Today’s take-away is simple: Don’t use the Old Testament Institute manual for Genesis. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk…
This post contains Amazon Affiliate links.
So, a bit more detail. A lot, in fact, perhaps more than you want.
In my previous life as a ancient near east/semitics/Old Testament scholar-in-training, I read Genesis in Hebrew and Aramaic, and contextual sources in Assyrian and Babylonian. However, my PhD training is in American Religious history, Reformation, and History of Science.1Very heavy on the first, very light on the third My dissertation topic is the 20th century history of LDS conflict between scripture and science, creation and evolution. I’ve conducted research interviews and archival research since 2017.
When it comes to this manual, I’ve spent dozens of hours in the donated papers of the primary author of the Genesis section. I’ve interviewed the secondary author, who was also the first-level reviewer.2His memory is understandably lacking in detail of events from 40+ years ago. And I know who was serving on the Correlation committee that ultimately approved the draft, with one minor change (discussed below.) I have two articles in preparation that will address this history directly, which I hope to see published in the next year. Because I don’t want to scoop myself, I’m going to call the primary author of Genesis “Gary.” (Edit: A bunch of people have guessed Cleon Skousen. It wasn’t Cleon Skousen, and you probably wouldn’t recognize his name.)
The main problem with this 1980 Institute manual— and when I say “the manual” I really mean the Genesis and creation sections— is that it does not represent Church history, scripture, or doctrine fairly or accurately, much to the detriment of members of the Church. If you are a new convert in Japan, Brazil, Russia, etc., this current (!) manual represents the most detailed, official, accessible commentary in your language, laying out the Church’s supposed balance between science and religion, faith and knowledge.
And frankly, it’s bad. It quotes Joseph Fielding Smith to force a false dichotomy between faith and evolution. It represents as reliable and good sources for Latter-day Saints a Seventh-day Adventist creationism pamphlet, quoted for nearly 2000 words; Melvin Cook, LDS chemistry professor and young-earth creationist, well known in the broader world of Christian creationism; and Immanuel Velikovsky, fringe Russian/Israeli psychiatrist and catastrophist of the 1950s and 60s.
Velikovsky proposed that the dramatic accounts in the Bible, Egyptian, Chinese, and Mexican sources were simple eyewitness records of natural events.
What could have caused global catastrophes of a magnitude sufficient to create a worldwide flood, generate plagues, part the Red Sea, and even (in the story of Joshua before Jericho) halt the Earth in its rotation so that “the Sun stood still upon Gibeon, and the Moon in the Valley of Ajalon”? Velikovsky thought that such events could happen only as a result of near-collisions of other planets with the Earth…. For the cause of the Great Flood, he briefly speculated about a possible splitting or fissioning of Jupiter from Saturn, a speculation never described in detail. But for the events of the first and second millennia B.C. he was more specific.
– Chapman and Morrison, “Catastrophism Gone Wild: The Case of Immanuel Velikovsky” in Cosmic Catastrophes
Velikovsky argued that Venus was a new planet, recently ejected from Jupiter. Before settling into solar orbit, he claimed, Venus had passed very near the earth (perhaps several times), changing the its axis and causing severe electromagnetic, geological, meteorological, and other effects.
In order to make these arguments, Velikovsky had to rewrite the historical timeline of several civilizations and ignore things like basic physics; so of course, his books sold like crazy to the public. Their popularity and the resulting misinformation led to major pushback by actual scientists and historians. I’ve quite enjoyed Michael Gordin’s The Pseudo-Science Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe (UChicago Press, 2013).3Gordin provides excellent coverage of Donald Patten, a Christian young-earth creationist who followed in Velikovsky’s footsteps AND was influential on some Latter-day Saints
Why would Gary include this stuff?
In terms of education, Gary had an undergraduate degree in history and political science, a MA from BYU in religion, and PhD coursework in History of Education. Gary was a trusted but highly controversial Curriculum writer, BYU professor, and Institute teacher. Harold B. Lee called him a friend, and relied on him as an intellectual source; in 1955, Lee asked him to write up a report on evolution. Lee was quite upset whenever Gary talked of leaving CES or BYU, and worked to keep him in the system.
Ezra Taft Benson contacted Gary frequently for suggestions of talk topics, research essays, vetting of people and papers, and opinions. Gary ghost-wrote a number of Benson’s talks, and in turn Benson greatly valued him. Benson at various times wanted Gary to take over as Dean at BYU, as Commissioner of Church Education, or other highly influential positions, to which Gary demurred. Benson once ordered the Ensign editor to publish an article a month from Gary, which didn’t happen. But behind the scenes, Gary did have a large influence on Church education, BYU RelEd, and some major changes in the Church generally.4I detail these in my upcoming publications. Not everyone appreciated him, though. He spoke several times of being on a “blacklist” by particular authorities or Correlation, and said he could not get his “best material” through publication anywhere.
On a spectrum, Gary’s political and religious views landed somewhat to the right of Ezra Taft Benson. Gary believed— because “scripture clearly taught”5This should really call into question Gary’s framework for interpreting scripture — that women should neither hold callings in the Church, nor vote in elections. He believed the US was already “lost” to the socialists, Marxists, and communists. BYU was more secular than the California state school system, and “fell in into the hands of the Babylonians through a conscious conspiracy…. by the Humanists.” He wrote to Reed Benson that
Deseret News, Channel 5, and KSL have essentially become tools of the Marxist conspiracy….
President Monson is not convinced that we are right in our interpretation of the Constitution, the Book of Mormon and the present corpus condition of the government, etc. but he would never think of himself as a socialist or liberal, I’m sure.
Gary subscribed to (and appreciated) Seventh-day Adventist literature and creationist literature. He also enthusiastically followed Rousas John Rushdoony, the “Father of Christian Deconstructionism” or “Dominion Theology” i.e. the idea that a true American government would be a theocracy with laws based on the Law of Moses and schools unabashedly Christian fundamentalist in orientation. He exchanged letters with Rushdoony, and passed some of his material approvingly to President Benson. Gary wrote that he had “only extremely rare disagreements with Rousas J. Rushdoony.” One of Gary’s LDS books was published with an entire chapter excised, because it pushed fundamentalist interpretations of politics, religion, and science so hard; of this chapter, Gary wrote “I am indebted to Rousas John Rushdoony… for these ideas.” 6Gary claimed he could not “salvage any of Chapter Seven, because it would offend many of the Brethren because of its strong anti-evolution and anti-socialism stand.”
When it came to scripture and science, Gary was firmly in the interpretive camp of Joseph Fielding Smith, accepting Smith’s premises that scripture consisted of 1) divinely revealed scientific, historical, and doctrinal facts which 2) required no interpretation, no specialized knowledge or contextualization. Gary’s premises were reinforced by his extensive studying of Christian young-earth fundamentalists like Rushdoony, Morris and Whitcomb,7Notably, Rushdoony helped Morris and Whitcomb get their infamous YEC flood book published and distributed. I’ve wondered if R introduced him to M&W or vice-versa. Donald Patten (Patten’s filmstrip was reviewed by Neal Maxwell), and also catastrophist Velikovsky, and Latter-day Saint Melvin Cook.
In a conflict with science professors at BYU, Gary brazenly claimed, “My arguments against the theory of organic evolution were so good that no one took me on openly.” He said, “I don’t believe there are many people in the Church— even among the Brethren— who realize how easy it is to disprove evolution scientifically and logically.” Gary was, of course, not a scientist and mostly getting his info from fundamentalists.
Nevertheless, evolution conflict— or more precisely, Gary’s disillusionment with the faculty and administration— eventually led him to leave BYU. Due to the fundamentalist sources he read, Gary “had believed that physicists, chemists, mathematicians, and engineers would tend not to believe in evolution” but was shocked to find this was not the case. “Far more of the BYU faculty are evolutionists than I had supposed— maybe as much as 90%” he reported to President Benson.
A major reason I left [BYU] was that I finally got it through my thick skin and skull how deeply and genuinely the majority of the faculty hated me because of my outspoken criticism of organic evolution and socialism.
Gary was the primary author of the Genesis section of the manual.8The assignment sheet indicates Gary was primary on all the Genesis chapters. However, Gary implies a second author in a letter; several things about final responsibility for this section are not clear, but it is clear that Gary was assigned. He placed great and unjustified confidence in fringe and fundamentalist sources. Having read so much of his journals, letters, and memos lasting nearly six decades, I can see exactly how and why he wrote that section the way he did.
According to my interview with the second writer, the draft came back from Correlation with no pushback.9Again, 40-odd years after the fact, his memory was a little fuzzy. However, Gary’s papers show Correlation did make one change.
To the young-earth options for Latter-day Saints—either creation in 6×24-hour days or 6×1000-yr periods— Correlation added a third option: Henry Eyring’s old earth option of “a day is an unspecified period of time,” i.e. the day-age interpretation. (FWIW, in my view, all three of these options assume concordism, and I think they’re wrong. See this post on what “day” meant for Israelites and here for a more thorough follow-up with 2 Peter.)
Gary was furious about this imposed old-earth option, complaining sarcastically about
those ‘orthodox,’ often pharisaical ‘saner heads who have fortunately prevailed.’
Gary frequently criticized Correlation for editing out his warnings of Communism, socialism, marxism, humanism, etc., describing two members of that review committee as “intellectual pygmies….They do not understand the conspiracy. They do not speak out against evolution.”
But Correlation did approve the inclusion of Velikovsky, of a lengthy quote of Seventh-day Adventist creationism,10What happened to “avoiding sectarianism” and “keeping the doctrine pure”? of Melvin Cook, of the false dichotomy between Evolution and Christianity. The one-sided manual had the stamp of approval.
Just how one-sided was it?
Where were Talmage, Widtsoe, and Roberts? Back in 1954, President Smith’s Man, His Origin and Destiny— which drew heavily on fundamentalist literature for geological argument— had triggered a flood of letters wondering why earlier teachings were ignored; LDS paleontologist Lee Stokes wrote to Henry Eyring,
So far as I know, the complete lack of reference by President Smith to the writings of his fellow apostles is almost without parallel in Church literature. I do not believe the man who wrote “Jesus the Christ” and “The Articles of Faith” can be completely ignored in a field in which he was well-trained and proficient.
Was Talmage’s geological expertise irrelevant? Where is Elder Stephen L. Richards and his views, in this manual? Where were President McKay’s views on Genesis and evolution? Where was acknowledgement that the First Presidency in 1931 had determined that the Church had no official doctrine on either pre-adamites OR death before the Fall? Where was Henry Eyring? All of that was swept under the rug, because both the authors and reviewers (and a significant number of General Authorities) were swimming in the intellectual stream of the post-1950s fundamentalist turn. (See also my lecture “‘Science falsely so-called’: How LDS Came to Misread Scripture as Science.” )
The earlier more open history was not well-known; where it was known, it was often dismissed as tainted by “philosophies of men.” The manual was not merely one-sided in its representation of LDS apostolic views, history, and scripture; it was extreme in its one-sideness. There is a deep irony in implicitly rejecting the teachings of earlier LDS General Authorities as “philosophies of men,” while touting Velikovsky and Seventh-day Adventist creationists as respectable authorities and options for Latter-day Saints.
As with the racially-charged supposed “printing error” in the Book of Mormon manual recently, Correlation failed badly here. Even prophets are human, but we do not sustain Correlation or anonymous manual writers as “prophets, seers and revelators.”
Now, a more cheerful note. The 2022 Come Follow Me makes some great changes… which I suspect are too subtle for most people to notice.11I’ll highlight them as we go along next year I don’t know if they’ll make much of a difference. Tradition is a bit of a steamroller.
Note that in a recent article about dinosaurs, a Church magazine said, “The accounts of the Creation in the scriptures are not meant to provide a literal, scientific explanation of the specific processes, time periods, or events involved.” (I, of course, take issue with this uncritical use of “literal” reading when it’s really “plain” or “face-value reading” but saying that we should not read Genesis “literally” is a step forward.)
But I am looking forward to Old Testament, and have just posted my main “what to read” post. Just remember, read Come Follow Me… and ignore the Institute Manual.
If you’re looking for a guide to the early chapters of Genesis, science, and creation, I have a lot of material arranged nicely here.
As always, you can help me pay my tuition here via GoFundMe. *I am an Amazon Affiliate, and may receive a small percentage of purchases made through Amazon links on this page. You can get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box below) and can also follow Benjamin the Scribe on Facebook.
December 9, 2021 at 4:08 pm
Excellent article. Thank you!
December 9, 2021 at 7:55 pm
You spend a lot of time attacking the character of a person.
December 9, 2021 at 8:46 pm
I’m interested to know where you think I have attacked Gary’s (?) character. The *positions* he took, the reasoning behind them, and where those positions fell on the spectrum from mainstream to fringe, from well-supportable to pseudo-science, these are all abundantly clear and documentable. Ditto for Velikovsky and all the others I’ve named.
December 10, 2021 at 12:30 am
I would pay good money to know Gary’s real name.
We taught Institute to YSAs on our senior’s mission in London
We used the current manual. I had to laugh when I read a quote or two from that great LDS scholar Cleon Skousen. A big help was having a copy of the Standard International version of the Bible.
December 10, 2021 at 1:14 pm
A sad situation. I think that prayer, patience, time, and continued engagement with the system are the best responses.
I have heard that an improved revision of this manual has been in “development hell” (to borrow a term from the movie industry) for a while. Let’s hope it sees the light of day soon.
Despite being handicapped by too much conservatism (in my view) this church does and will continue moving forward. I think that God doesn’t need his church to be perfect, but only good enough for his current purposes. It is up to us to keep choosing faith and good works.
December 10, 2021 at 2:07 pm
While you were going through “Gary’s” papers did you find his folder called “[Admin edit 🙂 ]”?
December 10, 2021 at 3:59 pm
Yes indeed. He renamed it later, and the new title was even worse!
December 10, 2021 at 3:26 pm
Great article. Thank you for your insights.
December 10, 2021 at 6:30 pm
Can’t wait to see the articles!
It’s fun (and sad) to see how little some things change. The communist/socialist threat is ever before us!
Fights over Genesis may seem quaint and niche, but I think there is a direct line that can be drawn from modern creationism to MAGA, as I’ve argued elsewhere. It’s characterized by an incredible Kruger-Dunning-fueled sense of superiority that dismisses true experts and evidence if they don’t confirm prior beliefs, and builds up charlatans as authorities. The mindset built by creationism is the same mindset that can reject climate change, reject vaccines, and reject an election. (Someone will surely accuse me of being political, but I’m not talking about policy or partisanship. I’m really talking about a cultural phenomenon.)
It is strange to me that the OT manual has lasted so long. I can’t help but wonder if it reflects a stalemate or trench warfare behind the scenes between modernists and traditionalists, for lack of better terms. Not just with respect to Genesis and science, but on other issues of biblical scholarship. And since there isn’t agreement on how to proceed, the old manual stays in place.
I’m curious how you tracked down who authored the manual chapter. Do the archives have that information available for anyone that bothers to look it up? Or did you have to ask around until you found the answer? Or were you just browsing around sources that might be relevant to your dissertation and stumble on it?
December 10, 2021 at 6:41 pm
I was browsing a relevant archival collection, and realized it had far more than I had hoped. It was a VERY good day in the archives! I suspect very very few people have just ever been into that collection, or if they have, been interested in the same things I am.
There is a long tradition of pseudo- or para-expertise among conservative Evangelicals, establishing “experts” who are culturally acceptable “insiders” like David Barton for history. Check out Stephens and Giberson, The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age, for some exploration of this.
December 10, 2021 at 6:47 pm
Really, really good stuff, Ben. I’ve had disagreements with you on a number of issues in the past, but what you’re doing here is of tremendous value.
December 10, 2021 at 7:03 pm
Thanks John! Appreciated.
December 10, 2021 at 7:28 pm
Are Gary’s initials CS?
December 10, 2021 at 7:32 pm
Nope. I’ve told a few people who he is, and no one’s ever heard of him.
December 10, 2021 at 8:18 pm
Except that you’ve written about him before, so some of have.
December 13, 2021 at 7:49 am
This post led me to read through the introductory pages of the OT CFM again, and I really appreciated the subtle changes (and some not so subtle!). It’s like the helmsman is turning the rudder just a few degrees for a much-needed course correction, but not so much that most passengers would be upset by (or even notice) the turn. It almost reads as if a certain blogger had some part in its authorship…
Incidentally, yesterday we had a ‘special stake conference’ and Elder Cook was our visiting Apostle. Some of his comments validated (in my mind, anyway) what has been said about, in spite of its primacy of place in Latter-day Saint doctrine, the KJV still having its flaws and problems; that it’s not the ‘ultimate Bible’. The mere existence of the JST is evidence of that. He talked about some of Joseph’s corrections, and how later in the 19th century Frederic Farrer came to the same conclusions (e.g., in John 5.29 where JST revises “damnation” > “unjust”), and thereby scholarship ‘validated’ revelation. Interestingly, just to add a morsel to the faith/science debate, Farrer was one of Darwin’s pallbearers.
December 17, 2021 at 7:30 am
Thank you Ben! This was a great read.
One of the things I have loved about our reading this year has been how much the church has put into getting its history right. The JS Papers and the wealth of resources provided for the Come Follow Me D&C curriculum has been phenomenal. I would love to see this same type of rigor and resources applied to our study of the Bible, but it doesn’t seem like we’re there yet. In your research, have you seen any movement in that direction for the Old (or even New) Testament?
January 1, 2022 at 12:29 pm
Thanks Ben.
January 3, 2022 at 9:23 am
You lack understanding of “Gary’s” intentions. Did you know him? I did. He certainly had a wealth of knowledge of the scriptures. “Gary” was a man who could have run circles around you intellectually. One reason was that he recognized truth. He was a man of God with implicit faith in the word of God. A man not wandering in the mists of darkness but holding fast to the iron rod. He was a man ahead of his time and had a clear vision for what was going on in this world. Why did prophets of God seek him out?
January 3, 2022 at 9:31 am
No, but I have read his personal journals and letters, which give a lot of insight into his motives and thought processes.
I’m not sure the rest merits a response, though I clearly touched a nerve. More importantly, is any of the history wrong here?
January 3, 2022 at 2:07 pm
I am 99% sure I know who Gary is. I don’t know much about him, but some of this books look familiar. Do you know anything about the alleged lawsuit (meaning, I’ve read about it online but I don’t actually know if there was an actual lawsuit) against him just before he left BYU?
January 3, 2022 at 5:17 pm
Although I have personal bias in regards to this post, being the youngest grandchild of “Gary”, I would very much like to put in my two cents. Having spent a considerable amount of time reading the records stored at the Perry special collections of the Lee library to find my grandfathers public facing journals and papers, I can say that you paint an extremely biased and one-sided argument here, it reads like a op-ed hit piece filled with emotion and personal vendetta, perhaps that’s my bias taking effect, perhaps not. I especially enjoyed your subtle intent to attribute emotional charge, sarcasm, and frustration to “Gary” where I read none, having known him personally and also read his papers. Rather than dissecting his teachings for flaws, you attack sources cited as “fundamentalist,” “fringe,” etc.. You mock what you perceive to be the foundation of his teachings to secure moral foothold in order to discard them outright. Shoddy arguments at best, in my opinion.
Either way, I don’t really care what you think of his teachings, they are echoed solidly by the church to this day, even if the modern Come, Follow Me does not go into depth with the specifics, it does not do so to “turn a rudder” or sweep under the rug the teachings of the past. Once the rewrite of the Student Manual is released, perhaps we can discuss then where the stance of the church lies. As it now stands, that manual is still the only publication officially sponsored by the church that goes into details on the subject of the creation, and it only lightly covers it. Must drive you mad for you to feel the need to tell people to ignore it.
Ben, I’d like to be a bit forthright, having never read anything written by you before, I suggest you remove the call to action to give you money for religious studies if you want to be taken seriously by anyone on the fence in regards to religious writings. The post stinks of priestcraft with that at the end. I doubt that’s your intent, but seeing that alone makes me question where your heart is in concern to your writings.
My grandfather taught me a lot, and although he was incorrect on some (minor) conclusions, his primary focus was always Christ centered rebirth and furthering the work of salvation. For his work in that regard, I will be eternally grateful, alongside the hundreds of students who attribute his efforts that lead to their conversion to Christ.
It blows my mind that BYU “academics” still regularly attack him to this day, two decades after his death, three to four decades since his retirement.
January 3, 2022 at 8:11 pm
For what it’s worth (probably nothing to Joshua P), there is a well defined distinction between the scholarly study of religion (i.e., “religious studies”) and the study of any particular faith as a follower of that faith. Ben is a university student who must pay tuition and other expenses for his academic training, and it is that for which he invites support. He is also — distinct from his status as a student — a faithful member of the Church, who is turning his academic training to the benefit of the Church in many ways — and that’s true whether you accept it or not. In no way is he soliciting money as payment for the practice or promotion of his faith.
Until you understand the difference between “religious studies” as an academic discipline, and Ben’s personal exercise of faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, please be careful throwing around a term like “priestcraft.” That accusation is about as far from the mark as it is possible to be.
January 3, 2022 at 8:35 pm
I agree, there is a significant difference in religious studies and study of that faith as a follower. You are correct. You, however, are incorrect in the presumption that I am criticizing the request for funding his religious studies. He can seek that all he wants all day long so long as it is simply that: seeking funding for continuing his religious studies. However, my point is that this specific article is advice, counsel, teachings, whatever you want to call it, it is barely religious studies. He uses his background in religious studies, sure, but he is giving instruction on how to be a devout (in his opinion) follower of the Come, Follow Me curriculum, and that is more on the side of “the study of any particular faith as a follower of that faith”. This is why it stinks of priestcraft to me. Is it? Up to God. Since priestcraft is much more than just receiving money in exchange for the practice and promotion of his faith. He is actively attacking a currently accepted instruction manual supported by the church, using his religious studies background to justify his opinion, and promoting the funding of his continued study. Perhaps I am too literal in my belief that the Church is always in the right until they themselves say otherwise, but seeking funding to pay an institution while simultaneously criticizing currently supported teachings is far from honest “religious studies”. He is not just sharing the information, he is promoting a specific action that is not supported, endorsed, or shared by the Church and seeking funding to do so.
hopefully my word vomit helps clarify why I think it’s tacky for this specific article to have a call for action to a go fund me.
January 3, 2022 at 9:50 pm
This is preposterous. First, the word “priestcraft” comes from a “priest” or someone with priesthood authority over you asking for money in return for priestly services. Please keep that straight. Second, by your definition, the prophets and apostles are all guilty of priestcraft when writing and selling their books, as is the Church-owned, Deseret Book. Again, preposterous! And while I do not agree with Ben on all of his work, he is certainly not “promoting a specific action that is not supported, endorsed, or shared by the Church “. The First Presidency has made clear on more than one occasion that the Church does not have a doctrine on the scientific creation and age of the world nor of evolution. While academia and scholarship can be used poorly, it is not in and of itself evil. It is in fact necessary. We are to use reason as far as it will take us. I’ve supported Ben previously. You’ve just inspired me to do so again.
January 4, 2022 at 12:12 am
Okay, doesn’t offend me in any way, Greg. You also seem to misunderstand me.
Stinks of priestcraft to me because this article is written purely to project his own opinion of a man, not refute the teachings of that man, nor was any attempt to argue made. Keep in mind, the Book of Mormon teaches the exact definition as “Priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion'” (2 Nephi 26:29) “Inherent in this definition is the concern that Church leaders must labor to build Zion into the hearts of the people, and not for their personal aggrandizement or reward.” Charles D. Tate Jr.
It stinks of priestcraft because be begins his article citing his academic accomplishments and ends it asking for support for his pursuit to get more worldly academic achievement, and in-between it is filled with poorly veiled character attacks that a student in their first academic paper would fail to get a good grade if attempted.
It is a flat out lie that the church has never made a stance on the subject of evolution. 1909, some time mid century, and again in 2002 the church issued a lengthy statement, a small quote for you: “It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men””
Read the entire statement here:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng
Our dear friend, Ben, here has also taken the liberty of writing extensively on this First Presidency Statement. I don’t care to spend the time arguing why his breakdown is problematic, dishonest, and simply rationalization to not sacrifice a personal belief in favor of what the first presidency had signed their name upon. (although, I can’t help but bring up that “whatsoever those men did in authority, in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven,” as outlined in D&C 128:9 and this adopted statement on the origin of man, repeatedly given by the first Presidency, is indeed done in authority, in the name of the Lord, with a proper record.)
Anyway, I’ve wasted enough time on here to let this devolve into arguments on evolution. I simply arrived to point out my perspective, the inaccuracies and misrepresentation
of “Gary”‘s character and intentions by Ben, and to point out this gentleman has an obvious personal vendetta against my grandfather as evidence by this waste of space article.
I mean, a high school student would fail English and debate class if they attacked someone’s sources rather than the argument itself. It’s basic debate, logic, and academic writing practice.
January 4, 2022 at 9:12 am
And this thread is an example of why the Church needs to be more clear about removing outdated and badly sourced materials from its website.
The fact that “Gary” was so highly influenced by Rushdoony and others is a big red flag to me. So much so that I can’t in good conscience recommend that institute manual and I regret the time I spent studying it when I could have spent my time reading better stuff on the Old Testament.
January 4, 2022 at 3:23 pm
David O. McKay-
“Great men have the ability to see clearly into the heart of things. They discern truth. They think independently. They act nobly. They influence strong men to follow them. Small men sneer at them, ridicule them, persecute them, but the critics die and are forgotten, and the great man lives on forever.”
“Gary” was a great man.
January 4, 2022 at 8:32 pm
I’m having a hard time understanding the obsession that you (Ben) have for “Gary”. You apparently believe “Gary” was quite insignificant since nearly no one knows who he is, according to you. Why would one spend so much time trying to destroy a man’s reputation, his good name, and possibly his legacy? It seems to me that you believe you can make Darwinian Evolution true by destroying “Gary.” I doubt “Gary” would have ever done the same thing to you or any other man. In fact, I know he would not have stooped low enough to believe that he would best further his own personal interests by publishing papers and a dissertation that destroy another man. To me, it seems unprofessional. If one’s efforts to prove his belief in Evolution include the destruction of another’s reputation, his arguments must be weak indeed. I have always believed that truth speaks for itself and will stand the test of time and doesn’t require personal attacks on those who don’t believe as you. As a professional scientist working in the solid rocket industry for decades in a community of professional scientists and engineers, I have never seen anything like this stuff you are producing. Don’t you think it’s a bit cowardly to attack a deceased man who cannot defend himself. I assure you that “Gary” was well qualified to defend himself in his time and anyone attempting to disparage him publicly would have found his hands full. If you continue in your pursuit, the day will come that you will regret it. In no way can you know the true character and great good this man “Gary” as accomplished by digging through his personal journals and letters, etc. to find “sound bites” that you can use against him to further your cause. You have no idea of the great good this man accomplished in his life and the incredible respect he was shown by the hundreds, if not thousands who knew him better than you will ever know him. I predict that your work will come to naught and may only serve as a witness against you some day. What you are doing resembles the efforts by some who are working to disparage President Brigham Young. Those efforts will also come to naught.
January 4, 2022 at 8:50 pm
I’ve followed this thread for several days now, and I must confess that I’m confused.
Relatives of “Gary” have accused Ben of “personal attacks,” “ridicule,” “persecution,” and having a “vendetta.”
Rereading Ben’s original post, above, and being familiar with his work, I’ve seen nothing that can be fairly characterized as malicious or personal against “Gary.” Ben has done accurate and important documentary history.
If anything, the reaction to Ben’s post from relatives of “Gary” has been malicious and personal.
It’s very sad.