© 2025 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
The implication that the word “assumptions” is somehow faithless in reference to the positions of President Smith and Elder McConkie is itself a faithless assumption.
We do not believe that high ecclesiastical office bestows infallibility on one’s theological positions. If it did, then we would have the thorny problem of separating the conflicting conclusions of multiple general authorities, including my great-grandfather David O. McKay, a firm believer in both organic evolution and geological time, who differed significantly and strongly with Joseph Fielding Smith on the very subjects discussed in the book being reviewed. He also considered Elder McConkie’s magnum opus “Mormon Doctrine” to be deeply flawed and filled with assumptions with which he and many other of the Brethren did not agree.
Simply invoking the lofty titles of President Smith and Elder McConkie to
advance there arguments is itself a fallacious argument from authority, especially since I can invoke President McKay’s title in response, leaving us absolutely nowhere and diverting the discussion from the topic at hand.
I have no doubt that President Joseph Fielding Smith, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, and President David O. McKay were men called of God who received great inspiration as they fulfilled their sacred callings. I also have no doubt that none of them at any time had their agency extracted from them, so that even as they strived to know the mind and will of the Lord, they were still entirely capable of error. If they weren’t, then you have to account for the fact that one prophet assumed evolution was entirely reconcilable with gospel principles and another did not.
Elder McConkie provided an excellent example in this instance. Prior to the 1978 revelation, he made a great many assumptions about the nature of the Priesthood and Temple Ban for Black Latter-day Saints that turned out to be entirely wrong and have since been explicitly disavowed by the Church. He had the humility and grace to admit to his errors and even go so far as to say that Church members should forget everything he and other Church leaders had said on the subject of the ban prior to the revelation. We should be willing to follow suit when previous assumptions on other subjects prove similarly erroneous.
We do no favors to the Church or its leaders when we peddle a false doctrine of prophetic infallibility. I respectfully ask those who continue to argue for inerrancy to question their assumptions.
Elder McConkie preached creationism (as opposed to evolution) to the end of his ministry and life. As an apostle he received zero push-back from the First Presidency or other Apostles on his anti-evolution theology.
Having said that, I’m well aware that the Church in the recent past made it clear that members of the Church can prescribe to evolutionary science while still remaining faithful and Temple worthy. I don’t dispute that.
But I do take issue with your dismissive tone of Elder McConkie’s pervasive & authoritative teaching on the subject. I think he deserves a little more respect than that as a prophet, seer, and revelator. And we’re covenantally-bound to give more weight to his words than the scientific community.
Your claim about President McKay’s belief is interesting though. Do you have any receipts for that? Any public statements, sermons, or writings where he spoke favorably of evolution and so forth?
Sam, if you read the book reviewed, you’ll find President McKay’s views on evolution addressed. Specifically, refer to pages 106-8.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t find Jim’s tone dismissive of President Smith and Elder McConkie at all. In fact, he very specifically said that he had no doubt they were men called of God. If there was any dismissiveness at all, I think it may have been directed toward Dennis Horne’s ideas. As to whether we are “covenantally bound to give more weight” to a prophet’s words than to the scientific community, does that apply to President McKay as well? He said “Science, dominated by the spirit of religion, is the key to progress and the hope of the future.” (See pg. 187 in the book reviewed.) If we need to give preeminent heed to prophets, what does it mean when one of those prophets tells us where to seek the “key to progress and the hope of the future?” To which of the 15 Brethren whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators are we covenantally bound when they disagree with each other?
This is the type of thing to which Jim was referring, if I am understanding him correctly. Invoking lofty titles as a way to advance arguments is not a sound approach, particularly when the Brethren have not been united on the argument.
The quote you just provided from President McKay doesn’t endorse evolution at all, nor does it counter Elder McConkie’s teachings. Everyone agrees that science, in general, is a very good thing.
And besides, one vague quote doesn’t undo the veritable library of arguments by general authorities, dead and living (including our Prophet), against the theory of evolution.
President McKay alluded to his acceptance of evolution in General Conference, acted as President to approve pro-evolution material in Church magazines, took serious issue with Joseph Fielding Smith’s YEC/anti-evolutionary creationism, and numerous people who talked to McKay (including his son Llewelyn) reported that McKay accepted evolution. There’s a section on this in the Prince bio of McKay, but I’ve written two blogposts on it, and presented on it at MHA. As for other Church leaders who have publicly opposed evolution, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGtODuGEATc
I stated clearly that “I have no doubt that President Joseph Fielding Smith, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, and President David O. McKay were men called of God who received great inspiration as they fulfilled their sacred callings.”
I stand by that, and I wholly reject the characterization that noting disagreements among high Church leaders is in any way dismissive. This is not the only issue on which there has been disagreement, nor is President McKay the only high Church leader who sees no threat to faith in evolution.
And the strongest receipts that Church leaders, not just President McKay, accept evolution as reconcilable with the Restored Gospel can be found in the biology departments of Church universities. For decades now, they have openly and consistently taught scientific principles with which President Smith and Elder McConkie would strenuously disagree.
The biology departments at Church universities are obligated to teach a secular education that is acceptable within the university system. That’s the whole point – they have nothing to do with theology and LDS doctrine. Citing secular departments within a secular curriculum is not only not a strong receipt, it’s irrelevant. They simply have no bearing whatsoever on Church doctrine and theology, especially something as critical as the creation and fall which biology categorically denies.
Perhaps my dismissive comment was uncalled for; if so, I apologize.
But I’ve observed a pattern common to all LDS’ who proscribe to evolution: they tend to hang on to a few comments made by a few GAs in the past which are favorable to evolution, while ignoring and dismissing the mountain of comments & testimony by MANY GAs, dead and living (including our current Prophet), which are unfavorable to evolution. And in my opinion, that’s a spiritually untenable position; and one that is born out of an allegiance to science and not to the revelations of God.
No one is demanding you believe in evolution, Sam. I think it’s a little bizarre to think the Church wouldn’t step in and stop teaching it in Church schools if it really were the abomination that Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie assumed it was. But even so, if you want to believe evolution is evil and opposed to the things of God, that’s your business.
Where it becomes my business, and the business of the Church, is when you start publicly condemning fellow Church members as faithless for not sharing your hostility to science. Rather than pit dead apostles and prophets against each other, I think it wise to accept what the Church is teaching now.
I can see no way to reconcile the Church’s current refusal to condemn evolution to be consistent with what Pres. Smith or Elder McConkie taught. And if you insist that the Church’s current position is therefore in error, then it is you, not the authors, who is being dismissive of the teachings of the Church.
For those who may not know, the volume this article reviews was originally intended as a BYU Studies issue, with a call for papers going out 6 years ago October. That plan was quashed in favor of the reviewed book from BYU Life Sciences.
I found the Spackman chapter used the word “assumption(s)” 60 times in describing the doctrinal teachings of President Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Bruce R. McConkie. If the veil were parted, how might they feel/react to such labeling? President Oaks has spoken to the larger general principle (criticizing/weakening church leaders’ teachings) a few times.