Joseph Smith as Scientist. VI

IMPROVEMENT ERA. Vol. VII. APRIL, 1904. No. 6. JOSEPH SMITH AS SCIENTIST. BY DR.
JOHN
A.
WIDTSOE,
DIRECTOR
OF THE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT
STATION,
LOGAN,
UTAH. VI.— THE LAW OF EVOLUTION. To every intelligence the question concerning the purpose of ail things must at some time present itself. Every philosophical system has for its ultimate problem the origin and the destiny of the universe. Whence? Where? — the queries which arise before every human soul, and which have stimulated the truth-seekers of every age in their wearisome task of searching out nature's laws. Intelligent man cannot rest satisfied with the recognition of the forces at work in the universe, and the nature of their actions; he must know, also, the resultant of the interaction of the forces, or how the whole universe is affected by them; in short, man seeks the law of laws, by the operation of which, things have become what they are, and by which their destiny is controlled. This law when once discovered, is the foundation of religion as well as of science, and would explain all phenomena. It was well toward the beginning of the last century before philosophical
doctrines
rose
above
mere
speculation, and were

402 IMPROVEMENT ERA. based upon the actual observation of phenomena. As the scientific method of gathering facts and reasoning from them became estab- lished, it was observed that in all probability the great laws of nature were themselves controlled by some greater law. While many attempts have been made to formulate this law, yet it must be confessed, frankly, that only the faintest outline of it is possessed by the world of science. The sanest of modern philosophers, and the one who most com- pletely attempts to follow the method of science in philosophical writings, is Herbert Spencer. Early in his life, he set himself the task of constructing a system of philosophy which should be built upon man's reliable knowledge of nature. A long life per- mitted him to realize this ambition. Though his works are filled with conclusions which cannot be accepted by most men, yet the facts used in his reasoning are authentic. By the world at large, the philosophy of Herbert Spencer is considered the only philoso- phy that harmonizes with the knowledge of today. After having discussed, with considerable fulness, the ele- ments of natural phenomena, such as space, time, matter, motion and force, Mr. Spencer concludes that all evidence agrees in show- ing that "every object, no less than the aggregate of objects, un- dergoes from instant to instant some alteration of state."* That is to say that while the universe is one of system and order, yet no object remains exactly as it is, but changes every instant of time. In two directions only can this ceaseless change affect an ob- ject: it either becomes more complex or more simple, it moves forward or backward, it grows or decays. In the words of Spen- cer, "All things are growing or decaying, accumulating matter or wearing away, integrating or disintegrating."! This, then, is the greatest known fundamental law of the universe, and all things in it— that nothing stands still, but either progresses (evolution), or retrogrades (dissolution). Now, it has been found that under nor- mal conditions all things undergo a process of evolution; that is, become more complex, or advance.! This, in its essence, is the law of evolution, about which so much has been said during the First Principles, p. 287.
t Loc. cit, p. 292.
t Loc. cit, p. 337.

JOSEPH SMITH AS SCIENTIST. 403 last forty-five years. Undoubtedly this law is correct, and in har- mony with the known facts of the universe. It certainly throws a flood of light upon the phenomena of nature; though of itself, it teLs little of the force behind it, in obedience to which it oper- ates. Spencer himself most clearly realized the insufficiency of the law of evolution alone, for he asks, "May we seek for some all-per- vading principle which underlies this all pervading process?"* and proceeds to search out this "all-pervading principle" which at last he determines to be the persistence of force — the operation of the universal, incomprehensible force, which appears as gravitation, light, heat, electricity, magnetism, chemical affinity, and in other forins.f A natural question now is, Is there any limit to the changes undergone by matter, and which we designate as evolution? "Will they go on forever? or will there be an end to them?"$ As far as our knowledge goes, there is an end to all things, a death which is the greatest known change, and as far as human experience goes, all things tend toward a death-like state of rest. That this rest is permanent is not possible under the law of evolution; for it teaches that an ulterior process initiates a new life; that there are alternate eras of evolution and dissolution. "And thus there is suggested the conception of a past during which there have been successive evolutions analogous to that which is now going on; and a future during which successive other such evolutions may go on ever the same in principle but never the same in concrete result."§ This is practically the same as admitting eternal growth. The final conclusion is that "we can no longer contemplate the visible creation as having a definite beginning or end, or as being isolated. It becomes unified with all existence before and after; and the force which the universe presents falls into the same category with space and time, as admitting of no limitation in thought.! It is interesting to note the conclusion concerning spirit and matter, to which Mr. Spencer is led by the law of evolution. "The * First Principles, p. 408.
f hoc. cit., p. 494.
J hoc. cit., p. 496. § Lot. cit, p. 550.
|| hoc. cit., p. 564.

4 04 IMPRO VEMENT ERA , materialist and spiritualist controversy is a mere war of words, in which the disputants are equally absurd — each thinking that he understands that which it is impossible for any man to under- stand. Though the relation of subject and object renders neces- sary to us these antithetical conceptions of spirit and matter; the one is no less than the other to be regarded as but a sign of the Unknown Reality which underlies both."* While the law of evolution, as formulated by Spencer and ac- cepted by the majority of modern thinkers, is the nearest approach to the truth possessed by the world of science, yet there is no disposition on the part of the writer to defend the numerous ab- surdities into which Spencer and his followers have fallen when reasoning upon special cases. Many years before Mr. Spencer's day, it had been suggested, vaguely, that advancement seemed to be the great law of nature. Students of botany and zoology were especially struck by this fact, for they observed how animals and plants could be made to change and improve under favorable conditions, by the intervention of man's protection. In 1859, Mr. Charles Darwin published a theory to account for such variation, in which he assumed that there is a tendency on the part of all organisms to adapt themselves to their surroundings, and to change their characteristics, if necessary, in this attempt. He further showed that in the struggle for exist- ence among animals and plants, the individual best fitted for its environment usually survives. These facts, Mr. Darwin thought, led to a process of natural selection, by which, through long ages, deep changes were caused in the structure of animals. In fact, Darwin held that the present-day plants and animals have de- scended from extinct and very different ancestors.! The experi- ences of daily life bear out the assertion that organic forms may be changed greatly — witness the breeding of stock and crops, practiced by all intelligent farmers— and all together the theory seemed so simple that numerous biologists immediately adopted it, and began to generalize upon it. Having once accepted the principle that the present-day species have descended from very unlike
ancestors, it
was
easy to
assume
that
all
organic * First Principles, pp. 570 and 572.
f Origin oj Species, p. 6.

JOSEPH SMITH AS SCIENTIST. 405 nature had descended from one common stock. It was claimed that man, in a distant past, was a monkey; still earlier, perhaps, a reptile; still earlier a fish, and so on. From that earliest form, man had become what he is by a system of natural selection. In spite of the absence of proofs, such ideas became current among the scientists of the day. In this view was included, of course, the law of evolution or growth, and thus, too, the law became associ- ated with the notion that man has descended from the lower ani- mals. In fact, however, the law of evolution is just as true, whether or not Darwin's theory of natural selection be adopted. In justice to Darwin, it should be said that he in nowise claimed that natural selection was alone sufficient to cause the numerous changes in organic form and life; but, on the contrary, held that it is only one means of modification.* Professor Huxley, who, from early manhood, was an eminent and ardent supporter of the Darwinian hypothesis frankly says, "I adopt Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, therefore, subject to the produc- tion of proof that physiological species may be produced by selec- tive breeding; and for the reason that it is the only means at pres- ent within reach of reducing the chaos of observed facts to or- der."t After writing a book to establish the descent of man from apes, Professor Huxley is obliged to confess that "the fossil remains of man hitherto discovered do not seem to take us appre- ciably nearer to that lower pithecoid form, by the modification of which he has, probably, become what he is."J This is not the place to enter into this famous controversy. The relation of the theory of natural selection to the law of evo- lution is not established; that man and the great classes of animals and plants have sprung from one source is far from having been proved; that the first life came upon this earth by chance is as unthinkable as ever. Even at the present writing, recent discov- eries have been reported which throw serious doubt upon natural selection as an all-sufficient explanation of the wonderful variety of nature. The true scientific position of the Darwinian hypothe- sis is yet to be determined. * Origin of Species, p. 6; also Darwin and After Darwin, Romanes, Vol. II. pp. 2-6.
f Man's Place in Nature, p. 128.
% hoc. cit, p. 183.

406 IMPROVEMENT ERA. The moderate law of evolution which claims that all normal beings are advancing, without asserting that one form of life can pass into another, is, however, being more and more generally ac- cepted, for it represents an eternal truth, of which every new dis- covery bears evidence. Were it not that the law of evolution is of such fundamental value in the understanding of natural phenomena, it would hardly be expected that the calling of Joseph Smith would necessitate any reference to it. Besides, upwards of fifteen years elapsed after the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith before the world of science conceived the hypothesis. One of the leading doctrines of the Church resembles the spirit of the law of universal growth so nearly that one is forced to believe that the great truth embodied by this doctrine is the truth shadowed forth by the law of evolution. The doctrine of God, as taught by Joseph Smith, is the noblest of which the human mind can conceive. No religion ascribes to God more perfect attributes than does that of the Latter-day Saints. Yet the Church asserts that God was not always what he is today. Through countless ages he has grown towards greater perfection, and at the present, though in comparison with human- kind, he is ominscient and omnipotent, he is still progressing. Of the beginning of God, we have no record, save that he told his ser- vant Abraham, "I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen."* As told by Joseph Smith, in May, 1833, John the Apostle said of God, Jesus Christ, "And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; and thus he was called the Son of God, be- cause he received not of the fulness at first. "f Man, likewise, is to develop until, in comparison with his pres- ent condition, he becomes a God. For instance, in speaking of the salvation to which all men who live correct lives shall attain, the Prophet says, "For salvation consists in the glory, authority, ma- jesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses;"!
and in an- * Book of Abraham, 3:21.
f Doctrine and Covenants, 93: 12-14. J Ibid. Lectures on Faith, 7: 8.

JOSEPH SMITH AS SCIENTIST. 407 other place, "Then shall they be Gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be Gods, because they have all power."* That this is not a sudden elevation, but a gradual growth, is evident from many of the writings of Joseph Smith, of which the following are illustrations: "He that receiveth light and contin- ueth in God, receiveth more light, and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."f "For if you keep my com- mandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace."! In various sermons Joseph Smith enlarged upon the universal principle of advancement, but few of them have been preserved for us. In a sermon delivered in April, 1844, the following sen- tences occur, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an ex- alted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you; namely, by go- ing from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exalta- tion.'^ The preceding quotations suffice to show that with regard to man, Joseph Smith taught a doctrine of evolution which in grandeur and extent surpasses the wildest speculations of the scientific evolutionist. Yet Joseph Smith teaches this doctrine as one of eternal truth, taught him by God. There can be no doubt that the truth behind Spencer's law of evolution, and the doctrine taught by the "Mormon" prophet, are the same. The great marvel is that Joseph Smith, who knew not the philosophies of men, should have anticipated by thirty years or more the world of science in the enunciation of the most fundamental law of the universe. Now, it is true that Joseph Smith did not extend this law to the lower animals; but it must be remembered that his mission on * Doctrine and Covenants, 132: 20.
f Ibid-, 50: 24.
$ Ibid., 93: 20. § Contributor, vol. 4, pp. 254 and 255.

408 IMPROVEMENT ERA. earth was to teach a system of redemption for men. Yet, it is an interesting observation that he taught that men and animals had a spiritual existence, before they were placed on earth. "For I, the Lord God, created all things of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul. For it was spiritual in the day that I created it; for it remaineth in the sphere in which I, God, -created it."* If, in common with men, animals and plants were created spiritually, it may not be an idle speculation that the lower forms of life will advance, in their respective fields, as man advances in his. However, a statement in the above quotation must not be overlooked, "It remaineth in the sphere in which I, God, created it." This would preclude any notion that by endless development a plant may become an animal, or that one of the lower classes of animals become a high animal, or a man. Is not this the place where, per- haps, the evolution of science has failed? All things advance, but each order of creation within its own sphere. There is no jumping from order to order. The limits of these orders are yet to be found. Spencer's belief that one period of evolution follows another f is brought strongly to mind in contemplating the doctrine of Joseph Smith that man, and other things, had first a spiritual ex- istence, now an earthly life, then a higher existence after death. Is not the parallelism strong — and may it not be that here, also, the "Mormon" prophet could have shown the learned philosopher the correct way? Finally, one other suggestion must be made. Spencer, after a long and involved argument, concludes (or proves as he believes) that the great law of evolution is a necessity that follows from the law of the persistence of force. In Article two of this series, the scientific conception of the persistence of force was identified with the operations of the Holy Spirit, as taught by Joseph Smith. This Spirit is behind all phenomena; by it as a medium, God works * Book of Moses, 3 :5 and 9.
See also Doctrine and Covenants, 29: 31, 32.
f First Principles, p. 550.