I was recently directed to a post by The Mormon Chronicle entitled, “BYU-I President Works to Expel Professors Like Cleon Skousen?”. This immediately brought back remembrances of my own previous experience with Elder Kim Clark, when he was President of BYU-Idaho. I don’t know who the editors of The Mormon Chronicle are. I am not familiar with the complexities of the Internet or the social media age, but after reading some of the comments and misunderstanding of individuals reading that article, I knew I had to do something. While this is extremely unpleasant to share this kind of information, I felt that I must take courage, come forward and let people know some of my serious concerns. I am not a scholar, but hopefully my words will be appreciated by the common folk on the Internet. First a bit about who I am. I am just an active member in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All of my six sons and two daughters have served LDS missions. I don’t have any axes to grind, I am not a radical, I am not protesting. I am just sharing information about a concern I see. I love the Church, the Brethren, and I know that President Monson is a Prophet of God and holds the keys (D&C 132:7-8). I know that the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is being spread throughout the world in these latter days.

It all started when I listened to a BYU-Idaho forum assembly given January 15, 2009 by Brother Henry J. Eyring, an administrator at BYU-I. During the forum, Brother Eyring discussed his book, Mormon Scientist, which is a biography of his grandfather, Henry Eyring. He remarked in his presentation that President Joseph Fielding Smith believed that “…if you’re a faithful Latter-day Saint you must accept the scriptural account of the creation.” Brother Eyring explained that this was troubling for many members. He went on to say that President Smith taught at that time to “don’t let go of the scriptures–take them literally–don’t let go.” I listened to Brother Eyring’s remarks several times via the Internet to make sure I did not take out of context what he said. He was actually saying that President Smith was incorrect to teach that idea, and that the scriptures should not be taken authoritatively. I have since read his book, Mormon Scientist, where he clearly states this same point:

“The Church had taken no official position on either evolution or the age of the earth. Elder Smith, though, felt the necessity of claiming the strategic high ground relative not only to these challenges, but also to any others that science might present. He did this by advocating scriptural literalism. In other words, all scriptural accounts–including those of the creation–were to be read literally, regardless of contrary evidence or opinions. The advantage of this position was that it preempted threats not only from existing scientific theories such as evolution, but also from any future discoveries potentially inimical to faith. The scriptures would be taken as authoritative, come what may. The drawback of this position, of course, was that it required scientific findings contrary to scripture to be disregarded.” (Henry J. Eyring, Mormon Scientist, 46).

I believe Brother Eyring was actually saying that scriptures contrary to scientific findings should be disregarded. In his forum address he was critical of President Joseph Fielding Smith advocating that scripture should always be held to, when there is a contradiction between the scriptures and science. Brother Eyring implied the opposite—hold to science and question the scriptures. He also suggested that our religion is evolving just as is science, and said he believed that conflicts between science and religion will be resolved sometime in the future—perhaps, as he said, “billions of years from now.”

These remarks were very troubling to me. What I understood Brother Eyring was saying is that scriptures that don’t agree with scientific theories in regard to the creation, age of the earth, etc. should be disregarded. I was astonished that he mentioned when his grandfather, Henry Eyring, visited a zoo, he was not embarrassed that a gorilla was his genetic ancestor. Also in the forum he said he believed that students should not be taught the creation story as found in the scriptures and the endowment in their religion or institute classes, because when they attend their science classes and realize how “unscientific” it is, they will be disturbed.

After listening to the forum several times, I was very concerned. My husband and I have always taught our children that the scriptures are our anchor. They, along with the words of our latter-day Prophets, are the “iron rod,” the word of God, which will lead us through the “mists of darkness” in these last days. Brother Eyring’s position also contradicts the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith when the Prophet testified:

“. . . there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” (Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [1980], 369).

Another important quote by President Harold B. Lee is also critical to this discussion:

“We have the standard Church works. Why do we call them standard? If there is any teacher who teaches a doctrine that can’t be substantiated from the standard Church works—and I make one qualification, and that is unless that one be the President of the Church, who alone has the right to declare new doctrine—then you may know by that same token that such a teacher is but expressing his own opinion. If, on the other hand, you have someone teaching a doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the scripture, and more than that, if it contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know that that person is teaching false doctrine, no matter what his position in this church may be” (Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places, p. 110.)

Because of my concern, I decided to write a letter to President Boyd K. Packer. I explained to President Packer in my letter that I was aware it was unusual for a lay member of the Church to write directly to him, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, but I knew that to follow normal channels would be a dead end, because our Area Authority was President Kim Clark, and I understood from hearing from others that he was in agreement with Brother Eyring’s remarks.

Not many weeks later my Stake President called and told me that he and President Clark would like to meet with me. Elder Kim B. Clark was the President of BYU-Idaho at this time. I was quite intimidated to meet with President Clark and I spent a lot of time preparing for this meeting. At the beginning of our conversation he spent a few minutes explaining that President Packer had appreciated my letter, and wanted him to “take care of this.” He mentioned he had spoken with “Henry” and he was going to be “more careful” to not infer that he didn’t believe the scriptures. I had mentioned in my letter about a son’s biology professor “bearing testimony” that organic evolution was how God created the earth. President Packer had mentioned to him that was wrong, and should never happen. I got the distinct impression that President Clark didn’t want to let me say much, but I was determined to make a few points. I mentioned that Brother Eyring believes, according to the forum and his book, that the Church has taken no official position on either evolution or the age of the earth. I told him that just isn’t true.

I mentioned the “Packet on evolution” that students at our Church institutions are supposed to be given. The most important document in the packet is a First Presidency Proclamation titled, “The Origin of Man,” which was given to the Church in 1909, because of the excitement in the academic world due to the hundred year anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth. It was signed by Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H Lund, the First Presidency at that time, and reprinted in the 2002 Ensign with the heading that it “expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters.” I had actually brought this First Presidency statement with me to the interview, and we read together from it. The first part of the “Origin of Man” First Presidency Proclamation states: “In presenting the statement that follows we are not conscious of putting forth anything essentially new, neither is it our desire so to do. Truth is what we wish to present, and truth—eternal truth—is fundamentally old. A restatement of the original attitude of the Church relative to this matter is all that will be attempted here. To tell the truth as God has revealed it, and commend it to the acceptance of those who need to conform their opinions thereto, is the sole purpose of this presentation.”

I emphasized the part to President Clark that truth is truth when it comes from the Lord. It never changes, and that many prophets beginning with Moses and every prophet since Joseph F. Smith’s day have reiterated what was stated in this First Presidency message. I noted my many pages of quotes with statements of every prophet in this dispensation decrying Darwin and his theory of evolution, which I had brought with me to the interview. I said Brother Eyring had commented in the forum that science is evolving, and so is religion. I said, science is evolving, but our religion doesn’t. The scriptures and the words of the Prophets do not evolve; truth is the same “…yesterday, today, and forever.”(D&C 20:11-12)

I then read another part from “The Origin of Man”:

“It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was ‘the first man of all men’ (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race…Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.” (The Origin of Man by the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1909)

I told him that this document should have resolved this issue for all time. I said my husband and I have always had the motto “when the prophet speaks, the debate ends.” I said, “I don’t know how this First Presidency Proclamation could have been any plainer.” Within the Church there should have been no more debate on the subject. However, because of continued debate about this issue, Heber J. Grant felt the need to reiterate that statement with a similar First Presidency Statement in 1925. This second First Presidency Statement, reemphasizing the first, is also included in the Packet on evolution.

I said that in Brother Eyring’s remarks at the forum he said that since the ‘50’s, evolution has been considered by scientists not just a theory, but a fact. I told President Clark I knew from my children’s experience that organic evolution was being taught at BYU-I as a fact, and not as a theory. President Clark said that he didn’t want to debate evolution—that the Board of Trustees, which includes the First Presidency, had told them to teach evolution. I said it’s very clear how the brethren want it to be taught. In Joseph F. Smith’s First Presidency Proclamation and from quotes of all of the Prophets from Joseph Smith to President Monson organic evolution is a “theory of man.” President Clark then mentioned that we believe in a “living prophet,” and I wondered from that comment, if he believed that the doctrines of the Church were evolving.

The next important item I wanted to discuss with him is the “Fall of Adam” entry in the Bible Dictionary section of our scriptures. I then read out of my Standard Works:

“Fall Of Adam: The process by which mankind became mortal on this earth. The event is recorded in Gen. 2, 3, 4; and Moses 3, 4. The fall of Adam is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man. Before the fall Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the ‘forbidden fruit,’ Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life. Adam became the ‘first flesh’ upon the earth (Moses 3:7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam’s fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind. (Hel. 14:16-17).” (Fall of Adam and Eve, Bible Dictionary)

After I finished reading, I said, “I would say that the majority of your faculty do not believe that.” He was silent. I mentioned and showed him the writings I had in front of me of Dr. Clayton, one of the biology professors at BYU-I. I told President Clark that in these writings this professor mentions that he doesn’t even believe in Noah’s flood. (My youngest daughter in her Science Foundations class was also told by her professor there is no scientific evidence of a flood that covered the entire earth. He told the class, that as a youth in all of his Church classes growing up, he had been taught the story of Noah’s Flood, as were all of them. Then when he attended the university, he was taught that Noah’s flood really didn’t happen. Noah’s flood was just a “local flood,”—it didn’t cover the whole earth. He compared how he felt at that time to when he was told there is no Santa Claus.)

I went to the pages I had of Dr. Clayton’s writings and read directly from them: “Interpretations that nothing—including plants and animals—died before Adam seem to be based primarily on 2 Nephi 2:22:

“And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained forever, and had no end. 23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence.”

After I read that scripture in the Book of Mormon, I told him that in the next three paragraphs Brother Clayton tries to “wrest” that scripture and say that it doesn’t say what it very clearly says. I wanted to mention more, but knew I was walking on thin ice.

I told President Clark that I believe Nephi’s prophecy in 2 Ne. 28:14 is seeing fulfillment, and I read: “…they have all gone astray save it be a few who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.”

I mentioned Brother Eyring’s remarks at the forum, where he suggested that the story of the Creation should not be taught in institute or seminary classes, because when students go across the street to their science classes, they will become disturbed. In other words our elect young people are being indoctrinated to believe that evolution is a “no longer a theory, but a fact of science,” in science classes, but religion and institute classes are not to discuss the doctrinal position of the Church regarding evolution as found in the two First Presidency Proclamations and the scriptures.

My husband who was with me during the interview, said that at times when I would be reading something, President Clark would hold up his hand, signally me to stop, then folded his arms in a disgusted manner. But I never looked up during my reading because I knew he didn’t want me to proceed, but I felt that this discussion was very important. I suggested to him that it’s been my experience that a belief in evolution diminishes faith. I used Darwin himself as an example, and told him that Darwin began as a believer in God, but gradually became an atheist. President Clark seemed uneasy about that idea, and quickly wanted to change the subject. Again he mentioned he didn’t want to get into a debate about evolution.

President Clark kept trying to lecture us about having faith in our local Church leaders. He told how he had been “called of God” by President Hinckley. He said that we needed to know that the Lord watches over his universities—that they are the “Lord’s universities.” (My husband later recalled to me that when President McKay was the Prophet, someone mentioned to President McKay that BYU was “the Lord’s university,” and President McKay said, “No. The Temple is the Lord’s university.”)

President Clark asked if we had any children at BYU-Idaho and I told him we had three daughters attending there. He said if they have concerns they should first go to their professor, then to the department head, and if they don’t get resolution, come to him. I could tell he was irritated that I had mentioned in my letter to President Packer that he was a “dead end.” He said that it is ultimately his responsibility what is taught at BYU-I, and for me to have faith and not be so concerned about it. I told him that because of having five children already graduated from BYU, and three then attending BYU-Idaho, I knew there was cause for concern. At that time one daughter, who was then a senior majoring in political science at BYU-I, was enrolled in Geology 101. She became very frustrated in this class, because in this geology class anyone who disagreed with the teacher in regard to the subject of evolution was “laughed at.” She was disturbed because this was a common occurrence the entire semester. One example she told me was when the class was discussing the causes of earthquakes. A girl in the class suggested that God could cause earthquakes to occur. The majority of the class and teacher made fun of her for that “unscientific” idea, stating that God only works through “natural laws.”

Another time in this daughter’s geology class the students were discussing the “fact,” according to the teacher, that man had evolved. A girl in the class (not my daughter) read a quote from President Packer that contradicted that position. My daughter said that the teacher, followed by the students, impugned the statement by President Packer. Any time this happened during the semester, when students dared to bring up what Prophets said contrary to his opinion, the teacher would state, “Aren’t the Prophets entitled to their own opinion?” I know the brethren are concerned about unity in the Church, and I told President Clark I feel strongly that the way to achieve unity is for all members of the Church to listen to and give heed to the words of the Prophets and the scriptures.

He also said he could tell that I had studied a lot about this topic, and felt strongly about it, and perhaps it had become a “hobby horse,” and I should be careful of that. I felt that he was eager to end the discussion. He again mentioned that it was ultimately his responsibility what is taught at BYU-I, and for me to have faith (in him) and not be so concerned about it. After the meeting with President Clark, I often pondered about the discussion we had. My husband and I both attended “Ricks College” over 40 years ago. At that time the head of the biology department was Dr. Lyle Lowder. He had been retired for many years, but I had recently visited him. Dr. Lowder told me that he always taught organic evolution only as a theory, which it is, so that students would be informed about it. However, he always instructed them that if anything in science was contradictory to the scriptures that “they should hold to the scriptures as ‘truth’ and that sometime science would catch up.” I was concerned that our Church institutions were now teaching that organic evolution is a “fact” and that some time our religion would evolve. My concern was confirmed months later, as I noted an article in the Scroll, BYU-Idaho’s newspaper, headlined: “Science Foundations Course Teaches Evolution.” I was struck by the paraphrased quote by Alan Holyoak: “…while a hypothesis has not been proven yet, a theory has years of evidence and support which make it a scientific fact.”

I then knew that he and other professors like him were continuing to teach that the “theory of evolution” is a “fact” in the science classes at BYU-Idaho.

Also my daughters would continue to tell me more experiences they had in their science classes–that there was never any mention of any of the vast scientific evidence that disproves evolution, and differing views were often silenced. Even Prophets’ words were belittled, and particularly President Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Bruce R. McConkie were impugned. My daughter explained that the entire semester of her science foundations class was devoted to the study of evolution, the last section about how man evolved. She felt that the teacher was not just teaching the subject, but trying to indoctrinate the students to believe that this “theory of man,” as stated by the Prophets, is the “foundation of science.” My other daughter mentioned that in one of her science classes, the teacher stated that it doesn’t really matter whether or not a person believes in evolution—that it doesn’t affect their salvation. She said that one student told him that wasn’t true, because her own brother had fallen away from the Church because of this very teaching. I have spoken to many parents who have also had children, even returned missionaries, lose their testimonies largely because of what they were taught at one of our LDS Universities.

I know that Joseph F. Smith stated that “false educational ideas” was one of three dangers that would threaten the Church from within, and that members of the Church should be warned “unceasingly” about them (Gospel Doctrine, 312). I feel grieved every time I think of these elect young people whose faith is being weakened or destroyed by these false educational ideas taught at our Church institutions.

I have come to realize how prophetic this statement by President Joseph Fielding Smith is:

“Organic evolution is Satan’s chief weapon in this dispensation is his attempt to destroy the divine mission of Jesus Christ.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, 184-185)

Also, I believe we will yet see the fruit of President Boyd K. Packer’s inspired statement: