Spencer W. Kimball on Evolution
by Jared* on April 13th, 2006Over at No Death Before the Fall, Gary has been posting on the views of Harold B. Lee and David O. McKay concerning pre-Adamites. I’ve been intending to do this post for a while, so I guess now is as good a time as any. The following material is taken from Chapter 11 of the recent biography, Lengthen Your Stride, by Edward Kimball. All of what follows comes from the final manuscript (as opposed to the draft version contained on the accompanying CD-ROM). Please note that I have taken material from two sections of the chapter and am presenting it in the order that makes sense for my purposes here.
–Begin Quotes–
In 1979 President Kimball met with the Presiding Bishopric…and Elder McConkie to discuss a proposal that on the Church’s sequicentennial the First Presidency publish an official statement on the creation and evolution. But after extended discussion, they decided in 1980 not to issue any such official statement. According to Elder Ezra Taft Benson’s grandson Stephen, Elder Benson had strong personal anti-evolution views but “acknowledged that ‘the Lord may not have revealed enough to create unanimity among the Brethren.’” Elder Benson reportedly said any statement would be “unwise” and serve only to “widen differences…” (pg. 96-97)
President Kimball was not a doctrinaire, and he felt a need to intervene in doctrinal matters only when he saw strong statements of personal opinion as being divisive. Elder McConkie’s talk at BYU on “The Seven Deadly Heresies” implied he had authority to define heresy…President Kimball responded to the uproar by calling Elder McConkie in to discuss the talk. As a consequence, Elder McConkie revised the talk for publication so as to clarify that he was stating personal views…But there was no corrective public criticism of the talk… (pg. 101)
These statements [such as Elder McConkie’s in the speech referenced above], without any public expression of a different view by other leaders, gave the mistaken impression that the Church had a position on the issue, despite the continuing hands-off position of the First Presidency and the Twelve. (pg. 97)
–End Quotes–
According to Edward Kimball, President Kimball said little about the issue in public and was noncommittal in family discussions, viewing it as a distracting issue. (pg. 97)
Jared,
I have to confess that my two most recent articles (The Watchmaker Analogy and Spencer W. Kimball and the watchmaker analogy) are partly in response to your article, Spencer W. Kimball on Evolution, posted yesterday. In actual fact however, these articles were already partly written when I saw yours. If you haven’t figured it out already, everything I’ve posted this month will eventually tie into the second half of my review of Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements.
I am picturing a Mormon Edition Chess Set, with leaders opposed to evolution on one side and those in favor or ambiguous on the other.
Really, I understand the desire to weigh one’s experts against another’s, but in most cases I don’t get the feeling that any of the Church leaders really studied evolution much at all. I do not mean that as a criticism of them, mind you. Rather, I think many of them had a class or two in college, didn’t find biology all that interesting, and then decided to move on with their lives and their interests. That is certainly the impression I get from what you have written here about Spencer Kimball.
I find evolution fascinating and important–and well I should, as a zoologist–but I wouldn’t expect a Church leader to have strong opinions on it any more than he would on free-trade agreements, cold fusion, or any other not-necessary-for-salvation topic.
I don’t doubt that there were/are some leaders who had/have strong and bold views on the subject, but I know that the Church has not officially made a push to publicize whatever official policy it may have. I have read Gary’s analysis at “No Death Before the Fall”; I found it to be very careful and thoughtful. But I am skeptical of the overall conclusion that the Church has any definitive position when the only way to prove such is to go through such careful analysis.
Give me an official statement that is declared as such by the First Presidency, or a 14th Article of Faith, or an appendix to the D&C, or even a series (yes, plural) of General Conference talks. As much as the issue matters to me, I do not think that it matters to my religion.
BrianJ
“…in most cases I don’t get the feeling that any of the Church leaders really studied evolution much at all.”
When it comes to the Presidents of the Church, this is true. However, Elders Talmage and Widtsoe were both quite well versed in the concepts of evolution. In fact, Talmage was the head of the Geology Dept. at the University of Utah for some time. Both were very receptive to evolution and fought against the publication of anti-evolution propaganda by other Apostles see this article). I think that in general the Brethren have made a wise choice in taking the official stance that the Church has no official position on evolution. They have consistently stated that their job is to magnify their callings in the Church, leaving the details of science to the scientists.
One should note though that the state of evolution in those days was different from today. I’m also not convinced Talmage and Widstoe were quite as positive towards evolution proper as you suggest. Although they certainly were uncomfortable about some of the more radical views of other figures. But I think they tended to adopt a more half-way position.
John A. Widstoe was a professional chemist who was also president of the University of Utah for several years. I understand that before becoming an Apostle he was an open advocate of evolution, but that afterwards as he became more familiar with the religious aspects of the debate, he backed off into a more neutral position.
As far as Church policy is concerned, James E. Talmage, John A. Widstoe, Joseph F. Merrill, and Richard R. Lyman (*) were largely responsible for keeping the official position of the Church neutral with regard to the scientific aspects of Evolution in the early 1930s, when Joseph Fielding Smith was promoting a hard Young Earth Creationism. A softened version of the JFS position certainly has more currency in the Church today, especially in CES, but the Church’s wisely adopted neutrality with respect to the details lives on.
(*) James E. Talmage, a professional geologist, was also a president of the University of Utah. Joseph F. Merrill was a professional physicist / electrical engineer that the Merrill Engineering Building at the University of Utah is named after. Richard R. Lyman was a noted civil engineer.
The Mike Ash article linked to by Capt. Obsidian has some interesting correspondance between John Widtsoe and Sterling Talmage.
Clark brings up a good point regarding the state of evolution back then. The modern synthesis developed in the 30’s and 40’s, and only fairly recently is developmental biology coming into it.
It’s also important to remember that there were some ugly things occuring–man’s inhumanity to man–that used evolution (as then understood) as justification.
I go with Henry Eyring, Sr. God created the world and I don’t really care how He did it. I really don’t even care.
Because if I exist, there is a God and it’s all good. But maybe I’m not even really here. Or maybe I am and you’re not. It’s all good. Like I said.
But Anne, many people do care. Indeed many people leave the church over just this because the way some present Mormonism entails an essential conflict between established science and our religion. I don’t think this conflict is necessary. But it is good to get the word out there.
Capt, re post #3: I intentionally used the word “most” in post #2, instead of the word “all”; i.e. I recognize the exceptions as exceptions. I realize that my poor sentence structure could make it seem like I was saying that not even one leader has studied science.
[…] Elder McConkie certainly did not like evolution, but perhaps this represents a demotion of evolution, by Elder McConkie, from “deadly” to “potentially dangerous” [5]. 1. Lengthen Your Stride, by Edward Kimball. See also this post. 2. There is also another list of heresies in Elder McConkie’s A New Witness for the Articles of Faith. 3. A portion of the speech is available here. (Scroll down a little bit.) 4. Perhaps it is worth clarifying that the LDS conception of damnation is more about lack of personal progression and lost blessings rather than traditional hell-fire. 5. Adam-God, on the other hand, was not demoted; if anything, it was elevated. […]
I would like to say again that I find it absurd that people are so interested in things which will never have any measurable effect upon us as will how we treat oneanother. How have we evolved on that wise? Not very good at all. We are loosing our country that our forefathers worked so hard to give to us and it like, just goes right over our heads because of pride. How about the now? How come you righteous people are’nt buying up land one acre after another, you who can afford to do so, so that our enemies can’t have it? How is it that you cannot even controll our system when many of you have the power to do so? But you instead accept defeat and settle with bullshit ideas as to whether or not your forfathers were monkeys?