Compiled and Arranged by Dennis B. Horne
The following are comments given by a reading committee made up of members of the Quorum of the Twelve in 1929, regarding questionable doctrinal assertions in Elder B. H. Roberts’s book, 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 earlier Church reading committees. Because Elder Roberts would not edit 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 made-available 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. Robert’s Ms.” There were also notes included of a report made by the chairman of the committee, George Albert Smith, to the 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.)[1]
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 some times
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 Esais 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)[2]
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,
[1]
Historian James B. Allen summarized the situation:
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.
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)
[2]
Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith shared more of this reading committee story to a
group of religious educators assembled at BYU in 1954:
That [question] came up one
time in a manuscript we were reading—a committee of us—when Pres. McKay was in
the Council of the Twelve and he was on the committee with three or four of the
other Brethren of the Twelve, and the author [B. H. Roberts] in the chapter we
were reading made the statement that all the knowledge God has is relative;
that there are great hidden truths that have never been discovered, and He’s
working all the time to discover them. I said, “Well, I hope that one of these
days he doesn’t find something like chemists sometimes do that could blow him
up.” And they laughed and Pres. McKay said, “Say, there’s a whole lot to that
question.” I cannot believe that there is any law that He [God] does not know
(“The Fundamentals of the Gospel,” Unpublished presentation to BYU educators,
August 25, 1954, 11; copy in author’s possession).
No comments:
Post a Comment