Mormon Millennialism: The Literalist Legacy and Implications for the Year 2000

View PDF

One’s search for meaning usually leads to eschatological inquiry. More than mere theology, millennialism is a way of looking at world history and the destiny of humankind.[1] Beginning with Joseph Smith’s initial religious experience, the idea of an imminent millennium preoccupied Mormon aspirations and set the tone for the new movement. Smith, blessed by his father that he would continue in his ecclesiastical office until Jesus Christ should come again, described the mood of his age when in 1832 he wrote, “It is a day of strange appearances. Everything indicates something more than meets the eye. … The end is nigh.”[2] Smith’s account of the angel Moroni’s visit records Moroni’s citing of prophecies from the Old and New Testaments which emphasized the last days and Second Coming.[3] The texts quoted by Moroni validated the view that Christ’s return was near and his millennial announcement was clear: “the day had not yet come ‘when they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people,’ but soon would come.”[4] Prophecy was shortly to be fulfilled. A great work “was speedily to [be] commenced … that a people might be prepared with faith and righteousness, for the Millennial reign of universal peace and joy.”[5]

To Smith and his followers the purpose of the Book of Mormon was also clear. It was to be “united with the Bible for the accomplishment of the purposes of God in the last days.”[6] The book signaled the beginning of the promised winding-up scene prior to Christ’s return. Apostle George A. Smith recalled that members in the early 1830s believed that not more than “nine or ten years would be sufficient to wind up the whole matter of warning the wicked nations and the gathering of the Saints preparatory to the coming of the Messiah.”[7] Early Mormon historian John Whitmer acknowledged “there was a tradition among some of the early disciples, that those who obeyed the covenant in the last days, would never die.”[8] On more than one occasion Joseph Smith himself asserted there were those of his own generation who would witness the Second Coming, predicting that the great temple spoken of by Malachi would be built in America before those now alive would “pass away.”[9] No exact date was given, but all believed they were “on the eve of the second coming,” living in the generation that would see Christ personally usher in the Millennium.[10]

As premillennialists, Latter-day Saints held that the Millennium was to be preceded by Christ’s advent followed by a thousand years of peace. God would not convert the masses; on the contrary, the world was steadily declining both morally and physically. When the earth became ripe for destruction, God would unleash unprecedented destruction on the wicked. This transformation would be both total and sudden, abolishing evil and sin and restoring peace. With the inauguration of his di vine wrath, God would destroy all corruption. For only after the wicked are destroyed can Christ abide on earth. Dualist in nature, premillennialism viewed the overturn of the wicked as the defeat of a superhuman enemy, restoring to humanity its divine inheritance at the apex of history.[11]

Placing millennialism in its historical setting, I will use the common view held by scriptural literalists that the temporal earth is 6,000 years old, on the eve of the seventh or sabbath millennium, to examine the development of the literalist millennial tradition in Mormon thought. Al though unofficial, this belief has become the orthodox position held by perhaps a majority of the church’s twentieth-century membership. These Saints usually reject the findings of modern science that the earth is of ancient origin, and hold that as we approach the year 2000 humankind is, in fact, on the eve of the Millennium. 

In Mormonism’s formative years biblical literalism was the norm.[12] Within this context in 1832, while revising the Bible, Joseph Smith recorded revelatory answers he received to specific questions dealing with the Book of Revelation. He confirmed that the inspired explanation included an understanding that the earth’s duration encompassed “seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence. … God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, … even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, … preparing the way before the time of his coming” (D&C 77:6,12).[13] As the apostle Peter proclaimed that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years of man, so Christ’s pronouncement to Joseph confirmed that “it is the eleventh hour, and the last time that I shall call laborers into my vineyard” (2 Pet. 3:8; D&C 33:3). Smith warned that “the world has had a fair trial for six thousand years; the Lord will try the seventh thousand Himself.”[14]

Smith’s untimely death at Nauvoo, Illinois, created an eschatological crisis in the church.[15] With the Millennium’s imminence the Saints had not contemplated the need for a successor.[16] In the language of an 1837 revelation, Christ had vested in Smith “keys which … shall not be taken from him till I come.”[17] As Apostle Erastus Snow related, most early Mormons “supposed that our Prophet was going to continue with us, to lead us on until the coming of the Savior.”[18] Explaining the Saints’ forced exodus to the West as but part of God’s divine plan, Brigham Young declared “a new epoch, not only in the history of the church but of this nation” had arrived.[19] As the last days approached, turmoil and persecution meant God’s words were about to be fulfilled, deliverance was nigh.[20]

After the main body of Mormons relocated to Utah, their leaders continued to emphasize an expected millennial deliverance and a preoccupation with the destruction of the world and the coming of Christ remaining a major theme. The Saints were warned that it would come sooner than expected, that the necessary events would follow in rapid or der, and that the Lord would cut his work short.[21] Children were told they would live to bring the dead to life, and that in less than fifty years not a person among them would remain on the earth.[22] Apostle George A. Smith warned the world that “the day of the Lord is near … and we should watch for the coming of the Son of Man.”[23]

Viewed in religious terms, the Utah War, the American Civil War, and the anti-polygamy campaign were seen as necessary precursors to Christ’s coming. Johnston’s Army was but the beginning of the collapse of American sovereignty and would allow the Saints to become an independent nation. Brigham Young assured his people that persecution would only “hasten the work” of the Lord.[24] Apocalyptic anticipations during the Utah War were a prelude to church leaders’ declarations during the American Civil War. Surely, they believed, the long awaited end was now in sight.[25] Young calculated he would “live to see wickedness swept from the face of the Earth, the Saints possess it for an Everlasting inheritance, and Jesus reign king of kings.”[26] The attack on polygamy became the next major engine for millennialism. Mormons believed the contest over plural marriage represented a “holy war,” and defense of the theological tenet re-energized Latter-day Saint millennial hope.[27] Many church leaders and members were convinced, and so preached, that the end of the world was near.[28]

The Mormon millennial timetable received official endorsement in 1876 when the church published a new edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, adding twenty-six new sections. This included what is now section 77, thus canonizing as scripture Joseph Smith’s description of the earth’s temporal 6,000-year existence.[29] During this period church leaders continued to emphasize that the world was on the eve of the sixth day of its seven-day existence. President Brigham Young led the charge warning that they were living in “the eleventh hour of the reign of Satan on the earth,” prior to Christ’s return.[30] Apostle Wilford Woodruff confirmed that “we are living in the dispensation and generation … appointed by God for the last six thousand years”[31] closing in on the “commencement of the Millennium, and near the close of the 6,000th year of the world’s history.”[32] The Journal of Discourses alone records dozens of times when reliance on the earth’s 6,000-year history was used to emphasize that the Millennium was near.[33] In June 1879 Apostle Woodruff blatantly told the Saints in northern Arizona “there will be no United States in the Year 1890.”[34]

In May 1888 senior apostle Woodruff counseled his brethren that “we are not going to stop the practice of plural marriage until the coming of the son of man.”[35] And as late as November 1889 Woodruff received a new revelation promising destruction of the opponents of the church and forecasting deliverance from their enemies.[36] In his position as church president, Woodruff continued to tell members that “many” living in 1889, while “in the flesh,” would see Christ come in clouds of glory.[37]

Then, for the “Temporal Salvation of the Church,” on 24 September 1890 Woodruff issued the Manifesto publicly abandoning polygamy.[38] Urgently engaged in the Lord’s work, the Saints had been counseled to watch for the “signs of the times,” anticipating the Bridegroom’s return.[39] In the aftermath of the Manifesto, members were forced to pass through a “psychic watershed,” compelled, at least partially, to revise their belief in an immediate millennial saving event.[40]

At the beginning of the twentieth century, under church president Joseph F. Smith’s administration, assimilation with mainstream America became an institutional goal. At the turn of the century the Saints also faced the complexities of the modern world. As church leaders, educators, and everyday members encountered scientific evidence, many found it necessary to confront this new knowledge and assimilate it into their belief system.[41] Yet others rejected modernity, clinging to the literal ism and orthodoxy of their ancestors. 

In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, American Christianity faced formidable obstacles in the form of both science and scholarship.[42] Propelled by the persuasive arguments of Herbert Spencer, Thomas Hux ley, and John Fiske, by 1900 biological evolution had gained acceptance by a large number of American scientists.[43] Subjecting biblical texts to historical analysis redefined the nature of revelation, challenging the holy written word’s infallibility.[44] Darwinism and biblical “higher criticism” pitted fundamentalism against modernism, orthodoxy against heterodoxy.[45]

Although important to American Christianity, prior to 1900 Mormon theology remained unaffected by these debates. During this period the anti-polygamy campaign and the church’s survival preoccupied Mormon concerns, and the challenges that affected American religion generally were delayed until the twentieth century.[46] The problem first came to the Mormon community at the church’s institute of higher learning, Brigham Young University.[47] University president George H. Brimhall’s desire to bring to the school “the best scholars of the church” carried with it the seeds of controversy.[48] When these scholars, trained in eastern universi ties, embraced the scientific community’s interpretation of the earth’s and human origins, some church leaders sensed inroads to heresy. 

Celebrating the centennial of Darwin’s birth, in 1909 the head of BYU’s biology department, Ralph V. Chamberlin, declared Darwin the preeminent scientific mind of the era. When these sentiments were echoed in BYU’s student newspaper, the White and Blue, within seven months the First Presidency issued a statement on human origins. The “official position of the church” reiterated the tenet that Adam was the “primal parent of the race.”[49] Though not addressing the age of the earth, the statement’s anti-evolutionary sentiment appeared to refute Darwin ism and modern science.[50] Soon a probe of evolutionary teaching was initiated. The investigation reached the twelve apostles when quorum president Francis M. Lyman chaired a committee to resolve the controversy at BYU. 

The offending individuals were faced with the ultimatum of either ceasing their evolutionary teachings or of being removed from university employ. Yet even in the church hierarchy unanimity did not reign supreme. Reportedly stating “we are not qualified,” committee member Anthony W. Ivins resigned, declaring, “I will not judge those men.”[51] Refusing to acquiesce to their leaders’ demands, the three professors in question, Henry and Joseph Peterson and Ralph Chamberlin, were dis missed or fired for being out of harmony with the authorities of the church.[52] When students and faculty protested, they were chastised for “dictating” to “the prophets.”[53]

Following the incident at BYU, the debate subsided for nearly two decades. Yet by 1920 Elder Joseph Fielding Smith began to lay the foundation for an attack on evolution, which he described as an “idiotic hypothesis,” an assault that would continue throughout his life.[54] At this early date Smith linked belief in evolution to a rejection of the plan of salvation. “If you believe in the doctrine of the evolutionist… the first man was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement.”[55] To accept the traditional dispensational calendar required disavowing the contention of an old earth that is continuing to evolve. Belief in evolution necessarily rejected the millennial timetable, otherwise, according to Smith, there was “no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, no fall [and] … no resurrection.”[56] If the world’s history entailed millions of years in the past, and perhaps carried innumerable years into the future, the stages of the world’s progression, as taken literally from the scriptures, must be abandoned. 

Although the BYU controversy did not specifically address the age of the earth, it set the stage for the next theological controversy. The issue became hotly debated in the late 1920s, fed by B. H. Roberts’s persistence in publishing his grand theological dissertation The Truth, The Way, The Life. While serving as an east coast mission president in 1924, Roberts had become senior member of the First Council of Seventy. Contemplating a synthesis of his theological beliefs for years, when his term as mission president ended in 1927 Roberts worked virtually nonstop on the project. Seeking an opportunity to publish the work as the 1928 study guide for Melchizedek priesthood quorums, Roberts presented the work to the president of the Quorum of the Twelve, Rudger Clawson, who appointed a committee to consider the proposal. Due to time constraints, the manuscript was tabled, to be reconsidered for the gospel doctrine department of the Sunday school the following year. 

The committee member with the greatest concern for Roberts’s treatise was Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith. Roberts was convinced that the earth’s fossils indicated that human, animal, and plant life preceded, by innumerable years, the Genesis account of Adam’s appearance in the year 4000 B.C. In contrast, Smith prepared an eleven-page document refuting Roberts’s attempt to reconcile the biblical account of the Creation with fossil evidence, declaring that there was no death, in any form, before the Fall.[57] The debate pitted Roberts’s attempt to harmonize science and theology against Smith’s literal interpretation of the consequences of Adam’s transgression as given in the Book of Mormon (2 Ne. 2:19-25; Abr. 6:48).[58]

To Smith the scriptures were God’s words in print. While the revealed word was fact, science was at best theory, at worst heresy.[59] With the senior quorums assembled together behind closed doors, Roberts and Smith presented their positions with neither argument carrying the day. To defuse the controversy, in a private memo the First Presidency wrote, “The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement ‘there were not pre-adamites upon the earth’ is not a doctrine of the church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.”[60] Reaffirming humanity’s spiritual heritage, the church refused to acknowledge the actual process of the physical creation.[61] The First Presidency then advised church leaders to leave the “mysteries” alone. 

Once again unanimity did not exist in the church’s reigning quo rums.[62] Although sympathetic to Roberts’s attempt to assimilate scientific evidence with Mormon theology, trained geologist Apostle James E. Talmage initially remained on the sidelines. Then, on 5 April 1930, Joseph Fielding Smith presented his anti-science stance in a speech to the Genealogical Society of Utah. Not mentioning Roberts by name, Smith condemned “elders” who attempt to reconcile Mormon theology with scientific theory. Following Smith’s speech, Talmage complained officially to the First Presidency. His contention was that although the church had taken no official stance on how evolutionary evidence, as found in the rocks, could be reconciled with the revealed word, by allowing Smith’s position to be voiced publicly, the First Presidency had acquiesced to one side of the argument.[63] Roberts’s protest went even farther. He challenged Smith’s “competence” and objected to the “dogmatic spirit of the speech and its ‘finality/ as if ‘speaking with final authority.'”[64]

Talmage suggested that to clarify the church’s true non-definitive position at an appropriate time in the near future the other side needed to be presented. This was accomplished by Talmage’s 9 August 1931 speech, “The Earth and Man,” approved by the First Presidency and reproduced in the Deseret News. In this address Talmage stated that the earth was considerably older than humanity, and that plants and animals had lived and died for ages before man’s arrival on earth. He emphasized that geology and scripture “cannot be fundamentally opposed.”[65] Hoping to end the public debate, in 1931 the First Presidency directed general authorities to “leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.”[66] Agreeing to disagree, the two apostles, at least in public, let the matter rest.[67]

But the issue soon became one-sided, for in 1933 both Roberts and Talmage passed away, whereas Smith lived for another four decades, serving as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for a quarter of a century, and eventually ascending to the presidency of the church. Two years later, in 1935, Apostle Smith reaffirmed his millennial timetable in general conference stating that the “sixth day now [is] drawing to its close,” with the Savior about to “come in the morning of the Sabbath, or seventh day of the earth’s temporal existence, to inaugurate the millennial reign.”[68]

In Roberts’s and Talmage’s legacy, over the next twenty years others attempted to moderate Smith’s literalism.[69] Apostle-chemist John A. Widtsoe and apostle-physicist Joseph F. Merrill became spokesmen for the scientific world view and continued in their attempt to reconcile the findings of science with the revealed word.[70] “The struggle for reconciliation between the contending forces [science and religion] is not an easy one,” said Widtsoe. “It cuts deep into the soul and usually leaves scars that ache while life endures.”[71] Additionally Apostle James Tal mage’s son, Sterling Talmage, became an authority, not only on his apostle father’s position, but as a trained geologist himself he was sought out by church leaders who desired a different perspective than the one presented as official doctrine by Smith and his followers.[72] Apostles Widtsoe and Merrill, who for two decades resisted Smith’s literalist interpretation, both died in 1952. When two years later Smith published his book, Man, His Origin and Destiny, a new era of Mormon dogma emerged.[73]

Dismayed at the “dangers lurking in modern thought,” Smith was determined to protect traditional truths from modernism.[74] This work’s anti-science stance set the tone for the next half century of Mormon decree, a legacy which the church continues to feel today.[75] Citing Joseph Smith’s 1832 revelatory answers to questions about the Book of Revelation, Smith concluded that the “revelation confirms the fact that the days of creation were celestial days, [one day is with the Lord as a thousand years according to the Apostle Peter], and this earth is passing through one week of temporal (mortal) existence, after which it will die and receive its resurrection.”[76]

Smith again asserted that the earth was a few thousand years old, and that there was no death prior to 4000 B.C. He accused those who questioned the premise that all life was but 6,000 years old of rejecting the “fundamental doctrines of Christianity … caught in the web of modernism and organic evolution.”[77] Specifically citing geology as taught in science courses, he declared that those who so believed “reject the fall, and consequently they are forced to reject the atonement of Jesus Christ.”[78] According to Smith, Satan authored the theory of evolution which is “the most pernicious doctrine ever entering the mind of man.”[79] To Smith’s literalist world view, revealed religion was simply irreconcilable with modern science. 

The year it was published, Smith’s book was used as a text at BYU’s 1954 summer school for all seminary and institute teachers.[80] Apostle Harold B. Lee taught from Smith’s work, required all teachers to submit papers on it, and urged its use in seminary and institute programs.[81] Man, His Origin and Destiny, written by the living president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, placed its author’s anti-science position on par with official Mormon doctrine. On hearing of the events at the BYU symposium, First Presidency member J. Reuben Clark travelled to Provo to deliver his well-known speech reminding listeners that only the church president defines official doctrine, and even then only when he is speaking as a prophet.[82] Nevertheless, by declaring that scientists weaken faith and formulate false theories, Smith introduced Mormon neo-orthodoxy.[83]

For those who studied science-oriented concepts, such demands re quiring adherence to orthodoxy as a sign of true belief were difficult.[84] Following publication of Smith’s book, respected Mormon scientist Henry Eyring, serving as a member of the church’s Sunday School General Board, took the opportunity at the next Sunday School General Board meeting to bear testimony that “the world was four or five billion years old.”[85] This provoked an immediate response by Smith, followed by an exchange of letters.[86] Under the direction of church president David O. McKay, Apostle Adam S. Bennion solicited responses from Ey ring and other LDS scientists on the topic.[87] Personally Eyring was able to compartmentalize his religious and secular beliefs. In a letter to Elder Richard L. Evans he wrote, “I never worry what the Brethren believe about my specialty today because it is part of the genius of the Lord’s Church that both they and I will understand the entire situation better tomorrow.”[88] Eyring publicly expressed an expanded scientific possibility for the earth’s origin, stating that “organic evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to the best of their ability. From my limited study of the subject I would say that the physical evidence supporting the theory is considerable from a scientific viewpoint.”[89]

In the spring of 1956 David O. McKay himself asked Eyring for his view on the subject. McKay voiced, at least in private, that the church had taken no official position on evolution and the earth’s origins.[90] In response to a specific request for clarification on the authoritative status of Smith’s book, in a letter to the head of the University of Utah’s Department of Geology, William Lee Stokes, McKay succinctly reported that “on the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position. The book ‘Man, His Origin and Destiny’ was not published by the Church, and is not approved by the Church. The book contains expressions of the author’s views for which he alone is responsible.”[91]

Although Smith’s book, Man, His Origin and Destiny, may not have been read by many current members, Bruce R. McConkie’s wide use of it, in both Mormon Doctrine and a three-volume compilation of Smith’s ser mons and writings titled Doctrines of Salvation, proliferated its influence throughout the church.[92] McConkie unequivocally identified where here tics lie. If an individual “accepts the untrue theory that death has been present on the earth for scores of thousands or millions of years, he must reject the revealed truth that there was no death either for man or animals or plants or any form of life until some 6000 years ago when Adam fell.”[93] As Duane Jeffery has pointed out, this position “sparked a wave of religious fundamentalism that shows little sign of abatement.”[94] Considered by many to be the leading Mormon doctrinal spokesman, McConkie’s force has been derived primarily from his position as church leader and apostle.[95] For forty years he served in the church’s highest quorums. Called into the First Council of Seventy in 1946, McConkie’s as cent to the Twelve in 1972 added to his credibility as the leading voice for doctrinal orthodoxy.[96] The authoritative tone of McConkie’s discourses and writings is illustrated by his 1980 counsel to an LDS intellectual that “it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.”[97]

In Mormon Doctrine, first published in 1958, McConkie left no doubt as to his literalist interpretation of scripture and earth history. In entries dealing with these topics, he cites as his sources primarily Doctrines of Salvation and Man, His Origin and Destiny, both by his father-in-law, Joseph Fielding Smith.[98] Here McConkie links belief in an ancient earth with rejection of a literalist interpretation of the Millennium and dispensational timetable. He declares that “evolutionary theories [which] assume that hundreds of millions of years were involved … in the creation of the earth as a habitable globe, [leave] no place in them for the imminent Second Advent of our Lord, a coming which will usher in the millennial era of peace…. There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution.”[99] Under the entry “Higher Criticism,” McConkie’s first cross-reference reads “See Apostasy.” He then castigates these “uninspired Biblical scholars” who base their knowledge on “speculative evolution, on speculative archeological deductions, and on pure imagination.” McConkie concludes that as “doctrines of the devil … [higher criticism is] part of and portion of the promised universal apostasy which the prophets specified would prevail in the last days.”[100]

Yet despite its immense popularity among church members, the work was not authorized by the church or endorsed after publication.[101] In 1960 the First Presidency commented privately that Mormon Doctrine “had been a source of concern to the Brethren ever since it was published,” and “is full of errors and misstatements,” concluding that the book should “not be republished even in a corrected form” for to do so “would be embarrassing to [Elder McConkie] and lessen his influence with the members of the Church.”[102] For a number of reasons, including its user-friendly alphabetical access to gospel topics, Mormon Doctrine has become the near-definitive authority on theological matters for the past forty-five years. As with Smith’s Man, His Origin and Destiny, President McKay privately disavowed McConkie’s work and noted in his diary that McConkie had agreed not to reproduce Mormon Doctrine in a revised form. Nevertheless, in 1966 McConkie published a second edition.[103]

Once established as the twentieth-century doctrinal spokesman, McConkie’s next work, his three-volume commentary on the New Testament, naturally fell into widespread usage as an authoritative interpretation on the Bible.[104] Interestingly the most often non-scriptural source McConkie cites is himself, directly from Mormon Doctrine. Also of significance is the fact that when referring to biblical scholars, his sources are primarily books published before the twentieth century.[105] McConkie also served on the Scriptures Publication Committee which guided publication of the new LDS edition of the scriptures, and his literalist influence in this work is pervasive.[106] The specific purpose of this monumental endeavor was to bring to the Mormon audience a variety of resources including cross-references to other volumes of modern revelation, excerpts from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, explanatory footnotes, a Bible Dictionary, interpretive chapter headings, a topical guide, and a concordance.[107] Although these guides are not official pronouncements of church doctrine, one writer has described them as “the most comprehensive scripture study aid program ever made by the Church.”[108] The Scriptures Publication Committee’s doctrinal interpretation was critical, for not only did the revised Bible Dictionary include extractions from McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine, but McConkie himself wrote many of the chapter introductions and synopses.[109] McConkie’s version of the earth’s creation gained status in 1979 when the Bible Dictionary declared under the term “death” that “there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam” 6,000 years ago.[110] McConkie predicted that the new scriptures and their ac companying references would aid in the eventual destruction “of the whole theory of organic evolution” and reminded the Saints that the “key to an understanding of Holy Writ lies not in the wisdom of men, not in cloistered hall, not in academic degrees, [and] not in a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.”[111] Within this context McConkie’s condemnation of scientific and geological evidence has virtually become the orthodox church position.[112]

Increasing his status as church spokesman on the subject,[113] in a 1982 Ensign article McConkie declared the “revealed verities” that “we are duty bound to accept.” These include the notion that “there is no evolving from one species to another” and that death entered the world with the fall of Adam.[114] McConkie repeated the theme in his 1984 general conference address, charging that “true believers” must reject evolution and accept that no death, neither plant nor animal, occurred prior to Adam’s fall 6,000 years ago.[115] McConkie was joined by Apostle Boyd K. Packer, who downplayed any attempt to reconcile the scientific version of the earth’s physical creation with “the workings of God.” He pro claimed that “surely, no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles.”[116] In a 1988 address to church educators he admitted, “How long a time has man been upon the earth? I do not know.” Nevertheless, “do not mortgage your soul for unproved theories,” he counseled. The notion that “god used an evolutionary process to prepare a physical body for the spirit is … false.”[117]

In addition to promulgating an anti-science position, twentieth-century church leaders also returned to the millennial rhetoric so pronounced during the church’s first generation. A prime example is the 1967 general conference priesthood session address of First Presidency member Hugh B. Brown. Brown warned the young men of the church: 

It seems to me that of all the signs of the times (and they are ominous and on every side) this is one of the significant signs of the times—that the Church of Jesus Christ, the kingdom of God, is massing its forces, getting ready for that which is to follow. … I hope that every young man under the sound of my voice will resolve tonight, “I am going to keep myself clean. I am going to serve the Lord. I am going to prepare every way I can for future service, because I want to be prepared when the final battle shall come.” And some of you young men are going to engage in that battle. Some of you are going to engage in the final testing time, which is coming and which is closer to us than we know.[118]

On the 136th anniversary of the church’s organization, as president of the Twelve Joseph Fielding Smith reaffirmed that “the coming of the Lord is near.”[119]

In unofficial, yet indoctrinating sources, the church continues to endorse a “young earth,” millenarian, anti-evolutionary position.[120] Religion instruction manuals for both the Old and New Testaments, published by the Church Education System, either dismiss or ignore scholarship associated with the age of the earth.[121] Specifically, when asserting that the Book of Revelation’s seven seals represent the 7,000 years of the earth’s temporal existence, the manual quotes extensively from Bruce R. McConkie’s New Testament Commentary.[122]

More recently the church has remained tentative on the issue of science and religion. In the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published in 1992, church leaders advised the work’s editors that the section on evolution should be limited to a brief statement of the church’s official declarations.[123] The 1909,1925, and 1931 First Presidency statements are the only official positions on the subject.[124] Yet in the face of authoritative declarations, Mormon neo-orthodoxy is now more closely aligned with the conservative position of Christian evangelical fundamentalism regarding the Bible than with a broad-based notion of scripture which would accommodate higher criticism, the scientific method, and a mythopoetic approach to holy writ.[125]

At times the church has attempted to repress its millennial aspirations. An example of this occurred in the early 1990s. At the church’s October 1992 general conference Apostle M. Russell Ballard, responding to inquiries concerning the end of the world, counseled members that “the Lord is in control. He knows the end from the beginning.”[126] Apostle Boyd K. Packer’s remarks at the same conference reveal that the impetus for this counsel was the LDS survivalist movement whose millenarian fervor had recently been responded to by the church with disciplinary measures.[127] He warned of those “among us … who tell of impending political and economic chaos [and] the end of the world.”[128] Such denunciations underscore the general membership’s latent parousian expectations. A more tempered response to a direct question regarding the timing of Christ’s second coming is from Elder Neal A. Maxwell. When queried about the church’s teachings regarding the Second Coming during the public television series Searching for God in America, he simply stated that “there will be much tribulation ahead of that time [Christ’s return]. Yet we do not focus upon it unduly.”[129]

The continuation of Mormon millennial literalism may best be explained by the personalities involved in the church hierarchy over the past seventy years.[130] Represented in practical terms by correlation and public relations campaigns, the appearance of unanimity in belief and purpose is seen as such an important part of the church’s character that in order to project a solid, united front, dissent is repressed and delegated to closed-door meetings.[131] Apostle McConkie summarized the goal of an homogenized Mormon projection. Under the heading of “unity” in Mormon Doctrine, he declared: 

this unity among all the saints, and between them and the Father and the Son is reserved for those who gain exaltation and inherit the fullness of the Father’s kingdom. Those who attain it will all know the same things; think the same thoughts; exercise the same powers; do the same acts; respond in the same way to the same circumstances; … All this is the eventual unity that is to be achieved but even now in man’s feeble mortal state he can yet attain unity in thought, desires, purposes, and the like.[132]

Additionally, respect for chains of authority is also expected, amply illustrated by Apostle Rudger Clawson. As president of the Twelve during the Roberts/Smith debate, in his report to the First Presidency he chastised Roberts’s challenge of Smith’s competency as “‘very offensive’ because it failed to show brotherly deference to one of higher priesthood rank.”[133]

As Grant Underwood points out, in the church the words of apostles and prophets of previous generations are given near-scripture status. Both member and leader alike place these declaration on par with the biblical teachings of Peter and Paul.[134] An associate of Hugh Nibley declared the orthodox position held by the membership: “I can’t bring myself to criticize a prophet for any utterance, no matter how foolish or profound, on the basis of academic rules. I don’t always agree with everything the prophets say, but they are free to say anything they like without opposition from me.”[135] The implication is that any utterance by prophets, ancient or modern, is beyond historical, literary, cultural, socio logical, or theological examination.[136] In the context of correlation, do recent statements by general authorities in conference addresses now constitute doctrine? How does one ignore such declarations without experiencing cognitive dissonance?[137]

The fear, of course, is that following scientific methodology, which downplays the supernatural as a tangible force, will undermine Mormonism.[138] Most significantly the polemic nature of the science/religion debate implies that one version or the other must be true.[139] By associating myth with false, vain, and superstitious beliefs, the literalist tradition rejects the mythical mode of portraying religious truths, fearful that acceptance would weaken scriptural authority. 

Yet imposing modern standards of history and science on texts writ ten thousands of years ago betrays their original purpose.[140] The mythopoetic picture disappears when one abandons the culture, tradition, and humanity of the revelatory process. As Keith Norman notes, “Recognizing the function of myth removes those blinders and opens us to the universal, symbolic truths crucial to the text’s spiritual import.”[141] When a less sanitized, documented, and historical view of scripture is employed, its spiritual value can be enhanced. By using analogies to expound heavenly verities to an earthly world, the mythopoetic perspective, exemplified in the Mormon temple ceremony, expresses truths indirectly and at many different levels.[142] If one can believe that the endowment’s ritual symbolism was created for this purpose, then why should it be difficult to conceptualize that the writers of the biblical accounts used the same methodology to portray eternal precepts?[143]

Where parables and rituals can be powerful mechanisms for conveying truth, scriptural symbolism functions in the same manner. Myth is not opposed to historical accuracy, it merely serves a different function. Not only does it take us beyond our everyday experience, it universalizes the message by expressing eternal truth through the use of archetypal models. This is illustrated in instructions to Mormons attending the temple to consider themselves to be Adam and Eve. And the literalist tradition itself is waylaid by counseling participants that certain aspects of the ceremony, specifically man’s creation from the dust of the earth and woman’s creation from the man’s rib, are figurative.[144] Focusing on inner or spiritual connotations, the temple ceremony attempts to give meaning to the present. By abolishing time and space, past, present, and future, heaven, earth, and hell, all meet in the temple to convey, beyond the veil, the true purpose of life.[145]

While science investigates the mechanics of creation, religion portrays its purpose. By focussing on a mythical interpretation of scripture, the Creation revelations produced by Joseph Smith, in the form of the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham, may be seen as doctrinal corrections rather than historical revisions.[146] Galileo, who experienced personally the wrath held against non-orthodox theology, concluded that “the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes.”[147] When the biblical narrative is seen not as world history but as the story of God’s covenant people, the why, not necessarily the how, of Creation adds spiritual meaning to the text. 

Just as the account of the Creation may be appropriated to reveal many interpretations, a view of the millennial era of peace and serenity can also lead one to the metaphorical realm. If millennial history parallels one’s own journey through life, God may be seen as redeeming both humanity and individual souls simultaneously.[148] As religion historian James Moorhead shows, using this apocalyptic model moves historical events from crisis to judgement to vindication, mirroring “the evangelical conception of the individual soul’s pilgrimage from sin, through the storm of conversion, to new life.”[149]

This reinterpretation follows closely the shift from a premillennial to a postmillennial view of scripture adapted by Christ’s followers nearly 2,000 years ago, and the similar potential for dealing with a delayed millennium in Mormonism is striking. From the earliest days Christians were faced with the fact that Christ did not return but had allowed his Saints to suffer.[150] In the third century Augustinian interpretations began to identify the Millennium as a spiritual allegory. Technically, postmillennialism holds that the Second Coming will occur after the 1,000-year period of bliss prophesied in Revelation 12.[151] But the theological application of postmillennialism emphasizes that not all supernatural prophecy needs to be taken literally. Literal meanings may be put aside for metaphorical interpretations.[152]

Postmillennialism is more than just placing Christ’s return at the end of the thousand years of millennial bliss. It is a way of viewing progress and the world, an understanding that improvement follows rational law which humans can master for their own betterment. Postmillennial philosophy is a compromise between an apocalyptic sense of the end based on the Book of Revelation and a progressive view of humanity’s future. With the return of Christ delayed, there is now time for the gradual perfection of individuals and society leading to the creation of heaven on earth.[153] Postmillennial emphasis on human effort redefines the struggle between good and evil into thousands of small contests rather than one climatic battle. God is not removed from humanity’s efforts to be perfect; rather he is a co-participant.[154] Believing that the redemption of society entails subduing God’s enemies in the world as we know it, postmillennialism shifts the emphasis from the world’s cosmic battle between Christ and Satan to the struggle between good and evil within the individual soul.[155]

In the past Mormonism incorporated postmillennial thought by using such notions as the Law of Consecration and the United Order to pro mote the raising of a people divested of greed and selfishness. This ideal community would serve as a model for the rest of society in preparation for Christ’s reign. Additionally, some held that a political kingdom was necessary to welcome Christ, a hope that man’s efforts may be able to hasten the Millennium by preparing the way for the Lord.[156] Brigham Young summarized this philosophy, and in so doing epitomized the metaphorical interpretation of the Millennium: 

I find a great many different opinions among these people, with regard to the real essence and effect of the Millennium. The Millennium consists in this— every heart in the Church and Kingdom of God being united in one; the Kingdom increasing to the overcoming of everything opposed to the economy of heaven, and Satan being bound, and having a seal set upon him. … Let the people be holy, and the earth under their feet will be holy. Let the people be holy, and filled with the Spirit of God, and every animal and creeping thing will be filled with peace; the soil of the earth will bring forth in its strength, and the fruits thereof will be meat for man. The more purity that ex its, the less is the strife: the more kind we are to our animals, the more will peace increase, and the savage nature of the brute creation vanish away. If the people will not serve the devil another moment whilst they live, if this congregation is possessed of that spirit and resolution, here in this house is the Millennium. Let the inhabitants of this city be possessed of that spirit, let the people of the territory be possessed of that spirit, and here is the Millennium. Let the whole people of the United States be possessed of that spirit, and here is the Millennium, and so will it spread over all the world.[157]

While not representing Mormonism’s predominant tenet in the movement’s early years, the idea of perfecting both individuals and society demonstrates that millennial thought can be appropriated to take on different meanings. Additionally, in the need to cope with a delayed millennium one can see a parallel to the plight of the first generation of Christians and the first generations of Mormons. For Mormonism, the aftermath of the 1890 Manifesto thrust the church into the twentieth century. The institutions so crucial to nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints, communitarianism, theocracy, and polygamy, gave way both culturally and intellectually to the need for survival, the quest for statehood, and accommodation.[158] Albeit the Millennium’s imminence is not stressed to the degree that it was one hundred years ago, as part of Mormon eschatology the importance of the Parousia remains intact. 

Mormonism is basically a creedless religion, with few doctrines discussed on official terms. To determine the tenacity and permanency of theological tenets, one must unravel and decipher both ancient and mod ern scripture, oracles from the church hierarchy, private revelation (including personal inspiration and patriarchal blessings), and other forms of divination.[159] Theology is therefore necessarily passed down from one generation to the next by unofficial, yet authoritative, directives and dis courses.[160] Non-Mormon anthropologist Mark Leone asserts that in Mor monism one becomes his or her own theologian creating and recreating religious concepts.[161] As Peter Crawley notes, “The absence of a formal creed means that each generation must produce a new set of gospel expositors to restate and reinterpret the doctrines of Mormonism.”[162] Yet it is precisely because it lacks a rigid creed that Mormonism is able to encompass a broad range of theological interpretations, including both literal and/or mythical treatment of the Genesis creation narrative and a future millennial era of peace.[163]

Most feared by those espousing a literal tradition is the potential for jeopardizing the mission of Joseph Smith.[164] Viewed in these terms, both higher criticism and allegorical interpretation question the validity of modern revelation.[165] Difficulty is added when latter-day scriptures rein force difficult literalist historical biblical passages.[166] This position is il lustrated by Sidney Sperry who criticized a colleague for being “more in sympathy with the views of modern scholarship than he is with those ex pressed by the Prophet.”[167] As Melodie Moench Charles points out, the implication is that “any Mormon armed with a testimony, a Pearl of Great Price, and a Book of Mormon can understand the Old Testament better than any secular scholar can.”[168] This anti-scholarly approach to scripture, which ignores historical, literary, and archeological models, continues to this day.[169]

Myth and religion are inseparable, as they should be. For in myth one structures society’s inexplicable features so that meaning may be gleaned from everyday life. As John Updike suggests, “What matters in a myth, a belief, is … Does it enable us to live, to keep going? … The crucial question isn’t Can you prove it? but Does it give us a handle on the reality that otherwise would overwhelm us?”[170] One’s pursuit of knowledge, and an attempt to assimilate secular and religious truths, does not necessarily portray an inability to develop faith in the church.[171] As Albert Einstein once observed, “Religion without science is blind, while science without religion is lame.”[172] Brigham Young, not known as a theologian in the true sense of the word, over a hundred years ago downplayed strict literalist interpretation of scripture: 

How long it [the earth] has been organized is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from them picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we had got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty or void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he gives revelation on the subject.[173]

In this essay I have used the age of the earth to demonstrate the polemity of the debate. But the questions raised here lead to further concerns. With the approach of the year 2000, and the Millennium perceived as nigh, what are the implications for the twenty-first century? Although one study has shown that discourses focussing on the Millennium have decreased since 1920, what is striking is the degree to which millennial ism has resisted modernism, remaining an intricate part of Mormon theology from its first generation of expositors.[174] Is there any doubt that survivalist groups in Utah and Idaho communities are merely carrying forward the millenarian tradition of the past 150 years?[175] Since the Saints look to the scriptures and church leaders’ statements to guide their theological world view, if the Millennium does not occur near the year 2000, will scriptural literalism, doctrinal orthodoxy, and church leader orations in general be reassessed?[176] If specific scriptural historicity and literalism must be reassessed, then why not all scripture?[177] Faced with the possibility of a delayed millennium, will even the term “latter days” be redefined? 

To satisfy spiritual hunger religion must be intensely believed, yet it must also be consistent with one’s knowledge of the real, physical world.[178] But when personal religious theory is relayed as eternal truths, the inevitable result is the creation of a chasm between the so-called faithful, who demand a qualifying creed, and all others who must necessarily be classified as heretics.[179] Conservative Mormon theologians desire an iron rod grounded in absolutes, firm to grasp and easily held on to. But increasingly the pluralism faced by church members in their everyday lives must be confronted by the church.[180] Although such confrontation is currently muted, the complexity of the issues is no less real.[181]

As each new decade follows the next, Mormons will be compelled to rethink their short-term world view. Perhaps the church will accept, as its reigning ideology, to follow John Taylor’s hope, now over a hundred years old. Taylor held that 

Our religion … embraces every principle of truth and intelligence pertaining to us as moral, intellectual, mortal and immortal beings, pertaining to this world and the world that is to come. We are open to truth of every kind, no matter whence it comes, where it originates, or who believes in it. … A man in search of truth has no peculiar system to sustain, no peculiar dogma to de fend or theory to uphold; he embraces all truth, and that truth, like the sun in the firmament, shines forth and spreads its effulgent rays over all creation, and if men will divest themselves of bias and prejudice, and prayerfully and conscientiously search after truth, they will find it wherever they turn their attention.[182]

A hundred years ago the Manifesto and the passing of polygamy forced the Saints into a new way of viewing themselves and their place in the world. A hundred years from now a new millennial paradigm may also be required. 

---

[1] J[ohn]. F. C. Harrison, The Second Coming: Popular Millenarianism, 1780-1850 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1979), 228. 

[2] Joseph Smith et al., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., 2d ed. rev. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974-76), 1:281; 2:32. 

[3] Dean C. Jessee, comp. and ed., The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984), 203-204,214. 

[4] Lucy Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and His Progenitors for Many Generations (1912, rprt; Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1969), 85.

[5] Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Papers of Joseph Smith, 2+ vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1989-92), 1:393. 

[6] Smith to John Wentworth, as reported in Times and Seasons, 1 Mar. 1842, emphasis mine. 

[7] George A. Smith, in Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool, Eng.: F.D. Richards, 1855-86), 9:346, 11 May 1862. See also Charles C. Rich, ibid., 19:161, 11 Nov. 1877; Joseph Young, ibid., 9:231,13 July 1855. 

[8] F. Mark McKiernan and Roger D. Launius, eds., An Early Latter Day Saint History: The Book of John Whitmer, Kept by Commandment (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1980), 45; Milton V. Backman, The Heavens Resound: A History of the Latter-day Saints in Ohio 1830-1838 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1983), 59. Some members went so far that they refused to call a physician when ill. See Wayne Sentinel, 18 Apr. 1832; Painesville Telegraph, 5 Apr. 1831. 

[9] Smith, History of the Church, 1:316, 5:336; Messenger and Advocate 2 (Oct. 1835): 206; John Henry Evans, Joseph Smith: An American Prophet (1933; rprt., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1989), 81; “Levi Hancock Journal,” June 1831, cited in Dan Vogel, Religious Seekers and the Advent of Mormonism (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1988), 188. 

[10] Messenger and Advocate 1 (Jan. 1835): 58; Evening and Morning Star 2 (June 1834): 162.

[11] Michael Barkun, Crucible of the Millennium: The Burned-Over District of New York in the 1840s (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986), 24-25; Ernest Lee Tuveson, Redeem er Nation: The Idea of America’s Millennial Role (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 34- 35, 76-78; James West Davidson, The Logic of Millennial Thought: Eighteenth-Century New En gland (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977), 28-33; David E. Smith, “Millennial Scholarship in America,” American Quarterly 17 (Fall 1965): 535-49. 

[12] Grant Underwood, The Millenarian World of Early Mormonism (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 58-75; Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 32-35; Gordon Irving, “The Mormons and the Bible in the 1830’s,” Brigham Young University Studies 13 (Summer 1973): 473-88. The Second Great Awakening sheltered American religions from the early onslaught of higher criticism. American theologians were aware of religious theories, developing in Germany, which separated Bible inspiration from scientific knowledge and questioned the validity and authority of a strict literalist interpretation of scripture. But the full impact remained minimal in the United States until the late nineteenth century. See George M. Mars den, “Everyone One’s Own Interpreter? The Bible, Science, and Authority in Mid-Nineteenth-Century America,” in The Bible in America: Essays in Cultural History, Nathan O. Hatch and Mark A. Noll, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 79-100. 

[13] Copied numerous times in private documents, Smith’s comments were first published in Times and Seasons 5 (1 Aug. 1844): 595-96. See Lyndon W. Cook, The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith (1981; rprt, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985), 167, 312.

[14] Smith, History of the Church, 5:64. The 6,000-year timetable dates back to the seventeenth century when Archbishop James Ussher, following the ages of the patriarchs, priests, judges, and kings of the Old Testament, concluded that 4,004 years had elapsed from the Creation to the birth of Christ. See R. Buick Knox, James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1967), 105-106. 

[15] Times and Seasons 5 (15 Dec. 1844); 743-44; Linda King Newel and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, Prophet’s Wife, “Elect Lady,” Polygamy’s Foe, 1804- 1879 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1984), 197-202; Marvin S. Hill, Quest for Refuge: The Mormon Flight from American Pluralism (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 154-55; D. Michael Quinn, “Joseph Smith Ill’s Blessing and the Mormons of Utah,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 (Summer 1982): 77-80. 

[16] Sarah Scott to Calvin and Abigail Hall, 22 July 1844, in William Mulder and A. Rus sell Mortensen, eds., Among the Mormons: Historic Accounts by Contemporary Observers (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967), 152-53; Robert Flanders, Nauvoo: Kingdom on the Mississippi (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965), 311; Klaus J. Hansen, Quest for Empire: The Political Kingdom of God and the Council of Fifty in Mormon History (N.p.: Michigan State University Press, 1970), 106; Keith E. Norman, “How Long, O Lord? The Delay of the Parousia in Mor monism,” Sunstone 8 (Jan.-Apr. 1983): 52. 

[17] Smith, History of the Church, 2:500. 

[18] Deseret Evening News, 9 Oct. 1882, quoted in D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 144. 

[19] Smith, History of the Church, 7:478. 

[20] Times and Seasons 6 (1 Aug. 1845): 983. 

[21] Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 1:36,11 July 1852; Orson Pratt, ibid., 3:17-18, 20 May 1855; Charles W. Penrose, “The Second Advent,” Millennial Star 21 (10 Sept. 1859): 581-84.

[22] Lorenzo D. Young, Journal of Discourses, 6:212; 13 Dec. 1857; “Address By President Heber C. Kimball,” Millennial Star 14 (25 Dec. 1852): 693. See also Orson Hyde, Journal of Dis courses, 5:141; Heber C. Kimball, ibid., 5:254, 20 Sept. 1857; Orson Pratt, ibid., 6:202, 24 Jan. 1858; “Pestilence and Plague,” Deseret News, 9 Feb. 1854. 

[23] George A. Smith, Journal of Discourses, 2:333-34,24 June 1855. See also Heber C. Kim ball, ibid., 1:35,11 July 1852; Scott G. Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff”s Journal, 1833-1898,9 vols. (Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1983-85), 4:269, 6 May 1854; 4:375, 30 Dec. 1855. 

[24] “Record of Andrew Jackson Allen,” 14 Mar. 1858, Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 5:98, 2 Aug. 1857. 

[25] Kenney, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 5:526, 30 Dec. 1860; 5:527-29, 31 Dec. 1860; Tho mas B.H. Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1873), 420- 21. See also the following examples: “Review Of Past And Present Events,” Millennial Star 23 (1 Jan. 1861): 34; “Civil War In America—Its Importance As A Warning To The Saints,” ibid., 23 (11 May 1861): 297-300; “The Fulfillment of Prophecy,” ibid., 24 (23 Aug. 1862): 529-33; “Emancipation Of The Slaves—The Prophet Joseph’s Plan—Results Of Its Rejection,” ibid., 25 (14 Feb. 1863): 97-101; “Minutes Of A District Conference,” ibid., 26 (13 Aug. 1864): 517-18; Charles W. Penrose, “A Universal Kingdom,” ibid., 27 (30 Sept. 1865): 608-12; Wilford Wood ruff, Journal of Discourses, 10:13,27 July 1862; Heber C. Kimball, ibid., 10:46,4 May 1862; Orson Hyde, ibid., 10:376,18 Dec. 1864; John Taylor, ibid., 11:26,11 Dec. 1864. 

[26] A. Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson, eds., Diary of Charles Lowell Walker, 2 vols. (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1980), 1:225, 27 Apr. 1862. See also “The Consummation Decreed Upon All Nations,” Millennial Star 25 (4 Apr. 1863): 211-13. 

[27] John Henry Smith to Joseph Smith III, 21 Apr. 1886, Library-Archives, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Independence, Missouri; Robert Glass Cleland and Juanita Brooks, eds., A Mormon Chronicle: The Diaries of John D. Lee, 1848-1876,2 vols. (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1983), 2:235,18 Apr. 1873; Orson Pratt, The Seer 1 (May 1853): 75; John Thompson, Mormonism—Increase of the Army … (Washington, D.C.: Buell and Blanchard, 1858), 5.

[28] Louis G. Reinwand, “An Interpretive Study of Mormon Millennialism During the Nineteenth Century with Emphasis on Millennial Developments in Utah,” M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1971,140-41. 

[29] Robert J. Woodford, “The Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants,” Ph.D. diss., Brigham Young University, 1974, 75-76. 

[30] Young, Journal of Discourses, 10:250, 6 Oct. 1863. 

[31] Woodruff, ibid., 14:5,1 Jan. 1871. 

[32] Woodruff, ibid., 25:10, 6 Jan. 1884. 

[33] A sampling includes Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 6:307, 8 Apr. 1853; John Taylor, ibid., 8:2, 19 Feb. 1860; Brigham Young, ibid., 10:250, 6 Oct. 1863; Brigham Young, ibid., 12:272,16 Aug. 1868; Wilford Woodruff, ibid., 14:5,1 Jan. 1871; Orson Pratt, ibid., 14:235, 20 Aug. 1871; Orson Pratt, ibid., 14:350, 10 Mar. 1872; Orson Pratt, ibid., 15:263-64, 29 Dec. 1872; George Q. Cannon, ibid., 20:76-77, 6 Apr. 1878, Orson Pratt, ibid., 21:202-205, 12 Nov. 1879; Orson F. Whitney, ibid., 26:200,19 Apr. 1885. 

[34] Minutes of Eastern Arizona Stake Conferences, 1879-82, 28 June 1879, 87, cited in Charles S. Peterson, Take Up Your Mission: Mormon Colonizing Along the Little Colorado River, 1870-1900 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1973), 228. 

[35] Heber J. Grant Diary, 17 May 1888, quoted in Jean Bickmore White, ed., Church, State, and Politics: The Diaries of John Henry Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, 1990), 201nl21, 17 May 1888. See also Jean Bickmore White, “The Making of the Convention President: The Political Education of John Henry Smith,” Utah Historical Quarterly 39 (Fall 1971): 359. 

[36] Kenney, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9:67-69, 24 Nov. 1889; L. John Nuttall Diary, 24 Nov. 1889, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; James R. Clark, ed., Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, 1833-1964, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 3:171-76.

[37] Wilford Woodruff, “Remarks,” at Took Stake Conference, 29 July 1889, in Brian H. Stuy, ed., Collected Discourses, 5 vols. (Sandy, UT: B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-92), 1:325. On the importance of the millennial world view to nineteenth-century Utah Saints, see my “Joseph Smith’s 1891 Millennial Prophecy: The Quest for Apocalyptic Deliverance,” Journal of Mormon History 22 (Fall 1996): 1-34. 

[38] Kenney, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9:112-16,25 Sept. 1890. 

[39] Glen M. Leonard, “Early Saints and the Millennium,” Ensign 9 (Aug. 1979): 47; Susan Peterson, “The Great and Dreadful Day: Mormon Folklore of the Apocalypse,” Utah Historical Quarterly 44 (Fall 1976): 366-70. 

[40] Thomas G. Alexander, “The Odyssey of a Latter-day Prophet: Wilford Woodruff and the Manifesto of 1890,” Journal of Mormon History 17 (1991): 71; Jan Shipps, “In the Presence of the Past: Continuity and Change in Twentieth-Century Mormonism,” in After 150 Years: The Latter-day Saints in Sesquicentennial Perspective, eds. Thomas G. Alexander and Jessie Embry (Provo, UT: Charles Redd Center for Western Studies, 1983), 11, 20-22; Michael Barkun, Disaster and the Millennium (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974), 39. 

[41] James E. Talmage, “The Methods and Motives of Science,” Improvement Era, Feb. 1900, 250-59; Charles W. Penrose, “The Age and Destiny of the Earth,” ibid., 12 (May 1909): 505-509. See also Dennis Rowley, “Inner Dialogue: James Talmage’s Choice of Science as a Career, 1876-84,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 17 (Summer 1984): 112-30; Thomas G. Alexander, “The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to Progressive The ology,” Sunstone 10 (July-Aug. 1980): 8-18. 

[42] Bert James Loewenberg, “Darwinism Comes to America, 1859-1900,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 28 (Dec. 1941): 339-68; Conrad Wright, “The Religion of Geology,” New England Quarterly 14 (1941): 335-58.

[43] Cynthia Eagle Russett, Darwin in America: The Intellectual Response, 1865-1912 (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1976), 10. Examples include Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Biology, 2 vols. (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1866-67); Herbert Spencer, Illustrations of Progress (New York: K. Appleton and Co., 1875); Thomas H. Huxley, Evolutionary Ethics (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1896); Thomas H. Huxley, Man’s Place in Nature (New York: D. Apple ton and Co. 1898); John Fiske, The Destiny of Man Viewed in the Light of His Origin (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, Co., 1884). 

[44] John D. Woodbridge, Mark A. Noll, and Nathan O. Hatch, The Gospel in America: Themes in the Story of American Evangelicals (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), 99-120; Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr., A Critical Period in American Religion, 1875-1900 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 4. 

[45] Schlesinger, A Critical Period in American Religion, 1875-1900,1; Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1972), 766- 74. 

[46] Barlow, Mormons and the Bible, 111. 

[47] For similar controversies and removal of faculty from other American religious institutions in the late nineteenth century, see Schlesinger, A Critical Period in American Religion, 1875-1900, 8-10. 

[48] Quoted in Gary James Bergera, “The 1911 Evolution Controversy at Brigham Young University,” in Gene A. Sessions and Craig J. Oberg, eds., The Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 23. 

[49] Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund, “The Origin of Man,” Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, 75-81.

[50] Bergera, “The 1911 Evolution Controversy at Brigham Young University,” 24-25; Erich Robert Paul, Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 175-76. 

[51] Quoted in Bergera, “The 1911 Evolution Controversy at Brigham Young Universi ty,” 28. 

[52] Joseph F. Smith, “Theory and Divine Revelation,” Improvement Era, 14 Apr. 1911, 548-51; Joseph F. Smith, “Philosophy and the Church Schools,” Juvenile Instructor, Apr. 1911, 208-209. 

[53] Deseret News, 11 Mar. 1911; George H. Brimhall, in “Devotional Remarks,” 16 Mar. 1911, both cited in Bergera, “The 1911 Evolution Controversy at Brigham Young University,” 31. The BYU incident is also discussed in Gary James Bergera and Ronald Priddis, Brigham Young University: A House of Faith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 134-48. 

[54] Joseph Fielding Smith, “The Origin and Destiny of Man,” Improvement Era 23 (Mar. 1920): 389. 

[55] Ibid., 387. 

[56] Ibid., 389.

[57] James B. Allen, “The Story of The Truth, The Way, The Life,” in B.H. Roberts, The Truth, The Way, The Life, John W. Welch, ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 1994), clxix-cxcviii.

[58] William E. Evenson, “Science: The Universe, Creation, and Evolution,” in Roberts, The Truth, The Way, The Life, cxxiii-cxxxiv. The doctrine that there was no death prior to the Fall continues to be the interpretation used in the church’s religion instruction manuals. See Book of Mormon: Student Manual Religion 121-122, 2d ed. rev. (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Church Education System, 1979), 72-73. 

[59] Barlow, Mormons and the Bible, 126.

[60] Quoted in Richard Sherlock and Jeffrey E. Keller, “The B.H. Roberts /Joseph Fielding Smith/James E. Talmage Affair/’ in Sessions and Oberg, The Search for Harmony, 97.

[61] Paul, Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology, 175. 

[62] Leonard J. Arrington, “The Search for Truth and Meaning in Mormon History,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3 (Summer 1968): 64. 

[63] Smith’s speech was published as “Faith Leads to a Fullness of Truth and Righteous ness,” Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine 21 (Oct. 1930): 145-58. At the time Smith was vice-president of the Utah Genealogical and Historical Society. See James B. Allen, Jessie L. Embry, and Kahlile B. Mehr, Hearts Turned to the Fathers: A History of the Genealogical Society o Utah, 1894-1994 (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 1995), 71-74, where Joseph Fielding Smith is described as the driving force behind the Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine. 

[64] Quoted in Allen, “The Story of The Truth, The Way, The Life,” clxxxi. Roberts was given another opportunity to present his views to the Twelve on 21 January 1931. Smith appeared before the Twelve on 21 January 1931 with a fifty-plus-page response arguing his position. Smith’s fifty-six-page memo, dated 14 Jan. 1931, is summarized in Roberts, The Truth, The Way, The Life, Appen. I, 729-34.

[65] James E. Talmage, “The Earth and Man,” Deseret News, Church News sec, 21 Nov. 1931, 7-8. See also Richard Sherlock, “A Turbulent Spectrum: Mormon Reactions to the Darwinist Legacy,” in Sessions and Oberg, The Search for Harmony, 73; John R. Talmage, The Tal mage Story: Life of James E. Talmage^—Educator, Scientist, Apostle (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1972), 231-33. 

[66] First Presidency Minutes, 7 Apr. 1931, quoted in William E. Evenson, “Evolution,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., 5 vols. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1992), 2:478. See also Duane E. Jeffery, “Seers, Savants and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8 (Autumn-Winter 1973): 64.

[67] Allen, “The Story of The Truth, The Way, The Life,” clxxxix. 

[68] Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report, Apr. 1935, 98. 

[69] In the late 1920s and early 1930s church leaders encouraged several Mormons to at tend the University of Chicago Divinity School. This encouragement stopped in the mid 19308. See Bergera and Priddis, Brigham Young University: A House of Faith, 53-63. One participant speaks of this era as “remarkably free of restraints,” commenting that one summer the church even sponsored four faculty members from the University of Chicago to teach courses on the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the history of the Christian church to LDS seminary teachers. See Lowry Nelson, In the Direction of His Dreams: Memoirs (New York: Philosophical Library, 1985), 248-49. 

[70] See John A. Widtsoe, “How Old Is the Earth,” Improvement Era 41 (Dec. 1938): 713- 15; John A. Widtsoe, “How Did the Earth Come into Being,” ibid. 42 (Feb. 1939); John A. Widtsoe, “What Is the Origin of Life on Earth,” ibid. 42 (Mar. 1939): 136-37; John A. Widtsoe, “To What Extent Should the Doctrine of Evolution be Accepted,” ibid. 41 (July 1939): 417,444- 47; John A. Widtsoe, “Were There Pre-Adamites?” ibid. 51 (May 1948): 305; John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, G. Homer Durham, ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960). From July to December 1945 Merrill voiced a radio address each Sunday evening on KSL radio in Salt Lake City which presented his reconciliation on faith and science. See Joseph F. Merrill, The Truth-Seeker and Mormonism (Independence, MO: Zion’s Printing & Publishing, 1946).

[71] John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith as Scientist (Salt Lake City: General Board Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations, 1908), preface. 

[72] For an example, see Sterling B. Talmage, “Genesis and Geology,” Improvement Era 42 (Mar. 1939): 143, 179. See also Sherlock and Keller, “The B. H. Roberts/Joseph Fielding Smith/James E. Talmage Affair,” 104-10; Jeffrey E. Keller, “Discussion Continued: The Sequel to the Roberts/Smith/Talmage Affair,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 (Spring 1982): 79-98. 

[73] Erich Robert Paul suggests that Smith had collected the material to write Man, His Origin and Destiny years earlier but waited until after Widtsoe’s and Merrill’s deaths to publish the work. See Paul, Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology, 179. 

[74] Quoted in Allen, “The Story of The Truth, The Way, The Life,” cixxviii.

[75] See O. Kendall White, Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy: A Crisis Theology (Salt Lake City: Sig nature Books, 1987); Richard J. Mouw, “Evangelical Mormonism,” Christianity Today 35 (11 Nov. 1991): 30. 

[76] Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1954), 465, 463; 2 Pet. 3:8. See also D&C 88:92-114; Abr. 5:13. 

[77] Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, 132.

[78] Ibid., 322, 319. 

[79] Ibid., 133. 

[80] Allen, “The Story of The Truth, The Way, The Life,” cxcvi n37; Bergera and Priddis, Brigham Young University: A House of Faith, 153. See also “Pres. Smith Lectures at BYU: Discusses Organic Evolution Opposed to Divine Revelation,” Deseret News, “Church News” sec, 24 July 1954,13-15. 

[81] See Armand L. Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 96-99,101nn8-12. 

[82] J. Reuben Clark, Jr., “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” Church News, 31 July 1954, reprinted in Dialogue: A Journal of Mor mon Thought 12 (Summer 1979): 68-81. See also D. Michael Quinn, J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1983), 168-72. 

[83] Smith noted in his preface the support of Mark E. Petersen, Marion G. Romney, Mil ton R. Hunter, and Bruce R. McConkie. Petersen in particular would later pit science against “the divine creation” in the 1970s and 1980s in Church News editorials. For a sampling, see Church News, 1 Sept. 1979,20 Dec. 1980,17 Oct. 1981. See also Mark E. Petersen, “Creator and Savior,” Ensign 13 (May 1983): 63-65; Mark E. Petersen, Adam: Who Is He? (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979). 

[84] See Richard Pearson Smith, “Science: A Part of or Apart from Mormonism?” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 (Spring 1986): 111.

[85] Harden Romney Eyring, ed., Reflections of a Scientist: Henry Eyring (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1983), 53; Steven H. Heath, “Agreeing to Disagree: Henry Eyring and Joseph Fielding Smith,” in Sessions and Oberg, The Search for Harmony, 139. 

[86] Church educators who dissented to the approach of the 1954 BYU symposium were transferred to remote locations. One such educator related an incident in 1962 when Apostle Mark E. Petersen articulated the new thrust of the church education system: instructors are to teach the pure gospel, nothing else, and are to instill faith and testimony, not to intellectualize; there is no academic freedom in CES; Latter-day Saints neither want nor need the learning of the world; Latter-day Saints understand the Bible better than others due to direct revelation; and loyalty takes precedent over learning. See Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive, 82, 97-98. See also Mark E. Petersen, “Avoid Sectarianism,” 1-3, an address given to the Seminary and Institute of Religion faculty Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 22 June 1962, as quoted in Book of Mormon: Student Manual, Religion 121-122, 297. 

[87] Bergera and Priddis, Brigham Young University: A House of Faith, 154-55.

[88] Eyring to Evans, 8 Apr. 1954, quoted in Smith, “Science: A Part of or Apart from Mormonism?” 113. See also Henry Eyring, The Faith of a Scientist (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1967), 60-61. 

[89] Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist: Henry Eyring, 61. See also the collection of writings and talks by prominent LDS scientists in Paul R. Green, comp., Science and Your Faith in God (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958). Contributors included Henry Eyring, Carl J. Christensen, Harvey Fletcher, Joseph F. Merrill, Frederick J. Pack, John A. Widtsoe, and Franklin S. Harris. 

[90] Heath, “Agreeing to Disagree: Henry Eyring and Joseph Fielding Smith,” 150; Berg era and Priddis, Brigham Young University: A House of Faith, 154; Richard D. Poll, “The Swearing Elders: Some Reflections,” Sunstone 10 (Jan. 1986): 14-17.

[91] McKay to Stokes, 15 Feb. 1957, in William Lee Stokes, “Epilogue: An Official Position,” in Sessions and Oberg, The Search for Harmony, 292. In a self-admitted “unofficial” ad dress, Elder Boyd K. Packer later condemned as false “the theory that God used an evolutionary process to prepare a physical body for the spirit of man.” He specifically referred to a “letter signed by a president of the Church,” which he pronounced “not a declaration of the position of the Church.” See Boyd K. Packer, “The Law and the Light,” in The Book of Mormon: Jacob Through Words of Mormon, To Learn With Joy, Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds. (Provo, UT: Religious Study Center, Brigham Young University, 1990), 1, 21, 23. 

[92] Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 211, 247-56, 492-501; Bruce R. McConkie, comp., Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954), 1:78-85,140-51. 

[93] McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 681. 

[94] Jeffery, “Seers, Savants and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface,” 41-75. See also Richard J. Cummings, “Quintessential Mormonism: Literal-Mindedness as a Way of Life,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 (Winter 1982): 98-110. A comparison of the views of BYU students in 1935 and 1973 illustrates the shift towards conservatism. For example, in 1935 36 percent believed man’s creation did not involve biological evolution. Thirty-eight years later 81 percent of students surveyed held that man’s creation did not involve biological evolution, a 45 percent change. See Harold T. Christensen and Kenneth L. Cannon, “The Fundamentalist Emphasis at Brigham Young University: 1935-1973,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 17 (Mar. 1978): 53-57. 

[95] Barlow, Mormons and the Bible, 186. 

[96] David John Buerger, “Speaking with Authority: The Theological Influence of Elder Bruce R. McConkie,” Sunstone 10 (Mar. 1985): 8-9,12.

[97] McConkie to Eugene England, 19 Feb. 1981, 8, copy in my possession.

[98] McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 211,247-56, 492-501, 681. 

[99] Ibid., 255-56. 

[100] Ibid., 353-55. For a discussion of McConkie’s disdain for higher criticism, see Bar low, Mormons and the Bible, 188-90. See also Davis Bitton, “Anti-Intellectualism in Mormon History,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 1 (1966): 122-23, 127. For an example of Joseph Fielding Smith’s antagonism towards higher criticism, see Richard Sherlock, “Faith and History: The Snell Controversy,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 12 (Spring 1979): 27- 41. This is contrasted with John A. Widtsoe’s openness to higher criticism in Widtsoe, In Search of Truth (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1930), 81-93; Widtsoe, “Is the Bible Translated Correctly?” Improvement Era 43 (Mar. 1940): 161; Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations: Aids to Faith in a Modern Day (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1943), 99. 

[101] Buerger, “Speaking with Authority,” 9. 

[102] David O. McKay Diary, 7, 8, 27, 28 Jan. 1960; Marion G. Romney to David O. Mc Kay, 28 Jan. 1959, both quoted in Buerger, “Speaking with Authority,” 9. A discussion of church leader anxiety over the publication of Mormon Doctrine is found in Bergera and Priddis, Brigham Young University: A House of Faith, 157-59, 431n57.

[103] See Romney to McKay, and McKay Diary, 7-8 Jan. and 27-28 Jan. 1960, both cited in Paul, Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology, 180,189n37. 

[104] Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-72). 

[105] Buerger, “Speaking with Authority,” 11. 

[106] De facto canonization of the King James version of the Bible began in the 1950s with J. Reuben Clark’s dismissal of all modern translations. See J. Reuben Clark, Why the King James Version (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1956); Quinn, /. Reuben Clark: The Church Years, 173-79; Barlow, Mormons and the Bible, 148-81. Recently the First Presidency reiterated that “in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations.” Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson, “First Presidency Statement on the King James Version of the Bible,” Ensign 22 (Aug. 1992): 80. 

[107] Robert J. Matthews, “The New Publications of the Standard Works—1979, 1981,” Brigham Young University Studies 22 (Fall 1982): 387-424. Committee members included elders Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, Bruce R. McConkie, Marvin J. Ashton, and Howard W. Hunter. Ibid., 388. See also William James Mortimer, “The Coming Forth of the LDS Editions of Scripture,” Ensign 13 (Aug. 1983): 35-41. 

[108] Matthews, “The New Publications of the Standard Works—1979, 1981,” 422. See also Edward H. Ashment, “Making the Scriptures ‘Indeed One in Our Hands,'” in The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, Dan Vogel, ed. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 237-40. The project also rehabilitated Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible by including his interpretations in the footnotes. See Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive, 107.

[109] Lavina Fielding Anderson, “Church Publishes First LDS Edition of the Bible,” Ensign 9 (Oct. 1979): 16; Buerger, “Speaking with Authority,” 12-13. 

[110] Holy Bible (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979), “Bible Dictionary,” 655. The same doctrinal interpretation is given in “Fall of Adam,” ibid., 670. Un der “Chronology,” the Bible Dictionary includes a chart which lists the fall of Adam at 4000 B.C. Ibid., 635. An Old Testament chronology chart, given in the September 1980 issue of the Ensign, 40-44, shows Adam born near the year 4000 B.C. See also Smith, “Science: A Part of or Apart From Mormonism?” 117; Barlow, Mormons and the Bible, 206-12. 

[111] Bruce R. McConkie, “The Bible a Sealed Book,” in Supplement to a Symposium on the New Testament (Salt Lake City: Church Education System, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, 1984), 1-7, quoted in Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive, 108. 

[112] See F. Kent Nielsen, “The Gospel and the Scientific View: How Earth Came To Be,” Ensign 10 (Sept. 1980): 71-72, where the author confirms that “from the time of the Fall until the end of the Millennium is described as seven thousand years.” 

[113] By mid-1979 McConkie had prepared a forty-two-page manuscript titled “Man— His Origin, Fall, and Redemption,” which he hoped would be used by the First Presidency to issue an official statement on the Creation for the church’s 1980 sesquicentennial anniversary. When the First Presidency decided not to issue a doctrinal statement, individual leaders determined that the duty now rested with them personally. See Bergera and Priddis, Brigham Young University: A House of Faith, 168-171. See also Bruce R. McConkie, “The Seven Deadly Heresies,” BYU Fireside, 1 June 1980, in 1980 Devotional Speeches of the Year (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1982), 74-80. 

[114] Bruce R. McConkie, “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign 12 June 1982): 9, 14-15. In this article McConkie concedes that the definition of the term “day,” as used in the Creation narrative, is uncertain. See also Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Cal vary: Book 1 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979), 29, 32-33n7; Paul, Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology, 183-84.

[115] Bruce R. McConkie, “The Caravan Moves On,” Ensign 14 (Nov. 1984): 82-85.

[116] Boyd K. Packer, “The Pattern of Our Parentage,” Ensign 14 (Nov. 1984): 67. See also Packer, “The Law and the Light,” 1-31. 

[117] Packer, “The Law and the Light,” 21, 24-26. Armand Mauss points out that Packer’s anti-evolution address was given at a BYU symposium on the Book of Mormon. Since the Book of Mormon has few passages relative to the Creation, Packer’s address can be seen as the use of this public forum, in front of church educators, to promulgate his anti-evolutionary stance. See Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive, 193n2. 

[118] Hugh B. Brown, Conference Report, Oct. 1967,113. 

[119] Joseph Fielding Smith, “The Signs of the Lord’s Coming,” Improvement Era, June 1966,499. 

[120] See Bergera and Priddis, Brigham Young University: A House of Faith, 163-67,434n72.

[121] Although the study manual for the Old Testament states that the church has taken no official stance on the age of the earth, the essay gives little space to the evidence of an ancient earth. See “How Old Is the Earth?” Old Testament: Genesis—2 Samuel, 2d ed. rev. (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Church Education System, 1980), 28- 29. On pp. 33-36 the manual asserts that “there was no mortal death” before Adam fell and goes on to criticize the theory of evolution. The text then quotes Joseph Fielding Smith’s Doc trines of Salvation that “you cannot believe in this theory [evolution] of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation… You must choose the one and reject the other.” See ibid., 34. See also Book of Mormon: Student Manual Religion 121-122,231. 

[122] The Life and Teachings of Jesus & His Apostles, 2d ed. rev. (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Church Education System, 1979), 457-60.

[123] Evenson, “Science: The Universe, Creation, and Evolution,” cxxix nlO.

[124] See Evenson, “Evolution,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:478. See also Morris S. Peterson, “Earth,” in ibid., 2:431-33. John Sorenson attempted to soften the definitive voice of those who deem the official statements as anti-evolutionary. He states that “subsequent statements indicate that the details of how Adam became the ‘first man’ are considered not to have been revealed clearly enough to settle questions of process.” See John L. Sorenson, “Origin of Man,” ibid., 3:1,053. One author hopes that these may represent a trend that literalism has peaked. See David H. Bailey, “Science and Mormonism: Past, Present, and Future,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 29 (Spring 1996): 84-96, 94. For the First Presidency statements, see Smith, Winder, Lund, “The Origin of Man,” 75-81; Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, Charles W. Nibley, “Mormon View of Evolution,” Improvement Era, Sept. 1925,1090-91; Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 4:199-206, 5:243-44. 

[125] Nancy Tatom Ammerman, Bible Believers: Fundamentalists in the Modern World (New Brunswick, NY: Rutgers University Press, 1987), 51-56; Timothy P. Weber, “Premillennialism and the Branches of Evangelicalism,” in The Variety of American Evangelicalism, Donald W. Dayton and Robert K. Johnston, eds. (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991), 5-21; Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive, 158-67, 178-80; Gordon Shepherd and Gary Shepherd, “Membership Growth, Church Activity, and Missionary Recruitment,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 29 (Spring 1996): 52-53; Paul, Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology, 180-81,185. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism has no entry for “higher criticism.”

[126] M. Russell Ballard, “The Joy of Hope Fulfilled,” Ensign 22 (Nov. 1992): 31-32.

[127] See Chris Jorgensen and Peggy Fletcher Stack, “It’s Judgement Day for Far Right: LDS Church Purges Survivalists,” Salt Lake Tribune, 29 Nov. 1992, A-l, A-2; Christopher Smith, “Hero-Turned-Heretic? Gritz May Be Leading LDS Flock Into Wilderness,” ibid., 29 Nov. 1992, A-2; Chris Jorgensen, “Mormons’ End-of-World Talk Could End LDS Member ship,” ibid., 2 Dec. 1992, B-l; Hugh Dellios, “Doomsday Mormons Say LDS Church Rejects Them,” Provo Daily Herald, 10 Jan. 1993, D-l; “LDS Church Disciplines Ultra-Conservative Survivalists,” Sunstone 16 (Mar. 1993): 67-68. 

[128] Boyd K. Packer, “To Be Learned Is Good If…,” Ensign 22 (Nov. 1992): 73.

[129] Neal A. Maxwell, in Hugh Hewitt, Searching for God in America (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1996), 143. A similar approach is given in M. Russell Ballard, “When Shall These Things Be?” Ensign 26 (Dec. 1996): 56-61. 

[130] One writer identifies the appointment of J. Reuben Clark to the First Presidency in the 1930s as a turning point towards theological conservatism. Clark’s appointment coincided with the demise of previous intellectuals and moderates in the hierarchy including B. H. Roberts, James Talmage, and Anthony W. Ivins. During this same period the appointment of three conservatives to the apostleship, Harold B. Lee, Ezra Taft Benson, and Mark E. Petersen, would influence the church for the next half century. See Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive, 80, 168-70. For Clark’s campaign against biblical higher criticism, see Quinn, J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years, 173-79.

[131] See Richard J. Cummings, “The Stone and the Star: Fanaticism, Doubt and the Problem of Integrity,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon History 17 (Spring 1984): 51. Thomas Alexander describes the “duty-bound” charge to church leaders that once an official decision is made, deliberations and disagreements remain secret. See Thomas G. Alexander, ‘”To Maintain Harmony’: Adjusting to External and Internal Stress, 1890-1930,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 (Winter 1982): 46-47. 

[132] McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 275. 

[133] Quoted in Allen, “The Story of The Truth, The Way, The Life,” clxxxiv.

[134] Underwood, The Millenarian World of Early Mormonism, 140. 

[135] Curtis Wright, quoted in Mary Bradford and Gary Gillum, “A Conversation with Hugh Nibley,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 12 (Winter 1979): 23.

[136] William D. Russell, “Beyond Literalism,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 (Spring 1986): 65.

[137] For a discussion of this issue, see Richard D. Poll, “Dealing with Dissonance: Myths, Documents, and Faith,” Sunstone 12 (May 1988): 17-21; Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive, 191-92. 

[138] McConkie stated concisely that “if what scientists say about the age of the earth [and] evolution … were true, then Mormonism was false.” See Thomas A. Blakely, “The Swearing Elders: The First Generation of Modern Mormon Intellectuals,” Sunstone 10 (Jan. 1986): 8-13. 

[139] An attempt to articulate the complexities of both sides of the issue is in Hugh Nib ley, “Before Adam,” in Old Testament and Related Studies: The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley: Volume 1, John W. Welch, Gary P. Gillum, Don E. Norton, eds. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1986), 49-85. 

[140] Lowell L. Bennion, “How to Read the Book of Mormon,” Sunstone 19 0une 1996): 13.

[141] Keith E. Norman, “Adam’s Navel,” in Sessions and Oberg, The Search for Harmony, 231.

[142] See Margaret Toscano and Paul Toscano, Strangers in Paradox: Explorations in Mormon Theology (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 265-91. 

[143] Norman, “Adam’s Navel,” 236; Paul, Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology, 171-73.

[144] An example is found in Moses 6:59, which reads that “insomuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and spirit, which I have made, and so become of dust a living soul.” The figurative interpretation was promulgated by John A. Widtsoe early in the twentieth century in Rational Theology (Salt Lake City: General Priesthood Committee, 1915), 46-47. The 1990 revision of the endowment deleted the instruction that as far as the man and woman are concerned the language is figurative. 

[145] Norman, “Adam’s Navel,” 236-45. 

[146] Anthony A. Hutchinson, “A Mormon Midrash? LDS Creation Narratives Reconsidered,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 21 (Winter 1988): 11-74; Kevin L. Barney, “The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 (Fall 1986): 85-102; Karl Sandberg, “Knowing Brother Joseph Again: The Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith as Translator,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 22 (Winter 1989): 17-37; Norman, “Adam’s Navel,” 232. 

[147] Quoted in Cedric I. Davern, “Evolution and Creation: Two World Views,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 17 (Spring 1984): 50. 

[148] Tuveson, Redeemer Nation, 4-12. 

[149] James H. Moorhead, “Searching for the Millennium in America,” Princeton Semi nary Bulletin 8 (1987): 30-31; Davidson, I7K Logic of Millennial Thought, 122-75; Jerald C. Brau er, “Revivalism and Millenarianism in America,” in In the Great Tradition: In Honor of Winthrop S. Hudson, Essays on Pluralism, Voluntarism, and Revivalism, eds. Joseph D. Ban and Paul R. Dekar (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1982), 147-59.

[150] Theodore Olson, Millennialism, Utopianism, and Progress (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), 84-92; Harrison, The Second Coming: Popular Millenarianism 1780-1850, xv-xvi, 4; Davidson, The Logic of Millennial Thought, 114-21. 

[151] W. Stanford Reid, “The Kingdom of God: The Key to History,” Fides et Historia 13 (Spring-Summer 1981): 7; Robert G. Clouse, ed., The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 9-10; Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium, rev. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), 29. Tuveson expressed an aversion to the standard pre- versus postmillennialist dichotomy, believing Augustine would fall into a third category. Although technically postmillennial (the Millennium precedes the Parousia), there remain significant differences between Augustinians who saw the hoped for “City of God” as separate from the evil world and traditional postmillennialists. See Tuveson, Re deemer Nation, 34nll. 

[152] Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 4. 

[153] James H. Moorhead, “Between Progress and Apocalypse: A Reassessment of Millennialism in American Religious Thought, 1800-1880,” Journal of American History 71 (Dec. 1984): 526-41. Neither pre- nor postmillennialists fit given stereotypes and scholars question whether the line can be drawn so neatly and cleanly between the two. Moorhead cautions against “simplistic caricatures,” showing that premillennialism sometimes included activism. See Moorhead, “Searching for the Millennium in America,” 21-22; and Moorhead, “Between Progress and Apocalypse,” 525. Other works which call for a greater understanding of millennialism’s ambiguities include Davidson, The Logic of Millennial Thought, 28-36, 274-77; John M. Butler, ” Adventism and the American Experience,” in Rise of Adventism: Religion and Society in Mid-Nineteenth-Century America, ed. Edwin S. Gaustad (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), 173-206; Ernest R. Sandeen, “The ‘Little Tradition’ and the Form of Modern Millenarianism,” Annual Review of the Social Sciences of Religion 4 (1980): 165-80.

[154] Davidson, The Logic of Millennial Thought, 28-29; Barkun, Crucible of the Millennium, 25-28. 

[155] Alan Heimert, Religion and the American Mind: From the Great Awakening to the Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966), 66; Tuveson, Redeemer Nation, 28- 31; William G. McLoughlin, “Religious Freedom and Popular Sovereignty: A Change in the Flow of God’s Power, 1730-1830,” in Ban and Dekar, In The Great Tradition: In Honor of Winthrop S. Hudson, Essays on Pluralism, Voluntarism, and Revivalism, 173-92; Gordon S. Wood, “Evangelical America and Early Mormonism,” New York History 61 (Oct. 1980): 372; Barkun, Crucible of the Millennium, 58; Davidson, The Logic of Millennial Thought, 129-31, 175; Moor head, “Between Progress and Apocalypse,” 536-41. 

[156] Hansen, Quest for Empire: The Political Kingdom of God and the Council of Fifty in Mormon History, 3-23; Parley P. Pratt, A Voice of Warning… (New York: W. Sanford, 1837), 9-49,106- 108. Marvin Hill contends the Saints understood they were to rule politically prior to the ad vent of the Millennium. See Marvin S. Hill, “The Shaping of the Mormon Mind in New En gland and New York,” Brigham Young University Studies 9 (Spring 1969): 369.

[157] Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:203, 6 Apr. 1852. 

[158] Klaus J. Hansen, “Mormonism and American Culture: Some Tentative Hypotheses,” in The Restoration Movement: Essays in Mormon History, rev. ed., F. Mark McKiernan, Alma R. Blair, and Paul M. Edwards, eds. (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1992), 2. 

[159] Barlow, Mormons and the Bible, x; Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, 508; Armand L. Mauss, “Mormonism in the Twenty-first Century: Marketing for Miracles,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 29 (Spring 1996): 244-47. 

[160] In describing the ambiguity of Mormon theological tenets, one author breaks down the ecclesiastical status of sermons and writings of church leaders into four categories: canon doctrine, official doctrine, authoritative doctrine, and popular or folk doctrine. See Armand L. Mauss, “The Fading of the Pharaoh’s Curse: The Decline and Fall of the Priesthood Ban Against Blacks in the Mormon Church,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 14 (Autumn 1981): 32-34. Due to the relative “creedless” factor of Mormonism, leaders can, and do, intermix theology with personal interpretation. See Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive, 161, 175n5. 

[161] Mark P. Leone, Roots of Modern Mormonism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), 167-93.

[162] Peter Crawley, “Parley P. Pratt: Father of Mormon Pamphleteering,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 (Autumn 1982): 21. 

[163] Anthony A. Hutchinson, “LDS Approaches to the Holy Bible,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 (Spring 1982): 116; Paul, Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology, 172.

[164] Thomas F. O’Dea, The Mormons (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 226.

[165] Russell, “Beyond Literalism,” 62-63; Heber C. Snell, “The Bible in the Church,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 2 (Spring 1967): 55-74. 

[166] Smith, “Science: A Part of or Apart from Mormonism?” 111. Recently the First Presidency has taken the position that “the most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.” See Benson, Hinckley, Monson, “First Presidency Statement on the King James Version of the Bible,” 80. 

[167] Sidney B. Sperry, “Scholars and Prophets,” in “The Bible in the Church,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 2 (Spring 1967): 75. 

[168] Melodie Moench Charles, “A Mormon Perspective—Cockeyed,” review of The Old Testament: A Mormon Perspective, by Glenn L. Pearson, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 (Autumn 1982): 123. See also Paul, Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology, 170; Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive, 104. 

[169] Keith E. Norman, “A Not So Great Commentary,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 14 (Fall 1981): 130-32; Snell, “The Bible in the Church,” 60; Sterling M. McMurrin in Brigham H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), xxiv-xxv. In the Encyclopedia of Mormonism M. Catherine Thomas identifies the following use of Mormon scripture. “Modern revelation and restored scripture offer indispensable interpretations of the Bible…. Latter-day Saints interpret the Bible in the light of restored scripture and modern revelation because these have reestablished the lost key of knowledge.” See M. Catherine Thomas, “Scripture, Interpretation Within Scripture,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 3:1,284. Non-Mormon sociologist Thomas F. O’Dea’s prediction, now forty years old, of the encounter with secular thought as Mormonism’s greatest source of strain and conflict, remains valid to this day. See O’Dea, The Mormons, 222-40.

[170] John Updike, The Coup (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978), 139-41. 

[171] Examples include William Lee Stokes, The Creation Scriptures: A Witness for God in the Scientific Age (Bountiful, UT: Horizon Publisher, 1979); Frank B. Salisbury, The Creation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976). 

[172] Quoted in Stanley L. Jaki, The Relevance of Physics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), 345. 

[173] Young, Journal of Discourses, 14:115-17,14 May 1871. See Brigham Young, ibid., 2:6, 23 Oct. 1853, where he equates literal belief in the Genesis narrative to “baby stories.” See also Brigham Young, ibid., 18:231,17 Sept. 1876.

[174] Gordon Shepherd and Gary Shepherd, A Kingdom Transformed: Themes in the Development of Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1984), 196; Underwood, The Millenarian World of Early Mormonism, 141. One author has termed this “latent millennialism.” See Walter E. A. van Beek, “Ethnization and Accommodation: Dutch Mormons in Twenty first-century Europe,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 29 (Spring 1996): 137. A non Mormon theologian suggested that in attempting to cope with the complexity of modern society people “tend to retreat into yesterday’s security systems.” See Bishop John S. Spong, quoted in Richard Servo, “Poll Finds Americans Split on Creation Idea,” New York Times, 29 Aug. 1982, 22. 

[175] James A. Aho, The Politics of Righteousness: Idaho Christian Patriotism (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1990), 114-32; Mario S. De Pillis, “The Emergence of Mormon Power since 1945,” Journal of Mormon History 22 (Spring 1996): 16n32; Becky Johns, “The Manti Mormons: The Rise of the Latest Mormon Church,” Sunstone 19 (June 1996): 30-36. 

[176] In supporting the orthodox position, one author has prepared for the scenario that Christ may not appear immediately upon the opening of the seventh seal (seventh thousand year), near the year 2000, by referring to D&C 77:13 which designates a period of time between the opening of the seventh seal and the coming of Christ. Describing the interval necessary for the events portrayed in Revelation 9 to take place, he concludes that “a few years, a generation, [or] several generations” would all fit the scriptural timetable. See Larry E. Dahl, “The Second Coming of Jesus Christ,” in The Capstone of Our Religion, eds. Robert L. Millet and Larry E. Dahl (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1989), 96-97. 

[177] Grant Underwood plainly states that currently “Latter-day Saints reject [a] figurative vision of the future.” See Grant Underwood, “Millenarianism,” Encyclopedia of Mormon ism, 2:905. See also Paul B. Pixton, “Millennialism,” ibid., 2:906-907; Grant B. Barton, “Last Days,” ibid., 2:805-806. Philip Barlow notes the difficulty Mormons have in moving to a metaphorical understanding of scripture in Mormons and the Bible, 34-35. See also Karl C. Sand berg, “Thinking about the Word of God in the Twenty-first Century,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 29 (Spring 1966): 58-79. 

[178] Eldon J. Gardner, “Organic Evolution and the Bible,” in Sessions and Oberg, The Search for Harmony, 203-207.

[179] See Gary James Bergera, “The New Mormon Anti-Intellectualism,” review of To Be Learned is Good If…, ed. Robert J. Millet (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1987), in Sunstone 15 (June 1991): 53-55. 

[180] Edwin B. Firmage, “Restoring the Church: Zion in the Nineteenth and Twenty-first Centuries,” Sunstone 13 (Jan. 1989): 35-38; Armand L. Mauss, “Saints, Cities, and Secularism: Religious Attitudes and Behavior of Modern Urban Mormons,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 7 (Summer 1972): 8-27. 

[181] Keith E. Norman, “Mormon Cosmology: Can It Survive the Big Bang?” Sunstone 10 (Oct. 1985), 23; Sherlock, “A Turbulent Spectrum: Mormon Reactions to the Darwinist Legacy,” 87; Bailey, “Science and Mormonism: Past, Present, Future,” 80,94-95; O. Kendall White, Jr., “The Transformation of Mormon Theology,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 5 (Summer 1970): 22-24. 

[182] Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 16:369-70,1 Feb. 1874.