(by Dennis B. Horne)
Elder Boyd
K. Packer referenced this dream or vision given to a past Superintendent of
Church Schools in his 1995
address to BYU students. It directly relates to teaching evolution and
other false doctrines to BYU students; the same thing warned of in this dream
is going on now as BYU biologists today repeat the egregious errors of their
former associates:
I remember
as well Sunday, January 8, 1956. To understand why that is memorable to me, we
must go back to 1910.
George Brimhall, having already served 19 years as president of BYU, determined to establish a recognized teachers college. He had hired three professors: one with a master’s degree from Harvard, one with a doctorate from Cornell, and the other with a doctorate from Chicago. They hoped to transform the college into a full-fledged university. They determined that practicality and religion, which had characterized the school, must now give way to more intellectual and scientific philosophies.
The
professors held that “the fundamentals of religion could and must be
investigated by extending the [empirical] method into the spiritual realm,” and
they “considered evolution to be a basic, spiritual principle through which the
divinity in nature expressed itself.”2 The faculty sided with
the new professors and the students rallied to them.
Horace
Cummings, superintendent of Church schools, became concerned because they were
“applying the evolutionary theory and other philosophical hypotheses to
principles of the gospel and to the teachings of the Church in such a way as to
disturb, if not destroy the faith of the pupils,” and he wrote, “Many stake
presidents, some of our leading principals and teachers, and leading men who are
friends of our schools have expressed deep anxiety to me about this matter.”3
Superintendent
Cummings reported to the board that:
1. The
teachers were following the “higher criticism”. . . , treating the Bible as “a
collection of myths, folk-lore, dramas, literary productions, history and some
inspiration.”
2. They
rejected the flood, the confusion of tongues, the miracle of the Red Sea, and
the temptation of Christ as real phenomena.
3. They
said John the Revelator was not translated but died in the year A.D. 96.
4. “The
theory of evolution is treated as a demonstrated law and their applications of
it to gospel truths give rise to many curious and conflicting explanations of
scripture.”
5. The
teachers carried philosophical ideas too far: (1) “They believed sinners should
be pitied and enlightened rather than blamed or punished,” (2) and they
believed that “we should never agree. God never made two things alike. Only by
taking different views of a thing can its real truth be seen.”
6. . . .
.
7. The
professors taught that “all truths change as we change. Nothing is fixed or
reliable.”
8. They
also taught that “Visions and revelations are mental suggestions. The objective
reality of the presence of the Father and the Son, in Joseph Smith’s first vision,
is questioned.”4
Superintendent Cummings concluded his report by saying that
the professors “seem to feel that they have a mission to protect the young from
the errors of their parents.”5
President Brimhall himself defended the professors—that is,
until some students “frankly told him they had quit praying because they
learned in school there was no real God to hear them.”6
Shortly
thereafter President Brimhall had a dream.
He saw
several of the BYU professors standing around a peculiar machine on the campus.
When one of them touched a spring a baited fish hook attached to a long thin
wire rose rapidly into the air. . . .
Casting
his eyes around the sky he [President Brimhall] discovered a
flock of snow-white birds circling among the clouds and disporting themselves
in the sky, seemingly very happy. Presently one of them, seeing the bait on the
hook, darted toward it and grabbed it. Instantly one of the professors on the
ground touched a spring in the machine, and the bird was rapidly hauled down to
the earth.
On
reaching the ground the bird proved to be a BYU student, clad in an ancient
Greek costume, and was directed to join a group of other students who had been
brought down in a similar manner. Brother Brimhall walked over to them, and
noticing that all of them looked very sad, discouraged and downcast, he asked
them:
“Why,
students, what on earth makes you so sad and downhearted?”
“Alas,
we can never fly again!” they replied with a sigh and a sad shake of the head.
Their
Greek philosophy had tied them to the earth. They could believe only what they
could demonstrate in the laboratory. Their prayers could go no higher than the
ceiling. They could see no heaven—no hereafter.7
Now deeply
embarrassed by the controversy and caught between opposing factions, President
Brimhall at first attempted to be conciliatory. He said, “I have been hoping
for a year or two past that harmony could be secured by waiting, but the delays
have been fraught with increased danger.”8 When an exercise inadministrative
diplomacy suddenly became an issue of faith, President
Brimhall acted.
And now to
Sunday, January 8, 1956. President David O. McKay came to Brigham City to
dedicate a chapel built for students of the Intermountain Indian School. I
stood next to him to introduce those who came forward to shake his hand.
A very old
man, a stranger to me, came forward on the arm of his daughter. He had come
some distance to speak to President McKay. It was impossible for me not to hear
their conversation. He gave President McKay his name and said that many years
ago he had taught at BYU. President McKay said, “Yes, I know who you are.”
Tears came as the old man spoke sorrowfully about the burden he had carried for
years. President McKay was very tender in consoling him. “I know your heart,”
he said. That old man was one of the three professors who had been hired [and
fired] by President Brimhall in 1910. . . .
Now I must
speak of the snow-white birds that Brother Brimhall saw in his dream or vision.
I say vision because another old man, Lehi, told his son
Nephi, “Behold, I have dreamed a dream; or, in other words, I have seen a
vision.”
We have now
enrolled in our institutes of religion 198,000 students. We spend approximately
$300 a year on each of them. We spend more than $7,500 a year on each student
at BYU and over $12,000 per student on the Hawaii campus, all of it from
tithing funds.
That
inequity worries the Brethren. We are trying to reach out to those in public
colleges, as well as to the college-age members who are not, for various
reasons, in school. We have invited them to attend classes in the institutes.
General
Authorities often speak at firesides in the Marriott Center. Lately we have
been broadcasting these messages to the institute students by satellite. Last
time I was assigned, I spoke from Seattle. I wanted to show an equal interest
in and an equal desire to be close to those who do not attend Church schools.
They need
our help, these snow-white birds who now must fly in an atmosphere that grows
ever darker with pollution. It is harder now for them to keep their wings from
being soiled or their flight feathers from being pulled out.
The
troubles that beset President Brimhall were hardly new. Paul told Timothy that,
even in that day, they were of ancient origin:
“As Jannes
and Jambres withstood Moses,” he told Timothy, “so do these also resist the
truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.”
Paul
prophesied plainly that those challenges would face us in the last days. They
seem to cycle back each generation. They emerged in the early ‘30s. The
Brethren called all of the teachers of religion together for a summer school at
Aspen Grove. President J. Reuben Clark Jr., speaking for the First Presidency,
delivered the landmark address “The Charted Course of the Church in Education”
(1938). That address should be read by every one of you every year. It is
insightful; it is profound; it is prophetic; it is scripture.
That opposition emerged again in the institutes of religion
in the early ‘50s, and the Brethren called the summer session of which I spoke
earlier, with Elder Harold B. Lee of the Twelve as our teacher.
We need to
be alert today. Although there are too many now in our schools for us to call
all of you together, here at BYU much is being done to reaffirm standards. You
yourselves have helped refine the credentials for one who will influence these
snow-white birds of ours. That standard is temple worthiness, with a recommend
in hand for members and a respect for our standards by those who are not.
But that is
not all. There must be a feeling and a dedication and a recognition and
acceptance of the mission of our Church schools. Those standards will and must
be upheld. The largest block of the tithing funds spent at BYU goes for
teaching salaries. We cannot justify spending the widow’s mite on one who will
not observe either the letter or the spirit of the contract he or she has
signed. Every department chair, every director, every dean and administrator
has a sacred obligation to assure that no one under their care will pull the
snow-white birds from the sky or cause even one to say, “Alas, we can never fly
again!” or to “believe only what could be demonstrated in a laboratory” or to
think that “their prayer could go no higher than the ceiling, or to see no
heaven—no hereafter.”
We expect
no more of anyone than that you live up to the contract you have signed. We
will accept no less of you.
Such are
the feelings of the Brethren. Below is the complete report and some further
comment from senior church leaders of that former day, who were wrestling with
these teachers of false doctrine at the church’s school.
[Below report prepared by Horace Cummings, Superintendent of
Church Schools:]
January 21, 1911.
Pres.
Joseph F. Smith and Members of the General Church Board of Education.
Dear Brethren:
According
to your request I herewith present for your consideration a written report of
my recent visit to the B. Y. University, Provo, and the impressions made upon
my mind concerning the nature and effect of certain theological instructions
given, mostly by the College professors in that school.
I spent
about nine days there between November 28, and December 10, and conversed with
the Presidency of the school, many of the teachers and as many of the College
students as I had opportunity of meeting. I also conversed with a number of
leading citizens of Provo about this feature of the school’s work and
endeavored, conscientiously, to find out the real condition of the school in
this respect, and the following are some of the points of information gained
there:
1. About two years ago when some of the most radical changes
in theological views were first introduced, it caused great disturbance in the
minds of both the pupils and the old-style teachers there, but many have
gradually adjusted their views to the “new thought” and feel that they have
gained much by the change. Many of the teachers and students are unable to
accept them, however, though practically all the College students whom I met,
except one or two returned missionaries, were most zealous in defending and
propagating the new views.
2. It was the unanimous opinion that interest in theological
work had never been more universal or more intense in school than it is now.
The classes are gladly attended and none seem to shirk the work.
3. All express firm faith in the living oracles.
4. All believe in tithing, missionary work, and the
ordinances of the gospel, and appear to be determined to do their duty in these
things.
5. I discovered no spirit of contention or bitterness—their
differences seemed to be good natured. Still, there is a pronounced difference
of opinion among both students and teachers upon many important points of
doctrine and belief.
Some of the
matters which impressed me most unfavorably may be enumerated as follows:
2. The Bible is
treated as a collection of myths, folklore, dramas, literary productions, and
some inspiration. Its miracles are but mostly fables or accounts of natural
events recorded by simple people who injected the miraculous element into them,
as most ignorant people do when things, strange to them, occur. A few
concrete examples will illustrate this view:
(a) The flood was only a local inundation of unusual extent.
(b) The confusion of tongues came about by scattering of the
families descended from Noah when they became too numerous for the valley they
originally occupied. After a generation or two, having no written language,
their speech changed, each tribe’s in a different way. There is nothing sudden
or miraculous in the change.
(c) The winds blew the waters of the Red Sea back until the
Israelites waded across, but subsided in time to let the waters drown Pharaoh,
while a land slide stopped the River Jordan long enough for them to cross it.
(d) Christ’s temptation is only an allegory of what takes
place in each of our souls. There is no personal devil to tempt us.
(e) John the Revelator was not translated. He died in the
year 96.
4. Philosophical ideas are often carried too far and result
in wrong impressions as to doctrine. This may be partly the fault of the teacher
in not making himself clear, and partly of the pupil in jumping at the wrong
conclusions or applications. For example:
(a) Sin is the violation of a law resulting in pain or
discomfort. Righteousness is pursuing a course that brings happiness. No intelligent
being would sin if he knew its full consequences; hence, sin is
ignorance–education or knowledge, is salvation. Sinners should be pitied and
enlightened rather than blamed and punished. Ordinances may be helpful props to
weak mortals, but knowledge is the only essential.
(b) We should never agree. God never made two things alike.
Only by taking different views of a thing can its real truth be seen.
5. Memory gems are immoral, since fixing the words fixes the
thought and prevents growth. I was told that one teacher, before his class,
thanked God he could not repeate one of the Articles of Faith and another took
his children out of Primary Association because they were taught to memorize.
6. All the truths change as we change. Nothing is fixed or
reliable. As we grow or change our attitude toward any truth, that truth
changes.
7. Visions and revelations are mental suggestions. The
objective reality of the presence of the Father and the Son, in Joseph Smith’s
first vision, is questioned.
8. To get the real truth in any vision or revelation, modern
as well as ancient, the mental and physical condition of the prophet receiving
it must be known. After eliminating the personal equation, the remainder may be
recognized as inspirational or divine.
9. In thus robbing the scriptures, both ancient and modern,
of the greater portion of their divinity, and limiting the wonders of the Great
Creator to the necessity of confining his operations to the natural laws known
to man. I asked if it did not lower the scriptures and weaken their influence
upon their minds. The reply was that the scriptures and the gospel were more
dear and more beautiful to them, on that account, being broader in their
application. Nevertheless, it seemed to me that the line of the prophets and righteous
men of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, whose reference to the miraculous
deliverance of Israel from Egypt is recorded as a special mark of their divine
approval, cannot but be regarded with pity for not knowing the science of our
day which robs those events of their wonder, if not their divinity.
10. And in the same line, while these teachers extol the
living oracles, it came to me from several
sources that if their teachings are to be investigated they
will demand that the ones who do the investigating shall be men of the same
learning as themselves; none others could understand them and do them justice.
The
foregoing are only a few of the more important features of the questionable
teachings there that came to my notice, but enough to give a general idea of
what I found. Much of the work, of course, was sound and unobjectionable, and
even many of the questionable new theories and explanations were not fixed.
There seemed to be a struggle still going on between their new views and their
old ones, and at times, their words were full of light and at other times and
on the same subjects they would be full or darkness. The struggle that both
teacher and pupil described to me as having taken place was very fierce, and
often robbed them of appetite and sleep. “An unusual effect of getting added
light on the gospel,” I urged; but they replied that it was like the sorrow of
the little child when first told there is not any Santa Claus. “Our early
teachings have been very satisfying and useful, but untrue; and as the child’s
real parents are better than a Santa Claus, so will the real new Bible and
gospel be better than the old one.”
Religion, like science, must be expressed in terms of
knowledge. Faith now seems to be regarded with pity as a superstition and is
not a characteristic of the intellectually trained.
Since my
visit to Provo, as many as three stake presidents in one week have called upon
me expressing alarm at the teachings that come from the B.Y. University. One of
them said that when he expostulated with the principal of their stake academy
for teaching false doctrine, his defense was that the B.Y. University taught
the same. Another President told me he did not want their present principal
another year, as he is an apostate in his teachings and belief. The third said
he would not allow one of his children to be under certain of the B.Y.
University professors for anything. Many parents of students there have also
visited me and expressed great fear for the faith of their children.
A student who
will take his degree at the University of Utah next spring, applied to me the
other day for a position in the church schools. In our conversation he told me
that one of his professors, well known as hostile to our church, has read the
articles from the White and Blue, the B. Y. University school journal, to his
classes and expressed great satisfaction that young Mormons, anyway, are
getting their eyes open on religious matters.
I presume
that, being the Superintendent of the Church Schools, more complaints of this
kind reach me than come to any of the other brethren; and I may therefore, be
unduly impressed with the danger which exists and needs to be remedied in our
Provo school. I do not wish to magnify these conditions, but cannot help
feeling deep anxiety that the soundness of doctrine, the sweetness of spirit,
and the general faithfulness that has, from the beginning, characterized the
products of that school, should not diminish, much less give way to error and
disbelief.
I believe
the presidency of the school feel exactly as I do about this matter, for I have
talked about it with them many times—especially with President Brimhall and
President Keeler.
The responsibility for this state of affairs seems to rest
upon no more than four or five of the teachers, all of whom I regard as clean,
earnest men, conscientious in what they do and teach; but, being so long in
college with so little to help them resist the skillfully formed theories of
learned men, they have accepted many which are erroneous; and being zealous
teachers, are vigorously laboring to convince others of their views. Such
attitudes of mind, from the beginning, have been a common experience with our
students in eastern colleges; but fortunately they often get rid of these
errors when they again plunge into church work at home. Conditions in Provo are
unfavorable for such a solution of their difficulty. The number there is
sufficient to form a coterie having similar views, and the opposition they
receive from others keeps them drawn together and determined to defend their
views. If they were distributed and given other lines of work to do where their
theories would not be continually called into activity, I think their attitude
might change much for the better, in time, but I feel sure the conditions on
the Teacher’s College, in this respect, need changing as soon as practicable.
These
teachers have been warned by the presidency of the school and by myself, and
even pleaded with, for the sake of the school, not to press their views with so
much vigor. Even if they were right, conditions are not suitable; but their
zeal overcomes all counsel and they seem even more determined, if not defiant,
in pushing their beliefs upon the students. They seem to feel they have a
mission to protect the young from the errors of their parents, and one student
said to me, “I could make my dear mother weep in a minute by telling her how I
have changed my religious views.” Yet, he had only accepted that which he
thought was far ahead of what that mother had taught him. The poor mother did
not have the capacity of understanding his new light and rejoicing with him in
it, so he would keep it a secret from her.
The
foregoing is respectfully submitted in the hope that a wise and effectual way
may be decided upon to bring into harmony the theological teachings in our
church schools and prevent the dissemination of doubt or false doctrine.
Heber J. Grant diary, February 10 & 11, 1911:
This
afternoon met with President Lyman, Bros Hyrum M. Smith, Charles W. Penrose,
Anthony W. Ivins, George H. Brimhall, Joseph B. Keeler, Henry and Joseph
Peterson, Ralph Chamberlin and Horace H. Cummings, and we were together until
nearly 7 p.m. listening to explanations regarding the teachings of the Bros
Peterson and Chamberlin at the B.Y.U. at Provo. They were very frank in their
explanations of their beliefs on Evolution, and as to certain parts of the
Bible which they did not believe. They manifested a very good spirit.
Attended
the meeting of the Twelve ... and after discussing the status of Bros Peterson
and Bro Chamberlin we were unanimous of the opinion that it was unsafe for them
to continue teaching at the B.Y.U. We were together until a little after 2 p.m.
Charles W. Penrose, Diary, February 10, 1911:
Met with
committee and Brigham Young University Principal and Professors on heretical
teachings. . . . Professors Henry and Joseph Petersen and William H.
Chamberlain frankly acknowledged belief in the “higher criticism” and absolute
certainty as to truth of Evolution and disbelief in many Biblical statements;
while they recognized its general inspiration, literary excellence and
spiritual influence. They set themselves up as independent of Church
Superintendent and President of the University in mode and tenor of teaching in
their particular callings. Believed in God, in miracles, the Atonement,
ordinances, resurrection &c, but claimed the common origin of all material
forms of life including man from the same protoplasm. Therefore there was no
special creation of man. Kept in session until 7 p.m. Many questions asked and
replied to, some directly others evasively.
George F. Richards, Diary: The extent to
which evolution and higher criticism is gaining ground among our school
teachers is something alarming. The effects of such teachings in the Brigham
Young University are indeed alarming.
No comments:
Post a Comment