| Subject: | Lengthen Your Runaround: Trying to Get Official Answers from President Spencer W. Kimball on Organic Evolution |
| Date: | Mar 23 05:58 2003 |
| Author: | steve benson |
| Mail Address: | lobetrotter@yahoo.com |
| INTRODUCTION While a BYU undergraduate student in the late 1970s, I decided to do a term paper on the official position of the LDS Church on the theory of organic evolution. I focused my attention on official Church pronouncements; i.e., First Presidency statements, letters from President of the Church to inquiring Church members; published statements by Church Presidents; and public sermons by Church Presidents. In the course of my research, I sent letters to President Spencer W. Kimball asking him to explain the official position of the Mormon Church on the theory of organic evolution. My grandfather and then-president of the Quorum of the Twelve, Ezra Taft Benson, strongly encouraged me in this effort. During this time, I was an active, intensely-believing member of the Church. Extremely so. I fervently held to the notion that the Mormon Church was God's one and only; that it was led by the Lord's living prophets; that their teachings were inspired and consistent and superior to any other knowledge; and that I would be blessed if I followed them. In short, I was brainwashed. My letters to Kimball reflected a blind obedience to, and faith in, Mormonism. They were written in the language of indoctrination, fed by a desire to obey and please Church authority--which I had been fed as a steady diet since my earliest days of childhood. Reading those words today is like looking back on a completely different person. Indeed, since having broken free from the Mormon Cult, I don’t recognize the person of my past. Even as a Mormon, I nonetheless had a keen interest in science. I found the theory of organic evolution particularly intriguing. The more I studied it, in fact, the more it made sense to me as an explanation for the natural world. Yet, I didn’t quite know how to integrate organic evolution into my Mormon faith, knowing how strongly it was condemned by many Church leaders and members alike. While I was impressed and intrigued by the scientific evidence that supported it, I felt that it was still my duty as a Mormon to regard it as theory, not fact, and place my faith in the word of God. As I began my research paper, I was confident that Mormon prophets would be clear and forthcoming in explaining to me the truth of the physical and spiritual worlds--and whether organic evolution could be part of it all. When it gradually dawned on me that Mormonism’s leaders couldn’t explain what they didn’t know, I was left feeling disappointed and eventually disillusioned. What follows is the complete record of correspondence I had with Mormon Church President Spencer W. Kimball--including his replies and those of his office spokesman--on the subject of the official LDS position regarding the theory of organic evolution. It is an extended and detailed account, but that is because in my effort to get Kimball to tell me the truth, I attempted to ask every question, cover every base, and plug every loophole in an all-out attempt to squeeze from the Mormon Church the answers I sought and felt I deserved. _____ FIRST LETTER TO KIMBALL On 16 November 1978, I sent a letter to Kimball, via Ezra Taft Benson, with the following attached cover letter to my grandfather: “November 16, 1978 President Ezra Taft Benson 777 East South Temple, Apt. #15D Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Dear Grandpa: Enclosed is a xeroxed copy of the letter I would like to sent to President Kimball regarding the theory of organic evolution and the position of the Church concerning it. The actual letter is also enclosed in an envelope addressed to the Prophet. If possible, I would appreciate it if you could forward the letter to him. I have spent several hours researching this question, including a good deal of time in consultation with Brother Reid Bankhead of the [BYU] Religion Department and Brothers Harold Miller, Hal Back, and Duane Jeffery, all of the Biology Department. I have also take your advice and sought the Lord for guidance on the matter. The result of all this is a letter to President Kimball, which I feel addresses the issues with which I am concerned. I have attempted to present the material to the Prophet in as clear, concise, and fair manner as possible, while leaving to President Kimball the decision as to whether or not a response is appropriate or necessary. If you feel so inclined, I would sincerely appreciate hearing your comments regarding the approach and contents of the letter. Love, [signed] Stephen Reed P.S. Keep up that good healing job on that leg of yours!” [He had recently broken his leg in a horse riding accident]. _____ My grandfather informed me that he thought the letter was appropriate and forwarded it on to Kimball. That letter read as follows: “November 16, 1978 President Spencer W. Kimball 50 East North Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear President Kimball: I am currently a student at Brigham Young University and have been attempting for some time to resolve within my own mind an apparent problem regarding some of the teachings I receive here on campus. If possible and appropriate, I would greatly appreciate whatever insight you might feel to give. During the course of my religious instruction, I have been taught that the theory of organic evolution (in which, science claims that man has developed to this present physical state through natural processes originating in a common and lower form of life and extending over millions of years) is neither compatible with the fall of Adam and the atonement of Christ, nor with statements made by the General Authorities of the Church, especially those of the First Presidency body. In support of such instruction, I have frequently been referred to a formal pronouncement, entitled “The Origin of Man,” released in November, 1909, by the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon L. Lund). At the time this statement was issued, the First Presidency declared it to be “the position held by the Church,” and I have been told that, since then, there has been no change in the Church’s stand. Essentially, the First Presidency stated that a belief in the development of man’s physical body from a lower form of animal creation was a theory of man only, and that, because the Lord had declared Adam to be “the first man of all men,” the First Presidency was duty bound to regard him “as the primal parent of our race.” Knowledge of this pronouncement notwithstanding, I have also been taught by other professors—whose sincerity and conviction I have no reason to question—that the Church, in fact, has not made an official statement on the subject of organic evolution. These instructors tell me that the First Presidency regards organic evolution as a scientific theory that is subject to and undergoing periodic modification. With scientists themselves differing in their interpretations and views of the theory, it is claimed that the First Presidency believes the wisest course to be [is] in suspending judgment until either the Lord speaks directly on the matter, or until scientists are able to arrive at an ultimate understanding of the truth. In support of this analysis, my science professors have referred me to an editorial found in the April, 1910, issue of the Improvement Era. The President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, and Edward H. Anderson were the editors at that time. In answer to the question of several priesthood quorums regarding how the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve came into existence, the editors stated that these inquiries had not been “fully answered in the revealed word of God.” Specific mention was made of three possibilities to account for the existence of the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve: (1) The human body had evolved through natural processes under God’s direction and power (2) Adam and Eve’s bodies had been transplanted in an immortal state from another sphere to this earth, where they subsequently became corrupted through sin and the consumption of natural foods (3) Adam and Eve were actually born on this earth, in the same way that all human beings enter mortality. The editors noted that the Lord had not yet shed full light on the truthfulness of such explanations. These science professors also referred me to an address by you, President Kimball, in the March, 1976, Ensign, entitled ‘Speaking Today,’ where you are quoted as saying, ‘We don’t know exactly how their [Adam and Eve’s] coming into this world happened, and when we’re able to understand it, the Lord will tell us.’ Such reference is used by some to imply that the First Presidency has not taken an official position on the theory of organic evolution. Here, then, is what seems to me to be a perplexing situation: On the one hand, some BYU professors claim that the Lord has indeed spoken directly to his prophets concerning the theory of organic evolution and that this revelation has been reflected in a statement by the First Presidency they consider to be an unequivocal denunciation of the theory as false. On the other hand, some instructors on campus assure me that the Church has not taken an official stand, either for or against, organic evolution, where the term is defined as the ascension of all living things, including man, from a common and lower form of life and involving natural processes that have taken millions of years to occur. It is not my desire to create disharmony or to undermine faith and testimony by claiming that leading authorities of the Church have made statements which conflict with each other. I sincerely believe that, under the proper guidance, these statements can be reconciled and interpreted in the true spirit in which they were given. I do not believe that the Lord speaks in contradictory terms when instructing His children. I fully support the leaders of this Church as the rightfully ordained mouthpieces of God and desire to follow their counsel. As I search for truth in my academic and religious pursuits I look to the scriptures, the Holy Ghost, and the living prophets for guidance in interpreting the truthfulness of what is taught me. After much thought and meditation, I feel comfortable in approaching you with this subject. If it be pleasing to the Lord, I would be grateful if you could offer some further insight regarding the matters outlined in this letter. May the Lord’s blessings be with you always. Sincerely, your brother, [signed] Stephen R. Benson 824 East 560 North Provo, Utah 84601” _____ KIMBALL’S FIRST RESPONSE Kimball replied to my letter roughly five weeks later, as follows: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 47 East South Temple Street Salt Lake City Utah 84150 Spencer W. Kimball, President January 26, 1979 Mr. Stephen R. Benson 824 East 560 North Provo, Utah 84601 Dear Brother Benson: In your letter of November 16, you partially quote a statement by the First Presidency of the Church in your third paragraph. I am not familiar with that particular quote and wonder I you could give me the reference where it can be found. I will await your reply. With kind wishes. Faithfully yours, [signed] Spencer W. Kimball (President} [P.S. in Kimball’s handwriting]: Please quote it” _____ SECOND LETTER TO KIMBALL I wrote back a week later: “February 2, 1979 President Spencer W. Kimball 47 East South Temple Street, #102 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear President Kimball: Thank you for your letter of January 26th. As you requested, the source from which I selectively quoted the First Presidency in the third paragraph of my letter is cited below. A copy of the complete text, entitled, ‘The Origin of Man,’ and published in the Improvement Era, Vol. 13, 1910 [sic, 1909 was the actual year], pp. 75-81, is also enclosed for your reference. The following portion from that article represents what is often quoted as the Church’s official stand against organic evolution: ‘Inquiries arise from time to time respecting the attitude of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints upon questions which, though not vital from a doctrinal standpoint, are closely connected with the fundamental principles of salvation. The latest inquiry of this kind that has reached us is in relation to the origin of man. It is believed that a statement of the position held by the Church upon this important subject will be timely and productive of good . . . (p. 75) ‘It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon the earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was ‘the first man of all men’ (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father. ‘True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ or embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.’ (p. 80) If it may be of some benefit, I have also quoted in more detail a few additional statements attributed to the Prophet and/or the First Presidency, with appropriate sources. These statements were alluded to in my original letter. Instructors at BYU who maintain that even the First Presidency statement of November, 1909, (just cited) does not constitute an official denunciation of the theory of organic evolution have referred me to a priesthood quorums’ table dealing with the origin of man, published in the Improvement Era, Vol. 13, 1910, p. 570. The complete text, edited by President Joseph F. Smith and Elder Edward H. Anderson, is enclosed with this letter. Below, however, are some extracted highlights: ‘”In just what manner did the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve come into existence on this earth?” This question comes from several High Priests’ quorums . . . . ‘Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.’ This article then concludes by referring the reader ‘for helpful suggestions’ to the statement by the First Presidency in 1909, entitled ‘Origin of Man.’ Those who view the above priesthood quorum article as an attempt by the Church to remain essentially non-committed on the question of organic evolution also point to a letter signed by Elder Joseph Anderson, Secretary to the First Presidency, dated May 3, 1960, and addressed to BYU Professor of Geology, Harold J. Bissell. A copy of what is said to be the original letter is enclosed for your examination. The following is an excerpt from that letter: ‘In your [Professor Bissell’s] letter you ask for a statement from the First Presidency that you might read to honest, inquiring students regarding the question of “organic evolution” . . . ‘The Brethren feel very sure that serious reflection on the matter will persuade you of the problems and resulting difficulties that would come to the First Presidency from any announcement that they might make on this matter of “organic evolution” . . . They feel sure that you will also appreciate that the problem as it now exists under the theories of present scientists might well not be the problems that will exist 50 or 100 years from now any more than an explanation made to meet the theories of 100 years ago would met the problems of today . . . ‘We seem to be in an age of such great and fundamental scientific readjustments on many matters, which age we have come to speak of as the nuclear age, that to attempt to harmonize the spiritual truths of the Gospel with the scientific theories would be futile, not because spiritual truths are not truths, because they are, but because the theories are admittedly largely hypothetical and subject to change.’ Elder Anderson then refers Professor Bissell to the statement by the First Presidency—at that time President Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund—which Elder Anderson identifies as ‘the position of the Church as of that time,’ from which ‘there has been no change.’ Despite this further reference to the 1909 First Presidency statement, certain BYU instructors continue to sincerely question whether the position of the Church is a definite one, especially in light of another letter, said to have been written by President David O. McKay to Dr. A. Kent Christensen of the Cornell University Medical College, on February 3, 1959. A copy of what is claimed to be the original letter is enclosed for your reference. The following are a few highlights: ‘The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of organic evolution . . . ‘While scientific people themselves differ in their interpretations and views of the theory, any conflicts which may seem to exist between the theory and the truths of revealed religion can well be dealt with by suspending judgment as long as may be necessary to arrive at facts and at a complete understanding of the truth.’ Finally, an additional letter is cited, dated February 25, 1959, written to Dr. Armin J. Hill, Dean of the College of Physical and Engineering Sciences at BYU, and signed by Elder Joseph Anderson. A copy of the text of the letter, which is admitted not to be from the original, is enclosed. Below is a short excerpt: ‘I am directed to say to you that, as you will perceive on a little reflection, until either the Lord speaks directly upon the mater [of the earth, its age, creation, etc.] or until the scientists are able to say they have the ultimate truth covering these matters, it would only be confusing for the First Presidency to make any statement regarding such things.’ All of these quotes are but a few of many cited by BYU instructors in an effort to prove to inquiring students their claims that either the Church has denounced organic evolution as a false theory or has remained relatively neutral on the subject. Whether or not the letters mentioned above are authentic or were even meant for general consumption, I had little way of knowing when obtaining them. They were simply given to me by a BYU instructor who claims they support his contention that the Church has taken no official stand on the theory of organic evolution. As a student striving to increase my knowledge, I am somewhat confused and concerned by the antagonism that often seems to arise among instructors themselves and with students when this topic is discussed. In all sincerity, I do not wish to put words in the mouth of the Lord’s prophets, by proclaiming to others what I may think is the Church’s official position regarding organic evolution—whether it be one of opposition or of neutrality. My real desire is to know the truth. If it be the Lord’s will, I would be very grateful to receive some illumination from His prophet. If the truth is not yet to come, according to the Lord’s own timetable, I will wait for the day when I am ready to receive it. Sincerely, [signed] Stephen R. Benson 824 East 560 North Provo, Utah 84601” _____ SECOND RESPONSE FROM KIMBALL Kimball did not answer back for nearly four months. When he did, he replied as follows: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 47 East South Temple Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84150 Spencer W. Kimball, President May 24, 1979 Mr. Stephen R. Benson 824 East 560 North Provo, Utah 84601 Dear Stephen: I have been a long time in answering your letter of February 2, 1979, pertaining to the life of man. I am wondering if you have ever read the book of Henry Eyring, ‘The Faith of the Scientist.’ Undoubtedly this book will be found in the library at BYU. I would be glad to hear from you concerning this matter. With our kindest wishes, Faithfully yours, [signed] Spencer W. Kimball President” _____ THIRD LETTER TO KIMBALL Kimball then took ill and was hospitalized, so I postponed replying for two months: “July 24, 1979 President Spencer W. Kimball 47 East South Temple Street, #102 Salt Lake City, Utah 84150 Dear President Kimball: I am very happy to hear that you have been released from the hospital and are resting comfortably. My prayers have been with you, as have those of Church members everywhere. May the Lord continue to bless and preserve you as you fulfill your responsibilities in His Kingdom. Thank you for your letter of May 24 in response to my inquiries regarding the official Church position on organic evolution. As you may recall, you recommended that I read Dr. Henry Eyring’s book, The Faith of a Scientist. Fortunately, my grandfather had given me a copy some years earlier; therefore, I took your advice, eagerly read it again, and have since referred to it frequently. In your letter, you indicated your interest in hearing my opinion concerning his writings. I am glad to be able to explain my feelings in this regard and will do so briefly. I was very impressed with Dr. Eyring’s thoughtful and penetrating insights concerning the reconciliation of what some see as contradictory principles of science and religion. He expressed his belief that true science and true religion are dedicated to the same goal—that of honestly and eternally seeking knowledge of all things, in earth and in the heavens. With the purpose of science and religion in their proper perspective, Dr. Eyring claimed that both disciplines are actually of service to each other. Both are guided by the spirit of inquiry, of reaching out for truth. Thus, science serves to strengthen religion, as Dr. Eyring says, by ‘assisting in sifting the grain of truth from the chaff of imagined fable.’ Likewise, religion—with its great fundamental principle of eternal progression made possible by the Savior’s atonement—provides impetus to science to constantly seek for truth. Of particular concern to me in my science and religion classes at Brigham Young University was the often-heard claim that if I would but interpret the scriptures correctly, I would find no justification for even considering that God may have used organic evolution as the tool for creating the earth and all life upon it, including, perhaps, the physical body of man. The scriptures, I was told, clearly spoke of an earth only 6,000 years old and of no physical death before the fall of Adam. Yet, the scientific data seemed to indicate overwhelmingly that the earth was, in fact, millions of years old and that examination of rock strata revealed life and death processes had been occurring long before Adam’s earthly advent. Moreover, ancient fossil records seemed to indicate that life had advanced from simple to complex forms over eons of time and that man’s physical body was a product of this evolutionary ladder. How, I thought, could these discoveries be explained in light of the scriptural account of creation? Surely God would not have placed age-old fossils in the earth to deceive us. Reading Dr. Eyring’s philosophy concerning such questions was of great help to me in reconciling these apparent contradictions. Scripture, he said—whether written or spoken—should be accepted for what it is—a divine message of inspiration and hope to struggling humanity. It records God’s dealings with His prophets and is ‘as accurate as He, in His wisdom, requires.’ This last observation by Dr. Eyring led me to wonder, ‘How scientifically accurate is the creation story, as recorded in Genesis and Moses?’ I then recalled an addressed you delivered to the Relief Society General Conference in October 1975 (reprinted in the March 1976 Ensign). In it, you declared that God had indeed created man in His image. You then added that ‘the story of the rib, of course, is figurative.’ (p. 71) Concerning the processes by which Adam and Eve came into the world, you said, ‘We don’t know exactly . . . and when we’re able to understand it the Lord will tell us.’ (p. 72) As I reflected on your words and the words of Dr. Eyring, a common message seemed to emerge: Questions involving pre-Adamic men and organic evolution are interesting and important, but the truthfulness of the Gospel does not hinge on them. At present, they seem to be a source of contradiction between religion and science; yet, such differences will always exist as long as man’s understanding remains incomplete. Therefore, I need not worry about discovering the ultimate answers immediately, since the Church is dedicated to discovering truth, wherever its source—whether it be in the scriptures, astronomy, or in the rock strata of the earth. Only as I come closer to understanding the mind of God will these apparent conflicts disappear. To expand my knowledge of such things is, in fact, part of my eternal progression and will continue in the life to come. In the meantime, I must continue to search for a balanced, truthful view of these questions, by weighing all the evidence carefully. Moreover, I must concentrate on obeying the fundamental principles of the Gospel that bring exaltation. If I do this, then some day I will know. In light of these conclusions, it appears as if the Church is refraining, at least for the time being, from adopting an official position either for or against the theory of organic evolution. These have been my impressions on the matter. It is very significant to me that, in answering my inquiries concerning the official position of the Church on organic evolution, the living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator saw fit to direct me to Dr. Eyring’s book. I hope I have interpreted Dr. Eyring’s words correctly and in the spirit in which you recommended them to me. I am in the final stages of organizing a paper concerning the questions addressed herein. The paper meets the requirements for both a religion and biology class. I am attempting to have it finished, if at all possible, prior to my graduation from Brigham Young University on August 17 of this year. Could I, with your permission, refer in this paper to the correspondence you have sent me? I sincerely believe it would provide great insight into a proper understanding of these questions. I would be happy to send you a copy of this paper, if you wish. Thank you for your time and wise advice. I have benefited much from your counsel. May the Lord continue to watch over you. Sincerely, your brother, [signed] Stephen R. Benson 1543 South 320 West Orem, Utah 84057” _____ PHONE CALL TO KIMBALL’S OFFICE Over a month passed, with no response from Kimball. My grandfather suggested that if a written reply from Kimball seemed improbable or delayed, that I should call Kimball’s office and talk to his personal secretary, Arthur Haycock. My grandfather indicated that Haycock might be able to make an authoritative decision concerning my request. Since Kimball was, at the time, recuperating from a bout with dizzy spells and had recently been treated and released from the hospital, I took my grandfather’s advice. On 28 August 1979, at 4:30 p.m., I telephoned Kimball’s office in Salt Lake’s Church Administration Building, from BYU's Harold B. Lee Library in Provo. I placed the call seeking permission to include in my research paper on the Church’s official position regarding organic evolution the correspondence Kimball had sent me concerning the matter. The letters in question were those from him dated 26 January 1979 and 24 May 1979. After several unsuccessful attempts to reach Haycock, I asked his office to, if possible, have him return my call. I left word that I could be reached at the Lee Library, where I was doing research for my paper in the Special Collection Archives. Haycock returned my call and we made contact. I explained to Haycock that I had previously written Kimball regarding the official position of the Church on organic evolution and had received responses from him which were in reply to my questions. Haycock told me he has seen my letters to Kimball. Haycock then inquired into the reason why I writing the research paper. I informed him that it constituted a project designed to meet the requirements for a religion and biology class at BYU. Haycock asked if I was planning to make it clear in my paper that I was expressing my own opinions and conclusions regarding the Church’s official position on the question of organic evolution. I answered that such was my intent. Haycock replied, ‘You know that President Kimball’s [24 May 1979] letter was non-committal.’ Haycock then asked me to read to him the letters I had received from Kimball which I desired to include in the paper as source material. I replied that I did not have the letters in front of me, although I could recite, nearly verbatim, the contents of the 24 May letter (which was not difficult to do, since it was so brief). Haycock said that recitation of the letter from memory would be sufficient. I repeated the words of the 24 May letter as closely as I could remember them, essentially telling Haycock that Kimball had asked me if I had ever read Eyring’s book, The Faith of a Scientist, and that he would be interested in hearing my feelings concerning its contents. I did not recite the 26 January letter from Kimball, since in it Kimball had simply informed me that he was not familiar with the November 1909 First Presidency statement, "The Origin of Man," which I had partially quoted to him in earlier correspondence, and concerning which he asked me to send him the full text. Furthermore, Kimball’s letter of 26 January clearly implied that a more definitive answer would be forthcoming in later correspondence from him, given that he told me that he would await my reply to his request. At any rate, Haycock did not seem to think that the 26 January letter was of great significance, since he had informed me that Kimball’s letter of 24 May was the one of concern. After listening to me describe the contents of the 24 May letter, Haycock asked if my research paper would be strengthened by the inclusion, verbatim, of Kimball’s correspondence. As Haycock put it, would it be best to “take a picture of it,” or would it suffice to simply mention Kimball’s letter in the paper? I replied that making a photocopy of the 24 May letter and including it in an appendix would be the ideal course and would add strength to the paper. Haycock responded that, in such case, there would be no objection to me doing so, as long as I made it clear that the conclusions reached were my own. Our conversation was cordial and Haycock thanked me for having called. _____ FOURTH LETTER TO KIMBALL I still wasn’t satisfied, however. I was hoping for a more definitive answer from Kimball and still believed it was possible to get one. So, my professors granted me an extension past my graduation to continue searching for more answers and working on the paper, which I did for several more months. During that time, I had many private conversations with my grandfather about the Church’s official position on the theory of organic evolution. (His private views on the subject, by the way, proved to be much more moderate than those he expressed in public). I also had a long face-to-face conversation with Bruce R. McConkie at McConkie’s home on the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution. While both my grandfather and McConkie had significant theological problems with organic evolution, McConkie’s were more radical in their opposition than were my grandfather’s. Armed with notes from my discussions with both men, I again wrote to Kimball: “July 20, 1980 President Spencer W. Kimball 47 East South Temple, #102 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear President Kimball: Given your responsibilities of a much more important nature, you have been extraordinarily gracious in the past in taking time to correspond with me regarding the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution. For your thoughtfulness and concern I am sincerely appreciative. I am therefore somewhat hesitant in again approaching you on this subject, for fear that I will unnecessarily divert you away from more pressing duties. I am also a bit anxious that you may perceive me to be ‘bogged down’ with matters not pertinent to the essential doctrines of salvation. Nevertheless, I hope that you can understand that the topic addressed herein is of sufficient concern to me that I would be truly indebted if you would indulge me this one last time. Recently, I had the distinct pleasure of discussing at length with two members of the Quorum of the Twelve some questions I have concerning the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution. [The two were Ezra Taft Benson and Bruce R. McConkie]. Since I do not wish to appear to be pitting these brethren against each other—both of whom I wholeheartedly sustain in their divine callings—perhaps a discretionary course would be to refrain from mentioning names. Both of these brethren told me that the Church has, at least ostensibly, adopted a ‘middle-of-the-road’ approach in regard to its official stand on the theory of organic evolution, although both had their own opinions as to why the Church had chosen this position. Moreover, both do not expect the Church to issue any official statement on the theory of organic evolution in the foreseeable future. Both also share a personal belief, with one Apostle [McConkie] appearing more completely wedded to the idea than the other [Benson], that the theory of organic evolution is completely inharmonious with revealed scripture, particularly as related to the fall of Adam and the atonement of Christ. In addition, both indicated to me that you are decidedly not neutral in your personal assessment of the theory, but share a belief akin to their own. One Apostle [McConkie] maintains that unless scientists someday discover there was no death before the fall of Adam, they will be unable to bring to light any new scientific evidence which will harmonize the theory of organic evolution with the revealed word of God. The Apostle, in fact, is convinced that the Church has clearly taken at least a doctrinal stand against the theory of organic evolution, that this stand is unquestionably found in the scriptures, and that the Church therefore need not issue an official statement on the matter, since the official position of the Church is readily available in the scriptures for those who truly seek to know it. He emphasized in this regard that the Church is not required to submit to its membership for a vote any proposed position on the theory of organic evolution in order for an official stand to be taken. That stand, he said, has already been taken by the revealed scriptures. He [McConkie] also told me that attempts by Church members to obtain authoritative statements from the President of the Church on the theory of organic evolution will not solve the problem, since Church presidents can differ—and actually have differed—on certain doctrinal questions and, at times, have even contradicted themselves. (As evidence of this, he mentioned President Brigham Young, saying that ‘you can quote Brigham Young against Brigham Young.’ He also noted that President Young’s belief in the Adam-God theory has been denounced by subsequent Church presidents, including yourself). Furthermore, the Apostle [McConkie] told me that, in his opinion, if a President of the Church contradicted what he (the Apostle) believed to be the doctrinal stand of the Church against the theory of organic evolution as found in the scriptures, the President would be wrong. For instance, when I mentioned to him that President McKay, in speaking to BYU students, referred to organic evolution as a ‘beautiful theory of the creation of the world,’ he [McConkie] told me that again, in his opinion, if President McKay meant what he said, his words were inharmonious with scripture on the subject, and therefore President McKay was ‘uninspired.’ (President McKay’s address, entitled, ‘A Message for LDS Youth,’ was delivered at BYU on 10 October 1953 and printed in BYU extension Publications; see pp. 6-7, in particular) The reason he [McConkie] said, for the absence of an official statement by the Church on the theory of organic evolution is not because the Church has allegedly adopted a neutral position, but because the Church sees wisdom at this time in restraint—in imparting, as Alma said, ‘only according to the portion of [the Lord’s] word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.’ The current desire of the Church, maintains the Apostle [McConkie], is not to drive out of its ranks those members who, because of their weak faith, believe in the false theory of organic evolution; rather, he sees the Church, to use his words, as simply ‘temporizing’ the weaker elements of its membership, much as the Apostles of the primitive Church attempted to avoid alienating recent Gentile converts who still falsely believed that circumcision was essential to salvation. He [McConkie] also suggests that perhaps the Church, by refraining from making any official pronouncement on the theory of organic evolution, is allowing the wheat and the tares (i.e., those who put their complete faith in the truths of revealed religion vs. those who believe the false scientific religion of organic evolution) to grow up together until the time of the harvest, when the tares will be bundled and burned and the wheat gathered into the barn and saved. The second Apostle [Benson] with whom I discussed this matter seemed to me to take a somewhat more moderate approach. While he, too, personally finds much of the theory of organic evolution to be incompatible with revealed scripture, he acknowledges that there is evidence on both sides of the question—in scripture and science. Moreover, he notes that there are some things about which we as a Church do not yet completely understand. The Lord, he says, may not have yet revealed enough on the theory of organic evolution to create unanimity among the Brethren. He also observes that all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made. He sincerely hopes that the Lord will see fit to reveal at some future date the full answer on the theory of organic evolution; in the meantime, however, he feels that organic evolution should be taught as what it is and nothing more—a theory. In particular, he is concerned that teachers of science in Church educational institutions may present the theory to their students as an immutable fact and, in doing so, undermine the faith and testimony of young people in the revealed word of God. This, he says, is, of course, ‘not pleasing to the Lord.’ If the theory of organic evolution is to be taught at all in Church schools, this Apostle [Benson] believes that such instruction should be accompanied by the solemn testimony of the science teacher regarding the truths of the restored Gospel. On these last points, this Apostle [Benson] appears to be advocating an approach to education of LDS youth that was strongly encouraged by President McKay. Permit me, if you will, to again quote from the same BYU address mentioned earlier. President McKay told his student and faculty audience: ‘There is a perpetual design permeating all purposes of creation. On these thoughts, science again leads the student up to a certain point and sometimes lead him with his soul unanchored. Millikan is right when he says, ‘Science without religion obviously may became a curse rather than a blessing to mankind.’ But, science dominated by the spirit of religion is the key [to] progress and the hope of the future. Evolution’s beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind. Inevitably, a teacher who denies divine agency in creation, who insists there is no intelligent purpose in it, will infest the student with the thought that all may be chance. I say that no youth should be so led without a counterbalancing thought. Even the skeptic teacher should be fair enough to see that even Charles Darwin, when he faced this great question of annihilation, that the creation is dominated only by chance, wrote: “It is an intolerable thought that man and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long, continued slow progress” . . . The public school teacher will probably, even if he says that much . . . go no farther. In the Church school the teacher is unhampered. In the Brigham Young University and every other Church school, the teacher can say that God is at the helm.’ The approach of the second Apostle [Benson] also seems quite similar to that of President McKay in at least one more respect. During his administration, President McKay deliberately avoided issuing any official Church statement either condemning or supporting the theory of organic evolution; instead, he seemed content to describe it only as a theory and leave it at that. Forgive me for again quoting, but the attitude of President McKay on the subject seems to closely reflect the thoughts of this latter Apostle [Benson], and therefore may be of some interest to you. In a letter dated 3 February 1960 to Dr. A. Kent Christensen of Cornell University’s Medical College, President McKay wrote: ‘The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution . . . . ‘Evolution is a theory. You say that biologists would agree on the general lines of what happened, although there may be less agreement about just how it happened. While scientific people themselves differ in their interpretations and views of the theory, any conflicts which may seem to exist between the theory and the truths of revealed religion can well be dealt with by suspending judgment as long as may be necessary to arrive at facts and at a complete understanding of the truth.’ Similarly, in a letter dated 3 May 1960 and signed by Elder Joseph Anderson, Secretary to the First Presidency during President McKay’s administration, Professor Harold J. Bissell of the BYU Geology Department was told: ‘The Brethren feel very sure that serious reflection on the matter will persuade you of the problems and resulting difficulties that would come to the First Presidency from any announcement that they might make on this matter of ‘organic evolution.’ You will appreciate that any statement they might make on this subject would be presumed to meet the problem as it is now understood by the scientists and the people. They feel sure that you will also appreciate that the problem as it now exists under the theories of present scientists might well not be the problems that will exist 50 or 100 years from now any more than that an explanation made to meet the theories of 100 years ago would meet the problems of today. As the Brethren understand, science must never accept any alleged solution of the problems of science (and they are many and in different fields), as the final truth . . . We seem to be in an age of such great and fundamental scientific readjustments on many matters, which age we have come to speak of as the nuclear age, that to attempt to harmonize the spiritual truths of the Gospel with the scientific theories would be futile, not because spiritual truths are not truths, because they are, but because the theories are admittedly largely hypothetical and subject to change. The Brethren sometimes say that this harmonizing of which so much is sometimes said should be harmonizing of science with spiritual truth, and not the harmonizing of spiritual truth with science, which latter can be accepted only when science comes to the ultimate truth, and nobody knows when that will be.’ (If it may be of some assistance, complete photocopied texts of the above letters were provided in my earlier letter to you, dated 2 February 1979). I am acutely aware that in quoting Church authorities I have perhaps adopted the approach which the first Apostle [McConkie] said would not lead me to the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution. Moreover, I realize that President McKay’s insights were provided specifically for the people of his day and therefore his words may not apply to people living at the present time. Yet, I feel compelled to mention them because they seem so strikingly similar to the views of the second Apostle [Benson] with whom I spoke. If I have correctly interpreted the words of this latter Apostle, the clear implication, at least to me, seems to be that because the Church has issued no official position statement on the theory of organic evolution and because it has not, to my knowledge, referred the Church membership to the scriptures for an official doctrinal answer as to what that position is or is not, the Lord apparently has not yet seen fit to reveal it to His Church. Hence, again in my opinion, the Church seems to be leaving the matter open for the time being, until the Lord judges the membership ready to receive further light and knowledge, according to their faith. If I have been accurate in this interpretation, then it appears to me that, notwithstanding their common skepticism of the theory of organic evolution in general, the views of the two Apostles, at least on this point, are at odds. One Apostle [McConkie] tells me that the Church has definitely taken a doctrinal stand, as recorded in the scriptures, against the theory of organic evolution, and that this is therefore the official position of the Church. On the other hand, the second Apostle [Benson] suggests that the Lord may not have yet defined for His Church a final position on the theory, doctrinal or otherwise, and that therefore the question remains open. May I emphasize, however, that this seeming divergence of views between the two brethren does not, by any means, diminish my faith or testimony in their divine callings as prophets, seers and revelators. It simply appears to me that on this question they may well entertain somewhat differing opinions, which I certainly accept as their individual right to do. Nonetheless, neither view seems to be leading me to a clear and proper understanding of what, in actuality, is the official position of the Church at this time concerning the theory of organic evolution. Both Apostles told me what they personally considered to be the official position of the Church and the reasons behind that position, but neither pretended to be speaking for the Church in an official capacity on this subject. I therefore feel it necessary to approach you, President Kimball, for the insight which I believe only you can give as the Lord’s living mouthpiece for His Church. Without reservation, I sustain you as the sole earthly spokesman for the Restored Church of Jesus Christ, through whom is made known the will of Heaven for all people living in this day and age. I honestly and sincerely have the faith to accept whatever enlightenment you may feel impressed to give me, even if you were to tell me that my conclusions up to this point have been completely wrong. If indeed such is the case, I would like to know where and how I should correct my thinking. These matters have become of genuine concern to me as I search for truth in the world provided by a loving Creator. I have always enjoyed a keen interest in the biological and earth sciences, and I would be less than candid if I did not tell you that the theory of organic evolution, in its scientific attempts to explain the wonders of nature, has opened up to me new areas of fascinating and adventurous study. However, I still regard organic evolution as a theory only, no matter how intriguing or even plausible it may seem, and am sincerely attempting not to become unnecessarily dogmatic in passing judgment on something about which I still know relatively little. Yet, if the theory is, as some claim, patently false, devilish, and will most assuredly lead those who sympathize with or believe it away from Christ, I want nothing to do with it. If, on the other hand, the Lord has not seen fit to condemn it, I desire to now more about the theory, to see if perhaps it can provide me with a better understanding of man’s physical origins and of the world in which he lives. My ultimate desire, though, is to know and do what is right, to be a builder of faith and testimony in the Creator, in His living prophets, and in His scriptures, not to be a destroyer or a cynic. I honestly hope that my studies in both religion and science will aid me in these efforts. I want to live the teachings of the Gospel, for I know that only through adherence to them, not through devotion to the theories of men, can I understand my relationship to my Father in Heaven and, as His son, someday become like He is, to experience the true joy and knowledge that comes only through obedience to His laws. If I achieve that goal, then I will have eternities to learn how the Lord made the physical world and perhaps have the opportunity to fashion a few worlds of my own. Nevertheless, while many questions the Lord has not yet seen fit to fully answer, there are a few that, if answerable, would do much to clarify in my own mind a matter which, up to this point, has only confused me. As you see fit, I would greatly appreciate any enlightenment you could provide me concerning the following specifics: 1) Does the Church have an official position on the theory of organic evolution which has been explained to the Church membership? 2) If the Church does, in fact, have an official position on the theory of organic evolution, does it condemn the theory as false, support it as true, or leave the matter ‘open-ended’? 3) If the official position of the Church either condemns or supports the theory of organic evolution, what are the reasons behind that position? 4) If the Church has no official position on the theory of organic evolution, or if that position is officially ‘open-ended,’ am I to understand this to mean that the Church has also taken no doctrinal stand for or against the theory? 5) If the Church has issued no official statement on the theory, does this mean that the Church is merely ‘temporizing’ those members who, because of their weak faith, believe in the false theory of organic evolution? 6) Does the absence of an official position or statement on the theory of organic evolution indicate that the Lord has not yet seen fit to reveal to His Church the full answer as to the truth or falsity of the theory? Thank you very much for your time and patience in enduring this letter. Reading it, no doubt, must have been a rather laborious undertaking. May the Lord continue to bless and sustain you in your great work. Sincerely, your brother, [signed] Stephen R. Benson 1677 Westwind Way McClean, Virginia 22102 _____ RESPONSE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY In surprisingly short order, I received a response, albeit a puzzling one. It came from Francis M. Gibbons, Secretary to the First Presidency: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Office of the First Presidency Salt Lake City, Utah 84150 August 1, 1980 Mr. Stephen R. Benson 1677 Westwind Way McLean, Virginia 22101 Dear Brother Benson: I have been asked to acknowledge your letter of July 20, 1980, to President Spencer W. Kimball and to inquire as a basis for responding to it whether you would have an objection if a copy of your letter, together with an answering letter, were to be sent to your bishop. If you are agreeable to this, it will be appreciated if you will furnish his name and address. President Kimball also asked me to extend his best wishes to you. Sincerely yours, [signed] Francis M. Gibbons Secretary to the First Presidency” _____ LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY I did not know what kind of answer my bishop would be receiving, but by this point, I was willing to accept almost anything. So I wrote back: “September 19, 1980 Elder Francis M. Gibbons Secretary to the First Presidency The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Office of the First Presidency 47 East South Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Elder Gibbons: Thank you for acknowledging my letter of July 20, 1980, to President Spencer W. Kimball regarding the official Church position on the theory of organic evolution. I would certainly have no objection if a copy of that letter together with an answering letter from President Kimball, were to be sent to my bishop. His name and address are listed below: Bishop David L. Allen 447 West Sunset Circle Mesa, Arizona 85201 Thank you again, and please extend my best wishes to the President. Sincerely, [signed] Stephen R. Benson 1455 North Alma School Road, #7 Mesa, Arizona 85201” _____ FIRST PRESIDENCY LETTER TO MY BISHOP A few days later, my bishop received the following letter: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Office of the First Presidency Salt Lake City, Utah 84150 September 22, 1980 Bishop David L. Allen Lehi 5th Ward Mesa Arizona Lehi Stake 447 West Sunset Circle Mesa, Arizona 85201 Dear Bishop Allen: Enclosed is a copy of a recent letter from Brother Stephen R. Benson, who it is understood is a member of your ward. As you will see, Brother Benson inquires about the attitude of the Church toward organic evolution. We shall appreciate it if you will contact Brother Benson and discuss this matter with him. To assist you in your discussion, we are enclosing herewith a copy of the statement issued by the First Presidency which appeared in the Improvement Era, Volume 13, pp. 75-81, on the subject of the origin of man. Brother Benson has given permission for a copy of his letter to be sent to you. Sincerely yours, [signed] Spencer W. Kimball N. Eldon Tanner Marion G. Romney The First Presidency” So, after nearly two years of playing mail tag with Kimball, I was back to square one. The Kimball First Presidency had sent to my bishop, without guidance or explanation, the 1909 First Presidency statement—the same one that I had originally sent, at his request, to Kimball after he told me he wasn’t familiar with it. _____ FIFTH LETTER TO KIMBALL When my bishop received the letter from the First Presidency, he didn’t know what to do. He told me he didn’t know enough about organic evolution to give me any advice and wasn’t sure on how to properly interpret the 1909 First Presidency statement that Kimball and Company had sent along to him to aid in his consultations with me. So, he suggested I write Kimball one last time: “November 7, 1980 President Spencer W. Kimball The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 47 East South Temple, #102 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear President Kimball: Thank you for the First Presidency letter, sent through my bishop, regarding the attitude of the Church on organic evolution (22 September 1980, to Bishop David L. Allen, Lehi 5th Ward, Mesa Arizona Lehi Stake). The following request for clarification of certain points in that letter is made on the recommendation of my bishop, with whom I discussed the letter at length. The bishop also recommended that this be my last inquiry (for which, no doubt, you are understandably grateful), and that I abide by whatever counsel you may see fit to give. This I am quite willing to do, knowing that your time is valuable and there are other topics of more importance to salvation that deserve our respective attentions. I will, therefore, be as brief and, yet, as specific as possible. Thank you for enclosing in your reply a copy of the 1909 statement by President Joseph F. Smith and his counselors, entitled 'The Origin of Man.' I have read it often and believe it to contain many beautiful and eternal truths. Please do not interpret this as a spirit of boastfulness, but I have been aware of the 1909 statement for some time and, as you may recall, provided you with a copy of its complete text, as you requested, in February 1979. Much of the discussion among Church members concerning the official Church position on the theory of organic evolution has centered on this very statement. Many divergent views have been expressed as to what allegedly is or is not the official Church position on the theory and to the connection between that position and the 1909 statement. Some members, for instance, claim that the 1909 statement definitely condemns organic evolution as false. Others say that it does not. Whatever claim is correct, such interpretations seem to be to be based largely on speculation. Since the reply from the First Presidency to my bishop contained no explanation as to the proper interpretation to be applied to the 1909 statement, I remain, in all honesty, confused. Without an attendant explanation of how the 1909 declaration should be viewed, it is my feeling that it remains subject to the same kind of private and, perhaps, inaccurate interpretation that has often been the source of disagreement among Church members. May I emphasize here that the above observations are mine alone and certainly may be subject to error. I do not wish to appear to be telling the First Presidency what to put in their letters or to be calling into question the wisdom of their replies. I simply feel that I have traveled ‘full circle,’ so to speak, without having obtained in my own mind a clear picture of the official Church position on the theory of organic evolution. Only for this reason have I sought additional insight. My bishop has acknowledged that I appear to be in somewhat of a dilemma. In our discussion, he told me that, in his opinion, many topics, including organic evolution, are speculative in nature, due to an absence of complete revelation from the Lord and that, therefore, such topics can be argued for or against, depending on which side, and even on which scriptures, one chooses to base a particular viewpoint. Nevertheless, the bishop emphasized that these represented only his personal opinions and, therefore, thought it would be of value for me to approach you this one last time. I must admit that I agree with him on taking this step. So many individuals, President Kimball, have told me their various, and often contradictory, versions of what supposedly is or is not the official Church position on organic evolution, each invoking their own scriptures and Church authorities, that my attempts to sift fact from fiction have, more often than not, led to frustration and disappointment. Would it be proper, then, for me to ask candidly if the 1909 statement should be regarded as officially condemning the theory of organic evolution, as some Church members claim it does, or is there perhaps some other conclusion that might be drawn? I would not even be disappointed to learn that, as a Church, we simply do not yet know the answer to that question, if such be the case. (In posing these questions, I am assuming, based on the First Presidency’s letter to my bishop, that the 1909 statement remains the official position of the Church. Enclosed for your reference, however, are copies of statements made since 1909, by President Joseph F. Smith in 1910 and 1911 and by the Grant First Presidency in 1925, all of which deal with the Church view on evolution). I sincerely want to avoid any inaccuracies in my conclusions and would very much appreciate clarification on these points, if and how you see fit. Thank you for your indulgence. May the Lord continue to bless you in your work, and I hope your legs feel better. Respectfully, your brother, [signed] Stephen R. Benson 1455 North Alma School Road, #7 Mesa, Arizona 85201 enc/srb” Kimball did not reply. _____ SIXTH (AND FINAL) LETTER TO KIMBALL I waited for three-and-a-half months for a reply. Hoping against hope that perhaps Kimball hadn’t answered because my letter had gotten lost in the mail, on 24 February 1981 I sent him another copy of it with the following note: “Dear President Kimball: This inquiry is simply a follow-up to a letter mailed to you on November 7, 1980. Having received no response to that letter, I fear that perhaps it may have never reached your desk. If not, then this correspondence will serve as a substitute. If, in fact, you did receive it and have thought it best not to respond, please forgive me for sending yet another letter.” No reply. Kimball died five years later. _____ CONCLUSION As a devout member of the Church at the time who was seeking direct answers to honest questions, I had tried every conceivable way to pry any light and knowledge out of Kimball on the Mormon Church’s official position concerning the theory of organic evolution. I had provided him with information he had requested. I had read the book he had recommended. I had offered him references to numerous other official Church statements on the subject of organic evolution. I had spoken with other General Authorities about the Church’s official position on organic evolution, only to come away with conflicting opinions. I had studied the words of Church leaders and read the research of top scientists. I had talked it over with my bishop, who punted the ball back to Kimball. In the end, I felt I had wasted over two years in a game of duck-and-dodge with the prophets of God. I ended up no further ahead than when the process had begun 27 months earlier. Through it all, I had kept the faith, affirmed my belief, served in the Kingdom, paid my tithing, demonstrated deference, respect, and obedience to my Church leaders. Despite it all, I was left without meaningful and straightforward answers to my questions. I came away beginning to wonder, “If the Church could not--or would not--give me honest answers to my inquiries on matters of science and faith, what else could I trust it to give me answers on?” The answer was, “Not much.” A few years later, with my faith completely shattered, I left the Mormon Church. |
| Subject: | Dear God, |
| Date: | Mar 23 07:03 |
| Author: | Old Scout |
| Dear God, I have been corresponding with your appointed representative here on Earth regarding Organic Evolution. I have not received a satisfactory response and it appears that he is dodging the question. Can you respond to my questions? Your Son, Steve Dear Steve, I read with interest your letter requesting information on Organic Evolution on Earth. I called my official representative on Earth and she said that she was not familiar with you or any such correspondence. You may want to check to see if you have the correct address. Eternally yours, God |
| Subject: | Dear God, then please wait until I evolve into a higher life form . . . |
| Date: | Mar 23 10:06 |
| Author: | steve benson |
| for you to take notice. Right now I'm just a stupid Benson male and it may take time. |
| Subject: | Here's the most telling evidence of your deep brainwashed state... |
| Date: | Mar 23 09:10 |
| Author: | Danite |
| In your letter to Kimball, you said "I do not believe that the Lord speaks in contradictory terms when instructing His children." The contradictions are endless, if you only open your eyes to them. And the nerve of you, even with your "royal blood", pestering the Great Oz with silly issues like "where did we come from?". |
| Subject: | My brain was indeed washed . . . |
| Date: | Mar 23 10:12 |
| Author: | steve benson |
| making it pure and delightsome. And the less used, the prettier. |
| Subject: | Re: Trying to Get Official Answers |
| Date: | Mar 23 14:33 |
| Author: | Bert |
| It seems to me that it was about this time, certainly in the last years of Kimball’s life, that the first presidency came out and formally stated with a letter to bishops and stake presidents that common members of the church were not to bother (personally correspond) with general authorities. If I remember right it also included a statement about not sending gifts to them (pickled peaches, etc.) |
| Subject: | Maybe if I had sent Kimball some pickled peaches . . . |
| Date: | Mar 23 14:58 |
| Author: | steve benson |
| he would have given me some decent answers. When Mary Ann and I eventually moved to Arizona, we dropped by my parents home in Salt Lake City, which at the time was next door to the Kimballs. Old Spence was out in his backyard that Sunday afternoon puttering around, spotted us loading up our U-Haul and handed us over his fence a plate of freshly-picked tomatoes from his garden. He was very pleasant. If only I had said, "Hey, big guy, if I give you some pickled peaches will you tickle me with a straight answer to my questions on organic evolution?" An opportunity for eternal truth forever lost. |
| Subject: | By the way, since coming to the RFM board several months ago . . . |
| Date: | Mar 23 15:19 |
| Author: | steve benson |
| this has been one of the most difficult posts, personally, for me to
make. It clearly exposes the indoctrinated mindset that inflicted me as a true believing Mormon, with its uncritical acceptance--even worship--of top Mormon leaders as God's unquestioned and ultimate authoritative earthly oracles. I figured, however, that if I was going to fully and accurately demonstrate Kimball's evasiveness, then it behooved me to do so within the context of my Mormon mindest in which my questions to him arose. Hence, as embarrassing as it was for me personally, I felt it necessary to lay out my own indoctrinated thinking, evidenced in my letters to the Mormon Church president. I was a victim of the Morg's manipulation; my consolation is that many of us were. It's nice to know that, even though the LDS Church tries desperately to stamp out critical thinking, we can (even in Mormonism's relentlessly indocrinated state), see occasional glimmers of independent thought stubbornly make their way to the surface of our brains. The trick is to catch them before they are quickly submerged in the pounding waves of Mormon propaganda. We can look back and see that now--and be glad we had the sense and the support to make the bolt from the Cult. |
| Subject: | Steve, even when you were a TBM, you thought more than most morgbots. |
| Date: | Mar 23 17:04 |
| Author: | Cattle Mutilator |
| Your willingness to stand up to the Mecham wackos as a TBM was also
admirable. You have absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about. If only more of the LDS faithful thought about things as much as you did! (Of course, if they did, they would probably no longer be LDS faithful.) |
| Subject: | D**n You, Steve! I . . . |
| Date: | Mar 23 15:58 |
| Author: | SL Cabbie |
| Need to get to work. No way I have time to read the whole thing and
watch, ADMIN close this thread by the time I get back. I play hookey all day yesterday,
and what comes out--a little about your Uncle Reed's penchance for corn flakes and some
Bruce R. McKonkie stuff that I don't know diddly squat about. . . I know, I know, my few brilliancies don't follow any timetable either. |
| Subject: | memories. . . |
| Date: | Mar 23 16:13 |
| Author: | mary ann benson |
| I know this was hard for you to put out there. Just a few gentle
comments. *wink* >Steve Benson wrote: > As I began my research paper, I was confident that Mormon prophets would be clear and forthcoming in explaining to me the truth . . . Wow, you were so naive! >It is not my desire to create disharmony or to undermine faith and testimony by claiming that leading authorities of the Church have made statements which conflict with each other. I sincerely believe that, under the proper guidance, these statements can be reconciled and interpreted in the true spirit in which they were given. I do not believe that the Lord speaks in contradictory terms when instructing His children. OH MY GOD! Look how brainwashed you were! >I fully support the leaders of this Church as the rightfully ordained mouthpieces of God and desire to follow their counsel. As I search for truth in my academic and religious pursuits I look to the scriptures, the Holy Ghost, and the living prophets for guidance in interpreting the truthfulness of what is taught me. You were so faithful! You were such a good little soldier! >KIMBALL’S FIRST RESPONSE >Dear Brother Benson: >I am not familiar with that particular quote and wonder I you could give me the reference where it can be found. I will await your reply. >Spencer W. Kimball Please quote it” What???? He's not familiar with the quote????????????? >Joseph Anderson, Secretary of the First Presidency wrote: >‘We seem to be in an age of such great and fundamental scientific readjustments on many matters, . . . that to attempt to harmonize the spiritual truths of the Gospel with the scientific theories would be futile, not because spiritual truths are not truths, because they are, but because the theories are admittedly largely hypothetical and subject to change.’ In other words, your guess is as good as ours. >Steve wrote: >If it be the Lord’s will, I would be very grateful to receive some illumination from His prophet. If the truth is not yet to come, according to the Lord’s own timetable, I will wait for the day when I am ready to receive it. Well, it obviously wasn't the Lord's will because no illumination came from His prophet. And, yes, had you stayed in the mormon church, you would still be waiting for the day when you were ready to receive it. YOU'RE NOT WORTHY. >SECOND RESPONSE FROM KIMBALL >I am wondering if you have ever read the book of Henry Eyring, ‘The Faith of the Scientist.’ Sounds like the runaround to me. >Steve wrote: >I still wasn’t satisfied, however. I was hoping for a more definitive answer from Kimball and still believed it was possible to get one. Because you were a man of great faith. What happened? (Tongue firmly planted in cheek.) >So, my professors granted me an extension past my graduation to continue searching for more answers and working on the paper, which I did for several more months. Let's see, 23 X 12 =__________. Just kiddin' ya. >Since I do not wish to appear to be pitting these brethren against each other—both of whom I wholeheartedly sustain in their divine callings—perhaps a discretionary course would be to refrain from mentioning names. You were protecting the Church from the Church. >during President McKay’s administration, Professor Harold J. Bissell of the BYU Geology Department was told: >‘The Brethren feel very sure that serious reflection on the matter will persuade you of the problems and resulting difficulties that would come to the First Presidency from any announcement that they might make on this matter of ‘organic evolution.’ You will appreciate that any statement they might make on this subject would be presumed to meet the problem as it is now understood by the scientists and the people. They feel sure that you will also appreciate that the problem as it now exists under the theories of present scientists might well not be the problems that will exist 50 or 100 years from now any more than that an explanation made to meet the theories of 100 years ago would meet the problems of today. As the Brethren understand, science must never accept any alleged solution of the problems of science (and they are many and in different fields), as the final truth . . . We seem to be in an age of such great and fundamental scientific readjustments on many matters, . . that to attempt to harmonize the spiritual truths of the Gospel with the scientific theories would be futile, not because spiritual truths are not truths, because they are, but because the theories are admittedly largely hypothetical and subject to change. The Brethren sometimes say that this harmonizing of which so much is sometimes said should be harmonizing of science with spiritual truth, and not the harmonizing of spiritual truth with science, which latter can be accepted only when science comes to the ultimate truth, and nobody knows when that will be.’ The mormon church admitting again, they don't have the answers, they don't know, and they don't want to be found out about being led by false prophets. >Steve wrote: >I want to live the teachings of the Gospel, for I know that only through adherence to them, not through devotion to the theories of men, can I understand my relationship to my Father in Heaven and, as His son, someday become like He is, to experience the true joy and knowledge that comes only through obedience to His laws. Gag me with a spoon. ;) >If I achieve that goal, then I will have eternities to learn how the Lord made the physical world and perhaps have the opportunity to fashion a few worlds of my own. LOL, and how many other wives were you going to need to fashion these worlds? >RESPONSE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY >Dear Brother Benson: >I have been asked to acknowledge your letter . . and to inquire as a basis for responding to it whether you would have an objection if a copy of your letter, together with an answering letter, were to be sent to your bishop. >Francis M. Gibbons >Secretary to the First Presidency” HA, we don't know the answers, so let's punt the ball to the Bishop!!!!!!!!!! >Dear Bishop Allen: >As you will see, Brother Benson inquires about the attitude of the Church toward organic evolution. We shall appreciate it if you will contact Brother Benson and discuss this matter with him. We want this little pesky kid to leave us alone, you deal with him. >Steve wrote: >When my bishop received the letter from the First Presidency, he didn’t know what to do. . . >So, he suggested I write Kimball one last time: >Kimball did not reply. And if you were still mormon, you would still be waiting. Steve, thank you for sharing this. It so clearly lays out the mind control the mormon church wields over its members. It clearly shows that they don't have the answers and that in the end, we are on our own. I'm so proud of you. You have come a long way, baby. And all those former addresses reminded me that we sure moved a lot. |
| Subject: | Mary Ann and Steve, thank you for sharing your experiences on this board. |
| Date: | Mar 23 16:32 |
| Author: | Stationary Traveler |
| Steve's account only reminds me of my brainwashed days. Most of us were imprisoned at one time or another and meeting here via Internet is such a refreshing reunion of free spirits/human beings/or whatever. |
| Subject: | I had some experiences myself trying to deal with SWK's office in 1979. . . |
| Date: | Mar 23 16:46 |
| Author: | catholicgirl |
| . . .(although not in trying to get a definitive answer on organic
evolution), so I can relate somewhat to your frustration. It, too, contributed in some
measure to my eventual departure from the LDS Church. Whatever happened to the finished research paper? Willing to share it? |
| Subject: | with regard to the research paper's status . . . |
| Date: | Mar 23 17:35 |
| Author: | steve benson |
| Aa I noted in a previous post some weeks ago, a concerted effort was
made by my father and grandfather to discourage me from submitting my undergraduate paper
to my professors. My father wrote me a long letter (which I posted on the RFM board), warning me against undermining faith and testimony in the Brethren, discouraging me from throwing my lot in with the world's uninspired intellectual Korihors in the scientific community and cautioning me against losing my testimony, not to mention threatening my personal salvation. My father even told me he was praying that I suffer "a stupor of thought" if what I was writing was not in harmony with the promptings of the Holy Ghost (all over an undergraduate paper, of all things). My grandfather warned me against eroding the faith and testimony of others in following the Brethren, and told me to obey them, even if they were wrong on evolution, and I would, he said, be blessed by the Lord. He assured me this was a fundamental principle of the Gospel. My father urged me to offer my paper up (prior to turning it over to my professors), for review by Ezra Taft Benson, Bruce R. McConkie, Reed Benson and my father--not, he assured me, to censor what I had written, but only so that they could offer helpful suggestions. Keep in mind, this was all occurring while I was still a faithful member of the Church. What we had here was the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (as well as the others mentioned) attempting to interfere with my academic studies and even going so far as to discourage me from submitting agreed-upon work to my professors! Needless to say, this full-court press threw something of a wet blanket on my efforts to finish the paper. However, as the years have passed, I have continued to work on it, expanding its scope to cover virtually all official Church pronouncements, up through the Hinckley regime, on organic evolution, the origin of man, and the creation of the earth and universe. I have been in contact with my professors who approved the original research project and have assured them that, sometime before we all die and turn to dust, the paper will be finished and submitted. |
| Subject: | You should publish it. You have a ready market here. |
| Date: | Mar 23 18:24 |
| Author: | just me |
| I would buy a copy. Thanks for your posts. They very intriguing and fun to read. |
See also McConkie on Evolution
Recovery from Mormonism - www.exmormon.org |