THE WORD OF WISDOM.
It has already been remarked that the nature of the mission of Joseph
Smith made it unlikely that references to scientific matters, and much
less to isolated scientific facts, obtainable by proper methods of
experimentation should be found in the writings of the Prophet.
Nevertheless, in a revelation given March 8, 1883, statements are made
that can now be connected with facts of science, not generally or not
at all known, at the time the revelation was received.
"Inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, it is
not good, * * * strong drinks are not for the belly but for the
washing of your bodies."[A]
[Footnote A: Doctrine and Covenants, 89:5, 7.]
[Sidenote: The doctrine that alcohol is injurious to man is
scientific.]
At the time this was written, many persons believed that the use of
alcoholic drinks was injurious to human health; but more, especially
among the uneducated classes, held quite the opposite opinion. Since
that day, the question concerning the value of alcohol in any form has
been greatly agitated, and much new light has been obtained. This is
not the place to examine this famous controversy, but a few quotations
from authoritative books, which are not controversial in their nature,
will show the coincidence between the position of science, and the
doctrine of Joseph Smith, in respect to this matter.
The United States Dispensatory (17th ed.) speaks of the medicinal
properties of alcohol as follows, "It is irritant even to the skin,
and much more so to the delicate organs; hence, the various abdominal
inflammations that are so frequent in habitual drunkards. A single
dose of it, if large enough, may produce death. The nervous symptoms
caused by alcohol show that it has a very powerful and direct
influence upon the nerve-centers. The arterial pressure and the
pulse-rate are both increased by moderate doses of alcohol, by a
direct influence upon the heart itself. * * * Taken habitually in
excess, alcohol produces the most deplorable results, and is a very
common cause of fatal maladies."[A]
[Footnote A: Page 129, art., Alcohol Ethylicum.]
Dr. W. Gilman Thompson in his authoritative book on Practical
Dietetics, speaking of the constant use of alcoholic beverages, says,
"The use of alcohol in any shape is wholly unnecessary for the use of
the human organism in health. * * * * The lifelong use of alcohol in
moderation does not necessarily shorten life or induce disease in some
persons, while in others it undoubtedly produces gradual and permanent
changes which tend to weaken vital organs so that the resistance of
the body to disease is materially impaired. * * * * Many persons
should be particularly warned against the use of alcohol. * * * *
Although alcohol is such a strong force-producer and heat-generator,
its effect in this direction is very soon counter-balanced by its
stronger influence in lowering the general tone of the nervous system
and in producing positive degeneration in the tissues."[A]
[Footnote A: Pages 206, 207.]
The recent newspaper statements that alcohol has been shown to be a
food are based on a complete misunderstanding. The experiments
demonstrated that alcohol is burned within the body—which is the
simplest manner in which the body can rid itself of the alcohol.
No more authoritative opinions on this subject can be found than those
contained in the two volumes from which quotations have been made—and
the strongest opinions are not quoted. In spite of the isolated claims
made for alcohol, the fact remains that the knowledge of the world
indicates that alcohol is a poison to the human system; that it is not
"for the belly." However, the value of the external use of alcohol,
for various purposes, has never been denied. On the contrary almost
every up to date practitioner recommends the external use of alcohol,
as for instance after baths for lowering the temperature of fever
patients. In this matter, then, Joseph Smith was in perfect harmony
with the latest results of science. It is strange that he, unlearned
as he was, should have stated what is now known as truth, so clearly
and simply, yet so emphatically, more than seventy years ago, before
the main experiments on the effect of alcohol on the human organsim
had been made.
[Sidenote: The doctrine that tobacco is injurious to man is
scientific.]
"And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is
not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to
be used with judgment and skill."[A] Although tobacco has been used
for several centuries by civilized man, the real cause of the effect
which it has upon the human body was not understood until the early
part of the last century. In 1809, a chemist separated from tobacco an
active principle, in an impure state, some of the properties of which
he observed. In 1822, two other chemists succeeded in isolating the
same principle, in a pure condition, and found it to be a colorless,
oily liquid, of which two to eight per cent is found in all tobacco.
This substance has been called nicotine; later investigations have
shown it to be one of the most active poisons known. Tobacco owes its
activity entirely to this poison."[B]
[Footnote A: Doctrine and Covenants, 89:8.]
[Footnote B: Wormley, Micro-chemistry of Poisons, 2nd ed., pp. 434,
435.]
The intensely poisonous nature of nicotine is illustrated by a number
of cases on record. One drop placed on the tongue of a cat caused
immediate prostration, and death in seventy-eight seconds. A smaller
drop was placed on the tongue of another cat, which resulted in death
after two minutes and a half. A third cat to which a similar quantity
had been administered was dead after seventy-five seconds. A man who
was accustomed to smoking took a chew of tobacco, and after a quarter
of an hour accidently swallowed the mass. An hour later he became
unconscious and died. In another case, in which an ounce of tobacco
had been swallowed, death resulted in seven hours. In still another
case, one ounce of tobacco was boiled in water, and the solution drunk
as an remedy for constipation. The patient died in three quarters of
an hour.[A] These, and numerous other cases, illustrate the intensely
poisonous nature of tobacco. The evil effects of the repeated use of
small amounts of tobacco, in smoking or chewing are also well
understood.
[Footnote A: Ibid, pp. 436, 437.]
[Sidenote: Joseph Smith probably did not know the poisonous nature of
tobacco in 1833.]
It was in 1828, about five years before Joseph Smith's doctrine with
respect to tobacco was given, that nicotine was obtained in a pure
state. Many years later the chemists and physiologists learned to
understand the dangerous nature of the tobacco poison. It does not
seem probable that Joseph Smith had heard of the discovery of nicotine
in 1833; the discovery was announced in a German scientific journal,
and in those days of few newspapers, scientific news, even of public
interest, was not made generally known as quickly as is the case
today. In fact, Hyrum Smith, the brother of the Prophet, on May 29,
1842, delivered a sermon upon the Word of Wisdom in which he says,
"Tobacco is a nauseous, stinking, abominable thing;"[A] but nothing
worse, thus basing his main objection to it on the revealed word of
the Lord. Had Joseph and his associates been familiar with the
isolation of nicotine and its properties, they would undoubtedly have
mentioned it in sermons especially directed against the use of
tobacco. In any case, at a time when it was but vaguely known that
tobacco contained a poisonous principle, it would have been extremely
hazardous for the reputation of an impostor to have claimed a
revelation from God, stating distinctly the injurious effects of
tobacco.
[Footnote A: The Contributor, vol. iv., p. 13; Improvement Era, Vol.
4. pp. 943-9.]
It should also be noted that Joseph Smith says that when tobacco is
used for bruises and all sick cattle, it should be used with judgment
and skill, thus impressing caution even in the external application of
the herb. This is fully borne out by facts, for it has been found that
"the external application of tobacco to abraded surfaces, and even to
the healthy skin, has been attended with violent symptoms, and even
death."[A]
[Footnote A: Wormley, Micro-chemistry of Poisons, p. 436.]
In the matter of the chemistry and physiological action of tobacco,
then, the Prophet, in 1833, was in full accord with the best knowledge
of 1908. In the emphasis of his doctrine, he even anticipated the
world of science.
"And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly."[A]
[Footnote A: Doctrine and Covenants, 89:9.]
[Sidenote: The doctrine that tea and coffee are injurious to man is
scientific.]
When this statement was made, in 1833, the meaning of the expression
hot drinks was not clearly understood. Many believed that the only
meaning of the above statement was that drinks that are hot enough to
burn the mouth should not be used. Others, however, claimed for the
doctrine a deeper meaning. To settle the difficulty, appeal was made
to Joseph Smith who explained that tea, coffee and similar drinks were
meant by the expression hot drinks. From that time on, the Church has
taught that tea and coffee should not be used by mankind.[A]
[Footnote A: See The Contributor, vol. iv. p. 13; Improvement Era, vol
4, pp. 943-9.]
In the year 1821, several chemists isolated from coffee a bitter
principle, of peculiar properties, which was named caffein. In 1827,
the same substance was found to occur in tea. Numerous analysis show
that there are between one and two per cent of caffein in coffee, and
between three and six percent in tea. Later investigations have shown
that caffein belongs to the vegetable poisons, and that its poisonous
action is very strong.
Among the medical properties of caffein are the following, "in doses
of three to five grains, it produces a peculiar wakefulness—after a
dose of twelve grains, it produces intense physical restlessness and
mental anxiety. Upon the muscles it acts as a powerful poison—it is
used in medicines as a brain and heart stimulant."[A] Fatal cases of
poisoning are also on record.
[Footnote A: U. S. Dispensatory, 17th ed., pp. 278 and 279.]
Caffein is not in any sense a food, but, as a stimulant, must be
classed with tobacco, opium and other similar substances. Owing to its
action on the heart and circulation, the body becomes heated, and in
that sense a solution of caffein is a "hot drink." The use of tea and
coffee in health is now generally condemned by the best informed
persons in and out of the medical profession. Dr. W. Gilman Thompson
says, "The continuance of the practice of drinking coffee to keep
awake soon results in forming a coffee or tea habit, in which the
individual becomes a slave to the beverage. * * * Muscular tremors are
developed, with nervousness, anxiety, dread of impending evil,
palpitation, heartburn, dyspepsia and insomnia. * * * It produces
great irritability of the whole nervous system and one may even
overexcite the mind."[A] While it is true that one cup of coffee or
tea does not contain enough caffein to injure the system, yet the
continual taking of these small doses results in a weakening of the
whole system, that frequently leads to premature death.
[Footnote A: Practical Dietetics, p. 199.]
The U. S. Consular and Trade Report for January, 1906,[A] warns
against the use of coffee in the following words, "The important
connection between consumption of coffee and epilepsy which deserves
to be known everywhere, serves as a warning to be extremely careful
with coffee made of beans containing caffein, and at any rate,
children should be deprived of it entirely, otherwise their health
will be exposed to great danger."
[Footnote A: Page 249.]
Besides caffein, both tea and coffee contain an astringent known as
tannic acid. In coffee this substance is present only in small
quantity, but in tea from four to twelve per cent occurs. Tannic acid
is the substance found in oak bark, and has the property of making
animal tissues hard—that is, makes leather of them. The habitual tea
drinker subjects the delicate lining of the stomach and intestines to
the action of this powerful drug.
Without going into further details, it is readily seen that the
teachings of Joseph Smith, in 1833, in relation to the value of tea
and coffee in human drinks, harmonizes with the knowledge of today.
Moreover, he was in advance, in the certainty of his expressions, of
the scientists of his day. It is true that caffein had been found in
coffee and tea a few years before the revelation of 1833, but the
physiological action of the drug was not known until many years
afterwards. Besides, as in the case of tobacco, the Church leaders in
speaking against the use of tea and coffee did not mention the
poisonous principle that had recently been discovered in them; thus
revealing their ignorance of the matter.
[Sidenote: The doctrines regarding the values of herbs and fruits
harmonize with recent scientific truths.]
"And again, * * * all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the
constitution, nature, and use of man. Every herb in the season
thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used
with prudence and thanksgiving."[A]
[Footnote A: Doctrine and Covenants 89:10, 11.]
This doctrine, which seems self-evident now, also evidences the divine
inspiration of the Prophet Joseph. At the time this revelation was
given, food chemistry was not understood; and, in fact, it was not
until about 1860, that the basis upon which rests our knowledge of
food chemistry, was firmly established. We now know that every plant
contains four great classes of compounds: mineral substances, fats,
sugars and starches, and protein, or the flesh-forming elements. We
further know that no plant can live and grow without containing these
groups of nutrients. It is also well understood that these substances
are necessary for the food of the animal body, and that animal tissues
are, themselves, composed of these groups, though in different
proportions. In short, it has long been an established fact of science
that any plant that does not contain a poisonous principle, may by
proper cooking be used as a food for man.
When Joseph Smith wrote, this was a daring suggestion to make, for
there was absolutely no fact aside from popular experience, upon which
to base the conclusion. The qualifying phrase, "all wholesome herbs,"
undoubtedly refers to the existence of classes of plants like coffee,
tea, tobacco, etc., which contain some special principle injurious to
the health.
[Sidenote: The doctrine concerning the use of meats is scientific.]
"Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord,
have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they
are to be used sparingly; and it is pleasing unto me that they should
not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or of famine."[A]
[Footnote A: Doctrine and Covenants, 89:12, 13.]
The breadth of this doctrine lies in the fact that it is not
absolutely forbidden to eat meat, as in all probability a fanatic,
guided by his own wisdom, might have done; yet it must be observed,
the implication is clear that it is possible for man to live without
meat. Vegetarianism had been taught and practiced long before the days
of Joseph Smith; but there had been no direct, positive proof that
plants contain all the substances necessary for the sustenance of
life. As stated above, it is now known that every class of nutritive
substance found in meat is also found in plants. This is in full
harmony with the implied meaning of Joseph Smith in the statement
regarding the abstaining from meat.
[Sidenote: The distinction between the values of grains is also
scientific.]
"All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the
staff of life. * * * All grain is good for the food of man, as also
the fruit of the vine, that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the
ground or above the ground. Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for
the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine,
and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals,
and for mild drinks, as also other grain."[A]
[Footnote A: Doctrine and Covenants, 89:14, 16 and 17.]
The first part of this teaching, that all grain can be used by man and
beast, corresponds to the earlier statement that all wholesome plants
may be used by man. The latter part respecting the best grain for
certain classes of animals, is of a different nature and merits
special consideration. As already mentioned, all plants and plant
parts contain four great groups of nutritive substances. The relative
proportions of these grains are different in different plants or plant
parts. For instance, wheat contains about 71.9 per cent of starch and
sugar; corn, 70.2 per cent; oats, 59.7 per cent; rye, 72.5 per cent;
and barley, 69.8 per cent. Wheat contains about 11.9 per cent of
protein or the flesh-forming elements; corn, 11.4 per cent; oats, 11.8
per cent; rye, 10.6 per cent; and barley 12.4 per cent.[A] It has
further been demonstrated that a man or beast doing heavy work,
requires a larger proportion of starch and sugar in his dietary than
does one which has less work to do. Likewise, different classes of
animals require different proportions of the various nutrients, not
only through life but at the various periods of their lives. This
principle has been recognized so fully that during the last
thirty-five or forty years the attention of experimenters has been
directed toward the elucidation of laws which would make known the
best combinations of foods for the various classes of farm animals, as
well as for man. It must also be remarked that recent discoveries in
science are showing more deep-seated differences in the composition of
grains, than those here mentioned, as also corresponding differences
in various classes of animals. Science will soon throw more light on
this subject, and in all probability will confirm the views of Joseph
Smith, with respect to the grain best adapted to certain animals.
[Footnote A: The Feeding of Animals, Jordan, p. 424.]
A thoughtful reading of the above quotation clearly shows that Joseph
Smith recognized the fundamental truth of food chemistry; namely, that
while all plants contain the elements necessary for animal growth, yet
the proportions of these elements are so different as to make some
plants better adapted than others to a certain class of animals. That
the "Mormon" prophet should have enunciated this principle from twenty
to thirty years in advance of the scientific world, must excite wonder
in the breast of any person, be he follower or opponent of Joseph
Smith.
The discussion of the important statements made in section 89 of the
book of Doctrine and Covenants, might be elaborated into a volume.
The merest outline has been given here. The physiological teachings of
the prophet concerning work, cleanliness and sleep, might also be
considered with profit.
[Sidenote: Joseph Smith anticipated the world of science in the word
of wisdom.]
To summarize the contents of this chapter: Joseph Smith clearly
recognized and taught the physiological value of alcohol, tobacco,
anticipated the tea and coffee, at a time when scientific world of
science discoveries were just beginning to reveal the active
principles of these commodities. The probability is that he knew
nothing of what the world of science was doing in this direction, at
the time the doctrine was taught. Joseph Smith clearly recognized and
taught the fundamental truths of food chemistry, and the food relation
of vegetable products to man, nearly a generation before scientists
had arrived at the same doctrine. Whence came his knowledge?
Chapter XIV.
THE LAW OF EVOLUTION.
[Sidenote: Whence? Where?]
To every intelligence the question concerning the purpose of all
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 will explain all
phenomena.
[Sidenote: The only rational philosophy is based on science.]
It was well toward the beginning of the last century before
philosophical doctrines rose above mere speculation, and were based
upon the actual observation of phenomena. As the scientific method of
gathering facts and reasoning from them became established, 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 possesesd by the world of
science.
The sanest of modern philosophers, and the one who most completely
attempted to follow the method of science in philosophical writings,
was 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 permitted 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 philosophy that harmonizes with the
knowledge of today.
[Sidenote: All things are continually changing.—This is the
foundation of evolution.]
After having discussed, with considerable fullness, the elements of
natural phenomena, such as space, time, matter, motion and force, Mr.
Spencer concludes that all evidence agrees in showing that "every
object, no less than the aggregate of objects, undergoes from instant
to instant some alteration of state."[A] That is to say that while the
universe is one of system and order, no object remains exactly as it
is, but changes every instant of time.
[Footnote A: First Principles, p. 287.]
In two directions only can this ceaseless change affect an object; it
either becomes more complex or more simple; it moves forward or
backward; it grows or decays. In the words of Spencer, "All things are
growing or decaying, accumulating matter or wearing away, integrating
or disintegrating."[A] This, then, is the greatest known fundamental
law of the universe, and of all things in it—that nothing stands
still, but either progresses (evolution), or retrogrades
(dissolution). Now, it has been found that under normal conditions all
things undergo a process of evolution; that is, become more complex,
or advance.[B] This, in its essence, is the law of evolution, about
which so much has been said during the last fifty years. Undoubtedly,
this law is correct, and in harmony with the known facts of the
universe. It certainly throws a flood of light upon the phenomena of
nature; though of itself, it tells little of the force behind it, in
obedience to which it operates.
[Footnote A: Loc. cit., p. 292.]
[Footnote B: Loc. cit., p. 337.]
Spencer himself most clearly realized the insufficiency of the law of
evolution alone, for he asks, "May we seek for some all-pervading
principle which underlies this all pervading process!"[A] 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, indestructible, incomprehensible force, which appears as
gravitation, light, heat, electricity, magnetism, chemical affinity
and in other forms.[B]
[Footnote A: First Principles, p. 408.]
[Footnote B: Loc. cit., p. 494.]
[Sidenote: Evolution does not admit a final death.]
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?"[A] 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 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."[B] This is practically the same as
admitting eternal growth.
[Footnote A: Loc. cit., p. 496.]
[Footnote B: Loc. cit., p. 550.]
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."[A]
[Footnote A: Loc. cit., p. 564.]
[Sidenote: Spirit and matter are alike.]
It is interesting to note the conclusion concerning spirit and matter,
to which Mr. Spencer is led by the law of evolution. "The 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 understand. Though the relation
of subject and object renders necessary 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."[A]
[Footnote A: First Principles, pp. 570 and 572.]
While the law of evolution, as formulated by Spencer and accepted 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 absurdities into which
Spencer and his followers have fallen when reasoning upon special
cases.
[Sidenote: Evolution and natural selection do not necessarily go
together.]
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 existence 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 descended from extinct and very different ancestors.[A] The
experiences 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 in all 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 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
associated with the notion that man has descended from the lower
animals. In fact, however, the law of evolution is just as true,
whether or not Darwin's theory of natural selection be adopted.
[Footnote A: Origin of Species, p. 6.]
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.[A]
[Footnote A: Origin of Species, p. 6; also Darwin and After Darwin
Romanes, Vol. II. pp. 2-6.]
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 production of proof
that physiological species may be produced by selective breeding; and
for the reason that it is the only means at present within reach of
reducing the chaos of observed facts to order."[A] 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 appreciably nearer to that lower pithecoid
form, by the modification of which he has, probably, become what he
is."[B]
[Footnote A: Man's Place in Nature, p. 128.]
[Footnote B: Loc. cit., p. 183.]
This is not the place to enter into this famous controversy. The
relation of the theory of natural selection to the law of evolution 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 discoveries 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 hypothesis is yet to be determined.
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 accepted, for it
represents an eternal truth, of which every new discovery bears
evidence.
[Sidenote: Joseph Smith taught the law of eternal growth—evolution.]
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 humankind, he is omniscient and
omnipotent, he is still progressing. Of the beginning of God, we have
no record, save that he told his servant Abraham, "I came down in the
beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen."[A]
[Footnote A: Book of Abraham, 3:21.]
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, because he received not of the
fulness at first."[A]
[Footnote A: Doctrine and Covenants, 93:12-14.]
[Sidenote: Man will develop until he becomes like God.]
Man, likewise, is to develop until, in comparison with his present
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,
majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses;"[A] and in
another 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."[B]
[Footnote A: Doctrine and Covenants, Lectures on Faith, 7:8.]
[Footnote B: Doctrine and Covenants, 132:20.]
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 continueth in God,
receiveth more light, and that light groweth brighter and brighter
until the perfect day."[A] "For if you keep my commandments 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."[B]
[Footnote A: Ibid., 50:24.]
[Footnote B: Ibid., 93:20.]
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 sentences occur, "God
himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted 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 going from one small degree to
another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to
grace, from exaltation to exaltation."[A]
[Footnote A: Contributor, vol. 4, pp. 254 and 255.]
[Sidenote: Joseph Smith anticipated science in the statement of the
law of evolution.]
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 taught 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 of living things.
[Sidenote: Animals are subject to evolution.]
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 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."[A]
[Footnote A: Book of Moses, 3:5 and 9. See also Doctrine and
Covenants, 29:31, 32.]
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, perhaps, 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[A] is
brought strongly to mind in contemplating the doctrine of Joseph Smith
that man, and other things, had first a spiritual existence, 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?
[Footnote A: First Principles, p. 550.]
[Sidenote: God is the compelling power of evolution.]
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 chapter 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 his will with
the things of the universe, and enables man to move on to eternal
salvation, to advance, and become a God; every law is of necessity a
result of the operation of this Spirit. Here, again, the "Mormon"
prophet anticipated the world of science; and his conceptions are
simplier and more direct than those invented by the truth-seekers, who
depended upon themselves and their own powers.
Marvelous is this view of the founder of "Mormonism." Where did he
learn in his short life, amidst sufferings and persecution such as few
men have known, the greatest mysteries of the universe!