mormonsandscience

Also from Joseph Fielding Smith:

May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu:
"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it."

Later he adds:
"The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

In May 1962, he privately instructs that this view be taught to "the boys and girls in the Seminary System."

On 20 July 1969 U.S. Astronauts are first men to walk on moon. Six months later Joseph Fielding Smith becomes church president.

Joseph Fielding Smith seems to have a good batting record when it comes to science. :)

"You cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God."
President Eyring must be devastated that his father rejected the plan of salvation.

The following was quoted by John W. Redelfs on his blog <a href="http://ironrod.wordpress.com/2005/08/18/harvard-to-search-for-how-life-began/#comment-254">The Iron Rod</a>, Aug 19, 2005. It is from "On Second Thought: Growing up as a son of Bruce R. McConkie," by Joseph Fielding McConkie:

<blockquote>Growing up as a son of Bruce R. McConkie and a grandson of Joseph Fielding Smith had its moments. One of the experiences that my brothers and sisters and I shared regularly was to listen to people make disparaging remarks about our father or grandfather in Sunday School or other church classes. You could pretty well depend on the fact that if someone quoted either Elder McConkie or President Smith, that someone else would immediately respond with some kind of an insulting retort. I don't think it bothered any of us to have someone disagree with our father or grandfather, we just couldn't understand why the disagreement seemed so mean-spirited.

One of the classic responses that is made to discredit anything Joseph Fielding Smith said is to remind everyone that he said that men would never get to the moon. The idea being that if he said one thing that was incorrect then how can we possibly be expected to believe anything else he said.

Let me illustrate how silly this kind of thing gets. The other day a student at BYU told me that Joseph Fielding Smith was quoted in their class discussion. Apparently what he said wasn't headed in the direction the professor wanted to go, so she simply discarded it with the standard, "Yes, but you must remember he also said that men would never get to the moon."

The student asked me how I would have responded in that situation. It seems to me that an appropriate response might have been to ask if the professor was to be held to the same standard? That is, if she ever said anything that proved to be incorrect should her students disregard everything else she said? If so, she certainly did say something irresponsible in the manner by which she so lightly dismissed what President Smith said.

As to the men on the moon issue, I was present on at least one occasion when President Smith said it. It was a Sunday dinner at our house. My grandfather, Oscar W. McConkie, had asked President Smith if he thought the Lord would allow us to get to other worlds and communicate with the people on them. President Smith indicated that he did not. He reasoned that because the atonement that Christ worked out on this earth applies to all the creations of the Father, that our getting to other worlds and discovering that they had the same Savior and the same plan of salvation would dispense with the necessity of our accepting the gospel on the basis of faith. To dramatize the point he said, "I don't even think the Lord will let men get to the moon."

I concurred with President Smith's reasoning then and do so now. What he said, in my judgement, was right. The illustration he used to dramatize his point has since proven to be in error. It, however, has nothing to do with the point he was making. To dismiss everything else he said on the basis of one faulty illustration is, I would suggest, a far greater error and may frankly be grounds to question whether those saying it deserve credence, not whether Joseph Fielding Smith does.

Joseph Fielding McConkie</blockquote>

R. Gary,

That's a touching critique by Joseph Fielding McConkie, but the fact is Joseph Fielding Smith was consistently wrong about issues related to science:

For example, in Doctrines of Salvation I:80 we read: "Creation did not take millions of years. Here we have the prophet comparing the days of the creation with seven periods of 1,000 years each... the earth was built according to Celestial time... [therefore] we can hardly be justified in trying to harmonize the days of creation with the extended periods of millions of years according to the recognizing of the so-called scientists."

Fine, Joseph Fielding McConkie, is touchy about the moon issue which is a real issue because it demonstrates how Joseph Fielding Smith uses his doctrinal opinions to make blatant statements about science.

The reality is Joseph Fielding Smith was constantly wrong about science. If you need more examples fine. I'll go through the list.

So when he says you "Cannot Believe Both Gospel And Evolution", you really have to factor in his poor track record dealing with science he doesn't understand.

By the way, I'm not anti-Joseph Fielding Smith. He did a lot of great things.

I'm just pointing out he struggled with making correct statements about science based on his doctrinal beliefs.

Science was Joseph Fielding Smith's "White Whale", if that is a proper use of the term.

R. Gary,

Thank you for sharing that comment.

As always, I am impressed by Henry Eyring. He is the ultimate example of how one can both be a good scientist and be a incredibly valiant Latter-day Saint.

If I could emulate anyone in this world it would be Henry Eyring.

I think we've heard quite enough from that whole family (with the deepening illness of Joseph Fielding McConkie, who takes up the McConkie/Joseph Fielding Smith mantle?). Good people, of course. Getting to the Celestial Kingdom? I'd bet on it. But I wouldn't take much of doctrine from them. Their thinking was so narrow and inbred about doctrinal issues/science, that I just can't take it seriously. The gospel is a lot more broad and inclusive than what I get from the McConkie school of thought.

Jr T., you're probably not alone in your disdain for Joseph Fielding Smith. But I remember all the way back to when he became President of the Quorum of the Twelve in 1951, and I disagree with you. And the 1956 Quorum of the Twelve and the 1966 First Presidency disagree with you as well.

In 1956, President Smith's associates in the Quorum unitedly published statement that declared of him, as was said of his grandfather in D&C 135:6, "From age to age shall [his] name go down to posterity as [a] gem for the sanctified" (The Improvement Era, vol. 59, no. 7, July 1956, p.495; brackets in the original). Browse to ndbf.net/tribute.htm to read the entire statement and browse to ndbf.net/tribute.jpg to see the actual signatures as they were published.

In 1966, David O. McKay's First Presidency, in a signed statement published in the Improvement Era, said of him: "Few, if any, have possessed a broader and deeper knowledge of the Church and its doctrine. He has been a scholar with scarcely a peer, and his writings have strengthened the faith of many throughout the world." (The Improvement Era, vol. 69, no. 7, July 1966, p.613.) Browse to ndbf.net/1966FP.htm to see the actual signatures as they were published.

Now that's not to say you should change your opinion on account of what others say, they're all dead anyway. But it does reassure me that I needn't adopt your point of view. In my admiration for Joseph Fielding Smith, I feel I'm in good company.

Jr T., where else has FP/12 ever published united statements like 1956/1966 about a living associate? And if the broad brush of over simplicity applies to the older generation, what about the previous generation and so on? Just how far back does this so-called doctrinal hold go?