Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding
FOREWORDby Duane F. JefferyThere is a certain irony in the fact that the twentieth century in Mormonism begins and ends with the teachings of Joseph F. Smith. He became president of the church in 1901, and from then until his death in 1918, he presided over a major consolidation of doctrines that, up to that time, had not been particularly well defined. This consolidation—or reconstruction, as historian Thomas G. Alexander has called it—was driven primarily by three prominent Mormon writers and doctrinal commentators whose roles in this area have not been fully recognized by the church at large: B. H. Roberts, James E. Talmage, and John A. Widtsoe.These three were far more sensitive to the life of the mind than were many of their religious contemporaries; they believed deeply that the gospel was too precious to be defended with anything but the best scholarship and honesty the Saints could muster. They believed in an ultimate synthesis of truth, and that God reveals his truths through both prophets and academicians. And their names have come to symbolize that commitment. Talmages two seminal works—Jesus the ChristandArticles of Faith—remain the foundations of Latter-day Saint doctrinal study. Roberts’sComprehensive History of the Churchstill stands as the church’s official history for its first century; his priesthood manuals for the years 1907-12 still constitute the high-water mark of our organized doctrinal study courses. Widtsoe’s long history of doctrinal writings (Evidences and Reconciliations) in the church’s official magazine continues to exert considerable influence.Not to be ignored or forgotten is Nels L. Nelson, an English professor at Brigham Young University who during the early years of the twentieth century enjoyed an unusual relationship with church president Joseph F. Smith. President Smith was known to send drafts of his speeches to Nelson for editing and suggestions, and it was Nelson who produced Mormonism’s first book on that most controversial of issues: science and religion.The book appeared in 1904 and was considered a missionary tract by both its author and by the church’s governing First Presidency. Nelson envisioned it as the first of at least two books aimed at making Mormonism noticed—and noted—by the world’s academic fraternity. He titled itScientific Aspects of Mormonism, and aimed to show that not only was Mormonism compatible with then-current scientific thought, but that indeed it had arrived at many of the basic philosophical positions before science did. Of particular interest is his teaching of a rather thorough-going brand of organic evolution—he saw it as fully compatible with Mormon teachings and revelations.Demonstrating such a consilience of science and religion was necessary, Nelson believed, because “a religion which is not scientific is scarcely worth the credence of our enlightened age.” And while he recognized that he could not deal with all concepts of science, he insisted that he could show that Mormonism’s “basic data are not out of keeping with those general laws of nature on which all the conclusions of scientists rest,” and that “science and Mormonism see things in this world primarily in the same way, and also reason as to the purpose of things in the same way.” For him, the “book of nature” is (like scripture) a direct revelation of God; the laws of the universe are nothing more than the general divine laws of God. Mortality was meant to be “a glorious university—the only real university—for the development of (God’s) sons and daughters.”Unfortunately, Nelson was not trained in science and his treatise suffers from that fact. His overall outlook was laudatory but ultimately flawed, both by his own limitations and those of the science of the day. For evolution is surely the most controversial philosophical concept of the modern world, and its mechanisms were only dimly seen in 1904. The entire process is founded on the science we now call genetics—but that word was not even coined until the year after Nelson’s book appeared. In 1904 we did not even know if the laws of genetics applied to human beings—the first demonstration of that came also the year after Nelson’s book was published.So Nelson’s effort was doomed despite the soundness of his overall conceptual scheme that religion must progress along with science or it will quickly become irrelevant for anything other than social niceties. I fear that subsequent developments in the twentieth century have validated that point of view.Ultimately religions can do only about three things with science. They can, of course, attack it, and many religious concepts now lie in the dust bin of history from that approach. They can ignore it—in which case they progressively become incapable of addressing modem and future problems. Or they can engage it and incorporate the demonstrated truths found thereby into a more productive view of their overall universe.This latter path is difficult, and to many people of faith it sounds like selling the store, given the past history of science/religion relationships. But that is so only if one takes the view that God reveals himself solely through revelation and scripture, and that scripture is doctrinally complete—or, if not complete, at least sufficient. And that has not been the position of historical Mormonism.The angel Moroni had spelled that out to church founder Joseph Smith, citing the ancient prophecy of Joel: “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions” (Joel 2:28; JS-H 1:41). This scripture has been consistently understood by Mormon commentators to refer to the rise of science. Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith (son of President Joseph F. Smith) probably stated this interpretation most succinctly:…the Lord has already commenced to pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, and we do find even now that the sons and daughters prophesy; the old men dream dreams, and the young men see visions.Now, my brethren and sisters,I am not going to confine this prophecy to the members of the Church. The Lord said he would pour out his Spirit uponallflesh … (p. 176)There has never been a step taken from that day to this, in discovery or invention, where the Spirit of the Lord … was not the prevailing force, resting upon the individual, which caused him to make the discovery or the invention … nor did the Lord always use those who have faith, nor does he always do so today. He uses such minds as are pliable and can be turned in certain directions to accomplish his work, whether they believe in him or not. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:176, pre-1954; emphasis in original.)I suppose that Joseph Fielding Smith may not have meant to include Charles Darwin and evolution in this sweeping idealism, though in this particular passage he did not qualify his sentiment at all.But in President Joseph F. Smith’s day, the church began to deal with Darwin and evolution fairly directly. The Nelson book was a beginning. In 1908 President Smith and his counselors in the First Presidency took note of the rising tide of international discussion regarding the implications of evolution for religion and morals. They appointed a committee to formulate a position statement for the church, to be released in November 1909. This was a double anniversary—fifty years to the month since Darwin had published his fundamental work,On the Origin of Species, as well as the centennial of Darwin’s birth.The committee’s work appeared over the signatures of Joseph F. Smith and his counselors. It has been reprinted many times by critics of evolution in the church, for it is easily interpreted as having an anti-evolutionary tone. Its major argument is that man is composed of both body and spirit, and it labors long to establish that the human spirit results from a spirit birth to a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. The origin of the human body is less clear, however. After stating that Adam, “like Christ, took upon himself an appropriate body,” the statement turns briefly to other matters, then dismisses evolution and concludes by saying that humans are capable of evolving into Gods.Numerous questions from church readers prompted a clarification just five months later. In April 1910, in their official columns in the church magazine, the First Presidency took a more detailed stance. They identified three possible options for the origin of the human body, listing evolution by “natural processes … through the direction and power of God” as one acceptable view. No First Presidency since then has ever clarified the details of this issue any further. I find it regrettable that the church’s study manual for 2000-2001 includes only the 1909 statement, with no context whatever nor any evidence of the subsequent clarification.Commentary on evolution continued cautiously from that time on. The next major LDS book dealing with the subject was written by geologist Frederick J. Pack in 1924 and is decidedly pro-evolution. As this present book details, that guardedly favorable attitude in the church continued for some time. A major discussion among the general authorities in 1931 resulted in a First Presidency ruling that the church had no doctrinal position on either side of the two most controversial issues: whether there were human-like beings on Earth before the time generally ascribed to Adam, and whether there was death on Earth prior to the fall of Adam. So for several decades, beginning with Joseph F. Smith’s administration, the church remained open on the subject of evolution, though aware of po...