You've probably heard stories about him in General Conference and the Ensign, from President Eyring, President Faust, Elder Hales, and others. He was a rather accomplished man.
I won't discuss his childhood, although it was certainly an eventful one.
He was a successful scientist. I don't mean successful in that he taught and did research at a prestigious university (although he did). I mean successful in that he pioneered modern chemistry. He developed the transition state theory. If you've taken a college chemistry class, you probably learned about his discovery.
He was also married to President Kimball's sister and served on the Church's Sunday School General Board (basically the modern version of the church's Sunday School Presidency). Not a general authority, but still in the upper levels of church leadership. His son, of course, is currently in the First Presidency.
Eyring, however, was a bit of a black sheep. I've taken the following account from "Reflections of a Scientist," written by Eyring and published by Deseret Book (out of print, but available on Kindle). President Joseph Fielding Smith, at the time the President of the Twelve, had published his views on some aspects of science, including the age of the earth. Eyring, a prominent chemist, knew how radioactive elements decay. He knew the science behind determining the age of the earth. And he absolutely disagreed with the President of the Twelve's views. President Smith's book was being considered for use as an institute manual at the highest levels. Eyring was worried about educated young members leaving the church over the issue. Eyring recounts, "[T]he next time I went to Sunday School General Board meeting, I got up and bore my testimony that the evidence was strongly in the direction that the world was four or five billion years old."
Not too surprisingly, that same week President Smith invited Eyring in for a little talk. They basically agreed to disagree. Eyring stated of President Smith, "I would say that I sustained President Smith as my church leader one hundred percent. I think he was a great man. He had a different background and training on this issue. Maybe he was right. I think he was right on most things, and if you followed him, he would get you into the celestial kingdom." (Page 53).
Eyring, in his book, then went on to discuss the chemistry and geology supporting an old earth (including discounting "the notion that the earth has been assembled, relatively recently, from the wreckage of earlier worlds"). (Page 54). He also discusses evolution (page 59), but that's an issue for another post.
So what can we take away from this? I think two main things. First, our church leaders are good men, and if we follow them, we will get into the celestial kingdom. And second, that our church leaders aren't necessarily perfect, and may occasionally get things wrong. If we expect them to be perfect, we will ultimately be disappointed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
First, our church leaders are good men, and if we follow them, we will get into the celestial kingdom. And second, that our church leaders aren't necessarily perfect, and may occasionally get things wrong. If we expect them to be perfect, we will ultimately be disappointed.
I think it's safe to say that our church leaders are where we should look for leadership in CHURCH issues. But just as I would not hire the apostles to design my house (I'd call an architect), I don't think it's appropriate to rely on them for scientific issues.
You may be aware of the 'young earth' verses 'old earth' thing, which is a common argument in homeschool circles. Essentially the idea being do we go with the millions of years that scientists talk about, or the 6000 years that the Bible talks about. My mom was inclined toward the latter. She did always say that we don't now how long the creative periods were, nor how long Adam was in the garden before the fall (and Dave adds that there could have been time between the creative periods also--as in Jehovah set things in motion, then let them simmer for a few million years before putting in the next part...) There are a couple--just a couple--of scientists who make compelling arguments against carbon dating and in favor of the 'young earth' argument, and that was what I was raised with. It has actually just been in the last year that I've become really convinced that there's validity to the old earth perspective. I still believe Adam was the first man, so I believe human history is 6000ish years, but I'm now comfortable telling my 4yo that dinosaurs lived 160 million years ago like the book says. It's quite the paradigm shift.
That's my main hang-up with homeschooling, actually--even a well-qualified teacher isn't going to know every subject that's out there.
To be honest, most public school science teachers don't do a great job of teaching evolution either. Even after AP Biology, I didn't know that much about evolution. BYU changed that. And BYU requires two evolution courses for its education majors.
I figure if 99%+ of experts agree on something, they're probably right (or at least more right than the 1%). I highly recommend Eyring's book for your mom--a prominent church member who actually knew what he was talking about when it came to the age of the earth.
I also underwent the paradigm shift due to a BYU-educated science teacher in high school who was an LDS Bishop at the time. Evolution isn't the big baddy the fundamentalist Christians make it out to be.
Post a Comment