← Church History Matters
Church History Matters
190 - Do Church Leaders Support Scripture or Science? | Church History Matters I Science & Religion Series
01:23:58
Loading summary
Transcript109 lines
- [00:00]
A
There's still an institute manual that contains some statements that strongly condemn the theory of evolution.
- [00:06]
B
This is where we get to the main course.
- [00:08]
A
The professors teaching evolution and higher criticism of the Bible were asked to resign from the school.
- [00:15]
B
Some people see evolution as a contradiction.
- [00:18]
A
It sounds like there were monkeys that were put on trial.
- [00:21]
B
That means we can end the podcast and go home.
- [00:23]
A
Revelation leaves some very big question marks.
- [00:26]
B
To connect mankind with monkey kind is like a blind man hunting through a haystack for a needle that is not there.
- [00:33]
A
Our position on evolution has evolved. Casey, hello.
- [00:40]
B
Hello, Scott. How are you doing?
- [00:41]
A
Things are great. Just a little couple end of the year procedures. Just getting some touch ups. So things are good. Thanks for asking.
- [00:50]
B
I'm glad you're okay. Your arm was in a sling last week.
- [00:54]
A
I know, man.
- [00:56]
B
Now you've got bandages. So I just hope that you're doing all right because we need you to. We need you to guide us through this, this complicated subject that we're going to talk about today.
- [01:08]
A
Well, I don't know that you need me much, but I'm very excited to dig in with you, Kasey. This will be fun. The topic we get to talk about today is super exciting and honestly, going through the outline, it made me forget my, my pains and woes. Casey, that's. That's how good this outline is. That's how good. I mean, that's how excited I am for this episode.
- [01:25]
B
Fun, fun stuff. So let's set the table and then we want to just get straight into it. So this is us continuing our series on science and religion and today is kind of the day we have been anticipating because we get to get into some of the specifics about the back and forth on science and religion that have happened within the Church of Jesus Christ in our church. So the, this is church history matters. But I feel like the last couple episodes we've sort of been doing theology and cosmology and a little history in the last one, but this is where we get to the main course, I guess. So just real quick. In our previous episodes, we started out by showing that the theology of Latter Day Saints is actually pretty friendly towards scientific inquiry. Early church leaders like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff encouraged a broad range of knowledge to be gained in the church. They encouraged education and they didn't really see any serious conflicts between science and religion. In fact, the revelations given to Joseph Smith always encouraged learning, with one revelation specifically telling the saints to seek ye out of the best books, words of wisdom, seek learning even by Study and also by faith. That is verse 118 of the 88th section of the Doctrine and Covenants.
- [02:44]
A
That's like the theme verse of our whole podcast ever. Like, we love that verse so much, we think it encourages the kind of good thinking that we were such big fans of. So we don't always. We don't always measure up to that, but we try, Casey. We strive. We are strivers. So, you know, and we also talked about how a number of scientists in our church do a good job reconciling science and religion by talking about different epistemologies. Right? We had Dr. Jamie Jensen on the show. She talked about different epistemologies or different ways of knowing things. Right? Epistemology is what you know and how you know it. And science has a particular way of coming to know certain types of things. It's. It's really well equipped to do that, but it's not equipped at all to do certain other kinds of things, like understanding why things even bother to exist or morality, that kind of stuff. Philosophy and religion are much better tools to understand that kind of knowledge, Right. To come to those kinds of conclusions. And so we've watched some pretty skilled thinkers, and we're going to have another one on the show here in a couple episodes, who talk like this, right? They talk about epistemologies and making sure you have the right tool for the right job. And it's when you mix the tools up that you get weird results. And so we don't want to do that. Right? We talked about how scripture and science are both talking about truth. They're just not talking about the same truth at the same time. Right? Science deals with the what, the when, the how, whereas religion and philosophy are getting at the why and even maybe behind all of that, the who, right? As we talk about God. So when we talk about scripture, right? Which is a fantastic source of truth, we are big fans, but we need to make sure we understand what scripture actually is. Right? And what scripture was written to do.
- [04:43]
B
We also talked about scripture and how it can have different genres and purposes to it. And scripture becomes more meaningful when we know how it was written and also what it was meant to do. And to summarize this, we introduced a long sentence that I wish we had a shorter version, but we're still workshopping it. And so far, here's what we have. So we've repeated this in several episodes. Scripture texts are the result of a human divine collaboration written by ancient authors, embedded in their own cultures, and crafted by those authors primarily for the purpose of doing theology, not science.
- [05:21]
A
I think that's a good sentence.
- [05:23]
B
It's a good sentence. It's a little long. It won't fit on a T shirt. But you know what, it works the way that it is stuff.
- [05:29]
A
But, but that is. That is exactly what we believe about scripture. And I don't know how to say it any different or any shorter than that, but that. There doesn't actually seem to be much conflict between science and religion when you understand them as two different approaches to truth. Right. When we understand what they're both meant to do and what. What. What they're very well tooled to do and what they're not well tooled to do. Like the, the conflicts almost evaporate. Right. At the same time. At the same time. There have been some serious and intense discussions in our church's history over this very subject. It hasn't always been clear where to draw the lines and which tool is meant to do what. And it seems like the most divisive issue on the spectrum of conflict between science and religion has been the acceptance or rejection of the theory of evolution.
- [06:26]
B
Yes, yes. There are still sharp arguments in the church about this today. Some people see evolution as a contradiction of the scriptures, while others can reconcile evolution as possibly the way God created our bodies. And a lot of the arguments can be found in how evolution is defined. If it's defined as a random series of events that led to the present state of mankind, we do reject that. We believe that God guides all natural processes, including evolution, to achieve his aims. If you believe that evolution means we aren't children of God, we reject that too. Evolution may have been the method God used to create our physical bodies, but we believe that each person is a beloved son or daughter of heavenly parents. I'm quoting the family proclamation there.
- [07:14]
A
And last time, it was fun to kind of explore, like, how doctrinally solid is a belief in or a rejection of evolution when it comes to what the scriptures have to say, when it comes to what our church leaders have to say, and when it comes to what, like, unified statements of, like collective statements of the First Presidency in 12 have to say, what published curriculum in the church has to say. And Casey, do you want to summarize our conclusions from last episode on that?
- [07:43]
B
Yeah, yeah. Real, real quick because you can go back and listen to that episode. But first, the scriptures don't seem to be absolutely clear on evolution. One of the things that makes us unique is Latter Day Saints have access to four different accounts of the creation. The one in Genesis, the one in Moses, the one in the book of Abraham, and the one given in the temple endowment ceremony. And most of them speak in general terms that seem to be most concerned with presenting the whys of creation and not the hows necessarily. And it seems like for Latter Day Saints, these multiple accounts have, have led to a lot of mental flexibility on questions like the age of the earth or how long creation took and so on and so forth.
- [08:23]
A
It was interesting as we reviewed some of those last time, like oftentimes it will say God said for the earth to bring forth X, Y or Z, and it was done. And it was so like, it's completely mechanismless. Right. Scripture talks about no mechanism of creation, but clearly that God was in charge. And so that's, that's a really important sticking point for Latter Day Saints. As long as God's in charge, we're super flexible when it comes to the mechanism. Right. Let's, let's see where the, what the evidence says, where, where the evidence takes us. And a lot, a lot of the biggest questions, sort of like pushing back against evolution, scripturally speaking, seem to come in our church from reading of the Book of Mormon, particularly second Nephi, chapter two, verse 22. Honestly, it's like that verse which suggests that there was no death before the fall of Adam and Eve. But you introduced a great quote from Elder Holland that said, maybe as that pertains to Adam and Eve, we believe that, but he kind of takes it right down to humans, not all creation. But anyway, there's lots of different ways to deal with second Nephi 2. 22. We tried a couple options out last episode. The other sticking point scripturally seems to be DNC 7, verses 6 and 7, which seems suggestive that there's only been a few thousand years since the fall, maybe like 6,000 years since the fall. And there are arguments that people make quoting that scripture to suggest a young earth. Right. But again, we explored other options and ways to interpret that and why that might not be the best way to interpret that verse that way. And so there are even unique Latter Day Saint scriptures that are sometimes marshaled into service to try to push against evolution. But we don't think those are the best way to read those verses.
- [10:15]
B
Yeah, when we reviewed statements made by church leaders, most of the church leaders when they discussed evolution, centered them around issues raised by the scriptures, but not things that are common among other Christians, like the days of creation. And we also found there have been some church leaders who were very anti evolution and others who were pro evolution that there wasn't really a strong consensus. In fact, the closer we got to the current day, Recent statements from church leaders have tended to become more neutral in tone on the subject. And we'll be covering a lot of that in today's episode. There were also official statements made by the First Presidency, one in 1909 and in 1925 that took the position that men and women are children of heavenly parents, but stopped short of an outright condemnation of evolution.
- [11:09]
A
And when it comes to doing doctrine, we've pointed this out in previous series, but whenever there's statements that are opposing each other made by members of the twelve apostles, like one apostle holds one opinion very strongly and another one holds the opposite opinion, that's a pretty good sign that there's no official doctrine in the church about that, which makes for some fun reading and speculating, but that's a pretty telltale sign. And then the last thing we looked at was current correlated publications of the church, where we still find a little bit of conflict. Like, there's still an institute manual published by the church back in 1980, 1981, and then republished again in 2003, an Old Testament manual that still contains some statements that strongly condemn the theory of evolution. And at the same time, we have a statement published in the new era in 2016 that states that the church has no position on evolution. It was even recently republished again in an official church essay on evolution that's in the Gospel library. It's probably worth reading that statement again in full because it actually has some really interesting nuances.
- [12:18]
B
Yeah. So here's the statement again. All of these, the institute manual, the new era, and the church history topics essay are in current gospel library. So we're saying when were they published? They're right there, right now. But this statement, which was published first in the new era in 2016, has been recently put into Gospel topics essay on on evolution. And this is the statement in full, which again, we read last time, but it's worth reading again. The church has no official position on the theory of evolution. That it says organic evolution or changes to species inherited traits over time is a matter for scientific study. Nothing has been revealed concerning evolution, Though the details of what happened on earth before Adam and Eve, including how their bodies were created, has not been revealed. And our teachings regarding man's origin are clear and come from revelation. Before we were born on earth, we were spirit children of heavenly parents with bodies in their image. God directed the creation of Adam and Eve and placed their spirits in their bodies. We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, our first parents, who were created in God's image. There were no spirit children of Heavenly Father on the earth before Adam and Eve were created. In addition, for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor nor future family. They fell from that state. And this fall was an essential part of Heavenly Father's plan for us to become like him. And that last part that talks about them being in a paradisiacal state is a direct quote from a talk that Elder President Jeffrey R. Holland gave in 2015. And so that's them bringing together. You can see little bits of the first presidency statements here. You can see little bits of Elder Holland's talk. There's a lot of things coming together in this particular statement. So that's kind of where we are right now. The church seems to have no position on the theory of evolution. So, Scott, that means we can end the podcast and go home, right?
- [14:15]
A
There we go. You and everybody listening knows that we don't have it in us to do that. Casey, we got to tell the story. We got to tell the story of how we got there because our position on evolution has evolved.
- [14:32]
B
Yes. Wow. I saw what you did there.
- [14:34]
A
Did you see what I just did there? Did you see what I just.
- [14:36]
B
Okay, you are seen, my friend.
- [14:38]
A
I say position on, but they're actually, I think, more correctly, we have never had an official statement for or against evolution, but there have been some strong personalities that have had some very strong feelings on this throughout our church's history. And so today we want to explore how something that isn't as clear cut in the scriptures either way on evolution could undergo its own process of change and development in the church. Okay, so part of the reason to understand this is because this hasn't just been a controversy for Latter Day Saints. This has been a conflict for a lot of Christian churches. And so we know we're actually in good company as we tell this story. Some of our history overlaps with them. And then in some areas, we kind of have our own fun history too, to boot.
- [15:29]
B
We've stressed again and again, context is king, and the church didn't develop in a vacuum. So actually, you know, the biggest event linked to this whole debate over science and religion, sort of the trial of the century, actually didn't involve Latter Day Saints directly, but it does capture the tone of the arguments. And I'm referring to the Scopes in Quotations monkey trial that took place in Dayton, Tennessee during the summer of 1925. And this is actually direct context for. For one of the first presidency statements that were made. But let me just. Indulge me for a second here, Scott, please. So the Scopes monkey trial fascinates me and has for.
- [16:09]
A
I just have to say it sounds like there were monkeys that were put on trial, Casey, but I know that's not right. What is the Scopes monkey trial and why are you so interested in this?
- [16:21]
B
So it was less of a trial and more of like a publicity event, like a huge event that highlighted both sides in the debates on. On evolution. So it started in Dayton, Tennessee, where a high school teacher named John T. Scopes was charged with violating a state law that banned the teaching of evolution in public schools. And it turned kind of this small town courtroom into a national stage for America's culture war between modern science and religious traditionalism. So on both sides, on one side there's backed by the aclu, a celebrity lawyer, like probably the most famous agnostic in America named Clarence Darrow, who was defending John Scopes. And on the other side was William Jennings Bryan, this really famous politician. He ran for president several times. He was the Secretary of State and he volunteers to defend the state. So Darrow is kind of like on the side of evolution and Brian is on the side of anti evolution. And it turns into a huge media spectacle. In fact, much more of a media spectacle than a legal proceeding. Now, spoiler alert. Scopes lost the trial, but he was fined the minimum, $100, which actually was later overturned on a technicality. The trial's significance was actually way more in what it symbolized than what it actually did legally. It symbolized the tension between faith and education and scientific authority in a society that was modernizing. The trial's lasting significance lay less in the verdict and more how it symbolized the tension between faith, education and scientific authority in a rapidly modernizing society. Proving that sometimes, Scott, lacking the real monkey business happens outside the cage. So it's huge. It's huge.
- [18:23]
A
The real monkey business happens outside the cage.
- [18:27]
B
Yeah, that's my story and I'm sticking with it.
- [18:29]
A
And like you mentioned, like, the trial was more of a media circus than it was an actual trial. It was, it was, it was. We would say it today, it was for the clicks. Right. Even though they didn't have clicks back then. But it was, it was really interesting. It was on the radio. People love this. They ate it up. But here's the funny part. Like John T. Scopes, he. He wasn't even a biology teacher at the Local high school. He was the general science teacher. He's. He's a part time football coach. Right. And he only agreed to the trial because the ACLU asked him to test the Tennessee law banning the teaching of evolution in school. So you have like, in the one corner you have Clarence Darrow, who's this like famous agnostic, and in the other corner, William Jennings Bryan, a crusader against evolution. Right. So that the trial produced several memorable exchanges between these two men as they verbally dueled it out.
- [19:21]
B
Yeah, yeah. This was courtroom theater at its finest with, with Darrow, who's kind of playing this cool skeptic, and Brian stepping into the role of the reluctant theologian. In fact, for the closing arguments of the trial, there were so many people that the judge had to move the, the trial out onto the lawn of the courthouse. And there were 3,000 spectators, which is actually more people than lived in Dayton at the time the trial took place. The climax, which takes place on July 20, 1925. That's the other thing is it is like really hot and humid. And Darrow calls William Jennings Bryan to the stand to defend his, his biblical literalism. And then Darrow, who is a very good attorney, just kind of takes the guy apart, like one by one, dismantles it. So here's some of the more famous excerpts. So he challenges him on biblical, Biblical literalism. Darrow tells Brian, do you think the earth was made in six days? And Brian says, not six days of 24 hours. And then Darrow says, do you think it was made in six periods of time? And Brian says, I do. And this is kind of like the first. Brian had publicly conceded that he was using at least one non literal reading of Genesis. Then Darrow goes after the age of the earth. He says, how old is the earth? Brian says, I don't think about it. Darrow says, you have no idea. And Brian says, no. And there's like gasp from the audience because Brian is saying that he doesn't interpret at least the creation story in Genesis literally. Then they move on to other things like Joshua holding the sun in place and Jonah and the whale. Darrow asks Brian, do you believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale? Brian says, I believe it. And Darrow said, do you believe that the whale swallowed Jonah or Jonah swallowed the whale? And Brian gets kind of angry and says, I believe Jonah was swallowed by the whale. And Darrow's just kind of using like dry humor to disassemble him. But then we get into some, some major things. Darrow says, is it not possible that all these stories could have been written as allegories. Brian said, it is possible, which was a small sentence with huge implications. And then, like, by the time they're done, the two men are literally shaking their fists at each other. And Brian, like, points at Darrow and says, I am simply trying to protect the word of God against the greatest atheist or agnostic in the United States. And Darrow says, I am examining you on your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes. So that's it. Science and religion, like one of the other lawyers in the trial literally stood up and said, this doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Has to do with science and religion. And then he said, I want to declare that I'm on the side of religion. So this exchange abruptly ends. Right after this exchange, the judge adjourns the court. But by then, the damage or enlightenment, depending on your perspective, was done. The trial technically was about evolution, but Darrow's questioning put biblical interpretation under a national microscope, and America could not look away. And by the way, one more thing that made this dramatic was five days after the trial ended, William Jennings Bryant dies of a heart attack. And so one side kind of holds him up as like a martyr on behalf of religion, and the other side sort of like hoist Darrow up as like a skeptic that took apart biblical literalism. And both sides sort of claim victory. In fact, it's been over 100 years and it's still debated as to like, well, the anti evolution forces technically won the trial, but who won the intellectual moral victory? This was sensational news kind of all over the country. And we're part of this, too. Latter day saints were listening in and engaging and seeing these headlines pop up in their newspapers while it's going on.
- [23:12]
A
Yeah. So was this a conflict between science and religion or between those who believed in evolution and those who didn't? Like, after all, there were Christians and non Christians on both sides. Right. In a lot of ways, the conflict seems to be between fellow Christians, and it seems to be centered on biblical interpretation, something we've talked about in previous episodes. Right. Instead of framing it as between believers and non believers, it actually might be better if we framed it using terms that most historians use today. They call it fundamentalists versus modernists. All right, so let me explain those terms because I think this is really helpful. So in early 20th century American Christianity, fundamentalists. This is like a technical term that they started using, were those who insisted on defending what they saw as the non negotiable fundamentals of the faith, especially things like the divine inspiration and factual accuracy of the Bible, traditional doctrines like the virgin birth and bodily resurrection. Fundamentalists also had a very strong resistance to Darwinian evolution and higher biblical criticism, which basically is this. It provided a scientific historical framework for understanding the Bible like any other ancient document. Like. The reason this more academic approach was, and sometimes still is resisted by fundamentalists is because it can reveal the human side of the divine text. Right? We talked about Casey, in our little sentence. We believe the Scripture is a human and divine collaboration. But when. When the light is shined on the human side, sometimes that makes the fundamentalist crowd squeamish, antsy. They don't like it. It also, sometimes this historical biblical criticism approach will challenge traditional claims about composition and authorship. Maybe it's more complicated than we thought. For instance, like maybe Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and numbers and Deuteronomy were not all just written by Moses. Right. And in extreme cases like this can be used to argue against any divine inspiration within the text at all. And so that's the fear that this is just going to dismantle the faith. In contrast, there's this group called the modernists, Right? The modernists believe that Christianity could and should, by the way, adapt to modern knowledge and modern scholarship. They should embrace scientific discoveries. They should embrace historical academic approaches that shine greater light on Scripture. And so they favor a more flexible theology over doctrinal rigidity and dogmatism. Right? So there's the tension, right? Fundamentalists worry that using rigorous academic tools to understand ancient scripture would hollow out the faith, while modernists worried that refusing to use those tools would. And not even considering the new perspectives that they opened up would make Christianity intellectually irrelevant. And so you have two groups staring at the same future and drawing very different conclusions.
- [26:25]
B
Yeah. So that leads us to the burning question of today's episode, which is how did this fundamentalist modernist controversy play out in our church? So that's the big question we're tackling. And the truth is, we are weird. Latter Day Saints are.
- [26:44]
A
Speech for yourself. Okay, Casey? Geez.
- [26:46]
B
Well, we. I guess the best way to say it is we kind of march to the beat of our own drummer. We do our own thing. Some of the stuff we do upsets fundamentalists. Some of the stuff we do upsets modernists. We don't fit easily into either camp. The most famous conflict between fundamentalists and modernists had to do with the perceived conflict between evolution and the Scriptures. And in our church, there were strong personalities on both sides of that discussion. As well, so there is a modernist fundamentalist conflict in our church, but it mostly has to do with evolution and how those things work. So at varying times throughout the 20th century, one side or the other seemed to kind of have the upper hand. And I should mention, Scott, that a lot of the credit for the stories we're about to start telling come from Ben Spackman, who wrote a really good dissertation on this. And we also want to mention that Ben. Ben is a classy guy, and he noted in his dissertation. This is a direct quote from his dissertation. He said, I have attempted to follow the principle of historiographical charity attributed to Grant Wacker to praise whenever possible and do not criticize beyond what's necessary to tell the truth. So we are talking about some beloved church leaders here that you and I have quoted with great frequency on this podcast. And we're not saying any of these are bad people or that there were good guys or bad guys in this conflict, but there are strong opinions on both sides. And again, we're just trying to tell the story and not make judgments about a person's character or motive or anything like that. But this is such an interesting story about good, faithful people who genuinely had differences of opinion and how they kind of worked through those differences as we go. So with that, let's get to it.
- [28:38]
A
We can't cover every aspect of the controversy, but let's actually look at some of the key documents that were brought up in our last episode, beginning with the 1909 First Presidency Statement on the origin of man. Last time we reviewed the text, and we were both a little surprised at how it approaches evolution. Casey, for instance, most of the document is concerned with answering the claim made by some advocates of evolution that we are simply animals evolved into a higher state. And the keyword is on simply, are we simply animals that have evolved into a higher state? The 1909 statement unequivocally stated that 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 eons of. Wait for the word evolving into a God. Close quote is so interesting.
- [29:44]
B
Yeah, so. So one of the most interesting passages, I think the one that we. We sort of both went, oh, when we were reading it through last time is this one. It declares that, quote, all men were created in the beginning after the image of God. And 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. So we both kind of went when they said that, because it seems to leave open a little bit of, well, could the body have possibly been created through evolutionary process? As long as we accept that we're spirit children of God, are we okay with that?
- [30:21]
A
And as interesting and insightful as that statement is, what we didn't talk about last time was the juicy, like, drafts that went into the creation of this. And I think we should tell that story because that's so fun.
- [30:34]
B
So. So Ben Spackman did the work on this, but there's actually. There actually were several Drafts of the 1909 statement before it appeared in public. And it appears that most of the drafts were written by Apostle Orson F. Whitney, who was strongly against the theory of evolution. In fact, Whitney wrote an earlier draft that is unambiguously against the theory of evolution. Here's just an excerpt from Whitney's draft. It reads, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints holds to the doctrine of the fixity of species as against the evolution. That disregards that doctrine. Jesus came as men had been coming for ages without having an ape for an ancestor or a tadpole for a prototype. Some Christian ministers have felt impelled to make such concessions to Darwinism. The Latter Day Saint makes no such concession. This shuts out the evolutionary process completely. Therefore, there was no chance, no opening for evolution, at least of the Darwinian kind, when the original human being was created. But monkeys are the offspring of monkeys and have been from time immemorial. There is no instance where a baboon ever evolved into a human being. And science, in attempting to unearth a missing link, to connect mankind with monkey kind, is like a blind man hunting through a haystack for a needle that is not there. Unquote.
- [31:56]
A
So, wow, how do you feel about evolution, Orson F. Whitney? You're a little. You're kind of pulling your punches a little bit here. Like, how do you really feel? Oh, man. Man. Yeah. So if you've read the 1909 statement from the first presidency that actually gets published, you'll note that those statements that you just read, Casey, are nowhere to be found. In fact, from draft to publication, the word count decreases by about 25%. So there was a lot excised out of there from exactly 3,653 words to 2,714. And it's mostly taking out the most strongly worded passages against evolution. Like you Just read. Now here's what I think super cool about this. Probably the major factor in taking out those statements that the first presidency. Before they published the statement, they actually sought feedback from scientists. They invited two scientists in particular who held no significant ecclesiastical office at the time, to just look over the draft. Specifically, their names were James E. Talmadge, who had a PhD in geology, and another man named John A. Widtsoe, who held a PhD in chemistry. And he was then serving as a president of Utah State Agricultural College, which later becomes Utah State University. You may recognize those names because both men later become apostles. James E. Talmage becomes Apostle in 1911 and John A. Widtsoe in 1921. And both of them probably played a significant role in the changes from the draft version of the statement, excerpts of what you just read, Casey, to its final version, which has none of that anti evolutionary speech in it. Both men were invited to meet with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve on September 17, 1909, which was a meeting that lasted for three hours.
- [33:57]
B
Yeah. And we don't have records of what Talmage's feedback was on the document, but we do have some written notes from widow John A. Widtsoe, and we can reasonably surmise that these written notes probably capture what he said in the meeting. So Widtso basically argued that the church and science each have their own lanes and that they shouldn't try to drive each other's car. Like he's setting up these dual epistemologies that we talked a little bit earlier. From his perspective as a scientist, church leaders could make doctrinal statements, but shouldn't use church authority to settle scientific debates like evolution, which require scientific evidence and expertise. And Widtsoe also thought that the church's statement missed the mark scientifically since it didn't really engage what evolutionists actually believed, and so he was worried that it would come across as anti science. At the same time, Widtso took a cautiously positive view of evolution, seeing it as a useful scientific framework that helped expand human knowledge even if it wasn't fully proven. And in the end, he emphasized that while science disagrees and revelation hadn't clarified human evolution, the core truth remained intact, which was that an all powerful God exists and that such a God could create life in any way he chose, one creation or many, simple or complex. So again, Widtsoe's introducing that thing we've been talking about in this whole series, this dual epistemology to basically say religion is one way of approaching truth and Science is a different way, and it's sometimes not the best. If they mix together or if one overrules the other, just treat them as separate epistemologies.
- [35:39]
A
I love that the church and science each have their own lanes and they shouldn't try to drive each other's cars. Well said.
- [35:45]
B
Well said.
- [35:46]
A
And it's clear that Widsoe and Talmadge had an influence on the final outcome of the document, whatever it was. But it seems like their influence tempered the language of the statement so that it wasn't overtly anti evolution, as that initial draft clearly was. The 1909 statement shows, I think, great restraint, actually. I'm like, kind of proud of it in 1909. Like, that's a great move to listen to these scientists because they were weighing in on a scientific issue. So that was really smart. It basically just says this. This is the restraint of the document. It says, look, the scriptures don't actually settle this question. That's it. Okay, it says a lot more than that. But that's the upshot of the question of evolution, which is so good. According to the published version, neither ancient nor modern revelation clearly explains how human bodies came to be, especially when it comes to whether evolution guided by God played a role. The statement just floats. A couple possibilities could have been, A, that humans evolve through natural processes under divine direction. B, our bodies might have come from somewhere else entirely. C, we could have been born here like other living beings, whatever that means. Right? But what's interesting is what they don't include, right? There's no straightforward special creation of Adam and Eve option on the list. Now, that was a position that some people held, and they don't even mention that one. The takeaway from that 1909 statement, I think is pretty simple to. To summarize. And that is, when it comes to the physical origin of the human body, revelation leaves some very big question marks. The church therefore, does not have a final detailed answer on the how. We just don't know. What I think is so significant about this statement, again, is the restraint that it shows in 1909. It simply affirms the relationship of mankind to divinity. But it leaves open the door for the theory of evolution to be compatible with the Scriptures.
- [37:55]
B
This 1909 statement is really the beginning of the conversation on evolution in the Church. The next major event that happens happens in 1911 at BYU Brigham Young University, which we should note at the time was a relatively small school. It had about 200 students. But the 1911 conflict at Brigham Young University sort of blew up when several faculty members were accused of teaching evolution and higher biblical criticism in ways that some church leaders felt crossed doctrinal lines. And that sparked anxiety about whether BYU was drifting too far towards modernist ideas and academic approaches to Scripture. So apostles like Joseph F. Smith, who's the church president at the time, worried that students were being taught theories, especially human evolution, that seemed to undermine core beliefs about divine creation, while the professors involved generally saw themselves as faithful Latter Day Saints who were trying to teach up to date scholarship responsibly. So the situation escalated over several months of investigations, public controversy, and there was also intense pressure on the faculty that ultimately led to the dismissal and resignation of several professors. And in the end it sort of sent a different message, a clear message that BYU would prioritize doctrinal loyalty over newfangled modernist ideas, some would say over academic freedom, when the two appeared to clash. And it also set the tone for decades of careful but sometimes fraught negotiation over how and whether evolution should be taught in church sponsored education. It's kind of the first skirmish in an educational setting on evolution, but also higher biblical criticism, which was another thing that they were teaching too.
- [39:43]
A
One of the most famous stories that come from this controversy at BYU comes from actually a dream that BYU President George H. Brimhall later wrote down in a seven volume history of byu. In fact, President Boyd K. Packer, he once shared it at a BYU devotional, maybe showing his cards a little bit. Here's, let me quote President Packer. He said, quote, President Brimhall himself defended the professor. So he told the story about the evolutionary conflict. President Brimhall defended the professors. That is until some students frankly told him they had quit praying because they learned in school there was no real God to hear them. Close quote. Shortly thereafter, President Packer continues. President Brimhall had a dream. He saw several of the BYU professors standing around a peculiar machine on the campus. When one of them touched a spring, a baited fish hook attached to a long thin wire rose rapidly into the air. Casting his eyes around the sky, he President Brimhall discovered a flock of snow white birds circling among the clouds and disporting themselves in the sky, seeming very happy. Presently, one of them, seeing the bait on the hook, darted toward it and grabbed it. Instantly, one of the professors on the ground touched a spring in the machine and the bird was rapidly hauled down to the earth. On reaching the ground, the bird proved to be a BYU student clad in an ancient Greek costume and was directed to join a group of other students who had been brought down in a similar manner, Brother Brimhall walked over to them and noticing that all of them looked very sad, discouraged and downcast, he asked them, why, students, what on earth makes you so sad and downhearted? Alas, we can never fly again. They replied with a sigh and a sad shake of the head. Here's the conclusion. Their Greek philosophy had tied them to the earth. They could believe only what they could demonstrate in the laboratory. Their prayers could go no higher than the ceiling. They could see no heaven, no hereafter. Close Quote so shortly after that dream, the professors teaching evolution and higher criticism of the Bible were asked to resign from the school, which they did. So dang, Casey, this, this episode seems like a pretty good illustration of a couple church leaders and some BYU administrators being pretty fundamentalistic and anti evolutionary, doesn't it?
- [42:18]
B
Sort of. It's more complicated than that seems. And by the way, this, this episode has been used by people who are anti and pro evolution to make respective points about the church. Like some people use it to say we, we, we prioritize spiritual development over scientific reasoning. And others have used it to say, yeah, the church doesn't support academic freedom when it conflicts with their beliefs. Like it's really. You could find it cited in a book that is pro the church or anti the church. But it's also more complicated than they make it seem. BYU was, was a church school, and President Joseph S. Smith was deeply involved in the conflict. In fact, he actually authored two different articles about what had disturbed church leaders, about the teaching of the professors. And here's some of his own words. And in here you can see, like complicated things, like what is the public position of the church versus his private position? He writes this. He said the decision to leave evolution out of discussion in church schools hinged on a question of propriety and did not constitute a policy implementing a doctrinal declaration on the falsehood of evolution. Students were, in his words, these are his own words, not old enough and learned enough to discriminate or put proper limitations upon a theory which we believe is more or less a fallacy. So it's not an official position on evolution, but it seems like he's saying we think that evolution is not correct. But then he goes on and says 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. The church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world. So it kind of sounds like he's saying, I personally don't believe in evolution. But don't use this incident as an illustration that the church doesn't believe in evolution. We just think that it shouldn't be taught in our schools. The church doesn't really have a position on how the Lord created the world.
- [44:19]
A
Yeah, there's. There's so much tension, almost contradiction in that statement. He says the students 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. And then one sentence later, he says, we're not saying how much of evolution is true or how much is false. In fact, the church has no philosophy about the modus operandi, the mode of operations employed by the Lord in creating the Earth. Is that contradictory? Do we see the tension within his own soul battling back and forth there? Maybe.
- [44:57]
B
And I can see that because, I mean, there are some interpretations of evolution that we definitely oppose. Right. There are other aspects of it where we'd say, ah, the jury's out on that one. We're not really sure. So we don't want to close the door completely. And I think that's kind of where Preston Smith is coming from. He's saying big, big parts of evolution they believe are a fallacy. That's the wording he uses. You can believe in evolution and be a member of the church, but he felt it was a question of propriety, like, should it be taught at church schools? Which, again, this is right in the alley of the. Of the Scopes trial. And every discussion that's happening about evolution in America seems like by this point, the real question was, well, should this be taught in schools?
- [45:37]
A
Yeah. We talked about in our Good Thinking series was that almost two years ago now, Casey, we talked about the difference between facts and then inferences that we make about the facts. And so I see people struggling on this issue back in Joseph F. Smith's day as well as today. It's like we can clearly demonstrate that there are changes in species, Right. Like within species, and then maybe more, a little more controversial between species. But what science cannot say is, therefore, what does that mean about God? Right? So facts are. We can demonstrably see evolution in action. Inferences, some people take it or make that out to mean. Right? And we're bringing the meaning here is, therefore that proves there is no God. And others would say, therefore, that proves we now know how God did it. And it's two different inferences based on the same exact facts. And so I see President Smith talking about how, like, we don't know how much of evolution is true or how much is false. I think that's. That's true in the day that he said this. But I think especially that extra layer of, like, we don't know the implications. What would this imply other than we know this does not say there's no God. Like, if. If you want to say that evolution proves there's no God, then we are against evolution. Right. But that's not. That's all kind of. It's not all parsed out yet. It feels like at this point in time.
- [47:01]
B
Yeah, that's fair to say.
- [47:02]
A
But one of the most interesting things about this entire historical period, I think, is that while church leaders asked these teachers at BYU to resign, they also recruited and employed other scientists to write articles in church publications designed to actually help people navigate their faith in God and their belief in science. Like, notable examples of this include Martin Henderson, who was a biologist, and a guy named Frederick Pack, a paleontologist and geologist with an interest in biology. In fact, maybe we should talk about Pack's contributions as just one example here. So Frederick Pack received a Ph.D. from Columbia University back in 1906. Pack actually believes in an old Earth. This is important. That death had long existed on the earth and that he actually embraces biological evolution. Most leaders of the church were well aware of Pack and his views. In 1896, in fact, he actually married Sadie Grant, who was a niece of Apostle Heber J. Grant. The two men were close, with Pack even referring to Elder Grant as Uncle Heber. And when Pack passed away in 1938, before President Grant, Grant described him as, quote, almost a son to me. PAC had also had a long, close relationship with James E. Talmadge. He was close with Anthon H. Lund, who was a counselor in the First Presidency. And he regularly participated in Apostle George F. Richards prayer circle group. So when. When Elder Talmadge was called to the quorum of the 12 in 1911, Pack replaced him as the Deseret Chair of Geology at the University of Utah. So very well known, and his positions are very well known. Casey. And nevertheless, or therefore, I'm not sure, whichever way you want to say it, he was invited to come in and present to church leaders and to write articles.
- [48:50]
B
Yeah. In fact, in 1911, which is the same year that incident happens at BYU, the first presidency created a committee to hear PAC's views specifically. And this consists of the church Commissioner of Education, who at the time is Horace H. Cummings, Apostle Charles Penrose, APostle David O. McKay, and then James E. Talmadge and John A. Widtsoe are also invited to show on the committee. Talmadge is called this an apostle around this time, in fact, we have the invitation sent to Widtso that explained that the First Presidency felt that Pack, and this is a direct quote from that letter. Pack endeavored to show the harmony existing between the record of creation by Moses and what geology teaches. And he believes that evolution, when rightly understood, is in harmony with revelation and is studying with a view to be able to prove this. We encourage Dr. Peck to continue his study along this line of thought. So they're inviting this guy who definitely believes in evolution to sort of explore and even share his views on how you could harmonize evolution with the writings of Moses, which for us means the pearl of great price, the Book of Genesis. So the First Presidency doesn't seem like they're trying to restrain evolutionary thought in the church, as the BYU example sometimes leads people to believe. Instead, they're inviting people like Frederick Pack, who's a man of faith and science, to come present his views on how old the Earth is, that there were humanoid people. Pre Adamites is the term that's used during this time, that there was death before the fall, and also the theory of evolution, and explain his. His findings to church leaders. This makes it seem like the First Presidency was less concerned with the teaching of evolution, but more with the way that it was taught and the effect that the teaching had on a person's faith. It seems like the BYU teachers that were let go were teaching evolution and higher criticism in an aggressive way that was harmful to faith, while Pack's message did not produce the same effect. So more. Less of the what and more of the how are you teaching it?
- [50:54]
A
Yeah. And in our friend Ben Spackman's dissertation, which, again, we're pulling a lot of this material from, he summarized things this way. He said, quote, this difference between PAC and the BYU professors supports the contention that the BYU conflict was a matter of personality conflicts and confrontational attitudes, perhaps as much as conflicts over basic church doctrine. The First Presidency, in other words, while strongly concerned about the faith impact of a broad philosophy of evolution being taught to undergraduates, seemed to have supported the hard science of evolution, an old Earth, the long operativity of reproduction and death, malleability of species in a harmonizing mode from professional geologist Pack. Moreover, that harmonizing mode did not entail rejection of evolution or consensus scientific claims in any sense. And then he concludes and it seems like a major part of Pack's philosophy was that science and religion were different epistemologies. For instance, when it came to a religious critique of evolution, Pack argued that entirely different methods are employed. This is my favorite line. Theology should never pass upon the truth or falsity of scientific doctrines. It does not constitute a jury designed for that purpose. He goes on. It has for the object of its existence a far different mission. On the other hand, scientific claims must be scrutinized and passed upon by judicial tribunals composed of the world's most learned scientists. Close quote.
- [52:31]
B
Okay, so 1911. The next major incident that comes along is in 1925, and it is directly involved in all the media hoopla garnered by the Scopes Monkey Trial. It was making daily headlines because of all the publicity. And it appears that during this time, the First Presidency wanted to reiterate the Church's position on evolution. In fact, this time, they're even more direct than they are in 1909. Instead of providing.
- [52:59]
A
Let me ask a question.
- [53:00]
B
Yeah, go ahead.
- [53:01]
A
I still don't know why it's called the Monkey Trial. Why is it called the Scopes Monkey Trial?
- [53:10]
B
Like, the monkey became the symbol. Like, people were selling souvenir monkeys at the trial. And the. The reductionist way of viewing the. The Scopes Trial was basically, do we come from monkeys? Or. Or are we creations of God? So it. It's sort of like the. The. The byword that got passed on. I guess I should just be calling it the Scopes Trial. But the Scopes Monkey Trial is so much more fun to say.
- [53:37]
A
Yeah, no, I. Like. I just. Okay, so it's about the reductionist view that humans come from monkeys. Yes, got it.
- [53:43]
B
Yes. Okay. So.
- [53:44]
A
Okay. Okay. Sorry to end.
- [53:46]
B
So the Scopes Trial is taking up all the headlines, and the First Presidency appears that they want to reiterate their position on evolution. And this time, they're even more direct. This statement has a less neutral title than the 1909 statement, which is just simply labeled the Origin of Man. Instead, this statement is directly labeled Mormon View of Evolution. That's the headline it appears under. And this is way before we emphasize the proper name of the Church, but it's on evolution. We referred to this statement also in our last episode. We read part of it. Now, it wasn't created from scratch. In fact, it's practically identical to the 1909 statement. However, the word count is 80% shorter, so the 1909 statement is several pages long. We were going to read the whole thing last time. But it was too long to read. This one is about a page and a half and 80% of it has been edited and taken almost directly from the 1909. So what's interesting here.
- [54:47]
A
So how was this 1925 statement edited?
- [54:50]
B
Yeah. Okay, so we don't know everything, but we do know this. We have a copy of the 1909 statement with extensive editing marks in the papers of Heber J. Grant, who was by then the president of the church. Now, there are a few words on that paper that are not in his handwriting, but the existence in President Grant's papers strongly implies that he played a big role in crafting the 1925 statement. So if the statement is 80% shorter, the big question we've got to ask is, well, what did they cut?
- [55:25]
A
Yeah. And an analysis of the document shows that the editing primarily reveals the doctrinal intentions. The 1925 First Presidency, which was Heber J. Grant, plus Anthony W. Ivins and Charles W. Nibley. Just as the 1909 statement had taken out most of the anti evolutionary statements from Orson F. Whitney's draft, this 1925 statement takes out any residual language from that 1909 statement that could be construed to be anti evolutionary. Like the way that Ben Spackman says it in his dissertation. He says, quote, the editing is entirely subtractive in removing the strongest anti evolutionary language. The core which remains from the 1909 statement is the minimal and uncontroversial Christian position that God created man. Close quote. So we've already pointed out the 1909 statement is not anti evolutionary. It definitely keeps the door open to that. But this 1925 statement wanted to make that even clearer, that we, our position is man came from God. So wherever you want to go from there in terms of mechanism, great. But that's our position. So in fact, let me, let me read a statement from it. Quote, 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 eons of evolving into a God. You notice that same language from the 1909 statement is highlighted here in this 1925 statement. So, okay, so Casey, if this 1925 statement was issued during the height of the fundamentalist modernist controversy, what do you think? Does it show that Latter Day Saints leaned more fundamentalist or more modernist? Or is it not that simple?
- [57:30]
B
Yeah, it's not that simple. It's way more complicated. So like in most things, Latter Day Saints don't fit easily into preconceived categories. Latter Day Saints, for instance, lined up with fundamentalists in that they rejected modernists embrace of higher criticism that downplayed things like the divinity of Jesus Christ, his miracles, and even his resurrection. And at times, they also embrace the title of fundamentalist. For instance, at an April 1932 general conference, President Heber J. Grant just flat out said, I rejoice that we are fundamentalists today.
- [58:07]
A
Casey, that word seems to be thrown around a little pejoratively, would you say? Maybe it's just the circles that I run in, but fundamentalists today sounds like you're kind of rigid in your thinking and you're not really open to academic discovery. But at this time, this word is not at all pejorative. Right. Like, this is just like we are Biblicists. We. We are. We are true to what the Scriptures say is kind of what it meant in 1932 when you say something like that.
- [58:36]
B
Yeah, I think President Grant was trying to convey. And again, I don't know what was. What was his thinking behind the statement, but it seemed like during this time, fundamentalists meant we support the Scriptures, that we believe in miracles. Even in our time, when you hear fundamentalists associated with Latter Day Saints, it has to do with people that still practice plural marriage and things like that. But in the early 20th century, a fundamentalist was a whole spectrum of things. But in the common language of the time, it seems to be, I believe in miracles and in the divinity of the Scriptures. Even if the actual answer was more complex, which it was, because Latter Day Saints also sort of don't fit well with fundamentalists who generally saw the Bible as inerrant, which we don't. I mean, one of the articles of faith is we believe the Bible as far as it's translated correctly. And we've already noted that Latter Day Saints had complicated views on creation and especially on the nature of Scripture and also prophetic authority that don't really line up well with fundamentalists.
- [59:36]
A
All right, so you have this broader category of Christian fundamentalists of which Latter Day Saints tend to fit okay with. But there are some clear distinctions you're pointing out here that put us in an odd spot. So how are we considered during this time?
- [59:53]
B
I mean, the neutrality of the 1925 statement suggests that we don't follow the position of a lot of fundamentalists that were anti evolution. The other thing is, and this is so fascinating to me is that by 1925. When the science and religion controversy are kind of at their height, we have people in the Quorum of the twelve like James E. Talmadge, who by then had been there for 14 years, and John A. Widtsoe, who had been called in the quorum of the 12 in 1921. And it's interesting because these apostles who are scientists, so most people would place them in the modernist camp, are serving alongside people that are fundamentalists, like Joseph Fielding Smith. Joseph Fielding Smith is very fundamentalist, believes in the scriptures first and science second, whereas men like Talmadge and Widtsoe were kind of like seeing that dual epistemology that we talked about, like, science is for one thing and religion is for another thing. Yeah.
- [60:48]
A
This actually leads us to the last skirmish over evolution that we're going to cover in this episode, which is one of my favorites, actually. It's a series of discussions that involved three prominent church leaders. B.H. roberts, who's a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, along with Joseph Fielding Smith and James E. Talmadge, who are both members of the quorum of the 12. Now, B.H. roberts was one of the most formidable intellectuals in Latter Day Saint history. He's a theologian, historian. He's an unapologetic thinker who was willing to challenge every assumption. And he believed that faith should be strong enough to face hard questions head on. I love his spunk. He's so fun to read, actually.
- [61:37]
B
Yeah. He's one of the best writers we've ever produced.
- [61:39]
A
Yeah. Yeah. He helps professionalize LDS history through his multi volume Comprehensive History of the Church series. He brought philosophical rigor to Mormon theology, and he fearlessly engaged modern scholarship, especially evolution, biblical criticism, and comparative religion. And Roberts argues that revelation and reason are allies, not enemies. And he pushes the church to grapple honestly with scientific and historical challenges rather than dodge them. He believed something that we believe on this podcast, Casey, that the best way to really deal with complexity and controversy is just to go right into the heart of it, rather than try to avoid it or explain it away in simple, you know, one liners. Right. Now, even when his ideas made church leaders uncomfortable, which happened a lot, his work modeled an ambitious vision of Mormonism as an intellectually serious religion, an intellectually robust religion, one that could actually stand in conversation with modern thinking without losing its soul. Right. And so the Roberts, Smith Talmage debate takes place during 1930-1931 over Roberts's desire to publish what he considered to be his magnum opus. It's an epic treatise on church Theology that he entitled the Way, the Truth and the Life. But that's at the heart of the controversy. The year is 1930. 1931. What happens next case?
- [63:19]
B
Yeah. So let's fill out the other sides of the triangle. Who are Joseph Fielding Smith and James E. Talmadge, who hold widely varying views but are serving alongside each other in the quorum of the 12. So Joseph Fielding Smith is a scriptural fundamentalist. His reading of Scripture caused him to reject evolution on the basis of Scripture. So he's saying basically that evolution was false. And his main position seems to come from his belief that there was no death before the fall. That's two Nephi 2:22 controversy that we talked about. There's no death before the fall, therefore evolution is just not possible. And James E. Talmadge holds views that are also pretty orthodox, but more in line with the mainstream of American intellectuals and the general consensus among scientists. So he didn't affirm every aspect of evolution, but he did support an old Earth and the long existence of death. That death had been around for a long time among plants, animals and human like beings, which the term used in these discussions was pre Adamites. So were there human like beings before Adam and Eve, Neanderthals, CRO Magnons, so on and so forth. So the debate started when, when B.H. roberts takes his manuscript for the Way of the Truth and the Life and he submits it to the church reading committee. And several members of the committee had problems with how Roberts works to harmonize science and religion, especially what he teaches about pre Adamites and death before the Fall. So we're referring back to Ben Spackman, but Ben Spackman writes Roberts remained highly skeptical of human evolution, but thought the evidence indisputable for an old Earth and the death and extinction of humanoids and other animals. He favored something loosely akin to a Latter Day Saint version of the so called gap reading of Genesis. So just basically saying there's gaps in the record in Genesis that aren't covered because it wasn't built specifically for that purpose.
- [65:19]
A
Yeah. And then around this same time, Joseph Fielding Smith gives a public address to a church sponsored genealogical society that seems to take issue with several of the claims in Roberts's book. So Joseph Fielding Smith basically brushes off human scholarship and science beside the point, he says, leaning instead on Scripture as what he called the final authority, even when making claims about history or nature or science. Right. So he, he does not share that view that there are two lanes, two epistemologies. He's kind of a conflationist that just like when Scripture speaks on it, then that's the final word, not, not science. Right. So on the question of Mosaic authorship, for instance, and higher criticism of the books of like Genesis through Deuteronomy, he's very blunt. He says, if we accept the revelations which have come through the prophet Joseph Smith, we know that the teachings of the modern scholars in this regard are not true. He took the view that Scripture gives a God's eye account of natural history, which led him to reject ideas like pre Adamites just outright. He said, for instance, quote, there is no warrant in the Scriptures for it, not an authentic word to sustain it. Close quote. For Smith, death simply didn't exist before Adam's fall. And he waves off paleontology with quote, I do not care what the scientists say in regard to dinosaurs and other creatures upon the earth millions of years ago that lived and died and fought and struggled for existence because that doesn't square with Genesis. He said that called creation good. And while he often insisted that the Creation day meant a thousand years, he was in these debates actually willing to loosen things up a little bit and allow Genesis days to be long, undefined stretches of time. But he was. He's digging in with some pretty fundamentalist readings of Scripture against B H Roberts.
- [67:23]
B
Yeah, yeah. And both Joseph fielding Smith and B.H. roberts make presentations to the first presidency in January 1931 that express their views. The first presidency in turn reach out to James E. Talmadge because he has some expertise in the matter. In fact, Talmadge records in his journal on January 14, 1931, he wrote about, quote, a somewhat extended conference with Presidents Heber J. Grant and Anthony W. Ivins on the question of the antiquity of man. These brethren having invited me to give my opinion on certain points, and we don't have any more information than that from talmadge. But in April 1931, the First Presidency held a four hour meeting to announce that B.H. roberts book would not be published by the Church. But the First Presidency also gave Talmadge time in the meeting to, to refute some of the views that were held by Joseph Fielding Smith. Specifically that there was no death before the fall of Adam. And by the way, B.H. roberts book was eventually published in 1994 by BYU studies. I've got a copy of it over on my, on the shelf behind me. It's, it's fascinating stuff, but look at it as kind of a historical artifact of the time. But, but okay, so, so it's not really a victory for either. They're not going to publish Robert's book, but they asked Talmadge to refute some of the views expressed by Joseph Fielding Smith.
- [68:46]
A
And I remember one of those refutations. I've read through this, not recently, but one thing that stood out to me, I remember he asked Joseph Fielding Smith, he said, did not some of the early brethren in the church find an altar in Adam on Diamond that they believed was the altar of Adam, the very altar that Adam offered sacrifice on? And Joseph Fielding Smith said, I believe so, yes. And he said, I've been to Adam on Diamond and I have examined that altar. And in that altar I found fossiliferous rock. There was rock with fossils in it. So if you try to tell me there was no death before the fall of Adam, then how could there be fossils in the rocks used to build the altar that he offered sacrifice on? And Joseph Hilling Smith did not have any response to that.
- [69:35]
B
But that is such an awesome Latter Day Saint argument. Like two apostles arguing over the rocks in Adam that Adam used to build the altar. Like, I don't even. I don't even know how to process that. Like, that's amazing.
- [69:51]
A
There's so many layers. There's so many layers.
- [69:53]
B
Okay, but. But probably the most important thing that came out of this meeting, which was behind Closed Doors, was a memoir that was sent to all general authorities from the First Presidency. And it reads in part upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church. We are all agreed our mission is to bear message of the restored gospel to the people of the world. Leave geology, biology, archeology 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. So that's huge, right? And that's a big deal. That should probably go alongside the 1909 and 1925 statements when we're defining the Church's position on evolution.
- [70:40]
A
Yeah, that statement is a huge deal. Right? Like the First Presidency is basically saying, after, I think, patiently listening to arguments on both sides, they're now saying, okay, thank you for your words. But geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology have no effect on our salvation. We are focused on preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Let's get back on mission. This has been really interesting, right? Really interesting. But let's get back on the mission of salvation. And also it seems like they're trying institutionally to maybe create that concept of the dual epistemologies we've been talking about, at least to try to make that clear. There are two lanes here. They're both interesting, but one leads to salvation, the other one to understanding our world and maybe our origins better, but it's not salvific. Right. And so we need to kind of think about those in two different ways. They're two different tools to answer two different questions. Let's get back to the business of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By the way, while the First Presidency was not directly addressing the specific issues raised by B.H. roberts or Joseph Fielding Smith, it does seem like they were saying something about the fundamentalist framing of Scripture. I think that's a nice subtle subtext here. Right. The First Presidency is directly drawing lines between science and religion. And the directive to leave questions of science to scientific research implied what we've been trying to say the last couple episodes, that the Scriptures were not written to answer those questions. They are not the best sources. They're not even good sources to derive scientific truths from. Right. Instead, they are fantastic sources to derive salvational truths, theological truth, truths about the nature of God, our purpose for being here, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And so I think the statement is significant and starting to draw some lines there. And maybe it is a gentle critique of Joseph Fielding Smith's reading of Scripture.
- [72:50]
B
Yeah, I mean, James E. Talmadge specifically took this to mean that the First Presidency was at least neutral on the question of pre Adamites and death before the Fall. In fact, here's what he wrote in his journal the day that the meeting took place. He wrote, 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. The decision reached by the First Presidency and announced to this morning's assembly was an answer to a specific question that obviously the doctrine of 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 pre Adamite races and. And that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church. So the Church isn't taking a position on no death before the Fall or pre Adamites. They're saying, we don't have a position on either one of these things. They're neutral. And at the same time, John A. Widtsoe, who's kind of been, you know, Talmadge's wingman during all this, by the.
- [74:00]
A
Way, that journal entry from Talmage the next line, if I remember right, says, I thought that was a wise position to take.
- [74:07]
B
Yeah. And John A. Widtsoe, who seems to be the other scientist that they generally consulted on this, he's in Europe serving as mission president during this time. And when he got the First Presidency memo, he writes a letter home to his mother in law, who's Susie Young Gates. He wrote the First Presidency had ruled the matter and that was the end of the controversy as far as I was concerned. So both Talmadge and Widtsoe seem to be in sync, basically saying, okay, they're saying we don't have a position. That's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.
- [74:36]
A
Yeah. And James E. Talmadge does go on to actually express some concern over Joseph Fielding Smith's approach. He felt like it might discourage young Latter Day Saints from entering scientific fields, which worried him as someone who came from a scientific field. Here's what he wrote in his journal. Quote, Many of our students have inferred from Elder Smith's address, I think it's that genealogical address that he gave, that the church refuses to recognize the findings of science. If there be a word of scriptural record in our interpretation of which we find even a seeming conflict with scientific discoveries or deductions, and that therefore the policy of the church is in effect opposed to scientific research. That concerned Elder Talmage greatly.
- [75:24]
B
Yeah. And again, most of these discussions take place in private, but it seems like church leaders may have felt a need to counterbalance Joseph Fielding Smith's statements, which were made in a public address. So on. On August 9, 1931, James E. Talmadge gave a public address in the Salt Lake Tabernacle entitled Earth and Man. In the address, Talmage remarked that God had given mankind two true books, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. And he also remarked that it was possible for humans to interpret either book poorly. And when it came to the theory of evolution, Talmadge does not outright endorse it. But he also leaves the door open in Earth and Man. Here's what he argues. He says, in speaking of the origin of man, we generally have reference to the creation of man's body. And one of the greatest and gravest errors is that of mistaking the body for the man. The body is no more truly the man himself than than is the coat the body. And in another lecture he argued, the body is not the man. It were as wise to call the coat the man. Man is dual. So this seems to have echoed his private views Too. Six years prior to this public lecture he wrote in his journal, I can see no reason why the evolution of animal bodies cannot be true, as indeed the facts of observation make it difficult to deny. And still the soul of man is of divine origin. So he's saying publicly what he's writing privately in his journal. We think we've got a good feel for what his views were.
- [77:03]
A
Those who believe in evolution in the church today obviously like to rally around quotes from Elder Talmadge. They feel like he's the patron saint of evolution. But he doesn't ever explicitly endorse the theory of evolution. In fact, he does sometimes refute what he felt like were errors in it from time to time. For instance, one time he said that Adam was quote, certainly not descended from Neanderthals, pro Magnons or other humanoid forms that had been discovered. So he's an interesting mix, right? So he accepts an older earth with operative death reproduction with pre Adamites on the earth. But he does say that he doesn't believe mankind comes from Neanderthals, etc. He, he does not ever directly address the malleability of species, but he does argue for some other prerequisites for accepting evolution. What's interesting is Joseph Fielding Smith actually attended that Earth and man talk. But he was obviously opposed to Elder Talmage's message. He wrote in his journal, quote, Dr. Jet spoke not edifyingly but questionable. Close quote. A copy of the published pamphlet that purportedly belonged to Joseph Fielding Smith has the words false doctrine written across the front of it. So right there you see an interesting schism, I almost want to say at least intellectual schism between Joseph Fielding Smith and James E. Talmadge.
- [78:36]
B
Yeah, and let me qualify that last one. The pamphlet with the words false doctrine written on it. We took that from Ben Spackman's dissertation. He does mention in the dissertation that an archivist told him that the that the pamphlet was purported to have belonged to Joseph Fielding Smith. So we don't know if Joseph Fielding Smith wrote false doctrine or, or what. It's just don't put too much stock.
- [78:59]
A
We know that he was not edified by James E. Talmage's Earthen Man.
- [79:03]
B
His journal seems to say that he disagreed with, with what Elder Talmage said. So while the First Presidency during this time seems to have supported a measured approach towards evolution like the one taken by James E. Talma, Joseph Fielding Smith also has supporters among the 12. For instance, Susa Young Gates, who we mentioned is Johnny Widzo's mother in law. She's a very well known church leader and is close to the 12. Later related a conversation she had with Joseph Fielding Smith where he said that his supporters were elders Rutger Clausen and George Albert Smith. That's a future president of the church. And this one's really interesting, David O. McKay, that they were supportive of Joseph Fielding Smith's views. But she also noted that Reid Smoot, the famous senator apostle, and it seems like she's implying that the rest of the apostles went the other direction. They were kind of on the other side of the debate. So there's disagreement among faithful people here. And again, it doesn't cause any huge schisms in the quorum of the 12. They disagree on things from time to time. But it also sets the stage for future discussions down the road. James E. Talmadge passes away in 1933. That's not too long after this last controversy. And the church is still kind of in this unknown territory, somewhere between fundamentalists and modernists, with prominent church leaders leaning one direction or the other in their views.
- [80:31]
A
So that's the first third of the 20th century in the fundamentalist versus modernist controversies in our church. Church just the first third. In our next episode, Casey, we want to explore how shifts in society and culture led to a reassessment of the Church's teachings on evolution. And at the center of a lot of this controversy wasn't just what individual members would believe, but what would start to be taught in the official curriculum of the church educational system. So kind of a big deal.
- [81:06]
B
One of the things that we couldn't cover in this episode is that during the backdrop of these discussions over evolution, the church was sort of reinventing its educational system. The first seminary program was launched in 1912 at Granite High School. And the first institute of Religion was established at the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho in 1927. And the men chosen to lead this system were generally educators and mostly men of science. People like Adam S. Bennion. I'm partial to this guy, but Joseph Jeff Merrill and the new educational system for the first time introduced professional religious educators, which was kind of a new thing for the church too. Seminary and institute teachers into the mix of Latter Day Saint culture. And these men and women play a key role in how Latter Day Saint teachings are interpreted and disseminated during the rest of the 20th century. In fact, just to kind of show how this was already happening, Joseph F. Merrill liked Talmadge's address Earth and man so much that he ordered a copy for every seminary and institute teacher in the entire system when it was published in pamphlet form. And that's where the next major battle kind of takes place. The curriculum of church educators becomes the major battleground for fundamentalism and modernism in the decades that follow. And that's what we're going to tackle in the next episode. So I want to again reiterate our thanks to Ben Spackman for his great work on this. A lot of this had been written, but Ben's put it together in a wonderful way, and we really appreciate and we want to acknowledge that we're cribbing from his good work here, and we're.
- [82:48]
A
Going to share more of Ben Spackman with you here in a couple episodes. We're actually going to have him on the show, and we look forward to an interview with Ben.
- [82:57]
B
Yeah. Okay. So that's the first third of the 20th century. Now we're going to move on and cover. And as we get closer and closer to our time, we're gonna be really careful to try and navigate and reiterate that everybody here is faithful. But faithful people can have strong disagreements over issues that they feel strongly about, and that's okay. That's actually part of the magic of the church, is that we discuss, we find consensus, we agree on the essential things, and we move forward.
- [83:28]
A
Yeah. So buckle up. There are going to be a couple more bumps along the way, so we look forward to our next discussion.
- [83:35]
B
All right, we'll see you then, Scott.
- [83:36]
A
Bye.
- [83:36]
B
Bye.
- [83:37]
A
See you then.