Category: interpretation

Joseph Fielding Smith, 2 Nephi 2:22, and “Death Before the Fall” in Church History

February 4, 2024 /

As many of my readers may know, President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876-1972) considered evolution not just incorrect, but devilish; he believed scripture taught a young earth, with no death of any kind anywhere before the fall of Adam c. 4000 BC.  His key scriptural evidence was 2 Nephi 2:22-25, which he cited dozens of times in books, articles, and private letters.  I want to explore and document a few related questions here.

  1. Does Smith’s understanding of this passage represent a clear and historically consistent Church position?
  2. Does Smith, in essence, overclaim?

Continue reading

President Smith in 1910

The New “Answering Gospel Questions,” Part 2: Historical Background

January 7, 2024 /

To understand why some of us see these new guidelines as so significant, we need to cover some intellectual and religious history which will allow you to “read between the lines” more. And please note, I’m under time constraints and very much in stark “historian mode” here; I have not taken the time to render this more devotional; suffice to say, one can— as I do— believe fully in biblical and LDS prophets while rejecting the fundamentalist constructs often attached to them. 

Part 1: Introduction

Almost from the beginning, Latter-day Saints have operated on two loose competing paradigms of knowledge and “the world.” (I wrote a well-received paper on this for a conference in 2017; see  here for more details, including the unrevised draft.)

Continue reading

The Power of Good Historiography: Or, How Joseph Fielding Smith Unwittingly Undermined Joseph Fielding Smith

August 23, 2023 /

I’m deep in my third (and final, I hope) dissertation chapter, covering the period 1960-1980. My research has always included archival work, interviews, and just generally pulling on every thread I can until the sweater unravels.

History is not merely what happened, but the stories we tell about what happened and how we tell them. Better understanding of the past can change our perception of the present, change our choices and understandings. Better history seems to have been a factor leading up to the 1978 revelation re: the priesthood/temple ban, for example. (See the long version of the Kimball biography.)

It’s also definitely the case with the Church and biological evolution. Joseph Fielding Smith told the story of evolution in the Church in the first half century in a particular way. And funny enough, it is Joseph Fielding Smith who ultimately undermines the very story he tells, leaving us instead a history that allowing much more theological openness to evolution. Continue reading

What I’m Doing Here, and What I Hope Others Will Do

February 14, 2021 /

I am not an “evolution apologist.” Although I suspect I have more scientific training than your average historian, I’m not a scientist. And more likely than not, neither is my average reader. For that reason, and because I don’t follow the specialized and technical literature, I don’t engage in scientific debate about evolution. Rather, in keeping with my own training and expertise, my approach is historical, scriptural, and theological.  And historically, I understand how and why evolution has come to be the dominant way to make sense of mountains of data across multiple fields, and why 98% of scientists accept evolution as the best explanation of all that data. Continue reading