- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Mormon Scientist – The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring – is a biography of Henry Eyring written by Henry J. Eyring (not the apostle). I enjoyed the book quite a bit. It is well written, and portrays a very unorthodox Mormon who was also a brilliant, world-renowned scientist. Many of Henry’s scientific discoveries, faith promoting experiences, and family history is explored in the book. Henry Eyring frequently disagreed with the brethren in his day, particularly Joseph Fielding Smith over the age of the earth and evolution.
As an engineer, the book really hit home for me. I found myself thinking very much like him, and wishing I could have a few hours to speak with him. One of the greatest points to take home from the book is the concept he felt strongly about that
ALLtruth belongs in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, whether it came from science, revelation, or anything else. He also advocated ridding ourselves of the nonsense that wasn’t. Henry also seemed to be a bit of a socially liberal thinker (think J. Golden Kimball). I have often relished in the quotes from Hugh B. Brown, James E. Talmage, B.H. Roberts, and Henry Eyring. It seems to me they were the last of the liberal general authorities. Since the dawn of Joseph Fielding Smith there have been few in authority who shared these views. There is one thing I really didn’t like about the book. I felt like the author was trying very hard to walk a tightrope for TBMs and to keep appearances. That is to say, every time he would tell a story that was getting pretty liberal, or too out-of-step with the brethren he would quickly pull back and talk about Henry’s faith and testimony. It felt like he was trying to show Henry as a faith promoting, liberal, conservative, scientist. Maybe he really was that way, I dunno. Or maybe it is the way I read the book.
To recap, I thought the book was pretty great, and a much needed step in our Mormon culture. I really hope to see more books like this in the near future.
Yes, good book. I enjoyed it very much. I agree that it paints Henry as a bit of a paradox, but I kind of like that about it. As it is published by Deseret Book I think most people would assume it will be faith promoting to the traditional/faithful audience, and I think it delivers in that regard. I’m kind of glad it comes from that position because of the audience that it will reach. My wife would have never bought it for me otherwise, and I’m really glad that it was there for her to come across. My husband has read this book and really loved it! He keeps telling me to read it but I never have the time. I think I have read similar comments about swithing from pushing buttons right back to faith promoting within the book – So I don’t think you are seeing things, well reading things .. I think if it were less faith promoting, nobody would buy it. There aren’t too many sort-of-Mormon-but-not-Mormon-enough types to buy it otherwise. People who are really disaffected won’t buy it and if you lose the TBM audience, there’s really no point in trying to make a profit. If you were doing a book about a Catholic, it might be different. I must say that I was thoroughly disappointed at what I thought was to be the climax of the book, where the author states something to the effect that “as Mormons, we are only required to believe that which is true.” Is that really the best he could do? Hi Doug, what would you have liked the author to say? I’m interested in your ideas and expectations. doug, I really like that statement. It’s what I believe personally to be the ideal. What would you have preferred?
Yes, doug, I think many of us find that statement extremely liberating and validating. You mean I don’t have to put crazy stuff on a sagging shelf and wrap myself into a pretzel to be a Mormon? I can stay as I am and affirm the truth? Hurrah! I’m Free-eeeeeeeeeeeeee! Sorry that I wasn’t as transparent as I might have been. I’ve had this discussion with a friend and should have known better. I don’t object to what he said, but to what he didn’t say. Perhaps at the time I read the book, I was still enamored of the concept of objective truth. Granting permission to only be bound to believe what is ‘true’, while a great sounding sound bite, on further reflection is meaningless. The contrapositive would be something like “if it’s false, Mormons don’t need to believe it”. Well, duh, Captain Obvious. Also not helpful without further illumination.
Unless Dr Eyring were to follow through on his threat by either a) telling us what is ‘true’, b) by giving some hints on how to judge what is true for ourselves, or c) at the very least by giving an example from his own life of a ‘truth’ that he believed in, but which would otherwise have been considered unorthodox (otherwise, what’s the point?), he is being disingenuous. Clearly he couldn’t do a). b) would also be going out on a limb, but c) seemed a reasonable expectation. To be fair, I suppose he did raise issues about things like the age of the earth (I don’t have the book in front of me, and don’t remember those details very clearly), but I don’t recall him pushing any limits. To me, the lack of follow-through spoke more loudly than anything else, and what it told me was that he was going to be satisfied by feigning a right hook and retreating, and that avoiding controversy, avoiding offense, and ceding to the status quo would carry the day. This was actually probably appropriate for nineteen sixty-whatever, and the most one might have hoped for. Maybe I read too much into it. I was expecting the other shoe to drop and when it never did, I was mad.
Had he said, “As Mormons, we are only required to believe that which we have found by some combination of experience, reason, and faith to be true” I would have been good with that.
Ah, okay. Thanks for explaining Doug. I guess it hit me a little differently because at about the same time that I read Mormon Scientist I came across a bunch of other quotes that for me gave the meaning that you state in your last sentence. Most notable may be from Joseph Smith — ”Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails…” also “Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. . . . The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men…” Joseph Smith RS/P manual p.264
He also said: “I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.” (“History of the Church”, 5:340)
And then we can read in the Book of Mormon: …but the righteous fear them not (words of truth), for they love the truth and are not shaken. (2 Nephi 9:40)
There are also Brigham Young quotes, Hugh B. Brown quotes, this one from Gordon B. Hinkley:
“This Church came about as a result of intellectual curiosity. We believe in education, and we spend a substantial part of our budget on the education of our young people. We expect them to think. We expect them to investigate. We expect them to use their minds and dig deeply for knowledge in all fields. If we have a motto, it is this, ‘The glory of God is intelligence.'”(Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 127) And there are many others. I have come to conclude that last sentence you wrote is the true Mormon doctrine, and anything that conflicts with it is culture gone wrong.
Fwiw, doug, I think you are making Mt. Everest out of a small ant hill. I think he said exactly what you wanted him to say, just not in the exact same way you would have said it.Granted, that’s just my impression, and it has NOTHING to do directly with you and your reaction when you read it, but . . . Serious questions:
What’s wrong with stating the obvious, if the obvious needs to be stated?
What’s wrong with making the obvious as all-inclusive as possible by not putting potential qualifiers on it?
Doug, to explain, let me pose a scenario. Suppose you concluded that it is counter to a life of happiness for people to borrow money to buy cars, houses, educations, and furniture. By extension, you concluded it is a false teaching to suggest to the church as a whole that borrowing money for a modest house, car, or education is a wise exception to debt avoidance policy. Second, suppose you concluded that intentionally taking any human life is wrong. By extension, you concluded that it is a false teaching to encourage the church to be patriotic in military service and to support capital punishment and abortion exceptions. Suppose you decided that you could therefore
no longer be in the LDS Church. Now suppose that one day Brother Eyring put his hand on your shoulder, looked you in the eye (perhaps with a twinkle) and said, “My boy, in this church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true.” Imagine the look of stunned wonder on your face as Brother Eyring just grins. “You mean…?” you quizzically exclaim.
“Absolutely,” he affirms. “You just keep believing in what is true, keep listening and learning, and let that be Mormonism to you.”
Does that help at all?
Tom Haws wrote:Does that help at all?
Well, yes, a little.Edit: Yes. Good illustration. That may well have been how he meant it.
By the way, I certainly meant no disrespect to Brother Eyring. I’m impressed that he was a man of great character, and certainly someone I would have liked to meet. High praise indeed!
I realize, too, that certain nuances can get lost over the course of four or five decades. I don’t have the perspective to know what he really meant in that comment, just what went through my head when I read it. This reminds me quite a bit of Richard Bushman’s essay about history being a completely subjective undertaking and reflective of the present-day sensibilities of those writing the history.
Quote:… you’re making a mountain out of a molehill
Guilty as charged. Just trying to stir things up, I guess.
Quote:What’s wrong with stating the obvious, if the obvious needs to be stated?
You know, that’s an excellent point. I think if I were to read that statment of Dr Eyring’s again on a different day, I just might have taken that away with me. But I didn’t.
Quote:Just trying to stir things up, I guess.
If it was unintentional, it’s cool.
If it was intentional, knock it off. We don’t do that here.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.