(by Dennis B. Horne)
December 4, 1935; Joseph Fielding Smith, Letter to Sterling
B. Talmage:
My attention has been called to your letter of November 24,
1935, to President Heber J. Grant and Counselors in which you offer criticism
of an article written by Floyd Day and appearing in the Deseret News. I
do not know who Mr. Day is, neither do I care to enter into any controversy in
regard to what he has written or what you may write. I write to you now for one
purpose only.
In your communication you refer to a talk delivered by your father entitled “Earth and Man” and say it was an “Apostolic utterance delivered by appointment,” and again, “to be considered as an Apostolic utterance, and not merely an airing of his own views, ’for which the Church should not be held responsible’ as was presumptuously suggested by Dr. Sidney B. Sperry.” Since you have referred in similar terms to this discourse before, I am writing to say that I happen to know it was not issued by authority of the Church, but arbitrarily, in the absence of the President of the Church, and over the protest of the majority of the Council of the Apostles.
December 19, 1935; First Presidency letter to Sterling B.
Talmage:
We have
your letter of December 7, with reference to your father’s sermon, “The Earth
and Man,” and to the statement made to you by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith
regarding the same. You ask certain categorical questions concerning the
sermon.
Inasmuch as
categorical answers to your questions would not give – even if it were possible
to make them (which it is not)–a true picture of the situation, we feel it due
you and your inquiry to advise you of exactly what happened, for your
confidential information, regarding your father’s sermon above referred to.
There were
some antecedents to the preaching of the sermon, of which you may not be fully
advised. Briefly they were as follows:
Elder
Joseph Fielding Smith had preached a sermon expressing a view different from
that later expressed in your father’s sermon. The preaching of the sermon by
Elder Joseph Fielding Smith brought some controversy between Brother Brigham H.
Roberts and Brother Smith, which, after various exchanges, resulted in both
brethren being told that they should cease their discussion of the matter.
Thereafter
the matter seems to have been taken up with President Ivins by persons near to
him who were not willing that the matter should be allowed to rest where it
was. As a result of these activities, your father delivered the sermon, “The
Earth and Man.” It would seem that this was brought about through an
arrangement between President Ivins and your father. The sermon was delivered
at a meeting over which President Ivins presided.
Thereafter
the sermon was brought to the attention of the Council of the Twelve, where it
was the unanimous view, minus one, that the sermon should not be published. The
one not fully approving of this decision asked that the opportunity be give
your father so to recast the sermon as to make it acceptable. Accordingly there
were some changes made in the sermon, and it was again submitted to the quorum
of the Council of the Twelve. Upon this second submission it was again
determined by the Twelve, one excepting, that the sermon should not be
published. The member making the exception again pleaded that the sermon be
further changed in order to make its publication possible.
At this
point President Ivins withdrew the sermon from the consideration of the Council
and himself decided that it should be published. It was printed within two or
three days thereafter.
At the time
this final decision was made, President Grant was not at home, and was not
consulted.
The
foregoing are the recorded facts with reference to the publication and
“approval” of the sermon, “The Earth and Man.”
The later
publication of the sermon in pamphlet form was made without president Grant’s
knowledge or consent, though, it is understood, with the approval of President
Ivins.
You will
see from the foregoing that the sermon “The Earth and Man” cannot be regarded
as an official expression of the Church, binding upon the Church and covering
the subject matter discussed in the sermon. Its publication was never approved
by the President of the Church.
We make
this foregoing statement without making any comment at all upon the matters
discussed in the sermon. The whole point of this explanation is that the sermon
cannot be regarded as the official pronouncement of the Church.
With
reference to a further question involved in your letter, as to the value to be
attached to a publication made “by appointment:” In our Church, as you know,
men are called “by appointment” to do many things, but that does not mean that
the Church must approve everything that they do, nor does it necessarily give
to that which they do an official sanction. These
“appointments” are made merely in order that certain work shall be done. For
example: Elder John A. Widtsoe is at present engaged in delivering a series of
lectures at the University of Southern California, in a course bearing the
title, “Mormon History, Doctrines and Philosophy.” He is doing this “by
appointment” of the Presidency, but that does not mean that everything or
anything which Elder Widtsoe may teach or say, acquires, by virtue of the
“appointment” any peculiar value or force. Certainly what he says cannot be
taken as the official and therefore, of necessity, the inspired view of the
Church, nor the official doctrine of the Church. This does not mean that his
views are not orthodox–they may be or they may not be; it only means that
whether orthodox or not, they are not the official utterances of the Church and
are not binding upon the Church, and stand only as the well considered views of
a scholar and an Apostle of the Church.
This is the
position in which all of the work which your father did “by appointment’
stands.
You will
recall that for many years the Standard Works of the Church, by which the
Church should be guided, were accepted at our semi-annual conferences. The
practice of proposing them each Conference for acceptance and support by the
people has been discontinued, but the principle stands, namely, that only those
things which the Church itself accepts and adopts for its guidance can be
regarded as authoritative in the sense that they are the expressed views of the
Church.
Furthermore,
the fact that some of your father’s works were actually issued under the
supervision of committees of members of the Council of the Twelve, does not
give to any of those works the character of a Standard Work of the Church,
until adopted by the Church. The work done by these committees was a further
guarantee to the already great one which your father’s authorship itself gave,
that the statements, expressions, and discussions in the works were in harmony
with the principles of the Gospel, but that did not give the works such status
as is possessed, say, by a revelation contained in the Doctrine and Covenants,
nor did it give the work the status of a Standard Work of the Church.
In saying
all of this you will please understand that we are in no wise seeking to
detract from the great excellence of the work which your father did. He was a profound
student of the Gospel, he loved it, he marshalled all of his learning—which was
great—to the support of the Gospel, his writings supplied a great need which
the Church felt, they are deservedly used and quoted as authoritative sources
of expression of one who was high in Church councils, and who had a right to
the inspiration of the Lord, indeed they are frequently used almost as if they
were the Standard Works of the Church. We are happy to see them so used, but
notwithstanding all this, it must be understood that those writings are not
part of the Standard Works of the Church, and may not be so used or invoked.
We are sure
your father, with his clear, analytical, logical mind, would be the first to
recognize the accuracy and soundness of the foregoing observations.
Elder Harold B. Lee warned about theories and while doing so
also quoted Elder James E. Talmage, from his lecture “The Earth and Man,”
cautioning against mistaking theories as facts:
We
have these speculations, these theories that if we want to have them in our
minds as something to ponder and something that we never can find a full answer
to, let us go ahead and think about them but label them what they are and do
not teach them as facts until the Lord tells us about the details: for the
present, such ideas must be considered in the realm of theory.
With
further reference to this matter, Elder James E. Talmage, who was one of our
great scientists, has this to say about evolution: “Evolution is true so far as
it means development, and progress, and advancement in all the works of God;
but many of the vagaries that have been made to do duty under that name are so
vague as to be unacceptable to the scientific mind. At best, the conception of
the development of man’s body from the lower forms through evolutionary
processes has been but a theory, an unproved hypothesis. Theories may be
regarded as the scaffolding upon which the builder stands while placing the
blocks of truth in position. It is a grave error to mistake the scaffolding for
the wall, the flimsy and temporary structure for the stable and permanent. The scaffolding serves but a passing purpose,
important though it be, and is removed as soon as the walls of that part of the
edifice of knowledge have been constructed. Theories have their purpose and are
indispensable, but they must never be mistaken for demonstrated facts.”
Now
let me emphasize that again, with reference to religion as well as science.
Theories may have their purpose as scaffolding until we begin to evolve into a
better understanding of the gospel, but they must never be mistaken for
demonstrated facts.[1]
Elder James E. Talmage’s lecture “The Earth and Man” has become something of a banner for
evolutionists to rally behind, even though it doesn’t really promote
evolution—though he evidently does allow for death of plant and animal life
before the fall. Yet the story behind the lecture is not as simple as some have
supposed. The main reason Elder Talmage gave the lecture (in the Salt Lake
Tabernacle on August 9, 1930) was because the First Presidency had desired that
a senior church leader inform church membership (especially young people and
students) that “the Church does not refuse to recognize the discoveries and
demonstrations of science, especially in relation to the subject at issue [whether
there was death of plants and animals on the earth before the fall].”[2] Elder Joseph Fielding
Smith had given a talk earlier in which he had taught that there was no death
of any form of life before the fall of Adam. Evidently some students were
mistakenly inferring from his address that the church was opposed to science,
period. Elder Talmage, being an accomplished scientist (a chemist and
geologist), spoke of fossils being found in the earth’s crust, thinking they
indicated the death of plants and animals before the fall.
Elder Talmage’s journal does not specify a formal request for him to
speak, just that some one or more of the Brethren should. There is also no
indication of Elder Talmage being given any particulars, by the First
Presidency, of what to say. Under these circumstances, it is not fully clear
whether to see Elder Talmage’s lecture as arising from a First Presidency
appointment—but for the sake of argument, we can entertain that possibility.
Elder Harold B. Lee quoted a letter from a later First Presidency, written to
Elder Talmage’s son Sterling (who was seeking to defend both evolution and his
father’s lecture) explaining how appointments in the Church should be viewed:
If the [First] Presidency
appoints someone to do a certain thing, is that appointment sufficient to
guarantee what he says to be authentic? With reference to a certain address
which had been delivered years ago by one of our brethren on a controversial
subject, the First Presidency wrote:
“We
make this foregoing statement without making any comment at all upon the
matters discussed in the sermon. The whole point of this explanation is that
the sermon cannot be regarded as the official pronouncement of the Church.
“With
reference to a further question involved in your letter, as to the value to be
attached to a publication [“The Earth and Man”] made ‘by appointment’: In our
Church, as you know, men are called ‘by appointment’ to do many things, but
that does not mean that the Church must approve everything that they do, nor
does it necessarily give to that which they do an official sanction. These
‘appointments’ are made merely in order that certain work shall be done. For
example, Elder John A. Widtsoe is at present engaged in delivering a series of
lectures at the University of Southern California, in a course bearing the
title, ‘Mormon History, Doctrines, and Philosophy.’ He is doing this ‘by
appointment’ of the Presidency, but that does not mean that everything or
anything which Elder Widtsoe may teach or say acquires by virtue of the
‘appointment’ any peculiar value or force. Certainly what he says cannot be
taken as the official and therefore, of necessity, the inspired view of the
Church, nor the official doctrine of the Church. This does not mean that his
views are not orthodox—they may be or they may not be; it only means that
whether orthodox or not, they are not the official utterances of the Church and
are not binding upon the Church and stand only as the well-considered views of
a scholar . . . of the Church. This is the position in which all of the work
which your father [James E. Talmage] did ‘by appointment’ stands.”
Now,
that is a pretty straightforward interpretation, isn’t it? But I think it is
one that we all should get.[3]
This explanation gives us improved
perspective on how to view Elder Talmage’s lecture. It almost wasn’t approved
for publication by the Church, and though it eventually was, it is not a formal
doctrinal statement by the First Presidency, as is “The Origin of Man” and
“Mormon View of Evolution.”
After Elder Talmage gave his talk,
the advisability of publishing his lecture for the Church was deliberated by
the Quorum of the Twelve (Elder Talmage’s Quorum) at the request of the First
Presidency. Their report states:
“Report
of President Clawson made at the regular weekly meeting of the First Presidency
and the Council of the Twelve, October 1 [1931], dated November 20, 1931”
The
Council of the Twelve were in session on Tuesday, September 29, their quarterly
meeting day.
I
am prompted to give rather a full report of our proceedings because of the
importance already attached to brother Talmage’s sermon which was referred to
the Twelve for their opinion as to whether or not it should be published.
The
whole day was given over to a consideration of this matter. Nearly all, if not
all, the brethren spoke expressing their views with reference to various
portions of the sermon which, in the views expressed, were quite fully
analyzed.
Early
in the discussion one of the brethren said he could not see an objectionable
utterance in the sermon whatever, that, in his opinion, it is exactly what is
needed to be placed in the hands of our young people who are tinged with skepticism,
to reconcile them to the teachings of the gospel. He reported that a great
number of copies of the sermon had been applied for to distribute among the
young people of the Church.
Others
of the brethren did not apparently entertain this view.
The
consensus of opinion was, as I interpreted it, that inferences might be drawn
from the sermon, if published in its present form, that would lead to much
discussion in the Church and possibly put into the minds of many people doubts
in relation to the correctness of some matters, or doctrines, given to the
Church by divine revelation. As for instance, it is well understood by the
brethren of this Council to be a doctrine of the gospel, given to the Church by
Divine Revelation, through Joseph Smith, the Prophet, that Adam was the first
man (on the earth); that he was and is the Father of the human family, and
presides over the human family under Christ; that he is the Ancient of Days,
which in itself is a very significant title; that mortality and death upon the
earth came through the fall and the fall came by the transgression of Adam and
Eve in the Garden of Eden. I take it for granted that the brethren of this
Council accept these doctrines fully and completely without mental reservation.
This
was one phase of the question under discussion. Now, let me point out the other
principal phase briefly, and as fairly as I am able to do.
The
sermon in one paragraph sets forth the claim, (which to do justice to Brother
Talmage, is given as the views of eminent scientific men) that there was life
and death upon the earth in an endless succession of animals and plants running
back into the ages and ages that are past, thus leaving one to infer that there
was life and death upon the earth before Adam, or prior to the fall.
Wherever
in the Church the discussion takes this phase our young people will be left to
choose between Divine Revelation and the claims of science, which latter are
often based on theory;
And
again the scientific theory, or claim, is set forth in the sermon to the effect
that man finally emerged, or was developed from and through a line of animal
life reaching back, into numberless ages of the past, to the protoplasm. This
of course is the doctrine of evolution and is as I understand it repugnant to
the teachings of the Church of Christ.
Should
this phase of the sermon be discussed among our people, many misleading
inferences would be drawn, and questions like this might arise: If there was
life and death and a race of men before the fall of Adam, then there must have
been two Adams and two falls, also two fathers of the human family, all of
which would lead to utter confusion.
Finally
a motion was made and seconded to the effect that in the opinion of the Twelve
the sermon should not be published. This motion, after some further discussion,
was followed by a substitute motion to the effect that the sermon be returned
to Brother Talmage and that he be requested to remodel it if possible by
cutting out the objectionable features. Brother Talmage consented to do this.
The
substitute motion was adopted. The matter will be further considered by the
Twelve. I may be permitted to say that throughout the discussion good feelings
were maintained by the brethren who appeared, notwithstanding difference of opinion,
to desire to do the right thing.
Note:
When this report was made to the Council some of the brethren took exception to
the expression, “reaching back, into numberless ages of the past, to the
protoplasm.” I presume I should have said “reaching back, into numberless ages
of the past, to the single-celled protozoan.”
It is insightful to follow the
deliberations of the Twelve on the matter of this lecture, which provides a
more negative nuance than Elder Talmage’s journal; also to notice the President
of the Twelve’s comment about the Quorum viewing evolution as being repugnant
to church doctrine; also how close the lecture came to not being published
because of objectional portions. We are not appraised as to what Elder Joseph
Fielding Smith may have said in this meeting. We can easily guess however, that
he would have favored either not publishing the lecture, or removing the parts
he believed contrary to the scriptures. We do know what President Smith wrote
to Elder Talmage’s son about the publication of his father’s address: “In your
communication you refer to a talk delivered by your father entitled ‘Earth and
Man’ and say it was an ‘Apostolic utterance delivered by appointment,’ and
again, ‘to be considered as an Apostolic utterance, and not merely an airing of
his own views.’ ‘for which the Church should not be held responsible’ as was
‘presumptuously suggested by Dr. Sidney B. Sperry.’ Since you have referred in
similar terms to this discourse before, I am writing to say that I happen to
know it was not issued by authority of the Church, but arbitrarily, in the
absence of the President of the Church, and over the protest of the majority of
the Council of the Apostles.”[4] President Smith gave the
same information to Dr. Henry Eyring:
[In a letter] You also said: “It
would be instructive to have President Smith comment on ‘The Earth and Man,’ by
Dr. James E. Talmage, delivered from the tabernacle August 9, 1931, and
published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” I assure you
that it would have been a pleasure to have commented on that talk. No one is
more familiar with it and how it came to be published than I, and I can state
positively that it was not published by the Church, nor by the approval of the
Authorities of the Church. There are some circumstances concerning this
discourse which I think it is hardly proper for me to write inasmuch as the
First Presidency, one of whom was President David O. McKay, gave the answer to
Dr. Sterling B. Talmage in reply to an inquiry from him, which, in my opinion,
sets forth the facts as I have stated them. I suggest that you write Dr.
Sterling B. Talmage and ask him to permit you to read this communication from
the First Presidency, Presidents Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and
David O. McKay, dated December 19, 1935.[5]
[This is the First Presidency letter on “appointments” quoted by Elder Lee
above.]
There are still other angles from
which this lecture and its publication can be viewed. For instance, over the
last few years, the superb journal of President George Q. Cannon has become available for study. One entry is especially relevant.
It seems that Brother Talmage, long before he gave his lecture on “The Earth
and Man,” put considerable thought and effort into formulating his own
position. In 1899 (over 30 years before the lecture) President Cannon recorded: “Brother James E. Talmage came to the
office [of the Church president] with a number of questions that he wished
answered. The First Presidency listened to them. President [Lorenzo] Snow
excused himself and asked President (Joseph F.] Smith and myself to answer
them. They were questions concerning science and the attitude that scientific
men occupied in relation to the scriptures. He wished these questions answered
because he is professor of geology in the University [of Utah] and holds the
chair endowed by the Church. I fancied from the drift of his talk that he
himself was unsettled on some points, for instance, the antiquity of man, and
whether there were more progenitors of our race than Adam.” It shows a marked
degree of humility and receptiveness in this gifted professor, that before
deciding his own mind he sought the views of the First Presidency. From
Presidents Cannon and Smith he would have received no encouragement regarding
these scientific theories of men “in relation to scripture”; both counselors
were opposed to evolution. This helps explain why he eventually settled on the
position he did regarding the creation of Adam and Eve.
Another angle: in 1967, when Elder
McConkie was teaching a summer school class for religious educators at BYU, he
conducted a question and answer session, and these items came up. Elder
McConkie was obviously familiar with the content of Elder Talmage’s address,
and very diplomatically sought to explain how issues such as contrary opinion
among church leaders should be approached:
Question: Was Adam immortal before the
fall?
Answer: Adam was immortal before the
fall; meaning that body and spirit were inseparably connected.[6]
But it’s a different kind of immortality than resurrected immortality, and that
is what caused Bro. Talmage to coin the word “unmortal,” to try and distinguish
between the two kinds of immortality. There was no death for Adam until a
change came, which change is named the fall….
All we have done up to this point in
our consideration of the atonement, is lay the basic foundation, to define the
term and show its importance, and show the foundations upon which it rests [the
creation and the fall of Adam] and out of which it as a doctrine grows and a
lot of blessings that flow from it. And there are a lot of applications to
things that it has….
Question: In relation to the fall of
Adam, why was “The Earth and Man” by Talmage reprinted in the Instructor two weeks ago because it
seems to contradict—
Answer: I haven’t the faintest
idea—write the Instructor. Don’t ask
me.
Question: How do you feel about the
comments of Bro. Talmage?
Answer: There are a lot of divergent
views on this business. Everybody knows that. There isn’t anybody here who
doesn’t know that there are people who think that they can harmonize evolution
and the gospel, or who think that things happened in a different way than the
scriptures say they did.
All I’m hoping to do today is to say
precisely and accurately what the scriptures say, and I did make the comment
earlier that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and Orson Pratt and Parley P. Pratt
and John Taylor and Joseph F. Smith and the early Brethren who interpreted
these scriptural passages did it in the way we are doing it here. Now it just so happens in the Church that
people believe all [different] portions of the gospel and some of them don’t
believe very much and some of them believe a little more and I hope the day
comes that we will all believe a lot more. But you can’t really harmonize 2
Nephi 2 about no death in the world with some of the evolutionary theories. You
just can’t do it…. Now that’s what I say.
You’re going to find somebody else that says something different. I’m aware of
that. I hope what you will do is get a hold of the scripture and try to tie in
what you believe with what the revelations actually say—as interpreted by
Joseph Smith the Prophet and so on.
Comment: I heard “The Earth and Man”
was published without the consent of the First Presidency and without their
approval—I think we need to note that fact.
Answer: I don’t know that this is
true so maybe I shouldn’t say it, but I understand that someone who’s the top
man in the Church was a little upset with it. He didn’t tell me that but the
rumors float around our building.[7]
These further insights enlarge and
clarify perspective where this lecture by Elder Talmage is concerned. No matter
what he actually came to believe in regard to plant and animal life and death
on the earth before the fall of Adam, we do have this testimony from Elder Talmage, given at the October, 1916, General
Conference, that tells us what he thought of evolution (or theistic evolution)
in relation to the creation of man: “When I see how often the theories and
conceptions of men have gone astray, have fallen short of the truth, yea, have
even contradicted the truth directly, I am thankful in my heart that we have an
iron rod to which we can cling—the rod of certainty, the rod of revealed truth.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints welcomes all truth, but it
distinguishes most carefully between fact and fancy, between truth and theory,
between premises and deductions; and it is willing to leave some questions in
abeyance until the Lord in his wisdom shall see fit to speak more plainly. As
the result of the combined labors of wise men I learn that man is but the
developed offspring of the beast; and yet I read that God created man in his
own image, after his likeness; and again, I stand on the word of God, though it
be in contradiction to the theories of men.”[8]
[1]
Harold B. Lee, “The Story of the Creation,” Lecture Given to Seminary and
Institute Teachers, June 22, 1954,
Brigham Young University. For further information about
the problems of holding too tightly to scientific theories, see Hugh Nibley, “Archaeology
and Our Religion,” and especially its follow-up document, a letter that Hugh
Nibley wrote to Lorin F. Wheelwright, September 16, 1965, discussing and
defending his Archaeology article that had been rejected for publication, and
also bringing up the fallacies of evolution.
[2]
As quoted from James E. Talmage journal, November 21, 1930.
[3]
Harold B. Lee, excerpt from “The Church and Divine Revelation,” Lecture Given
to Seminary and Institute Teachers, Brigham Young University, July 13, 1954.
[4]
Personal Correspondence, Joseph Fielding Smith to Sterling B. Talmage, December
4, 1935; copy in author’s possession.
[5]
Personal Correspondence, Joseph Fielding Smith to Henry Eyring, April 15, 1955,
4; copy in author’s possession.
[6]
Here, “inseparably connected” is evidently a misstatement, or should be
understood to mean inseparably connected only while they were in their
unmortal/nonmortal pre-Fall condition, as the next sentence in full context
clearly shows. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “We read also that in
fulfilment of the promise of the Lord, Adam died. . . . He, like all of his
posterity, had to be redeemed from death through the mission of Jesus Christ. A
resurrected being cannot die; therefore Adam was not a resurrected being from
some other planet, when he came here. . . . It is true that Adam (Michael) as a
spirit came from another planet, a celestial world; so did I and you, for we
dwelt in the presence of God our Eternal Father in that world before we were assigned
to this mortal world. Adam was not born of earthly parents, that is mortal
parents. He was not subject to death and could have lived forever had he not
transgressed the law. (2 Nephi 2:22.) It was possible, however, for Adam,
through that transgression, to bring mortality upon himself because he had not
passed through the resurrection. In the resurrection the spirit and body became
inseparably connected. (D&C 88:15-16, and 93:33.) (As quoted in personal
correspondence, Joseph Fielding Smith to unnamed recipient; undated.)
[7]
“The Atonement,” BYU Summer 1967 graduate religion class lecture, unpublished
transcript made by author.
[8] James E. Talmage, General Conference, October 1916, 75. One author of an article on the disagreements and discussions of Bros. Talmage, Smith, and Roberts, wrote this about Elder Talmage: “Although he seems to have rejected (after his college years) the theory that life forms evolved from one another, the logical implication of his comments was that his mind could be changed by further scientific evidence; his objections to evolution did not derive from a particular scriptural interpretation” (82). I think there is no question the testimony quoted from Elder Talmage’s General Conference talk entirely refutes that conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment