A DELICATE DIALOGUE
Henry
continued to receive requests from Church leaders for his scientific opinions,
particularly after 1954. That was the year that Elder Joseph Fielding smith
published a book called Man, His Origin and Destiny. In the book Elder
Smith reiterated the position that scripture should be read literally as it
pertained to the Creation.
One
of Henry’s wife’s cousins, Elder Adam S. Bennion, wrote asking what Henry
thought of Man, His Origin and Destiny. Henry responded with comments
about both the book’s strengths and also its shortcomings. On the latter score,
he particularly noted the book’s inconsistency with scientific findings and
with the beliefs of two deceased Church leaders, James Talmage and John
Widtsoe, both accomplished scientists and both former members of the Quorum of
the Twelve Apostles. Henry concluded, “Since the Gospel is only that which is
true, this book cannot be regarded as more than the private opinion of one of
your great men to be admired for the fine things in it” (See photocopy
reproduction in Heath, “Henry Eyring, Mormon Scientists,” 270). Significantly,
he ended the two-page letter with this invitation:
I
hope my opinions offered for what they are worth will not seem presumptuous.
Please feel free to make such use of this letter and the enclosed material as
you may choose. (Ibid.)
Henry
likely knew that, given this license, the letter would circulate. It did. Before
long Henry heard from Elder Smith. In fact, it wasn’t the first time that Elder
Smith had written him. Four years earlier, in 1950, Elder Smith penned a
five-page letter to Henry, explaining his view of the creation of the Earth (Letter
of June 12, 1950, Henry Eyring Papers, box 22, folder 3).
The
1954 letter from Elder Smith was similarly lengthy, but the tone was more
emphatic (See photocopy reproduction in Heath, “Henry Eyring, Mormon
Scientist,” 272-76). Elder Smith stated his pleasure at Henry’s achievements
and his confidence in the divine inspiration behind great scientific
discoveries. However, he reiterated his contrary views and challenged Henry to
respond. He also warned sternly against scientific arrogance, and he referenced
and even quoted from Henry’s letter to Elder Bennion. Though the tone of Elder
Smith’s letter wasn’t confrontational in a personal way, it seemed to invite a
formal debate.
Henry
replied to Elder Smith without delay. His letter was brief and conciliatory,
but gave no ground:
Thanks
for your letter of April 15, 1955. I am happy that you read my letter, which
you refer to, as it expresses accurately my point of view.
Given
the differences in training of the members of the Church, I never cease to
marvel at the degree of agreement found among believing Latter-day Saints. So
far from being disturbed to find that Brother Talmage, Brother Widtsoe and
yourself didn’t always see scientific matters alike, this situation seems
natural and as it should be. It will be a sad day for the Church and its
members when the degree of disagreement you brethren expressed is now allowed.
I
am convinced that if the Lord required that His children understand His works
before they could be saved that no one would be saved. It seems to me that to
struggle for agreement on scientific matters in view of the disparity in
background which the members of the Church have is to put emphasis on the wrong
place. In my judgment there is room in the Church for people who think that the
periods of creation were (a) 24 hours, (b) 1000 years, or (c) millions of years.
I think it is fine to discuss these questions and for each individual to try to
convert the other to what he thinks is right, but in matters where apparently
equally reliable authorities disagree, I prefer to make haste slowly.
Since
we agree on so many things, I trust we can amicably disagree on a few. I have
never liked, for example, the idea that many of the horizontally lying layers
with their fossils are wreckage from earlier worlds. In any case, the Lord
created the world and my faith does not hinge on the detailed procedures.
Thanks
again for your kindly, thoughtful letter. (Ibid., 277)
Not
long after this exchange of letters, Elder Smith invited Henry to his office to
discuss the age of the Earth. Years later, Henry offered two versions of what
happened that day. Both were positive, but the first was more diplomatic and
philosophical:
A
lively discussion ensued. As so often happens, each person brought up the
argument which supported his position and we parted each with much the same
position he held when the discussion began. But what was much more important,
the discussion proceeded on a completely friendly basis without recrimination
and each matter was weighted on its merits. So far as I am aware the matter ended
there. No one was asked to conform to some preconceived position. The Church is
committed to the truth whatever its source and each man is expected to seek it
our honestly and prayerfully. It is, of course, another matter to teach as
doctrine of the Church something which is manifestly contradictory and to urge
it in and out of season. I have never felt the least constraints in
investigating any matter strictly on its merits, and this close contact with
Elder Smith bore out this happy conclusion. (Eyring, “A Tribute to President
Joseph Fielding Smith,” 16)
At
a later time, Henry implied, somewhat mischievously, that the conversation may
have been a little more heated, at least on his part:
We
talked for about an hour. He explained his views to me. I said, “Brother Smith,
I have read your books and know your point of view, and I understand that it
how it looks to you. It just looks a little different to me.” He said as we ended,
“Well, Brother Eyring, I would like to have you come and let me talk with you
sometime when you are not quite so existed” (Kimball, “A Dialogue with Henry
Eyring,” 102) (Henry J. Eyring, Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of
Henry Eyring [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 32007], 60-62)