(by Dennis B. Horne)
The below are comments given by an
internal reading committee made up of members of the Quorum of the Twelve in
1929, regarding questionable doctrinal assertions made in Elder B. H. Roberts’s
book manuscript, The Truth, The
Way, The Life. These comments,
made by the committee in their official responses to their reading of Elder
Roberts’s book, are an exceptional example of the work done by these internal Church
reading (or early “correlation”-type) committees. Because Elder Roberts would
not revise his book in conformity with their wishes, it was not published as
originally planned by the Church and desired by Elder Roberts. Then, in the
early 1990s, a group of scholars at Brigham Young University reviewed the
recently declassified work and its history, and published it with their
commentary and the reading committee’s comments as well. Two papers were
prepared by the reading committee, one titled, “Doctrinal points questioned by
the Committee which read the Manuscript of Elder B. H. Roberts, entitled—The Truth, The Way, The Life.” and the other “List of Points on Doctrine
in Question by the Committee in Relation to B.H. Roberts’s Ms.” There were also
notes included of a report made by the chairman of the committee, Elder George
Albert Smith, to their Quorum President, Rudger Clawson. The committee was made
up of George Albert Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, David O. McKay, Stephen L
Richards, and Melvin J. Ballard. For a complete review of this committee’s
work, see B. H. Roberts, The
Truth, The Way, The Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology, John W. Welch, ed. (Provo, Utah: BYU
Studies, 1994). The following selected items are taken from this publication,
the reading committee’s comments on Roberts’s statements coming from the
footnotes. Page numbers are given after each excerpt. (See also James B. Allen,
“The Story of The Truth, The Way, The Life,” BYU Studies 33, no. 4
[1993], 691-741.)
Other doctrines are considered and commented on besides evolution and the origin of man, but those were among the main issues that were objected to as Elder Roberts set them forth wrong in his book:
James B. Allen:
On October
18, Elder Clawson reported to the Council of the First Presidency and
Quorum of the Twelve that Roberts had come to his office
wanting to know if the book was being adopted as a priesthood course of study
in 1929. Clawson explained to him that a committee had been appointed to
“properly consider” the manuscript, but there had not been time to go over the
book and if it were to be used at all it would not be before 1930. In that
event, Roberts answered, he would have the work published privately and then,
if it were found suitable, it could be adopted as a priesthood text. The First
Presidency and the Twelve asked Elder Clawson to inform Roberts of their desire
that he not publish it until it had been studied by a committee appointed by
the Twelve and permission given for its publication. There was no hint that
anyone, as yet, had serious objections. There was, however, a clear consensus
that nothing of this nature should go out as an official Church text until it
had been fully approved by the leading authorities….
On October
25, Elder Clawson informed the Council of the First Presidency and the Twelve
that he had notified Roberts of their desire that the manuscript not be
published without approval by the committee….
The
committee appointed…took their time because they were extremely busy and they
were determined to do a thorough job…. They had been reading it together twice
a week, two hours at a time, for two months….
Meanwhile,
Roberts’s own patience was wearing thin. With hindsight, one can see that the
Twelve were acting responsibly, and probably as rapidly as could be expected.
(709-11)
B. H. Roberts statement:
It seems
that man was created “sufficient to stand,” yet “free to fall”—if he so willed
it; and the opportunity was afforded in the economy of the Creator to test this
man’s power of free moral agency. The commandment was given concerning a
certain fruit, which seemed to have in it in some way the elements of life and
death.
Reading Committee comment:
The
committee…questioned “that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil had in it
the seeds of life and death.” (158)
B. H. Roberts statement:
The view to
be maintained in this writing, however, is that the mind, the spirit of man,
has a preexistence to his earth life; and that there is a taking possession of
the body by this preexistent spirit at birth.
Reading Committee comment:
The
committee questions the advisability of stating any given time when the spirit
unites with the body. This question has never been definitely settled although
it has been asked of the First Presidency from time to time. The record in the
Book of Mormon where Nephi received the word that the Savior was to come into
the world [3 Nephi
[George
Albert Smith reported] The First Presidency have refused to give a definite
answer to this question at any time. Therefore we feel that a definite
statement should not be given. (246-47)
B. H. Roberts statement:
First,
Jesus who gives the revelation, is declared to be in the beginning with God,
co-eternal with God; that part of him which matters most, intelligence; the
intelligent entity; which was not created, and was not made, but which is
eternal, as all intelligences are. The “Thing,” the “Entity which starts out on
its career of progress, not each of the same quality or degree, but various;
not all as the “Word,” who is the Christ, was, but whether of low or of high
degree, nevertheless equal in this one thing, their eternity; and they are what
they are in virtue of what their varied intelligence itself is. Not being of
the same capacity, they will go forward swiftly, or slowly, or stand still, as
they choose. Some intelligences as spirits will rebel against the order of
things in the universe as did Lucifer and his following.…
Reading Committee comment:
Intelligence
and Spirit as used in this chapter are confusing terms. The thought may be
gathered that “Intelligence”—that eternal entity which was not created, may,
and sometimes does, rebel against truth and God. We do not so understand it. Those
who rebelled in the world of spirits were begotten
spirits, who, if they had remained faithful, were prepared to come into this
mortal world. The revelation which speaks of intelligence says: “Man was in the
beginning with God.” (When was this beginning?) Then this thought follows:
“Intelligence, or the light of truth;
was not created or made, neither indeed can be.” Again we are taught that “light
and truth”—intelligence—“forsaketh that evil one.” This being true, and
treating intelligence as an entity, then that entity cannot rebel against light
and truth, for it would rebel against itself.
[George
Albert Smith reported] In the opinion of the committee the intention is that
these intelligences after they become spirits
may rebel, as Lucifer did. Can this be clarified to say this? We do not have
any revelation stating that intelligences have power to rebel.” (261-62)
B. H. Roberts statement:
Not in
flesh and blood, then, did Moriancumer behold the Lord, but in the body of the
Lord’s spirit, or the spirit body, the spirit body begotten of the Father,
inhabited by the intelligent entity, the “Word” that was with God in the
beginning, and from all eternity, and “that was God,” and “that was (finally)
made flesh,” and “dwelt among men.”
Reading Committee comment:
The use of
the expression ‘Spirit-body of Christ.’ And ‘The Word’ is not made clear to us,
and we are left to wonder if these terms apply to the ‘Intelligence’ or to the
begotten spirit of Jesus Christ. (263)
R. H. Roberts statement:
It appears
from the second creation story that man is the first creation instead of the
last; that he is not only the first man, but the “first flesh” upon the earth
also….
Reading Committee comment:
The place
of man in the order of creation is questioned, as it is taught in this chapter.
The expression, “The first flesh upon the earth also,” is not interpreted by
members of the committee as you have expressed it here. We feel that the
arguments as given contradict the accounts given in all our scriptures, and the
more especially in the temple ceremonies. As we understand it the term, “first
flesh also,” does not have reference to Adam as being the first living creature
of the creation on the earth, but that he, through the “fall” became the first
“flesh.” Or mortal soul. The term “flesh” in reference to mortal existence is
of common usage. We find it so used in the scriptures. Adam having partaken of
the fruit became mortal and subject to death, which was not the condition until
that time. We are taught in the
[George
Albert Smith reported] This entire chapter is questioned by the brethren. It
pertains to man’s place in the creation. It is not in harmony with the
revelations, especially the ceremonies of the
B. H. Roberts statement:
We begin
then with Adam, and the procession of events from his time; which, with
reference to the whole period of the earth’s existence, may be set down as
comparatively recent, and even very recent times, within historic time in fact,
if we accept the Bible account of the commencement of things as historic. This
would admit of a very long period of time beyond the advent of Adam, to the
absolute beginning of the physical existences of the earth, during which time
pre-Adamite races, less developed than he, may have existed.
Reading Committee comment::
This entire
chapter deals with the question of “pre-Adamites.” This doctrine is not taught
by the Church; it is not sustained in the scriptures. It can only be treated as
an hypotheses, and the result will be uncertain, confusing, for after all is
said it is speculation leading to endless controversy. We are aware that one of
the brethren (Orson Hyde) in an early day advocated this teaching, however we
feel that the brethren of the general authorities cannot be too careful, and
should not present as doctrine that which is not sustained in the standards of
the Church. It appears to us that all which has been revealed is contrary to
this teaching, especially that given in the
[George
Albert Smith reported] This entire chapter is out of harmony with the teachings
of the authorities of the Church. The doctrine of pre-Adamites has never been
accepted by the church and is viewed by the brethren as being in conflict with
the revelations of the Lord. This is so with the
B. H. Roberts statement:
So there is
nothing mysterious—only as all existence is mysterious—in the matter of Adam
and Eve being created by act of generation, the process here suggested, and
then, when they had attained suitable development to receive this mission
appointment to open a dispensation with reference to the purposes of God on the
earth, they came to plant their race in a desolate earth….
Reading Committee comment:
This is
questioned by the committee. According to the revelations bearing on the
question, the earth was fully prepared for Adam and pronounced “good,” before
he was placed upon it, and was full of life and beauty.
[George
Albert Smith reported] It does not harmonize with the
B. H. Roberts statement:
To say that
a person is “immortal,” and then claim that by eating forbidden fruit or
anything else, he can become subject to death is a solecism, a rank
misunderstanding of terms. If a person is
immortal then he cannot die under any circumstances. If one supposed to be
immortal should die, you have conclusive evidence that he was not immortal.
Reading Committee comment:
The
doctrine that Adam came here a “translated” being from some other world is not
accepted as a doctrine of the Church. The theory that he came here from some
other world a “translated” being does not take care of the element of “death”
as that condition came into the world, for translated beings are subject to
death according to the teaching in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 28:36-40). The
scriptures teach us that Adam was not subject to death before the “fall,” and
would have lived forever in that innocent state if he had not “transgressed”
the law. His “fall” changed the condition and brought death into the world,
which could not have happened if death was already here. It is true that Adam
had not passed through the resurrection (2 Nephi
B. H. Roberts statement:
So too, are
good, beauty, truth, righteousness, life, peace, joy. These latter, however, as
we have seen, may be known only in duality—they are known only in contrast with
their respective opposites; good by its opposite or antinomy of evil; joy by
its opposite of sorrow; life by its opposite of death, and so following. To
know any one of these you must experience its opposite….
Reading Committee comment:
This
thought raises some questions. While it is necessary that there be opposition
in all things, yet a man does not have to sin, or come in contact with
wickedness by partaking of it, to know it. We may have failed in grasping the
meaning here.
[George
Albert Smith reported] Christ did not sin, yet he “experienced” evil. Can this
be changed to avoid this ambiguity? (343)
B. H. Roberts statement:
…Of this
they [Adam and Eve] had stern evidence in the death of their second son, Abel,
murdered by his brother Cain.
Reading Committee comment:
We question
this in the light of the writings of Moses. Adam may have had many sons and
daughters before Cain was born, so it appears. (355)
B. H. Roberts statement:
Could it be
that Satan had suggested the offering [from Cain] of a sacrifice that God had
not appointed, the offering of “first fruits of the ground,” rather than the
“firstlings of his flock”? A fruit offering rather than a “blood offering”—such
as would symbolize the offering to be made by the Son of God, who is called
“the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8)? Nothing could be
more insulting to the majesty of God than this, and nothing could be more
gratifying to Lucifer than through Cain to offer such an insult to God—it would
be mockery to his liking!
Reading Committee comment:
It was not
because he offered fruits, but because he hearkened unto Satan rather than unto
God (Moses
B. H. Roberts statement:
Since
Esaias lived in the days of Abraham and Abraham was blessed of him, is it not
quite possible that this “Esaias” was Melchizedek….
Reading Committee comment:
We question
the statement that Esaias and Melchizedek are the same, based on what is
written in D&C 84. (383)
B. H. Roberts statement:
This
passage [Moses
Reading Committee comment:
Evolution
and devolution of worlds, as stated here, is questioned. Worlds pass away, just
as this earth shall, but go on through the resurrection, or renewing, to
continue their existence in permanent, or immortal form. (D&C 29 and 88).
(406)
B. H. Roberts statement:
So with the
all-knowing attribute, omniscience: that must be understood somewhat in the
same light as the other attributes just considered; not that God is omniscient
up to the point that further progress in knowledge is impossible to him; but
that all the knowledge that is, all that exists, God knows. All that shall be
he will know. The universe is not so much “a being” as a “becoming,” or as it
unfolds; for he is universal consciousness, and mind—he is the “All Knowing
One” because he knows all that is known, and all that shall yet be to become
known—he will know it.
Reading Committee comment:
Progression
of God in knowledge. This thought is not accepted by members of the committee. We
do not feel that it is wise to express a thought limiting God in this manner,
which will cause needless controversy. While we believe in eternal progression
and that God is progressing, it is not in quest of hidden truth or laws yet undiscovered
to Deity. We prefer to believe with Nephi: “O how great the holiness of our
God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it” (2
Nephi
[George
Albert Smith reported] What is the need of stating that God is progressing in
knowledge? In other words that there are laws and eternal truths which he does
not know? This will only lead to controversy and needless discussion and
argument, and no purpose accomplished. In the judgment of the committee the
statement should not be made. There are scriptures which contradict this
thought. (418)
George Albert Smith (Chairman of the Reading Committee of
the Twelve, Oct. 10, 1929):
President
Rudger Clawson and
Members of
the Council of Apostles
Dear
Brethren:
The
subcommittee of the Council of the Apostles appointed to read the manuscript
written by Elder B. H. Roberts entitled, The
Truth, the Way, the Life, make the following report.
The
committee secured the manuscript and very carefully and systematically read it
through, sitting two sessions each week, until the work was finished.
In the main
the manuscript is very worthy treating subjects dealing with the mission of
Jesus Christ and gospel principles, which it would be well for all members of
the Church to understand. These subjects are faith promoting and would prove to
be helpful to the young people of the Church. However, the manuscript could be
greatly reduced without injury to the thoughts expressed.
The members
of the committee regret to say that there are some objectionable doctrines
advanced which are of a speculative nature and appear to be out of harmony with
the revelations of the Lord and the fundamental teachings of the Church. Among
the outstanding doctrines to which objection is made are: The doctrine that
there were races on the earth before Adam; That Adam was a translated being who
came to this earth subject to death, and therefore, did not bring death upon
himself and his posterity through the fall; That Adam was placed on the earth
when the earth was in a desolate condition and before any other life, belonging
to the “dispensation of Adam” was on the earth; That all life preceding Adam was
swept off, even to the fishes of the sea, by some great cataclysm so that a new
start had to be made; That God the Father is still discovering hidden laws and
truth which he does not know, but which are eternal….
The
committee, therefore, recommends to the Council of the Twelve that a report of
its findings be laid before the First Presidency, with the recommendation that
in its present form, the manuscript be not published.
Very
respectfully submitted,
Geo. Albert
Smith
Chairman of
subcommittee
(Correspondence, George Albert Smith to Rudger Clawson and
Members of the Council of Apostles,
Readers may also be interested in President Clawson’s
general conference talk on evolution and the origin of man:
A gentleman
said to me some time ago: "Do you believe in evolution?"
I said,
"Yes sir, I do." And then I said, "You will remember that there
are two views of this question of evolution, one bears upon true evolution and
the other bears upon what I call false evolution." And I called his
attention to the fact that the scriptures tell us—we find it in the first
chapter of Genesis—that God created animals after their kind—that of man and
that of animal—and it is set forth beautifully in these words:
"And
the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
"And
God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle,
and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
"And
God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind,
and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it
was good.
"And
God said. Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;'' [and we might
add: after our kind], "and let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
"So
God created man in his own image," [and we might add: after his kind]
"in the image of God created he him: male and female created he
them."
And so I
remarked that following this test and this view set forth by the scriptures,
one kind of animal never changes into another kind, that an elephant never
changes into a man, because if he did there would be a tremendous reduction of
avoirdupois, and as a matter of fact he does not. Neither is a mouse changed
into a giraffe. But I did remark that animals might be improved after their
kind and along their line, as we know to be the case. And then I added also,
that man may be improved along his own line by education, by study and reflection
and by worship of the God of heaven.
Conference Report, October 1923, 85-86.
No comments:
Post a Comment