B (2:28)

No, no, I think you're exactly right. Smart people on both sides. And this is also one of those things where this isn't, like, early persecutions, where there are clear good guys and clear bad guys. This is good people on both Sides that see things very differently. And it's also a good model to show how we sort of worked towards coming to this point to where we say this is doctrine in the church and this is not doctrine. This is what it means to have prophets and apostles in a modern context. They don't always agree. And the interesting thing is if you look at the ancient context, you'll realize they didn't always agree then either. It seems like Peter and Paul had some really intense discussions over, over a number of issues. And this is sort of this happening in our time. So we're seeing some of those Peter and Paul conflicts mentioned in the New Testament play out in our time with different issues like the nature of science and religion, how they relate to each other.

A (3:33)

Yeah. So maybe to recap our previous episodes to get up to speed and then to dive into our kind of hot topic of the day, let's just kind of quickly skim what we've. What we've talked about. So our first couple episodes, Casey, we dealt with the topic more conceptually. Like, for instance, we briefly reviewed how historically there has been in the minds of many people an uncomfortable tension or distrust between science and religion. Right. Like some have struggled to reconcile how you can honestly be a person of both faith and. And science. And this challenge has largely stemmed from seeing science and religion as competing epistemologies or ways of knowing truth. Whereas those who seem to have most successfully harmonized the two understand science and religion to be complementary epistemologies.

B (4:25)

Yeah. And we talked about how for Latter Day Saints, seeing science and religion as complementary epistemologies is almost baked into our belief system since the Restoration took place post Enlightenment, it's perhaps been easier for us than those who grew out of an earlier era to seek harmony between science and religion before the Church was even three years old. For instance, the Lord commanded a school to be established in Kirtland, Ohio, where disciples were to seek learning even by study and also by faith. And you can kind of hear those two epistemologies right. In that phrase, two viable paths to learning, study and faith. So Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and many of our early leaders in the church embraced science and represented our religion as a repository of all truth from all sources, without conflict between them.

A (5:17)

I love that so much. All truth can be circumscribed into one the prophet Joseph taught, which is so bold and beautiful. Now, we also talked about how a major point of perceived conflict between science and religion occurs when science clearly contradicts Scripture. And this tends to happen most Often on topics like the age of the earth, the reality and scope of Noah's flood, origins of languages and people groups, etc. Kind of a lot of that early Genesis stuff, right? But when there's a clash, the crux of the issue is rarely that the science is suspect, nor is it generally that the Scriptures are faulty. The crux of the problem seems almost entirely to center on our miscalibrated assumptions about the nature and purpose of Scripture. Like when you assume Scripture is talking like a science textbook, which is natural for modern people to do, or to think that the Bible is answering scientific questions, you are pretty much guaranteed to misread Scripture. You're reading it in a way it was not intended to be read. Like as Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency once said about this. He said, it is our misinterpretation of the word of the Lord that leads us into trouble on these issues. So we've got to know what Scripture is in order to know what we might reasonably expect and not expect from it. So to try to help us properly calibrate our assumptions about Scripture, we formulated the following sentence. I will now read, quote, Can I say quote if we're just quoting ourselves? I don't even know. But here we go. Quote.

B (7:01)

Go for it.

A (7:02)

Scripture texts are the result of a human divine collaboration written by ancient authors, embedded in their own cultures, and crafted primarily for the purpose of doing theology, not science. So when we keep this in mind, then Scripture and science work together just fine.

B (7:26)

Yeah, we talked about understanding scriptural genre and keeping in mind that the Bible is a collection of all kinds of books written to help us know truths about God's nature and purposes as well as those of humans. If God needs to collaborate with ancient authors to convey those truths by working within the frameworks of their understanding, so be it. That's the way it is. For example, in the early chapters of Genesis, God accommodates ancient cosmology to tell the creation account so that the truths he intended to convey would make sense to the people they came to today. For instance, we know the earth isn't built on pillars. It's not surrounded by a dome ceiling called the firmament, with water above it that pours out from time to time. But we can still appreciate the theological truths conveyed in the creation accounts about God's relationship to creation and mankind's relationship to God and the rest of creation, and then the significance of the Sabbath day. And then we're really rolling, learning these theological truths that might be being filtered through ancient cosmology.

A (8:34)

We highly recommend what our guest, Jamie Jensen, Dr. Jensen from BYU, a biologist there that we interviewed, said, which is we just got to make sure we're using the right tools for the right job. Like when our questions are scientific in nature, the when, the how, the how longs, etc. Then let's use the tools of science to get an answer. But when our questions are theological in nature, like the why and the what now questions of our existence, like the meaning of it, all kinds of questions, then let's use the tools of religion. And when we use the right tool for the right task that leads us to finding the broad spectrum of truth. Right. Not just one type over the others. But let's, as Joseph Smith said, we believe it all. If it's true, we believe it. Let's circumscribe it all together. Let's just make sure we're using the right tool for the right job. Now, this is sometimes easier said than done, Casey. We don't want to pretend that there haven't been some serious conflicts on some subjects that feel like they overlap in both areas. And. And one of the most heated examples of this is the science faith debates over evolution.

B (9:46)

Yes, yes. That seems to be where the conflict sparks up the most. In one of our episodes, we just asked the question, well, what does the church actually teach about evolution? And the quickest summary we could find was an article published in a church magazine in 2016, and again in a church history topics article that was published even more recently in the Gospel Library app, which just states simply that the church really doesn't have a position on evolution.

A (10:16)

So our official position is that we don't have an official position.

B (10:20)

Yeah, I mean, in fact, we directly quoted the article which says, direct quote, the church has no official position on the theory of evolution and characterized it as another direct quote, a matter for scientific study. And we'll provide the link so you could look at these sources, too.

A (10:39)

I love it. So the church's official position is that we do not have an official position. I love it. So the implications of this are interesting. Right. So whether or not you believe that God used evolution to create our bodies, you can hold a temple recommend, you can come to all the ward meetings and all the ward parties and sit next to people who might have very different views on this. And that's totally fine. Because we have no official position on evolution. We should definitely not use it as a test of fellowship. Right. Whether formally or informally. Now, as Latter Day Saints, we do seek harmony on the essentials which are A precious few core truths. But beyond that, we believe we can have some lively discussions on other non core subjects like evolution. Let's explore it all and let's see where the evidence lands. Right?

B (11:35)

Yeah. And there have been some lively discussions. In our last episode, we traced the history of statements from the church on evolution. And there have been people on both sides of the discussion with very strong feelings. For instance, when the church first sought to produce a statement on evolution, they asked Apostle Orson F. Whitney to draft a statement. And then the statement produced by Elder Whitney was strongly against evolution. In fact, it just condemned it outright.

A (12:03)

Yeah. But then the First Presidency asked two scientists who later become apostles, but they weren't at the time named James E. Talmadge and John A. Widtsoe for their input on the draft. And afterward the anti evolution language was completely removed and the door was left open to evolution as a possible mechanism used by God to create our bodies. So that final statement entitled the Origin of Man, which was published in 1909, upheld our beliefs that each person is a beloved son or daughter of God created in his image. But then using this in his image language, they also added that being created in the image of God could refer to the Spirit, the body, or both. In the following year, President Joseph F. Smith urged church leaders not to undertake to say how much of evolution is true or how much is false. Which was a wise course.

B (12:59)

Yeah. And in the years following, there were controversies in both directions. Several professors at BYU who were teaching evolution and higher criticism of the Bible were asked to resign. But the church also sponsored Frederick Pack, who is a believer in an old earth and in evolution. And they asked him to write articles supporting the study of science. James E. Talmadge, John A. Widtsoe and other scientists were brought into the quorum of the 12. And then a second major incident happens in 1925 when the first presidency issues another statement. This one is more directly titled the Mormon View of Evolution. And the statement was largely taken from the 1909 statement, but it was 80% shorter. And it affirmed the non controversial position that we're all children of God.

A (13:51)

Now we should also note that that 1925 statement was issued when evolution was a very hot topic throughout the United States. A two really famous public figures, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, clashed publicly on the subject during this so called Scopes monkey trial. We did all the details last episode. Super fun. Darrow, who was a supporter of evolution, was largely considered to be the winner. And basically the trial highlighted the growing divide in the United States between two groups. One group calls themselves the Fundamentalists, which are people who favored a more literal reading of Scripture. Right. What the Scripture says is what it means. Right. It's the literal reading of the text, people. And then there's a second group called the modernists. Right. Who favored a more nuanced and sort of contextualized reading reading of Scripture.

B (14:46)

Yeah. And Latter Day Saints don't really fit wholesale into either camp, though individual leaders sometimes express their own opinions on this. For example, on one occasion, President Heber J. Grant just declared, we are fundamentalists, but our belief in an open canon and additional books of Scripture meant that biblical fundamentalists generally weren't super friendly towards us. And Latter Day Saints often took the Scriptures a bit too literally for Modernists tastes. We had our own kind of mini fundamentalist modernist controversy when B.H. roberts tried to publish his book entitled the Way the Truth and the Life, which suggested an older Earth and pre Adamites.

A (15:31)

Yeah. Roberts was more on the modernist side of the spectrum, you'd say, but he was opposed by Joseph Fielding Smith, who's very much on the fundamentalist side. And Joseph Fielding Smith actually gave a public speech saying there was no death before the fall of Adam and Eve. This led to both BH Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith giving presentations to the First Presidency to air their views. Like First Presidency was audience. And they both like, would take turns, almost like a debate where it's like you make your argument, you make your argument, you can respond to each other like that. That kind of thing was happening. At the end of all of that. The First Presidency eventually made kind of a split decision. They declined to publish B.H. roberts manuscript. But they also issued a statement that affirmed church neutrality on the questions related to evolution. Here's what it reads in part. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research while we magnify our calling in the realm of the church.

B (16:43)

And in addition to that, the First Presidency then asked James E. Talmadge to give a public address affirming the same neutrality on questions surrounding evolution. So Talmadge spoke in the Salt Lake Tabernacle where he affirmed the dual epistemologies model, saying that God gave us the book of Scripture and the book of nature to find out truth. And this talk was eventually published as a pamphlet by the church entitled Earth and Man, which was widely circulated in the church. So the general pattern is that individual church leaders and members held widely varying views on evolution and science in general. But The First Presidency acted as a moderating influence on the discussion. They affirmed essentials like our heritage as the children of God, while they were keeping other things open, like questions linked to the age of the earth or how our bodies were created, and so on and so forth.

A (17:33)

So to summarize then, on the national scale, it seemed like William Jennings Bryan's cross examination meant the end of the fundamentalist modernist controversy, or so some people thought. And in the church, it seemed like the First Presidency statement and Elder Talmage's talk were the end of the discussion, or so some people thought. But was everything settled by this point? No more controversies to come on these issues? No, not by a long shot. Right. The discussions continued, actually, both nationally and inside the church, especially regarding the compatibility of the theory of evolution and the Bible. And so there was still a lot more discussion to be had, which actually leads us to today's burning question. Casey, here it is. So how did the discussions on the theory of evolution and creation swing away from the neutrality expressed in the first half of the 20th century by the first presidency and elder Talmage's talk, Like, what happens is we don't stay there, Cayce. Why not? We swing away. So we want to dig into that. We want to talk about what factors occurred that led to less neutrality on the issue.

B (18:59)

So, yeah, we've already noted that if you go into Gospel Library right now, you can find statements that are strongly anti evolution and also statements that affirm neutrality on the subject. So how did we actually get here? Well, the first thing is that even though some people thought the Scopes trial had ended with a victory for the modernists, the fight was really far from over. So William Jennings Bryan may have been humiliated during the contradictions when he was cross examined by Clarence Darrow, but he basically said he would continue the fight and the Scopes Monkey trial. And by the way, I looked it up, but in most sources, they just called it the Monkey trial at the time. It wrapped up on July 21, 1925, when John Scopes was found guilty. And then William Jennings Bryan died just five days later, on July 26, 1925, while he was still in Dayton, Tennessee, the town where the trial was held. So just five days. And for a man who spent decades sort of thundering across American politics and then took center stage in the most famous courtroom drama of the of the era, his exit was really abrupt. In fact, many contemporaries and later historians have noted the symbolic weight of the timing, though medically his death was attributed to complications from diabetes and exhaustion, but not the trial itself, the drama surrounding Bryan's death made him a martyr, and it sort of injected new life into the cause of fundamentalism. In fact, one journalist, H.L. mencken, even referred to Bryan as the Pope of Fundamentalism. So it seems like he's lost, but then he dies. And that sort of re. Energizes everybody on this. On this fundamentalist side of the argument.

A (20:47)

Almost a martyr for the cause. Yeah, yeah. So. So fundamentalists continue their crusade to uphold the Bible, which is incredibly noble. Right. So everyone that's a part of that group feels very inspired by their cause. And in the church, discussions over the compatibility of evolution with the Scriptures was also affected by development of a number of deaths as well. Cayce. So specifically in the quorum of the Twelve Apostles, for instance, Elder Talmadge, who died on July 27, 1933, just a year after he gave the speech that became the Earth and Man. He gives that speech, dies a year later. Deaths and other changes in the Quorum meant that in the late 1930s, a number of new apostles came into the Quorum who were mentored by Joseph Fielding Smith. And again, on the history we're going to go through here, we need to give a big shout out to Ben Spackman, whose dissertation work we are drawing heavily upon here. He's done some great work bringing all the sources together. So let's talk about what happens next.

B (21:53)

Yeah. We should also really add that it's not fair to say Joseph Fielding Smith was anti science. He just favored the Scriptures over science. He liked to quote a statement from his father, President Joseph F. Smith, that seemed to capture his thinking. This is the quote. He would say, the Church holds to this definite authority of divine revelation, which must be the standard. And that as so called science has changed from age to age in its deductions. And as divine revelation is truth and must abide forever, views as to the lesser should conform to the positive statements of the greater. So that's kind of the statement that captures his epistemology, Scripture over science. When they're in conflict, yeah.

A (22:35)

It's also fair to say that after taking a neutral position on evolution, the First Presidency was also concerned that some teachers and scholars in the church were leaning too hard in the direction of modernism. For instance, in the early 1930s, Church Commissioner of Education Joseph F. Merrill sent several young seminary teachers to the University of Chicago to obtain graduate training in Scripture and theology. The Divinity School at Chicago was the heart of the Modernist movement, but no other school would accept Latter Day Saints. So they didn't really Have a lot of choice.

B (23:11)

Yeah. And when these. When these Chicago scholars return, they start making waves in the church. Some of them, like Sidney Sperry and J. Wiley Sessions, made great contributions by bringing academic rigor to restoration texts. But others created different kinds of waves. For instance, one of them got in hot water after suggesting the story of Jonah and the whale was fictional. And this, in turn, prompted the First Presidency to send a new counselor named J. Reuben Clark to speak to all of the religion teachers in the church. And he gave a classic address entitled the Charted Course of the Church in Education that's still widely used among religion teachers in the church today. For instance, you get a copy of the charted course when you join the BYU religion faculty, and it's part of the required readings for seminary and institute teachers.

A (24:00)

Yeah. Back when we were in seminary and institute. Casey, I don't know about your faculties, but we were encouraged to read that once a year. Read the charted course once a year.

B (24:09)

I have a DVD on my shelf because they literally reenacted the charted course. Like they hired an actor and had him say the entire charted course and then sent it out as a DVD to all seminary teachers.

A (24:23)

Yeah. And the charter course talks about a lot of important things, and it also doesn't talk about some things, too, which is significant. Maybe. For instance, the charter course doesn't say anything about evolution. It is primarily concerned with teachers focusing on the fundamentals in the church. And it contains a warning about giving precedence to academic studies over restoration scriptures. For instance, in one passage, President Clark said, quote, no amount of learning, no amount of study, and no amount of scholastic degrees can take the place of this testimony, which is the sina qua non. This is, I think, a Latin phrase that means the essential ingredient, or like the indispensable thing. Right. Of the teacher in our church school system. So most important thing about a teacher in our. In our CES system is testimony, a burning testimony. Then he goes on, no teacher who does not have a real testimony of the truth of the gospel as revealed to and believed by the Latter Day Saints and a testimony of the sonship and messiahship of Jesus and of the divine mission of Joseph Smith, including in all its reality, the first vision, has any place in the church school system.

B (25:39)

Strong words. Right. So the charted course was more against modernism than evolution. But it did show that church leaders, especially the First Presidency, were trying to maintain a healthy equilibrium between modernism and fundamentalism in the church. Because at its worst, modernism sought to deny all miracles and just turn the gospel into a system of ethics. But at the other end of the spectrum, fundamentalism was a soulless scripturist system that wouldn't accept much that wasn't in the Bible. And higher biblical criticism, which was a feature of modernism and evolution, were often linked in the minds of people during this time.

A (26:16)

Yeah, and it was during this time that elder Joseph Fielding Smith, who's a member of the quorum of the 12, starts reaching out to scientists who would support his views that the fall was relatively recent and that there was no death before the fall. One of these people was a man named George Macready. Price was actually a Seventh Day Adventist, but he advocated for a young Earth and no death before the fall. In fact, George McCready Price, who lived until 1963, is a Seventh Day Adventist school teacher turned polemicist who became the most influential anti evolutionist in America before the Scopes trial. And he's kind of the intellectual godfather of what later gets called the Flood geology. But Price has some issues too. Casey. He was not a trained geologist. His background was in teaching and editing, but he wrote a lot about geology. Price believed that the fossil bearing layers of the earth were laid down relatively quickly during Noah's flood and were not a result of geological time. That's kind of the crux of his argument. So that actually made his argument very popular with fundamentalists.

B (27:36)

And Joseph Fielding Smith is also seeking assistance from Latter Day Saint scientists who favor young earth proposals, like the chief. One is a guy named Melvin C. Cook, who's a Latter Day Saint chemist. He works at the University of Utah. He's a professor there. And he's one of the most outspoken Latter Day Saint critics of biological evolution. And in the mid 20th century. So cook was firmly anti Darwinian. He was skeptical of the older Earth. He was committed to a special creation of man, especially when it comes to men and women. And he was convinced that evolution was scientifically weak, that it was philosophically materialist and it was corrosive theologically. Now, Coke's arguments weren't that well received by other Latter Day Saint scientists. For instance, Henry Eyring, who's the father of, of the current president Eyring in the First Presidency was really critical of Cook. Cook. Cook was a legitimate scientist, but his background was in chemistry. He actually helped make explosives, but. But not in geology. And Eyring felt that Cook didn't have the expertise to comment on geology or biology. However, a lot of people in the church saw Cook as a standup guy who was willing to go against the flow, kind of bucking the general consensus of scientists in favor of arguments that went against evolution and an older earth.

A (29:00)

So by the early 1950s, many of the scientists in the quorum of the 12 who had served as a counterbalance to anti evolution views were passing into the next life. We already mentioned that elder James E. Talmage passed in 1933. Then Joseph F. Merrill passes in 1952. John A. Widtsoe also passes that same year of 1952. And Richard R. Lyman will be excommunicated actually in 1943, which is another story for another day.

B (29:33)

But yeah, we're just going to tantalize you with that, but we're not going to go into depth there.

A (29:38)

There's some additional movement in the quorum of the 12. Just to cite one example. Harold B. Lee was made an apostle in 1941, but by 1954, he's now third in seniority behind David O. McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith. Now, Joseph Fielding Smith served as a mentor to many of the younger apostles, as we mentioned. For instance, Harold B. Lee reportedly said that in practical affairs and in ecclesiastical matters, I look upon J. Reuben Clark as my mentor. But in theology and religion, Joseph Fielding Smith, close quote.

B (30:13)

Yeah, yeah. So when, when John A. Widtsoe passes away in late 1952, there's really no longer any apostles with doctoral degrees in scientific fields. And Henry Eyring actually was considered to replace Widtso. But ultimately his replacement was Adam S. Banyan, who was was a former head of the church school system who encouraged biblical scholarship and held pro evolution discussions in the 1920s when he was heading the church school system. But though Bennion was a professional educator, he didn't hold a PhD in any scientific field. And he was less of a counterbalance than someone like Talmadge or Widtso or Joseph F. Merrill. And the passing of these scientists gave Joseph Fielding Smith an opening to publish a book he had been working on called His Origin and Destiny. And according to J. Wiley Sessions, who was the head of of the Division of Religion at byu, as long as John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Merrill and James E. Talmadge remained alive, they kept Brother Smith from publishing this material. But before the flowers on the grave of the last one to die had wilted, Brother Smith rushed to print Man His Origin and Destiny. So now these counterbalances are out of the way and Joseph Fielding Smith has been prepping this material and he gets it out there because he feels so strongly about this.

A (31:31)

Yeah. Joseph Fielding Smith's Man, His Origin and Destiny, which published in 1954 is essentially his sustained argument against biological evolution and in favor of a very literal understanding of human origins within a Latter Day Saint theological framework. It's kind of a Latter Day Saint fundamentalism, you could call it. He is deeply, in this book, concerned with. With protecting what he sees as core doctrines, the Creation, the Fall, and the atonement. And he believes that evolutionary theory puts all three of those core doctrines at risk. I remember reading this book, Casey, as a young religious educator and thinking like, whoa, he is not pulling punches. He goes after evolution hard.

B (32:22)

He does. And I should mention, I have the book on the shelf behind me. I read it when I was a new seminary teacher as well. And he is very direct in his views.

A (32:33)

Yeah. And a lot of letters were written to then church President David O. McKay, like, what do we do with this book? Is this the church's stance? Is this the doctrine? And I remember David O. McKay would write back and say those are his own views. The church has no position on evolution. And so there's kind of this tension with the president of the church, with this apostle who's now just publishing his views that were countered earlier by apostles who are now dead, and now there's no one to really oppose him. Right. And again, it's not like he's going rogue. He really believed these deeply in his soul. But. But, boy, they were controversial. And let me just outline a few more things in the book. Like, he insists that Adam and Eve were real people, historical individuals. All right? And that doesn't seem like a very controversial position. But then he just takes the next step, which is there was no death on the earth before the fall of Adam and Eve anywhere. Right. Now, that's controversial. And he says that human beings just categorically did not arise through any evolutionary process from lower forms of life. For Joseph Ehling Smith, this isn't just a disagreement about science. For him, a matter of doctrinal coherence. Right. Like, if death existed before the Fall, he argues, then the Fall itself loses its meaning. And with the loss of the meaning of the Fall, then what of the atonement? Right. Then that denecessitates Christ's atonement, essentially. And so from that perspective, he argues that evolution isn't just a mistake. It's like, theologically destabilizing to the whole structure of, like, what we most fundamentally believe.

B (34:16)

Yeah, yeah. And the way Joseph Fielding Smith makes his case in the book is really telling. He leans heavily on Scripture, especially the Bible and the pearl of great price. And he reinforces his position by quoting scientists in ways that highlight uncertainty or disagreement within evolutionary theory. And the tone is really confident and declarative. And he doesn't really show any interest in compromise or leaning towards the church's generally more cautious and more non committal statements on the subject. And he also doesn't directly name John A. Widtsoe or James E. Talmadge or Joseph F. Merrill. But he clearly pushes back against the ideas they had about more open or harmonizing approaches, like trying to find a way to harmonize science and religion. So this book has a huge impact. It was widely read among Latter Day Saints, especially those who felt uneasy about evolution. And it helped shape Latter Day Saint thinking on human origins well into the second half of the 20th century. And at the time, though it was never adopted as official church doctrine, its publication sharpened the internal debates that were happening rather than settling them. In that sense, the book functions less as the final word and more as kind of a line drawn in the sand. It was Joseph Fielding Smith's attempt to be more forceful, to say what he thought the doctrinal boundary should be. Even as institutionally the church had resisted making evolution a test of faith. It wasn't a test of fellowship like we mentioned earlier.

A (35:51)

Yeah, and it makes such waves in 1954 when it's published that it started to raise questions from church members as to whether or not the official church position on evolution had changed. As I mentioned, letters started pouring into President McKay and he's saying, no, our position hasn't changed. But another interesting development happens that same summer. Actually the summer of 1954. This issue comes to a head during a summer program held on BYU campus for Seminary Institute and BYU Religion teachers. It entailed six weeks of study, lectures and writing under the guidance of senior church leaders. The main teacher who came to teach these religious educators was Harold B. Lee. And he stayed close to the teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith, which is not surprising, as we already mentioned, that he saw Smith as his theological mentor. He's also assisted in teaching these religious educators by Apostles Marion G. Romney and Mark E. Peterson, who also both favored Joseph Fielding Smith's views. So Harold B. Lee's lectures have titles like, quote, the Story of Creation or the Fall of Man and Problems Involved in the Story of the Flood. And they draw heavily from, guess what? Joseph Fielding Smith's book, Man, His Origin and Destiny. He was also pushing back against mainstream science. For instance, during one of these lectures, Harold B. Lee actually said this. He said, quote, the word of the Lord goes on, and now come evidences from the scientific field that those who held to other theories now must back up and take stock again of the Flood theory, as they have been pleased to call it, agreeing with the narrative of the Bible. It doesn't explain everything, as these scientists admit, but it is so incontrovertible in its evidence as to require a true scientist and a fair thinker to pause and to ponder and to read again the story of the Flood as an answer to many of the things we find being taught in. In the geological studies. So, in other words, that George MacCready Price theory of the Flood and Joseph.

B (38:04)

Fielding Smith also spoke several times during the summer school, and he quotes from Man His Origin and destiny. He also quoted heavily from the 1909 First Presidency Statement. And the major thing is he's presenting belief in science and Scripture as a binary choice. You have to go with one or the other. So he's flexible on some subjects. For instance, he allowed for differences in opinion on the age of the earth, but he was very direct in his views about the fall. At one point, he even said to teachers that if they disagreed, and this is a direct quote, you have no place in the church school system. End of quote. And he was backed up by at least one of the administrators in the church school system. Ernest Wilkinson, who is the president of BYU at this time, wrote in his journal, President Joseph Fielding Smith first spoke for two hours on the origin of men, including how long it took to create the world. I concluded the meeting by telling seminary teachers that as long as I was administrator, I intended to enforce the policies laid down by the Board of Education, and I intended, in accordance with my instructions, to see that the real Gospel was taught. And so now it's becoming sort of a test of, not fellowship in the church, but can you be a religion teacher if you don't accept everything about these statements?

A (39:19)

Part of this wasn't so much about a conflict over evolution. After all, the earlier statements made by the First Presidency didn't give an official church position on the subject, but it did raise questions about authority within the church. As you can imagine. For example, when a general authority publishes a book today, they generally have a little note at the beginning that states that the book represents their personal views and opinions. But in the 1950s, that standard had not been worked out yet. So many general authorities had published books, but they had done so at the request of the church. And with Church Review, for instance, James E. Talmage wrote a lot of books, including Jesus the Christ, the Great Apostasy and the Articles of faith, but they had all been written at the request of church leadership and they were published by the church. John A. Witso had also published books generally at the request of the church. But here, Joseph Fielding Smith is publishing this book, Man His Origin and Destiny, through a church owned company, Deseret Book, but not officially commissioned by the Church. Right. So the question becomes like, how official is this book? How official is it meant to be? Did it represent just President Smith's personal views or was this the doctrine of the church? The title page listed the author as President Joseph Fielding Smith of the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That sounds pretty official. There's no disclaimer in the book stating whether or not President Smith was speaking for himself or for the church. So the readers were left to kind of have to work that out.

B (40:59)

Yeah. This was a relatively new development in the church. And the first presidency, who at this time is led by David O. McKay, started to receive letters asking how official Man His Origin of Destiny was and if it represented the official church position. So we mentioned in our last episode that in 1931, David O. McKay was one of three apostles who sympathized with Joseph Fielding Smith's position. But in the years following, his views had evolved, for lack of a better word, considerably. So during his tenure as president of the church, he took some subtle steps that seemed to be pro evolution. For instance, he spoke positively of evolution in private, he approved a pro evolution article in a church magazine, and he once explained an aspect of the Garden of Eden in General Conference by quoting a pro evolution scientist and philosopher.

A (41:56)

Yeah. And President McKay even recommended another book written by a non Latter Day Saint as a counterpoint to man, his origin and destiny. It's a book called Human Destiny by Pierre le Comte de Nuit. I don't know if I'm saying that Right. He did. Well, I think. Yeah, merci, merci beaucoup. But he. But in that book he walks through a possible reading of the Fall that has some elements of allegory. Right. That even if there was an evolutionary mechanism used to create the bodies of Adam and Eve, that doesn't necessarily discount the theological significance of the Fall, even if some elements of the Fall are allegorical. So David O. McKay just thought, you know, the thinking has not been done on this subject and we need more voices than that book that Joseph Fielding Smith wrote. So.

B (42:50)

Yeah, but we should note David O. McKay was also known for having a non confrontational personality. He's a friendly guy. He's very open, but he doesn't like to publicly reprove or correct or rebuke people. And he was committed to free agency and tolerance and most importantly, public harmony. He wanted the church to present a unified face. So while he did offer corrections to church leaders who he felt had gone too far, he usually did so in a more gentle way, and he usually did so behind closed doors.

A (43:22)

Yeah. And while President McKay is pretty non confrontational, other members of the First Presidency, like J. Reuben Clark, were a little more willing to engage in discussions over controversial issues. Like, President Clark had a close relationship with James E. Talmadge. He even worked for a decade as Tallmadge's assistant curator in the Deseret Science Museum and also as his lab assistant. So President Clark, he once referred back to Talmadge, noting, quote, Dr. James E. Said the Bible was not written as a textbook on geology or biology. Then he said, I might add, that neither was the pearl of great price. So he tends to hew closer to the views of elder James E. Talmage. And, I mean, there's a whole other story about how J. Reuben Clark even comes into the First Presidency. Casey and I sometimes wonder if that was in part to offset maybe a too heavily weighted fundamentalist group of voices that were accumulating in the 12. I don't know for sure, but that's a fascinating thought. Like, JRO McCarthy just goes right to the first presidency. Right. Dips his toe in the quorum of the 12 for a day and then boom, into the first presidency. Yeah.

B (44:36)

He's a Sunday school teacher one day and he's in the First Presidency the next. Like, he just boom.

A (44:41)

Yeah. Almost like his voice was needed as a counterbalance in that quorum. Just a thought. Yeah. For instance, J. Reuben Clark also believes in an old Earth, that there was death before the fall. When Joseph Fielding Smith took issue with a general conference talk that implied an older earth and death before the Fall, J. Reuben Clark, who was a lawyer and a diplomat before his call as a general authority, he gave a response that was both lawyerly and diplomatic, telling Smith, quote, clearly, unless the animals in the Garden of Eden lived on air, they consumed something. And even if they were all vegetarians, the plant life they ate died. Close quote. Now, we should note that his argument was found in a letter to Joseph Fielding Smith marked not sent. So Clark may have been too diplomatic to even confront Smith directly with his views, but we do know that he wrote that down as a counterpoint.

B (45:38)

Yeah. Now there's the other counsel in the First Presidency, is Stephen L. Richards and he had spoken publicly about evolution and its compatibility with the scriptures during the 1920s and 30s. So decades earlier, for instance, in an April 1932 General Conference talk, he said, in the interpretation of Scripture and doctrine, church leaders are dependent on their knowledge and experience. The revelations of the new dispensation, as well as those of the Bible were in the beginning and are now interpreted by men. And men can interpret only in light of human experience and understanding. Old conceptions and traditional interpretations must be influenced by newly discovered evidence, not that ultimate fact and law change. But our understanding varies with our education and experience.

A (46:27)

That is a pretty awesome statement. That is a pretty awesome statement. Yes.

B (46:31)

We should make that our official thesis. We're saying in each one of these.

A (46:36)

Videos, the interpretation of Scripture and doctrine of church leaders are dependent on their knowledge and experience. So you don't automatically with your ordination suddenly become like an all seeing, all knowing, like understander of Scripture. Right? That's fiction. It doesn't happen. And what a transparent statement here by Elder Richards. So good. Sorry, continue.

B (47:00)

So President Richards also gave an address to church teachers where he quoted quite a bit from a book by a guy named Sir Ambrose Fleming that was entitled the Origin of Mankind, which was given to him by another apostle, Joseph F. Merrill. By the way, Fleming, who was a well known scientist, he's the guy who invents the vacuum tube, writes about this. And I should mention the book isn't strictly pro evolution, but President Richards used it to argue for the existence of pre Adamites, an old earth and evolution as a possible way God created human bodies. And Richards was more flexible in his views on the Bible, at one point saying the Bible was not the record of the history of humanity generally, but the history of the redemption of man by a specially endowed man, end of quote. The last part referring to Jesus Christ, the. The special man that he's mentioning there.

A (47:54)

So going back to those 1954 summer trainings for church educators saying that a teacher didn't belong in the church education system unless they accepted the teachings of man, his origin and destiny, when members of the First Presidency disagreed with some of the teachings in that book, might be, I don't know, overstepping a bit, you know. In fact, the First Presidency started receiving letters from seminary and institute teachers asking if man, his origin and destiny reflected the official teachings of the church. And President McKay inquired into whether or not the book had been submitted to the publication committee for approval and then said if the book has not been approved, then it should not be used as A textbook or considered in the class more than any other private book. So that's another example of the kind of answers President McKay gave when people asked about the officialness of that book. He was always saying no in various ways. And in the first presidency meeting that was held in August of 1954, they discussed that book, actually, and they talked about its use as a textbook for the summer school. After the meeting, President McKay wrote this in his diary. He said, the brethren were agreed that inasmuch as this book has not been passed upon by the Church, that it could not be used as a study course in the seminaries and institutes. They felt that the matter therein discussed is really not essential to the advancement of the cardinal principles of the church. So this essentially mirrors the conclusion of the First Presidency from nearly two decades before. Right. They felt that a firm position on evolution was not essential as part of the cardinal principles of the Church. That's significant.

B (49:45)

Yeah. And in the 1930s, when a conflict on these subjects came up, the first presidency asked James E. Talmadge to give a moderating address that balanced the scales in the eyes of the public. But in the 1950s, the first presidency was more cautious with public displays of disagreement among church leadership. President McKay met with several institute teachers who were concerned about what was being taught in the summer school and assured them that he was neutral on the subject of evolution. But our records of these conversations actually come from the teachers who met with President McKay. For instance, George T. Boyd, he was an institute teacher, said that President McKay told him he personally could accept the theory of evolution as a possible explanation of the origin and development of life on earth without affecting his faith in the mission of Christ. And another teacher, Richard Pol, said that in a meeting with President McKay, he was told that this is what he recorded. The concept of evolution was certainly not incompatible with faith. But again, these conversations take place in private, not in public. President McKay favored a gentler touch when it came to controversy. As another example, he asked Adam S. Bennion, who had been pro evolution years earlier during his tenure as the head of the church school system, to meet with the BYU geology department. And one teacher who attended the meeting remembered that Bennion told them, this is the way the teacher recorded it, quote, to explain to inquiring students that the Church had taken no official view on the age of the earth or organic evolution. And he asked us not to enter into debate with those few members of the religion faculty who held fundamentalist views. So President McKay is working behind the scenes, and he's sending Adam Bennion to byu, but there's not a public statement like there was earlier with James E. Talmadge.

A (51:36)

What a confusing time to be a member of the church who's trying to figure this out, right? You've got a very vocal apostle against evolution publishing his stuff publicly. And then you've got quietly apostles doing the work of telling biology heads and quietly telling some seminary and institute teachers. We don't have any official church position like. No wonder the scales started tipping more and more in the fundamentalist direction. Now. I will say, though, that J. Reuben Clark was sent to BYU during the summer school to address the issues that were being raised there. And the reasons why President Clark went to speak to the religion teachers isn't entirely clear. One source said that Harold B. Lee invited him to come and speak, perhaps to answer the concerns of some of the summer school attendees. But another historian presented it as part of a continuing back and forth between Joseph Fielding Smith and J. Reuben Clark on the topic of evolution, the age of the earth, and so on. But it also seems like the talk was motivated by the First Presidency, since we know President David O. McKay had recorded in his office journal that here's a quote, so far as evolution is concerned, the church has not made any ruling regarding it, and that no man has been authorized to speak for the church on it. So whatever the motivation, President Clark does come and give another address. Kind of like the charted course of the church in education, how it becomes a required reading for religion teachers in the church. This one addressed an even more challenging subject, and it was titled this quote, when are Church Leaders Words Entitled to the Claim of Scripture? So that seems to be a really relevant, timely talk to give in light of the confusion that is being generated by Joseph Hilling Smith's book, doesn't it?

B (53:27)

Yeah, that's a major and a vital question. And I remember reading excerpts from this talk during my training to become a seminary teacher. This talk is a classic and and as I read it again to prepare for this podcast, I was amazed at how many quotes President Clark used for the talk that we have used in the past, Scott, when we've been talking about church history and doctrine. But to summarize, the talk is basically a careful lawyerly because Clark's a lawyer answer to the question that every Latter Day Saint eventually bumps into when a church leader speaks or writes, when should I treat it as Scripture? And he starts by anchoring the whole issue in the 68 section of the Doctrine and Covenants, which we've quoted numerous times on this podcast that basically says words are scripture only when a person is speaking and moved upon by the Holy Ghost. That wording, he points out, quietly admits the obvious but often forgotten fact that leaders don't always speak under that influence. And the promise isn't automatic, it's conditional.

A (54:32)

So then the hard part of this issue is, so how are regular members of the church like us supposed to know when a leader is speaking by the Holy Ghost? Because if that's the only condition of when it's Scripture, how can we know it's actually happening? And President Clark's answer to that question is almost mischievously direct. You could say he said this. He said, you can only reliably tell when a church leader is moved upon by the Holy Ghost, when you personally are moved upon by the Holy Ghost, too. So in other words, God didn't design this whole thing as a spectator sport. As members of the church, right, we need to be in tune with the Spirit so that we can tell when a church leader is speaking by the Spirit. So that's interesting that the responsibility then becomes shared right on both sides of the podium there. And then to drive that home, President Clark quotes Brigham Young's warning that members can actually become spiritually lazy by trusting leaders so completely that they stop asking God for confirmation. So again, he's speaking in generalities here, general guiding principles. Not calling out Joseph Fielding Smith or Harold B. Lee or anything that had been taught at the summer school directly, but addressing a really important question is relevant at that time. After making those points, he then widens the lens and kind of adds a couple guardrails. He reminds his audience that missionaries and teachers are repeatedly commanded in the early revelations to teach what's in the written word, right? And to teach what the Spirit teaches through faith and prayer. And then he cautions against sectarian hobby horses or chasing confusing spiritual manifestations that don't edify people. The true test, he says, drawing on D&C50, is whether the teaching is received by the Spirit of truth, whether it brings light and edification. Because when the Spirit is operating, preacher and hearer recognize each other and are built up together. The fruit of teaching by the Spirit is not confusion, but edification.

B (56:44)

Yeah. And then he addresses some issues related to church governance. He explains that while several general authorities are sustained as prophetseers and revelators, only the president of the church holds the unique church wide authority to receive revelations for the entire church, to also give binding interpretations, or to formally establish or change doctrine. That means if anyone else, no matter how prominent, tries to announce a new revelation for the church or vice Scripture, or declare new doctrine, or settle a previously unsettled doctrinal dispute as if it's officially closed. You can safely assume that they aren't speaking with that kind of binding scriptural authority unless they're explicitly authorized by the church president. At the same time, J. Reuben Clark was candid in saying that even presidents of the church and prophets can sometimes speak in ways that aren't inspired in the relevant sense, especially on speculative matters. He invokes Joseph Smith's line. Joseph S.M. smith famously said, a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such. And he tells a story. We've told this story on the podcast, too, which is a wonderful story. J. Reuben Clark, even at this time, says, I don't know if this story is accurate, but it conveys a true principle. Where Brigham Young gets up and gives this speech. This was during the Utah War, where he basically, we're going to fight him. And then he comes back and says in the morning, Brigham Young was speaking and now the Lord will talk, basically saying there's this relationship between being a human and being the Lord's mouthpiece. And his point that he's making here isn't trying to undercut prophetic leadership. It's just to insist that inspiration isn't kind of this mechanical switch that you can just basically turn on.

A (58:29)

And by the way, I love that, just as you said that, he said, I don't know if this story's true, but it conveys an important truth. I thought, there you go. That's a great way to read some biblical stories, like Jonah and the Whale or like other things. I don't know how accurate all of this is, but it was written to convey important truths. Anyway, back to something we talked about earlier, relevant here now. President Clark, he closes this talk by turning all of this into a set of some sort of practical rules of the road, right? He says, if someone other than the president of the church claims to reveal doctrine for the whole church, to alter Scripture or declare contested questions officially settled, then members can know something is off. And the positive solution, he says, is spiritual. You need to live in a way that keeps you close enough to the Spirit to recognize truth when you hear it and to detect false or merely speculative teaching when you hear that. He ends the talk where he began, with DNC 68, but now with a strong emphasis on member discernment as part of how the system is supposed to work. We've been summarizing a lot of the talk, but Casey, if I may just quote a really important part of the talk here directly. He says there are many places where the Scriptures are not too clear and where different interpretations may be given to them. There are many doctrines, tenets as the Lord calls them, that have not been officially defined and declared. It is in the consideration and discussion of these Scriptures and doctrines that opportunities arise for differences of views as to meanings and extent. In view of the fundamental principle just announced as to the position of the President of the Church, other bearers of the priesthood, those with the special spiritual endowment and those without it, should be cautious in their expressions about and interpretations of Scriptures and doctrines. They must act and teach, subject to the overall power and authority of the President of the Church.

B (60:43)

And like I said, President Clark's teachings are really useful in developing an approach towards determining what the official teachings of the Church are. The talk was also quoted extensively in more recent talks on how to determine church doctrine, one that we've quoted a ton from. D. Todd Christofferson gave a talk called the Doctrine of Christ in 2015. And so it's sort of the beginning of creating this, this guideline for what's official, what's not official. How do we know what the Church is teaching versus what an apostle might feel very strongly about? However, at the time, it doesn't appear that the talk had as much of an impact as James E. Talmadge's talk did, given almost two decades earlier. It wasn't published in pamphlet form by the Church like Talmadge's talk was, and today it's hard to find. Like I couldn't find it in Gospel Library, I googled it and then it popped up, but not on an official church website. It was published in the Church News and like I mentioned, it's still read by seminary and institute teachers, but not very much by the general public of the Church. In addition, President Clark is a diplomat. He's a lawyer and a diplomat. That was his profession by trade. And the talk is really diplomatic. It includes several calls to unity and sets the standard for being part of the Church educational system. And this is what he says. He says no man or woman is a true member of the Church who does not fully accept the first vision, just as no man is a Christian who doesn't accept, first, the fall of Adam and second, the atonement of Jesus Christ. Any titular church member who does not accept the first vision, but who continues to pose as a church member lacks not only moral courage, but intellectual integrity and honor if he does not avow himself an apostate. And discontinue going about the church and among the youth, particularly as a churchman, teaching not only lack faith, but faith destroying doctrines. He is a true wolf in sheep's clothing. So it seems like Clark's standard for the church educational system was you need to believe in the first vision of Joseph Smith sincerely and completely in the fall and in the atonement of Jesus Christ. But he doesn't go into deeper doctrinal questions than that, like had been the discussions in the summer school earlier that year.

A (62:58)

Yeah, and President Clark's talk also doesn't specifically mention evolution. He doesn't specifically call out Joseph Fielding Smith. He doesn't specifically mention man, his origin and destiny, that book. So some people didn't really see his talk as a commentary on how official the book actually was. Some just heard him teaching some correct principles and allowing them to govern themselves, which fit with President Clark's diplomatic approach. But Casey, it's kind of hard to see all the history together and not think that that was in some way response or at least a posturing of the first presidency relative to Joseph Fielding Smith's position. But that's, you know, for the historians to wrestle with. I should also say that President McKay does stay true to his approach of being non confrontational and working privately to fix issues that rose up in the church. Again, more than a dozen letters, President McKay responded to people who were inquiring about Joseph Fielding Smith's book and continued to tell them this was not an official teaching of the church. But he never announced that publicly. That's what's interesting. He never says so publicly. In a meeting with several religion teachers, President McKay spoke with them and in the recollection of those who were there, said, quote, very emphatically that the book had not been authorized nor approved and that it did not represent the position of the church. He told us, these teachers say, to tell our students that the book was not to be taken as representing the church's position on such matters as the age of the earth and the theory of evolution. Close quote. But even with so many different recollections of people talking about how David O. McKay spoke to them about the book, it appears that President McKay never spoke directly to Joseph Fielding Smith about his concerns on the matter.

B (64:59)

Yeah, yeah. And since there's no public church statement on the matter, the debate continues. Throughout the 1950s and 60s, a lot of books were published that supported more fundamentalist readings of scripture and favored young earth and anti evolution teachings. And these included Man, His Origin and Destiny, Doctrines of Salvation, which is a great collection, three volume set of Joseph Fielding Smith's teachings. We quote that quite a bit on here. And also books by people like Melvin Cook, like Prehistory and Earth Models and Science and Mormonism. I have a copy of Science and Mormonism at home and I have people ask about it from time to time. But probably the most well known book to members of the church today was written by Joseph Fielding Smith's son in law, Bruce R. McConkie, and it's called Mormon Doctrine, which I also have on my shelf back here. And we should note that in this podcast we've referred to doctrines of salvation and Mormon doctrines dozens of times. They're great sources for understanding Joseph Fielding smith and Elder McConkie, and they cover a ton of different subjects and they're both classics too. But we would probably today separate them from being official sources of church teachings, but representative of some thoughtful opinions by some great students of the Scriptures.

A (66:21)

Yeah, just apply J. Reuben Clark's whole talk to those books. Right. Like, yeah, there's going to be elements, particularly I'm thinking in Mormon doctrine that just like nail it. Right? They nail it well, like just hit the doctrine beautifully. And then there's other parts that don't. Right. And so I'm kind of thinking about how the Lord said to Joseph Smith about the Apocrypha, Some things written therein are true and some things are not. And you need to have the Spirit to discern that. Right. Which was J. Reuben Clark's point in that talk was have the Spirit so that you can discern when it is and when it isn't. Now, just to cite one example, most people are going to be familiar with some of the controversies surrounding Mormon doctrine when it was first published in 1955, but it was revolutionary for its time. Let's just say that it was essentially an encyclopedia on a lot of topics, very important to Latter Day Saints, A to Z. You know, a number of authors, including Elder McConkie's son, wrote about the way the book was initially received. The First Presidency was actually concerned with some of the teachings in the book and the tone of certainty that it takes on a number of subjects where the teachings weren't exactly settled. Elder McConkie chooses a line and he becomes very dogmatic about that. Right. So it seems like more things are settled than actually are when you read the tone of the book. And so a committee was actually formed composed of two apostles, Marion G. Romney and Mark E. Peterson, who are both kind of partial to the Joseph Fielding Smith views on These scientific questions we've been talking about. They review the manuscript. Elder Romney, in the COVID letter of the report, cited Elder McConkie's authoritative tone as one of the issues of the book. On another occasion, Elder Peterson, who never publicly mentioned his role in the book, but in a private editorial that was never published, he mentioned his concern that the book was overstepping in, quote, its presumption to give the final word on many doctrines of the Church, some of which have never been completely explained, even in the Revelations.

B (68:32)

And to his credit, Elder McConkie accepted these revisions and he published a second edition of the book in 1966.

A (68:40)

That.

B (68:41)

That changed many of the entries. Just. Just one example that's pertinent to us. The longest entry in the first edition was titled Evolution, and It quoted the 1909 First Presidency statement, but it also pushed the repudiation of evolution all the way back to 1882 by quoting from John Taylor's book Mediation and Atonement. The first edition of Mormon doctrine just directly says, this is a direct quote, the official doctrine of the church as to the falsity on the theory of organic evolution. But this last statement that I just read is taken out of the second edition of the book, so you can see the tone of certainty there. He's saying, like, officially the church doesn't believe in evolution. He takes that out of the second edition. But again, is this whole controversy about evolution and creationism or fundamentalism and modernism, or is it about what is and isn't an official teaching of the church? I think the default setting for most church members is to trust the leaders of the church, and that's a really good thing. But when the Church doesn't have an official teaching, as the First Presidency had emphasized several times concerning evolution, how far should we take the teachings of individual church leaders?

A (69:54)

Yeah, Casey, I just want to mention that we've had extensive conversations on this, you and me, about how do you discern the doctrine of the church and how we've talked about the central role that Scripture plays in interpreting the doctrine. What does the Scripture harmoniously say throughout the text? But what we're seeing here is one of the challenges with that, which is, what if church leaders interpret Scripture differently from one another? Now what? Right now what? So that is one of the weaknesses of the model of saying, is it consistently taught in the Scriptures? Right. Is it consistently taught by the prophets? Is it confirmed by the Holy Spirit? It's like, well, that first question, what do you mean, is it consistently taught? Is the Fall consistently taught in Scripture. Yeah, it is. Okay. So is the fall essential doctrine? Yeah. So does evolution compromise the doctrine of the fall? This is where Joseph Fielding Smith's like, yes. This is where others like President McKay are like, I don't think so. Adam S. Bennion like, no, you know, and. And so now we're starting to get different opinions on. On. On a really central scriptural issue here, which, again, highlights one of the challenges of settling everything by an appeal to the Scriptures. Right. We are not a sola scriptura church. And so in what we've been talking about here, one of the patterns that emerges is that the First Presidency acted as a moderating influence. They generally brought everyone to the center, and they sought to sort of harmonize opposing views. We saw them do this in the 1930s, right. Listening to the BH Roberts, Joseph Fielding Smith debates. And now in the 1950s, we see the same thing happening. Right. But the media environment had changed such that as church leaders started publishing books on their own, and the fact that there were no clear rules yet, internal rules about how official or unofficial these books would be, that's where it starts to create some challenges. So in a lot of ways, you could liken it to the situation we're in today, where traditional ways of consuming information are changing. You got podcasts, you've got Instagram accounts, you've got Facebook pages, you've got all this digital media. Then you still have people publishing books, and you have articles, and you've got different magazines that have cropped up, some positive for the church, some kind of neutral, some negative. There's lots of different ways and a lot of different voices that are emerging to talk about what the church believes or what we ought to do about different topics and subjects. And, Casey, when it comes to trying to determine how authoritative all this should be, what is a church member to do?

B (72:44)

Yeah, that's true. It is sort of similar to where we're at today, where the number of voices were multiplying. And we sort of take for granted that today we can Google and there's a podcast, a quote. It's easy to find stuff. In the 1950s, a church leader like Bruce R. McConkie publishing a book like Mormon Doctrine was amazing. You have an alphabetical reference on a number of subjects. But these rules about how authoritative a book like Mormon Doctrine was supposed to be hadn't quite been put in place. I think if it was published today, there'd be less confusion because we've all kind of work that stuff out. And there's some other differences. Too. Like in today's media environment. Scott, you and I are not general church leaders.

A (73:28)

We are not.

B (73:29)

We're not pretending to be. Everybody involved in this particular controversy was a general church leader, and their words took on more weight than our words ever will. Also, we have training in history and theology, but we put a disclaimer at the end of all of our podcasts saying that our views are our own and we don't want to be confused as presenting the official views of the church, or even Scripture Central, for that matter. Like, they trust us. But we don't want to get even Scripture Central in trouble by acting like we're officially presenting their views. We're historians exploring a subject here.

A (74:06)

And Casey, we've said some out there things, haven't we?

B (74:10)

Well, you have. Yeah, for sure.

A (74:11)

Hey, hey, hey.

B (74:12)

Easy, easy. No, no, no, no, no. We both admit we're two guys talking about scripture and history that love it and love the church and. And love the gospel, but don't take us as authorities.

A (74:26)

We're curious seekers doing our best to make sense of this. All that's who we are.

B (74:32)

And I mean, a major question that a lot of this raises is how does this affect our approach towards science and religion? So does this mean that in the middle of the 20th century we sort of take a turn towards being hostile towards science?

A (74:45)

Right. As the environment shifts, what happens in our attitudes towards science collectively? Well, the good news is this really does not turn the church being hostile toward science. After all, Joseph Hilling Smith was trying to rally scientists to his cause. Actually, that's why he reaches out to people like George MacCready Price and Melvin C. Cooke to support his views. He just believed in one epistemology. And where there was ever any conflict, he would always go with the scriptures, which in a lot of ways, you know, there's something to be admired in that. Right. This desire to stick with what he believed was fundamentally true in spite of other opposing evidence. Right. I don't know, maybe that's a stubbornness, maybe it's a loyalty, but there's something admirable there. Whereas other voices who saw the to epistemology approach as the best approach, right. Where we're talking about compatible epistemologies of theological approach and scientific approach, those people were less assertive than Joseph Fielding Smith. They were less assertive. James E. Talmadge was not as assertive. David O. McKay didn't, like we just mentioned, he doesn't publicly call out man his origin and destiny. And so this was a little aggravating. To some people who opposed the views of Joseph Fielding Smith and they wanted prominent latter day Saint scientists to start speaking out. So this becomes another interesting chapter in this whole fun history. For instance, Richard poll wrote to Henry Eyring, the scientist, asking him to make his pro evolution views more public, to provide some balance to the equation. He told Eyring, quote, unless both views on this great subject are spread upon the record, the anti scientific point of view will preempt the minds of our LDS youth by default. Adding Henry, the church must publish a book by a man of great stature showing that the theories of science are tentative, to be sure, but when the real truth is known, all the present evidence must be accounted for. The church must not divorce itself from honest scientific thought. Most of all, a person must realize that if it is true that the earth is over 4 billion years old, there is still every reason to believe in God. And then he says this to if you can think of anyone who can write such a book, who can do it better than you can persuade them to do so, you are excused from the task, but otherwise you must do it yourself. He said it must be a positive work which will link the church once again with the present and future, rather than just with the past.

B (77:37)

Sadly, we don't know how Henry Eyring senior answered that letter, but one of his sons, Edward, gave his reasons why he thought his father didn't speak out publicly. And it boils down to just basically simple intellectual humility. In an interview, Edward Eyring said his father, this is the quote, certainly thought there was a great deal of merit in the theory of evolution, but he would dwell at much greater length on radioactive dating of the earth and the fact that the earth is many, many billions of years old. There are physics and chemistry arguments for the age of the earth that he understood. Well. He was wise enough to realize that he wasn't an authority in the subject of evolution, whereas he was a definite authority in subjects as geology that he knew well. So I think that's the reason he would be somewhat more cautious about what he would say of a definitive kind about evolution. Henry Eyring, who again is the father of the current member of the first presidency, just felt like without the expertise, he would be doing the same thing as people on the other side, that he didn't have the expertise to speak out about it. But unfortunately it meant that there wasn't a balance of voices when it, when it came to this particular subject.

A (78:52)

Yeah. So, okay, so as we sort of land the plane today, Casey, let's just kind of step back and reflect a little bit. So. So what it seems like became a settled issue in the early 20th century, around the 1930s, with the First Presidency and James E. Talmage's Earth and Man pamphlet, where it's really clear we're open to evolution. It could be true, maybe it is, maybe it's not. But like, it's not a point where you have an official position on God could have used it as the mechanism for creation, or maybe not. That's fine, you could believe either way. It seems like the issue becomes pretty settled in the 1930s, but then it becomes a subject of debate again in the second half of the 20th century, almost exclusively because of the efforts of elder Joseph Fielding Smith, who was part of that 1930s discussions. Right. It was because of his debates with B.H. roberts that the first presidency and James E. Talmadge said what they said. But there still seems to have been some, some, Some fire in his bones. He, he felt like he was right and that when the voices of opposition seemed to die down within the quorum because of the passing away of various apostles, he wanted to reassert his best arguments anti evolution. And what he used as the basis was scripture. He had a very self proclaimed fundamentalistic reading of scripture, took it very literally, and saw no compatibility between the doctrines of the creation, fallen atonement and the theory of evolution. And so he went after the theory of evolution. So I mean, is that fair? Can we really isolate it basically onto one man? As to why this resurgence happened in the second half of the 20th century? That's my reading of it. Is that fair?

B (80:47)

I mean, he's definitely the most important figure, but I don't know if it's fair to just put it on one person because there were ple. Plenty of people that were willing to jump into the fray with him. And there's a lot going on during this time too, where people were scared about science. I mean, there were nuclear bombs going off and there was communism and there was all this kind of intellectual environment swirling, saying, hey, have we gone too far when it comes to scientists? Like, if we can create a weapon that can destroy an entire city, is science the objective good that we've been acting like it is? Maybe we need to be more cautious and pull back. So it's super understandable. And we kind of live in the wake of all these debates that are happening. Like we're still trying to harmonize a lot of these debates today. And that's what kind of makes the next episode a little Scary for me, Scott, is we're sort of catching up to when you and I were born. And we're gonna have to actually look, because the whole time we've been going through this history, I've been saying to myself, what was I taught as a kid, I grew up in the church? Was I taught that evolution was bad or that it was contrary to the scriptures? What's the best thing to teach my students today when it comes to the theory of evolution? We're going to have to talk a little bit more about our time. And the closer you get to your own life, the more the stakes are raised. We can't create as much historical distance. We've got to enter into the fray ourselves.

A (82:18)

I just want to clarify something, Casey. So you think. I just want to be clear on this, that others besides Joseph Fielding Smith were responsible for the resurgence of this fundamentalism in the church. Is that what you think? I just want to make sure. Because if you think that I want to push back a little, if I can.

B (82:37)

I think he led the way, but I think there were plenty of people that were willing to jump in and join him. So I don't know if it would have all come together the way that it did if it hadn't been for Joseph Fielding Smith's assertive personality. But I do think there were others that felt the same way as him. And it has to do with the environment that they're living in, not just Joseph Fielding Smith saying, hey, this is the way it is.

A (83:02)

Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, I think if you say that he led the charge, and then others like Harold B. Lee and Markey Peterson and others kind of joined in on that. I feel totally good about that. It's just interesting that the. The impact that one apostle can make. And again, there's no good guys or bad guys in this Joseph Philly Smith. We cannot make him the bad guy. He was sticking to his gun. But again, like we began this episode out with, it's not about smart people and not smart people. We're talking about some pretty intellectually awesome, very fit people. But what is fascinating to me is that if you begin with different assumptions than one another, for instance, his assumption that evolution is incompatible with the fall, then you can create a whole book arguing man, his origin and destiny. That took a lot of effort and work and careful crafting and argumentation and building off that premise. He's obviously intellectually solid, but it's the assumptions that we've been talking about that as we think through these issues. James E. Talmage did not agree with the assumptions. He's equally brilliant as Joseph Building Smith, but he disagreed with the assumptions. Adam S. Binion, Joseph F. Merrill, they disagreed with that fundamental assumption. Right. David O. McKay disagreed with that assumption. And so again, we're not talking about differences in intellect. We're talking about differences in what you accept as the premises for your thinking. And we are advocating on this podcast, the dualistic epistemology rather than the single epistemology of scripture trumps everything, especially a literal reading of scripture. Right. Like, we just have to be careful. I think this episode, that's what it does for me is it makes me step back and say, okay, what are some assumptions I might hold that would lead me to the wrong conclusions? I want to start there rather than just attacking people's arguments at the conclusion level, if that makes sense.

B (85:16)

And it brings up, just like I said, a ton of issues, not just about evolution, but kind of how do we determine official doctrine in the church? This is messy stuff, but it's interesting stuff for sure.

A (85:29)

Yeah. Hopefully this episode at least shows that, that it's. Sometimes it's not clear cut what the doctrine of the church is and it's not a good idea. Elder Bednar and even Harold B. Lee and others have warned about this. It's not a good idea just to pick one quote from a church leader and say that represents the doctrine of the church. That's generally not a good practice. Right. And I think this episode shows why, because there's differences of opinion. And so let's look for a harmonized teaching, let's look for official teachings, let's look for first presidency teachings, let's look for consistency in the scriptures, and that's going to bring us to a clearer knowledge of the truth. And as J. Reuben Clark said, and live in such a way that you can have the spirit of God with you so you can discern when truth is being spoken and when it's not. And frankly, I think that's one of the hardest ones for me. It's like, oh man, I'm a fallen man and I don't always feel like I'm living in such a way, but I. I'm trying, Casey, but this is hard stuff. That's the bottom line, is it's not always easy. Sometimes it's messy to try to get to certainty on issues that the revelations are just not certain about. So there are core things the scripture is really clear about and that we all agree upon and that should get our attention. Right. When the first presidency and 12 all agree on it. When the scriptures are consistent, that should get our attention. And we should probably order our lives around those things rather than some of these more peripheral things. If I could say it that way.

B (86:52)

Yeah. Well said. Well said. Okay, well, we'll pick this up next time and enter into that scary territory of getting into our own lifespan. What we believe and what we've taught. So I'll see you then.

A (87:03)

Okay, well, I'll look forward to seeing you next episode. Thanks, Casey.

B (87:07)

All right. Thank you.

A (87:16)

Sam.