I remember a conversation with an institute teacher that I was particularly close to while I was attending college. I was in his office and noticed a framed sketch that included important intellectuals and writers in Latter-day Saint history. While I liked most of them, I pointed out that I didn’t care for Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie and the perspectives they held. The institute teacher then said, “I agree, but can you deny that they belong there because of the impact they had?” Joseph Fielding Smith: A Mormon Theologian, by Matthew Bowman is an impressive glimpse into the world and thought of one of the most influential writers and theologians in the world of 20th century Latter-day Saints. Joseph Fielding Smith was the son of Joseph F. Smith and grandson of Hyrum Smith who served as an influential and dogmatic theologian and high-ranking church leader for over sixty years. He published numerous articles and books, as well as many talks and discourses over the course of his long life, advocating for a position that had some similarities to fundamentalist Protestant thought.
In this book, Matthew Bowman takes Joseph Fielding Smith seriously and works to contextualize his worldview. My experience is that Joseph Fielding Smith is often oversimplified into an anti-intellectual and racist crank who did more harm than good in the Church through insisting on his brand of orthodoxy. While there is some truth to that, Bowman digs into the complexities beyond that oversimplification: “[Joseph] Fielding Smith, and those like him, must be taken seriously. Not simply throwbacks or cranks, they are modern people in their own way and thus reveal the composite and contradictory nature of the world they have left to us” (p. 90).
For example, Bowman goes into detail into why Joseph Fielding Smith didn’t believe in progress (using Joseph Fielding Smith’s statements that humans would never land on the moon as a launching point). In direct opposition to a liberal Protestant view, Joseph Fielding Smith saw history as cyclical and that while modern humanity had different technology than in the past, “not only did he deny the idea that human beings were the product of a long process of biological development; he denied also the idea that human cultures and civilizations were likewise the product of centuries of historical development” (p. 42). Part of why Smith believed so strongly in enforcing orthodoxy was because belief shapes action, and he thought that beliefs like societal evolution encouraged types of competition and destruction that weakened society.
The book follows the standard format for the series of an introductory chapter that offers a brief biographical sketch, three body chapters that focus on major themes in the figure’s thought (in this case, chapters on how Joseph Fielding Smith approached texts like the scriptures; his views on progress; and why he valued orthodox beliefs), and a short concluding chapter that provides a reader’s guide or a bibliographic essay that introduces readers to the figure’s most important works. In doing so, it provides a very accessible introduction to a key figure in 20th century Latter-day Saint history.
For more of my reviews and copost about entries in the University of Illinois Press’s Introductions to Mormon Thought series, see the following:
I’m gonna have to read this. Thanks!
The day after I first arrived in my mission field, Joseph Fielding Smith and his wife arrived, as part of a whirlwind tour across the South American missions. He was supposed to give a ‘worthiness’ interview to every missionary who could easily be cornered for an interview. Since I was still in the mission home, he got me. But he said, ‘Since you have just arrived from the mission home in SLC, I assume all is still well with you’ – that’s all the ‘probing’ I received. He then began telling me of his experiences in Brazil and Uruguay, and how much he was enjoying the company of his current wife, Jessie Evans (his first wife had died, and he had remarried). I had a pleasant 20 minutes with him, and very much enjoyed it.
I hope soon Ben Spackman will publish his doctoral dissertation, which will delve into the impact of Joseph Fielding Smith and the adoption of Protestant thought in LDS theology.
Smith’s negative impact is even more widespread in Latin America since for many decades his works were the only ones available in Spanish and had quite authoritative titles. Only very recently have there been timid steps to get out from under his influence.
Juan, I am looking forward to Ben Spackman publishing his dissertation too!
That’s really interesting – I hadn’t realized JFS’s works were translated into Spanish and had that big of an impact in Latin America. What are the steps you’ve seen taken to get out from under his influence?
In reality, no serious steps have been taken to diminish or redirect its influence, except for ceasing to publish the three volumes of “Doctrine of Salvation.” But the leadership, especially those working in the Church Educational System, continue to reaffirm its teachings, especially when it comes to topics such as evolution and the origin of the earth. The same is true of the history of the Church that it left us. It is a very sugarcoated history. (Unless you are interested in the history of plural marriage, from “Elements of Church History” you would think that it was something anecdotal, that it did not occur in the time of Joseph Smith and that it was almost accidental.)
Add to that, even on Spanish-language LDS channels, its end-of-the-world eschatology continues to be taught.
I personally love many of Joseph Fielding Smith’s views on the origins of man, age of the earth and creation. I think it takes some guts to come out, in the face of secularism, and declare certain beliefs. Kudos to him!
I remember seeing an enlarged photo of President Smith (with his counsellors) hanging above the chapel doors overlooking the foyer.
When did they stop doing that?
Yes, Doctrines of Salvation, Answers to Gospel Questions, Way to Perfection, Essentials in Church History, TJPS; Man His Origin and Destiny, were the doctrinal diet we were brought up on, while President McKay lifted our spirits with Gospel Ideals.
I agree, Kibs. I think we forget that there was a stark dichotomy in those days–an “either or” mentality regarding evolution versus the Bible. In the minds of many people the two were mutually exclusive–they could not coexist. And so, in spite of whatever Joseph Fielding Smith may have gotten wrong with respect to the science of biological evolution, he was absolutely right about the doctrine of our divine heritage–and preserving that foundational teaching was more important than anything else at the time.
I thought that Joseph Fielding Smith couldn’t find a way to fit the Endowment and Science (i.e. Evolution) together. While his devotion to the faith is admirable, the fact that this was the basis of his anti-intellectual crusade is sad.
Having read the book I think Bowman was pretty clear on Fielding Smith being a “racist crank.” He is much more direct and really offers no defense of Fielding Smith’s racism beyond contextualizing it within his views of history and moral progress.
As to the anti intellectualism Bowman defends Fielding Smith as acknowledging the place of his assumptions in ways his more intellectual critics did not.
Is “theologian” an apt descriptor for Joseph Fielding Smith? I wouldn’t use that word for him. To me, I think maybe “dogmatist who wrote a lot of books” is a better descriptor.
JI, you have a point. I think calling him an amateur theologian and amateur historian would be accurate, though.
The “either or mentality” on evolution is really a straw man argument by atheists: either the most simplistic and literal reading of the Bible is true, or all of religion is false. It was a huge error for religious leaders (in and out of the Church) to accept that premise and declare war on evolution. It left them defending a completely untenable position. They had to change faith from the evidence of things not seen to refusing to believe the evidence you see, with effects that haunt us today.
And it was completely unnecessary. There was no danger that people like Talmage and Widtsoe were going to abandon the truth that we are spirit children of God. But Talmage and Widtsoe didn’t think it was all that important what members thought about evolution and people like JFS and McConkie very much did, so it’s not surprising the latter dominated the discourse on the topic. But in that sense, the Church’s current position of neutrality is an endorsement of the former’s thinking.