopedia
This boundary between science and religion, this epistemic division of labor, is reflected today in the Church’s most recent essays on science and religion:1
The Church does not take a position on most scientific matters.
Church and Gospel Questions: Religion and Science
It cites the 1931 memo and affirms that science and religion are not “either/or ” but “both/and.” Implicit in that is an intellectual division of labor and an explicit reaffirmation of the 1931 boundaries.
Gordon B. Hinckley’s Encyclopedia of Mormonism Entry on Evolution
There’s another link in that intellectual chain that is not well-known.
Since the First Presidency directed the 1931 memo to General Authorities, its existence and significance was largely unknown for decades. Researchers like Duane Jeffery started to cite it in the 1970s. Then came the 1992 Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and its article on “Evolution.”
The short entry was written by Gordon B. Hinckley, a counselor in the First Presidency, despite a byline attributing authorship to William E. Evenson.
As Counselor, President Hinckley had access to the archives and could thus legitimately and authoritatively cite the 1931 First Presidency memo as relevant to the question of evolution. That 1931 memo has been significant.
????Fun Fact: The putative author of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article was accused of misrepresenting or misunderstanding Church history, doctrine, and First Presidency statements, so I was quite amused to discover the actual author was President Hinckley.
How have post-1950s teachings reshaped views on evolution?
By the 1950s, nearly all Apostles involved in the original conversations had passed away. This vacuum gave Joseph Fielding Smith’s views greater influence, despite their divergence from the First Presidency statements and intent.
Joseph Fielding Smith’s Influence After 1950
Post-1950s understandings of the 1909 and 1925 statements were heavily influenced by the tradition propounded by Joseph Fielding Smith.
By the early 1950s, virtually every Apostle who had been present for the 1909, 1925, and related conversations had died. The Quorum had had four Apostles with science PhDs—John A. Widtsoe, James E. Talmage, Joseph F. Merrill, and Richard R. Lyman—but Widtsoe, the last of the four, died in November of 1952.
Although chemist Henry Eyring Sr. was nominated to replace Widtsoe, ultimately, Adam Bennion did so. The three who remained and were present for some of these influential early discussions were President McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Richard L. Evans. McKay and Evans favored evolutionary ideas—if not evolution itself—but they did not push the idea in public.
By contrast, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith saw evolution as an existential threat to everything—Jesus’ divinity, the Atonement, prophets, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the temple ordinances—and he spoke about it frequently in a negative way, drawing on Price and other similar writers.
He also popularized the 1909 statement as a bright-line doctrinal declaration against evolution.
The Rise of a Misguided Consensus
Contemporary documents from 1909, 1911, 1930-31, and so on show that Joseph Fielding Smith’s understanding of those early 20th-century events was inaccurate. There had been no official rejection of evolutionary science.
Joseph Fielding Smith’s heavy reliance on non-scientists like George McCready Price for geological and other scientific arguments was not well-founded.
However, his rejection of evolution and his historical and scientific claims carried extra weight with younger General Authorities and the Latter-day Saint public due to:
- His parentage (Joseph F. Smith was his father)
- His Apostolic calling
- His seniority as President of the Twelve
- His position as Church Historian
- His knowledge of scripture
- His forceful rhetoric
- His claims of scientific authority
Thus, the popular understanding of those early events heavily reflected Joseph Fielding Smith’s understanding, leading the Church in a strongly anti-evolutionary and anti-science direction which favored Christian fundamentalists and creationists.
Why Historical Method Matters
This is why doing history matters. To accurately understand the 1909 statement and the Church’s position, historians rely on contemporary sources—journals, letters, and diaries from Apostles.
That evidence carries more weight than, say, Harold B. Lee’s later interpretation. After all, Lee was only 10 years old in 1909. By the 1950s, he was getting his information from Joseph Fielding Smith—who also hadn’t been involved in the original discussions.
(Funny enough, it was Joseph Fielding Smith who ultimately undermined his own version of the history.)
Doctrinal Implications
What does it mean that Adam was “the first man of all men”?
At its core, this hinges on a deceptively simple question: What is a “man”—i.e., a human? From a scientific perspective, defining categories like this can be surprisingly complex (though that’s not my field). Scripturally, the JST of Genesis (i.e., the Book of Moses), which the First Presidency appears to be quoting, reads: “And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.”
That’s both cryptic and suggestive. In Hebrew, ’adam can mean (1) humanity in general, (2) any given person—male or female (e.g., Leviticus 22:5), or (3) the proper name Adam. It’s also related to the word ’adamah, meaning red earth or dirt—fitting, since Genesis 2:7 says the ’adam was formed from the dust of the ’adamah.
General Authorities have had different understandings. Joseph Fielding Smith thought this entailed the complete lack of existence of any kind of human or humanoid before Adam. In contrast, John Widtsoe understood it to mean that “Adam was the first of the pre-existent children of the Lord to take upon himself an earth-body.”
Elder Talmage similarly provided his “personal opinion and understanding… as referring to man of the order to which Adam belonged… but I fully recognize the right of any other to hold to a different opinion.”
Do the 1909 and 1925 statements constitute doctrine?
Latter-day Saints often ask whether the 1909 and 1925 statements represent binding doctrine. The answer depends on how the Church defines authority—which exists on a spectrum—and how we interpret statements from individual leaders versus joint declarations from governing bodies.
No Equivalent of Canon Law
The Church is relatively young, and we do not yet have a formalized equivalent of Canon Law, as the Roman Catholic Church. This often means that we encounter tensions and struggle to make sense of apparent or actual different views in scripture or statements by different Church leaders at different times.2
Tension in Authoritative Discourse
Some have recognized this tension with jokes about “General Authority Poker,” as if truth can be established by putting more Church leaders in one corner. “I’ll see your three dead Apostles, and raise you a dead President, a dead Apostle, and a live one.”
Spectrum of Doctrinal Authority
There is certainly a spectrum of authority, from combined First Presidency/Quorum of the Twelve statements on down.
One thing that is clear, however, is that Latter-day Saints are not bound by the perspectives of individual Church leaders, however forcefully expressed, often stated, or published.
In this case, there is little controversy about the core doctrinal statement of the 1909/25 statements, that God created man in His image.
Reconciliation and Reflection
How does the BYU evolution book help members who want to reconcile faith with science?
Many Latter-day Saints feel tension between faith and science—especially regarding evolution. This new BYU evolution book, The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and Evolution, helps resolve that tension by offering historical clarity, doctrinal context, and space within orthodoxy for faithful exploration.
Why This Matters for Belief Retention
To the extent that faithfulness entails belief in scripture and prophetic teachings, it matters very much to have an understanding that goes beyond mere tradition, what we’ve heard or been told.
Faithfulness isn’t tied to young-earth views.
Imagine a senior undergraduate at BYU who is convinced that the Church has a formal position against evolution, that all Apostles have opposed evolution since 1909, and that this is clear scriptural teaching.
I know many stories like this. She will feel like she has to choose between the beliefs and attitudes required of her on the one hand, and well-established science on the other.
Unfortunately, many who have been presented with a binary between evolutionary science and faith have chosen science and left. I have interviewed some of them, interacted with others, and read about even more in archival sources. I believe that binary choice is artificial.
Making Space Within Orthodoxy
Now, let’s say we introduce that student to a more accurate history, which shows that:
- The 1909 statement did not establish a position against evolution.
- Some Apostles and Presidents of the Church have been open—or even favorable—to evolutionary science.
- The nature of scripture and its interpretation are not necessarily what she’s been told.
Suddenly, she has space within orthodoxy for multiple understandings. She has the freedom to read and explore.
Put another way, faithfulness does not entail echoing Joseph Fielding Smith’s young-earth views, because his views did not and do not represent the Church’s positions.
There are certainly bounds and orthodoxies— but the limits of those orthodoxies are much broader than many have thought, and that’s wonderful. There is a lot of space within that for various views and understandings, though not all are on the same ground.
I have worked on these questions in one sense or another for twenty years. Still, I do not have a Grand Unifying Theory synthesizing a Latter-day Saint theology of evolution. I continue by study and also by faith. I’ve learned a lot, and what I’ve learned has been helpful to many people.
But certainly questions remain, and I like that I can work on those questions within the bounds of orthodox—if sometimes non-traditional—Latter-day Saint belief.
Where should someone begin if they’re rethinking these statements?
- BYU Evolution Book: I would start with my article in the book, along with the publications that I cite and expand on in the footnotes.
- My Dissertation: Then, for the very interested, move on to the more extended version in my dissertation. Once I finish revising and expanding it, it will become a book in a few years, but in the meantime, the dissertation is the best source.
- Saints Podcast: I might also recommend listening to the interview on the official Saints podcast, Vol. 3, No. 21.
Did You Enjoy This Article?
About the Scholar
Benjamin Spackman is a historian of religion and science in American religious thought, focusing on Latter-day Saint engagement with the theory of evolution. Prior to that work, he conducted six years of graduate study in Old Testament languages and literature at the University of Chicago. He is a co-editor of The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and Evolution, the author of the book’s chapter on the historical and doctrinal context of the 1909 and 1925 First Presidency statements, and a second chapter on “no death before the fall.” Spackman has published extensively on the intersection of scripture, prophetic authority, and scientific discovery, and is widely recognized as one of the leading scholars on how Latter-day Saints have wrestled with evolution over time.
Further Reading
- What Should Latter-day Saints Know About BYU’s Evolution Book?
- What Does Genesis Really Say About Creation?
- What Does D&C 77 Say About the Age of the Earth?
- What Did Brigham Young Teach About Adam and God?
- What’s in the Joseph Fielding Smith Biography by Matt Bowman?
First Presidency Statements on Evolution and the Origin of Man Resources
- The 1909 and 1925 First Presidency Statements in Historical and Scientific Contexts (BYU College of Life Sciences)
- Reconciling Concerns About Faith and Evolution (LDS Living)
- Organic Evolution (Church History Topics)
- Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements (Greg Kofford Books)
- The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution (Dialogue)
Full Text of the 1909 First Presidency Statement on the Origin of Man
The Church’s original statement on the origin of man, issued amid rising questions about evolution. While it affirmed divine creation, its careful wording and later clarifications left room for faithful belief in guided evolution:
Inquiries arise from time to time respecting the attitude of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints upon questions which, though not vital from a doctrinal standpoint, are closely connected with the fundamental principles of salvation. The latest inquiry of this kind that has reached us is in relation to the origin of man. It is believed that a statement of the position held by the Church upon this subject will be timely and productive of good.
In presenting the statement that follows we are not conscious of putting forth anything essentially new; neither is it our desire so to do. Truth is what we wish to present, and truth—eternal truth—is fundamentally old. A restatement of the original attitude of the Church relative to this matter is all that will be attempted here. To tell the truth as God has revealed it, and commend it to the acceptance of those who need to conform their opinions thereto, is the sole purpose of this presentation.
“God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” In these plain and pointed words the inspired author of the book of Genesis made known to the world the truth concerning the origin of the human family. Moses, the prophet-historian—“learned,” as we are told, “in all the wisdom of the Egyptians”—when making this important announcement was not voicing a mere opinion, a theory derived from his researches into the occult lore of that ancient people. He was speaking as the mouthpiece of God, and his solemn declaration was for all time and for all people. No subsequent revelator of the truth has contradicted the great leader and lawgiver of Israel. All who have since spoken by divine authority upon this theme have confirmed his simple and sublime proclamation. Nor could it be otherwise. Truth has but one source, and all revelations from heaven are harmonious with each other. The omnipotent Creator, the maker of heaven and earth, had shown unto Moses everything pertaining to this planet, including the facts relating to man’s origin, and the authoritative pronouncement of that mighty prophet and seer to the house of Israel, and through Israel to the whole world, is couched in the simple clause: “God created man in his own image” (Gen. 1:27; see Moses 1:27–41).
The creation was twofold—first spiritual, secondly temporal. This truth, also, Moses plainly taught—much more plainly than it has come down to us in the imperfect translations of the Bible that are now in use. Therein the fact of a spiritual creation, antedating the temporal creation, is strongly implied, but the proof of it is not so clear and conclusive as in other records held by the Latter-day Saints to be of equal authority with the Jewish scriptures. The partial obscurity of the latter upon the point in question is owing, no doubt, to the loss of those “plain and precious” parts of sacred writ, which, as the Book of Mormon informs us, have been taken away from the Bible during its passage down the centuries (see 1 Ne. 13:24–29). Some of these missing parts the Prophet Joseph Smith undertook to restore when he revised those scriptures by the spirit of revelation, the result being that more complete account of the Creation which is found in the book of Moses, previously cited. Note the following passages:
“And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,
“And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them, and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;
“But, I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
“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; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word” (Moses 3:4–7; see also Moses 1 and Moses 2, and compare with Gen. 1 and Gen. 2).
These two points being established, namely, the creation of man in the image of God, and the twofold character of the Creation, let us now inquire: What was the form of man, in the spirit and in the body, as originally created? In a general way the answer is given in the words chosen as the text of this treatise. “God created man in his own image.” It is more explicitly rendered in the Book of Mormon thus: “All men were created in the beginning after mine own image” (Ether 3:15). … If, therefore, we can ascertain the form of the “Father of spirits,” “The God of the spirits of all flesh,” we shall be able to discover the form of the original man.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is “the express image” of His Father’s person (Heb. 1:3). He walked the earth as a human being, as a perfect man, and said, in answer to a question put to Him: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). This alone ought to solve the problem to the satisfaction of every thoughtful, reverent mind. The conclusion is irresistible, that if the Son of God be the express image (that is, likeness) of His Father’s person, then His Father is in the form of a man; for that was the form of the Son of God, not only during His mortal life, but before His mortal birth, and after His Resurrection. It was in this form that the Father and the Son, as two personages, appeared to Joseph Smith, when, as a boy of 14 years, he received his first vision. Then if God made man—the first man—in His own image and likeness, He must have made him like unto Christ, and consequently like unto men of Christ’s time and of the present day. That man was made in the image of Christ is positively stated in the book of Moses: “And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so. …
“And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them” (Moses 2:26–27).
The Father of Jesus is our Father also. Jesus Himself taught this truth when He instructed His disciples how to pray: “Our Father which art in heaven,” etc. Jesus, however, is the firstborn among all the sons of God—the first begotten in the spirit, and the only begotten in the flesh. He is our elder brother, and we, like Him, are in the image of God. All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.
“God created man in His own image.” This is just as true of the spirit as it is of the body, which is only the clothing of the spirit, its complement—the two together constituting the soul. The spirit of man is in the form of man, and the spirits of all creatures are in the likeness of their bodies. This was plainly taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith (see D&C 77:2).
Here is further evidence of the fact. More than 700 years before Moses was shown the things pertaining to this earth, another great prophet, known to us as the brother of Jared, was similarly favored by the Lord. He was even permitted to behold the spirit-body of the foreordained Savior, prior to His incarnation; and so like the body of a man was gazing upon a being of flesh and blood. He first saw the finger and then the entire body of the Lord—all in the spirit. The Book of Mormon says of this wonderful manifestation:
“And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear.
“And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said to him: Arise, why hast thou fallen?
“And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood.
“And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. Sawest thou more than this?
“And he answered: Nay; Lord, show thyself unto me.
“And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak?
“And he answered, Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.
“And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.
“Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.
“And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.
“Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh” (Ether 3:6–16).
What more is needed to convince us that man, both in spirit and in body, is the image and likeness of God and that God Himself is in the form of a man?
When the divine Being whose spirit-body the brother of Jared beheld took upon Him flesh and blood, He appeared as a man, having “body, parts and passions,” like other men, though vastly superior to all others, because He was God, even the Son of God, the Word made flesh: in Him “dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” And why should He not appear as a man? That was the form of His spirit, and it must needs have an appropriate covering, a suitable tabernacle. He came into the world as He had promised to come (see 3 Ne. 1:13), taking an infant tabernacle and developing it gradually to the fulness of His spirit stature. He came as man had been coming for ages and as man has continued to come ever since. Jesus, however, as shown, was the Only Begotten of God in the flesh.
Adam, our first progenitor, “the first man,” was, like Christ, a preexistent spirit, and like Christ he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a “living soul.” The doctrine of the preexistence—revealed so plainly, particularly in latter days—pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man’s origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality. It teaches that all men existed in the spirit before any man existed in the flesh and that all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner.
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. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: 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.
Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race—God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist coeternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporally—“that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.” He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant, but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its “distinct order or sphere,” and will enjoy “eternal felicity.” That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (see D&C 77:3).
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.
Joseph F. Smith
John R. Winder
Anthon H. Lund
First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
November 1909
Full Text of the 1925 First Presidency Statement on Evolution
A condensed and public-facing restatement of the Church’s position, released during the national spotlight on evolution. Though briefer, it continued to avoid declaring evolution incompatible with Church doctrine.
“MORMON” VIEW OF EVOLUTION
A Statement by the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
“God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
In these plain and pointed words the inspired author of the book of Genesis made known to the world the truth concerning the origin of the human family. Moses, the prophet-historian, who was “learned” we are told, “in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,” when making this important announcement, was not voicing a mere opinion. He was speaking as the mouthpiece of God, and his solemn declaration was for all time and for all people. No subsequent revelator of the truth has contradicted the great leader and law-giver of Israel. All who have since spoken by divine authority upon this theme have confirmed his simple and sublime proclamation. Nor could it be otherwise. Truth has but one source, and all revelations from heaven are harmonious one with the other.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is “the express image” of his Father’s person (Hebrews 1:3). He walked the earth as a human being, as a perfect man, and said, in answer to a question put to him: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). This alone ought to solve the problem to the satisfaction of every thoughtful, reverent mind. It was in this form that the Father and the Son, as two distinct personages, appeared to Joseph Smith, when, as a boy of fourteen years, he received his first vision.
The Father of Jesus Christ is our Father also. Jesus himself taught this truth, when he instructed his disciples how to pray: “Our Father which art in heaven,” etc. Jesus, however, is the first born among all the sons of God-the first begotten in the spirit, and the only begotten in the flesh. He is our elder brother, and we, like him, are in the image of God. All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother; and are literally sons and daughters of Deity.
Adam, our great progenitor, “the first man,” was, like Christ, a pre-existent spirit, and, like Christ, he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a “living soul.” The doctrine of pre-existence pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man’s origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal; mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. By his Almighty power God organized the earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist co-eternally with himself.
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 that undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.
Heber J. Grant
Anthony W. Ivins
Charles W. Nibley
First Presidency
Footnotes
- See my commentary in the Salt Lake Tribune, “Commentary: On Evolution and Other Questions, the LDS Church Says, Research and Revelation Can Be Partners in Quest for Truth.”
- See e.g. David Frank Holland, “The Triangle and the Sovereign: Logics, History, and an Open Canon” and Brian Birch, “Beyond the Canon: Authoritative Discourse in Comparative Perspective,” in Blaire G. Van Dyke, Brian D. Birch, and Boyd J. Peterson, eds. The Expanded Canon: Perspectives on Mormonism and Sacred Texts (Kofford Press, 2018.
