Thursday, August 25, 2022

Henry Eyring's Dialogue with Joseph F. Smith Concerning the Age of the Earth

  

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)

 

Blog Archive