Henry Eyring's Dualistic View of God

  

Perhaps most significantly, Henry also had a dualistic view of God. He knew from Joseph Smith’s testimony that man is created in the image of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, and that they have bodies of flesh and bone. However, he also believed that their influence is as expansive as the universe; he has as evidence of that both the inspired writings of Joseph Smith and also his own scientific observations, which showed divine order everywhere. Like Joseph Smith, Henry had no difficulty with the paradox of an individual, personal God who also exerts limitless influence. (Henry J. Eyring, Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007], 166)

 

In the endnote to the above paragraph, we read that:

 

Henry had a historical analogy for the duality of God’s nature: “If we read the story of Robert E. Lee, the great military tactician, we find that even at Gettysburg his army was maneuvered as though Lee himself was storming Cemetery Ridge alongside Pickett, as well as being everywhere else on the battlefield. Lee’s success as a general depended to a very great extent on the gathering of information about the strength, position and intentions of his adversary before and after the battle started. The result is that any story of Lee as a general would tell about his influence permeating the whole sphere of his activities and very little about Lee the man. In this sense Lee is two people, the man like anyone else, and for far-flung intelligence system which governed the mention of himself and his army much as the wave is spread out in space and governs the motion of a photon or a material particle.

 

“In an analogous manner, we may think of God as the all-wise arbiter of the Universe, with His infinite wisdom having an influence which permeates the most remote recesses of space, and yet being Himself an exalted being with personality and deep concern for struggling humanity. One of the many things the Restored Gospel has done is to emphasize, as the scriptures have always done, the deep personal concern of God for His children.” (Eyring, Faith of a Scientist, 84-85). (Ibid., 312 n. 5)

 

Henry Eyring on Whether We Will Create Life

  

BOLD REASONING

 

Henry didn’t stop at logical analysis of such fundamental doctrines as the existence of God or His communicating through prophets and scripture. His reasoning sometimes took him to the limits of imagination (and sometimes the limits of official Church doctrine). For instance, based on a noted astronomer’s estimate that the universe contains 100 million planets on which life might exist, Henry reasoned,

 

It is accordingly natural to conclude that the universe is flooded with intelligent beings and, presumably, always has been. Any unfolding of intelligences that may eventuate on this earth only repeats what has happened previously elsewhere. (Eyring, Faith of a Scientist, 97)

 

To the controversial question, “Are we going to create life?” he responded with this reasoning:

 

You know, it would be a pity if you could prove that it could not be done. It would really be downright embarrassing, because I am already here. It must have been done. Life has been created and I suspect, therefore, that it can be done again. It is just a matter of knowing how. Some people think that they would apostatize if somebody came out with a report that life was created—that somehow it would violate some principle in the gospel. I wish that any of you who feel that way would show me which one it is. We believe that the Lord did create life. We believe that we are His children. We believe that if we learn enough, someday we might be creative, too. However, do not worry about it. Nobody has gotten a tub yet and mixed in some chemicals and had a man step out of it. That is not here yet. (Eyring, “Science and Religion,” 3-4) (Henry J. Eyring, Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007], 238-39)

 

Henry Eyring's Approach to Macroevolution

  

As a devout Latter-day Saint the important fact for me is that the Lord is directing the affairs in His Universe, not exactly how He does it. Whether or not some organic evolution was used or is operating seems to me to be beside the point. He is infinitely wise. I just work here. If He told me in detail how He works I’m sure I wouldn’t understand much of it. The effort spent on the crusade you envision would be better spent trying to understand a little better how God works. Sorry if we see things a little differently. (Letter of March 4, 1981, Henry Eyring Papers, box 22, folder 11, in Henry J. Eyring, Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007], 173)

 

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)

 

Henry Eyring (1901-1981): Belief in Joseph Smith being the Foundation of His Faith

  

A TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH SMITH

 

As much as he valued the faith of Planck and Pasteur and other great scientists, Henry’s religious beliefs went beyond theirs. Specifically, Henry’s faith was rooted in the mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Pasteur’s hope of an afterlife, for instance, was for Henry a certainty, because Joseph Smith had seen detailed visions of it. Henry didn’t believe just in God, or even the Mormon Church. The foundation of his faith was belief in Joseph Smith.

 

That can be seen time and again in his response to questions about science and religion. For instance, here is his reply to a woman, a convert to the Church, who wondered about the theory that fossil remains on this earth might have been transported from other worlds, thus posting no contradiction to the biblical creation time line:

 

That you for your letter of January 22nd. It was trained as a mining engineer, so the evidence seems to me to point toward an age of the earth of between four and five billion years and to the existence of pre-Adamic man. I don’t think that it is reasonable to explain the observed geologic formations on the theory that they were moved from some other world. Since as Latter-day Saints we believe life exists in other worlds I have no difficulty in reconciling myself to the idea of life before Adam and to a great age of the earth. Our scriptural accounts are brief and don’t seem to me to rule out these possibilities. The scriptural emphasis is on God’s dealings with Adam and his descendants, and the treatment of pre-Adamic history is sketchy, no doubt for a good reason.

 

It seemed clear to me that the Lord used the Prophet Joseph to restore His gospel. This is the important thing for me. Just how He runs the world I’m obliged to leave up to Him. All I can do is find out how he does it by every means available. (Letter of January 27, 1971, Henry Eyring Papers, box 2,2, folder 10)

 

Henry’s 1958 reply to a Church General Authority with a similar question was likewise grounded in a testimony of the Prophet Joseph:

 

The geological and radiological evidence that the earth is some billions of years old is, in my judgment, over-whelming. Brother Talmage and Brother Widtsoe found no difficulty in reconciling such considerations with the Prophet’s divine mission, and neither do I. (Letter of February 28, 1958, Henry Eyring Papers, box 22, folder 5)

 

Henry’s fundamental faith in the Prophet Joseph Smith begs the question, “Where did it come from?” He never cited a singular, personal confirmation experience. However, he grew up hearing powerful tales of such experiences. Among those were the stories of the conversion of Mormonism of his paternal grandparents, Henry Eyring and Mary Bommeli. (Henry J. Eyring, Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007], 124-26)

 

Henry Eyring (1901-1981): His Father's Practicing of Post-Manifesto Polygamy in Mexico

  

A SECOND WIFE

 

Not only after returning from Germany, and before real prosperity had been achieved, Ed took a second wife. In 1903, he married Caroline’s younger sister, Emma Romney. He was encouraged to do so by his father-in-law, who had declared Ed “an ideal husband” (Eyring, Interview by Leonard R. Grover, 26). The Church had instructed its members in the United States to cease the formation of polygamous marriages in 1890, thirteen years earlier. However, polygamy was not prosecuted in Mexico—that was the reason for both the Eyrings and the Romneys being there—and Church leaders in the Mormon colonies continued to selectively encourage polygamy until a final, worldwide prohibition was issued by the First Presidency in Salt Lake City in 1904.

 

Ed’s taking a second wife redefined his life. Already the father of our children, he would ultimately become “papa” to eighteen, nine by each wife. One of the last faithful Church members to contract a polygamy marriage, he would preside as patriarch over his two families into the late 1950s. (Henry J. Eyring, Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007], 103)

 

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw on "The More Sure Word of Prophecy" (2 Peter 1:19)

From: Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Freemasonry and the Origins of Latter-day Saint Temple Ordinances (Orem, Utah: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2022), 240-42, 502-4:

 

The More Sure Word of Prophecy

 

On 27 August 1843, the Prophet said that Jesus Christ received “the fulness of priesthood or the law of God” on the Mount of Transfiguration. [1380] In a related sermon a few months earlier, he had unfolded the meaning of the reference in 2 Peter 1:19 to an additional blessing the apostles received at the time, namely the “more sure word of prophecy.” [1381] Continuing his effort to “stir up” the Saints “in remembrance of these things” (vv. 13, 12), Peter had reminded his readers of his firsthand experience at the Mount of Transfiguration. The overall scriptural account is cryptic, and translators have struggled particularly with the reference to the “more sure word of prophecy” in verse 19—a “crux interpretum” for the entire book according to Jerome H. Neyrey. [1382]

 

On the Mount of Transfiguration, Peter and his companions had become “eyewitnesses of [the] majesty” [1383] of the glorified Jesus Christ and had heard the voice of God the Father declare: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” [1384] Joseph Smith asked his hearers, “What could be more sure” than that?

 

The Prophet answered by saying that the only more sure witness of salvation that can be had than hearing the Father testify of the Son is hearing His personal promise that we ourselves will be exalted with His Son: [1385]

 

IT is one thing to receive knowledge by the voice of God (“This is my beloved Son,” etc.) and another to know that you yourself will be saved. To have a positive promise of your own salvation is making your calling and election sure—that is, the voice of Jesus saying, “My beloved, thou shalt have eternal life.” Brethren, never cease struggling until you get this evidence. And take heed both before and after obtaining the more sure word of prophecy.

 

After summarizing the three linked keys that are hidden in the first chapter of 2 Peter Joseph Smith earnestly enjoined the Saints to do everything necessary to make their calling and election sure so they would be eligible to receive the divine knowledge that constitutes the ultimate power of salvation. This knowledge did not come merely when Peter heard the voice of God speak. Rather, it came afterward, through the “more sure” promise made with the father’s personal oath [1387] to Peter that he would obtain the fulness of the joys of the celestial kingdom forever and ever. [1388]

 

Though scholars often fail to grasp the full nature and import of Peter’s experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, some at least have a sense of the implication of 2 Peter 1:19 for every reader of the epistle. For example, according to the editors of the ESV Bible “believers are admonished to ‘pay attention’ to the certainty of the ‘prophetic word’. In the contrast between ‘we have’ and ‘you will do well,’ Peter is apparently emphasizing that the interpretation of the apostles (‘we’) is to be regarded as authoritative for the church (‘you’)” [1389]—while striving themselves, meantime, to obtain the same “prophetic word” that Peter possessed (that is, “take heed [unto our more sure word], as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts).” [1390] In other words, not only Jesus and Peter, btu each one who endures to the end in keeping “all the commandments” and obeying “all the ordinances of the house of the Lord,” [1391] can look forward with eager anticipation to the day when they will hear the Father’s declaration that they have become, at last, sons and daughters in sufficient likeness of His beloved Son, of whom He can also say He is well pleased.

 

1380 J. Smith, Jr. et al., Words, 27 August 1843, p. 246, spelling, punctuation, and grammar

modernized.

 

1381 Ibid., 21 May 1843, pp. 204–209.

 

1382 J. H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, pp. 178–179.

 

1383 2 Peter 1:16.

 

1384 2 Peter 1:17.

 

1385 J. Smith, Jr. et al., Words, 21 May 1843, Martha Jane Knowlton Coray Notebook, p. 208, spelling, punctuation, and grammar modernized.

 

1386 Public Domain.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Transfiguration_bloch.jpg (accessed 21 December 2015).

 

1387 The personal oath of the Father described here is the same oath referred to Doctrine and Covenants 84:39, when it mentions “the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood” (see M. G. Romney, Oath). Elder Bruce R. McConkie explains (B. R. McConkie, New Witness, p. 313):

 

Man and Deity enter into the covenant of the priesthood, but only the Lord, meaning the Father, swears the oath.

 

This same oath, by which one enters the Church of the Firstborn (Doctrine and Covenants 88:3-5; 93:21-22; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 27 June 1839, p. 151) and receives the knowledge of his “election sure”—and to which allusion is made throughout scripture—is perhaps most clearly expressed in Psalm 110:4:

 

The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

 

Commenting on the oath that is found in Psalm 110:4, President Joseph Fielding Smith said (J. F. Smith, Jr., Oath, p. 92):

 

To swear with an oath is the most solemn and binding form of speech known to the human tongue; and it was this type of language that the Father chose to have used in the great Messianic prophecy about Christ and the priesthood. Of him it says: “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” (Psalm 110:4.)

 

In explaining this Messianic prophecy, Paul says that Jesus had “an unchangeable priesthood,” and that through it came “the power of an endless life” (see Hebrews 7:24, 16). Joseph Smith said that “all those who are ordained unto this priesthood are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually,” that is, if they are faithful and true.

 

And so Christ is the great prototype where priesthood is concerned, as he is with reference to baptism and all other things. And so, even as the Father swears with an oath that his Son shall inherit all things through the priesthood, so he swears with an oath that all of us who magnify our callings in that same priesthood shall receive all that the Father hath.

 

See also 2 Samuel 7:14: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son”; Psalm 2:7: “the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee”; Psalm 89:3-4: “I have sworn… Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations”; Psalm 89:19-20: “I have exalted one… with my holy oil have I anointed him”; Psalm 89:26-29: “He shall cry out to me, Thou art my father, my God… I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven”; Psalm 89:34-37: “My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven”; Psalm 132:11-12: “The Lord hath sworn in truth… Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore”; Psalm 110:4: “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (See Hebrews 6:17-20; 7:20-28); Matthew 25:21: “Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord”; Revelation 4:1: “Come up, hither”; 2 Nephi 31:20: “thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life”; Enos 1:27: “he will say unto me: Come unto me, ye blessed, there is a place prepared for you in the mansions of my Father”; Mosiah 26:20: “I covenant with thee that thou shalt have eternal life”; Doctrine and Covenants 88:3-4: “This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom”; Doctrine and Covenants 132:49: “I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham, your father”; Moses 6:68 (See E. T. Benson, What I Hope, p. 8): “thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons”; Hymns (1985), Hymns (1985), #21: “Yea, keep His law with all thy might Till thine election’s sure, Till thou shalt hear the holy voice Assure eternal reign, While joy and cheer attend thy choice, As one who shall obtain”; ibid., #81: “Thus saith our God: ‘Ye have eternal life!’“; ibid., #134: “His voice is heard: ‘Ye shall obtain.’”

 

1388 See J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 27 June 1839, p. 150. More will be said about this topic below, in the section on the oath and covenant of the priesthood. For extensive discussions of this and related topics, see B. R. McConkie, NT Commentary, 3:325-350; B. R. McConkie, Promised Messiah, pp. 570-595.

 

1389 L. T. Dennis et al., ESV, p. 2419n1:19.

 

1390 Emphasis added. Likewise, summarizing the thrust of Peter’s arguments, Simon S. Lee writes (S. S. Lee, Jesus' Transfiguration, p. 143):

 

I believe that [the] theological thinking of 2 Peter is almost equivalent to both the Markan discipleship of following Jesus in his suffering, death, and glorification (Mark 8:27–9:13) and Paul’s understanding of the believers’ continuous transformation into the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18–4:6).

 

1391 J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 11 June 1843, p. 308.