Ardis Parshall is wrong about Joseph Fielding Smith

On her blog at Keepapitchinin, Ardis Parshall claims that publication of Joseph Fielding Smith's 1954 book, Man, His Origin and Destiny, "ignored the First Presidency's injunction to leave such matters alone."

Let's be clear about this. Whatever else he may have done during six decades as an apostle, Joseph Fielding Smith did not disregard a First Presidency directive when he published Man: His Origin and Destiny. In fact, David O. McKay's First Presidency, in a signed statement published in the Improvement Era, said of him: "No man has ever been more loyal to the President of the Church." (July 1966, p.613.)

Yes, that's right. It was David O. McKay's published opinion that Joseph Fielding Smith had always been loyal to the Church President—every bit as loyal, in fact, as any other man had ever been. So who do we believe, Ardis or President McKay?

Let's analyze more closely what Ardis says:

"In 1930-1931, several church leaders, notably Joseph Fielding Smith (apostle, and son of the church president), B.H. Roberts (a Seventy, and philosopher/historian), and James E. Talmage (apostle, chemist, and geologist) engaged in an extended and often rancorous exchange of views in various Mormon publications, with Smith taking a fundamentalist, anti-evolutionary position and Roberts and Talmage advocating elements of the secular scientific theories. The public argument called forth a memorandum of the First Presidency addressed to all of the church's general authorities. This memorandum noted the detrimental effect of such disputations on the church and commanded:  ' Leave Geology, Biology, Archaeology and Anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.' "

And there you have it, folks. In one paragraph, Ardis gives us the injunction that was allegedly ignored and some background so we can understand it.

The paragraph contains minor inaccuracies, [1]  but more importantly, there are significant omissions. For example, Ardis doesn't say anything about the book that was the object and focus of the discussions. Leaving that book out of the above story is like leaving the Book of Mormon out of the Restoration story.

So here is some of the information I feel Ardis should have included. (A more detailed version of these events was posted here and here in 2004.)

The 1931 First Presidency memo (the one that Ardis quotes) closed the Church's lengthy and official evaluation of a priesthood manual submitted in 1928 by Elder B. H. Roberts, a Seventy. Neither the author nor his manuscript were sympathetic to evolution. [2]  Problems arose for the manual, however, because it tried to reconcile fossils with scripture by (a) bringing the conclusions of science into its gospel lessons, and (b) advancing a new theory about the creation. The 1931 First Presidency memo says:

“Elder Roberts quotes from the scripture and extensively from the conclusions reached by the leading scientists of the world, to show that the earth is older than the time given to its creation in Genesis indicates.”

In the manuscript, and in his presentation before the Twelve (which was taken from Chapter 31 of the manuscript) Roberts brought in the latest conclusions of scientists in the fields of Geology, Biology, Archaeology, and Anthropology to support his theory.

Then, after two and a half years of discussion, the 1931 First Presidency memo said basically, Let's get back to work. Referring to the Roberts book, the First Presidency said the conclusions of Geology, Biology, Archaeology, and Anthropology don't belong in a priesthood manual. Discussions about the manuscript are over. The book will not be published. [3]

To the extent that it applies to anything beyond the Roberts book, the 1931 First Presidency memo was a directive not to bring the conclusions of science into the gospel and use them to interpret scripture as Roberts had done. And clearly, Joseph Fielding Smith's book, Man, His Origin and Destiny, doesn't use science to interpret scripture. President Smith's book does the opposite. It is, therefore, in full compliance with the 1931 First Presidency directive.

All of which means Ardis Parshall is merely bringing trumped-up charges against Joseph Fielding Smith when she says:

"The controversy was renewed briefly in 1954 when Smith, the last survivor of the leaders so prominent in the earlier debates, published Man, His Origin and Destiny. This volume ignored the First Presidency's injunction to leave such matters alone."

A Pharisee named Gamaliel counseled moderation when criticizing the apostles "lest haply ye be found even to fight against God" (Acts 5:39). Oh that all of us would more often heed this wise counsel.

In conclusion, a bloggernacle that watches quietly while Ardis Parshall makes a good man look bad should also be willing to allow this lowly blogger to refute her ridiculous charges and clear his good name on that one point.

---

Notes:

1.  Inaccuracies include:

The exchange of views began in October 1928 when, after the Roberts manuscript was submitted, a committee of five members of the Quorum of the Twelve was assigned to review it.

Joseph Fielding Smith was not "son of the church president" (Heber J. Grant), he was the son of a previous president (Joseph F. Smith);

This was primarily a private discussion and there was no rancor in either of the two items that were published. Therefore, calling it an "often rancorous exchange of views in various Mormon publications" is an exaggeration at best.

2.  Elder Roberts was not an evolutionist and his book does not promote evolution. On the contrary, his book plainly teaches that each "subdivision of life ... produces after its kind, whereas evolution in all its forms destroys that thought."

William E. Evenson has confirmed that Roberts, in his book, "addresses three forms of evolutionary theory with which he was familiar from science: materialistic or mechanical evolution, agnostic evolution, and theistic (or purposeful or creative) evolution. He finds all three approaches to be inadequate and rejects all current theories as he understands them. Instead he puts forward his own theory of evolution, which he calls 'developmental theism.' "

Evenson concludes that "Roberts's opinions are not those of an evolutionist. The differences of opinion between Roberts and Elder Joseph Fielding Smith on the subject of evolution were not centered on the scientific theories of origins of life forms. Rather, the central point of concern was whether death occurred on earth before the fall of Adam." (William E. Evenson, "Science: The Universe, Creation, and Evolution," a review of chapters 3-5, 9-10, 12, 21, 23-25, 29-32, in B. H. Roberts, The Truth, The Way, The Life, 2nd edition, Provo: BYU Studies, 1996, p.645.)

3.  More than sixty years after his death, the Roberts book was published posthumously.