Joseph Fielding Smith was one of the movers and shapers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the twentieth century. Although lacking in professional training in theology or history, his impact in those areas can still be felt today in the Church. In a recent interview at the Latter-day Saint history blog From the Desk, Matthew Bowman discussed some of Joseph Fielding Smith’s life and legacy. What follows here is a copost to the full interview.
Who was Joseph Fielding Smith? Matthew Bowman started by answering that very question:
We could answer this institutionally. Joseph Fielding Smith was a General Authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for more than sixty years. He was an apostle from 1910 to 1970; he was the president of the Quorum of the Twelve from 1951 to 1970; he was president of the Church from 1970 to 1972.
He also served in a number of other offices—he was the Church’s historian for decades; he served on committees supervising the Church’s educational programs and publications for years.
Beyond his immense institutional influence, Joseph Fielding Smith was also the most influential theologian in the Church in the twentieth century.
While Joseph Fielding Smith left a mixed legacy of both good and bad through his theological contributions, his impact was enormous. This was, in part, because he “published works defending the Church for more than sixty years. Multiple generations of Saints grew up perceiving him as an authority.”
One of the biggest ways in which he shaped Latter-day Saint doctrinal discussion was in his emphasis on orthodoxy:
I suggest in the volume that Joseph Fielding Smith was in some ways the inventor of “orthodoxy,” by which I mean the idea that correct belief should be foundational for all else in the Church.
This is another way that he was influenced by Protestantism, a branch of Christianity which emphasizes theology, belief, and words—as opposed to, say, Roman Catholicism, which emphasizes community and ritual, or Eastern Orthodoxy, which emphasizes ritual and personal experience.
Joseph Fielding Smith absorbed not merely from Protestantism but also from that early twentieth century faith in science and education the conviction that once you teach people the right ideas they will do the right things. He therefore believed that it was important to promote and enforce correct belief in the Church.
This drove many of his efforts in publishing and spreading his ideas; it drove his conflict with Roberts and many other intellectuals in the Church whom he believed were spreading incorrect ideas.
This conviction, I think, was a lasting legacy he left to the Church. By the late twentieth century, his theology had become the theology spread in Church curriculum and church educators in the Church Education System (CES), which, perhaps more than any other department of the Church embraced the work of Joseph Fielding Smith and his son-in-law and heir Bruce R. McConkie. CES also embraced the notion that correct belief is foundational to correct behavior.
Orthodoxy was both defined and defended by Joseph Fielding Smith.
The nature of that orthodoxy, however, is what has remained more controversial. While his beliefs diverged sharply from fundamentalist Protestants, he shared a “militant anti-modernism” with them. Areas in which this can be felt include his opposition to the concept of organic evolution. As Bowman observed, “Joseph Fielding Smith opposed evolution not simply because he believed it contradicted the book of Genesis, but also because he perceived it as part of a broad modernist project that he objected to from the get-go.” Bowman added that
He seized on the notion of “survival of the fittest,” for instance, a common paraphrase of Darwin’s ideas, and argued that it was deeply anti-humanistic and a way to justify rapacious abuse of the poor and the marginalized.
Joseph Fielding Smith believed that the theory of evolution would lead to an inhumane and cruel society—an argument he shared with other Christian antievolutionists.
Joseph Fielding Smith’s opposition to organic evolution was multifaceted.
For more on Joseph Fielding Smith, head on over to the Latter-day Saint history blog From the Desk to read the full interview with Matthew Bowman. While you’re there, check out the Come Follow Me 2025 resources page and the Joseph Fielding Smith Quotes page.
Comments
6 responses to “Matthew Bowman on Joseph Fielding Smith”
I think it’s important to remember that Joseph Fielding Smith lived through two world wars and the worst of the communist purges. And so there should be little surprise that he would be concerned with a “mechanized” approach to human psychology.
Plus, I think his main concern with organic evolution was they way it seemed to disconnect humanity from its sacred lineage–which was especially concerning to the latter-day saints because of the doctrine of premortal existence.
Interesting thank you. With the idea of moving from CES orthodoxy being the correct belief, where would globalism and the current official stance locate correct belief and action differently now?
Bowman’s quotes put an overly positive spin on JFS. The damage he and his son-in-law did to the Church was severe. Just to mention a few issues: JFS was a racist, a biblical literalist, and anti-evolution. His idea of education was indoctrination. He believed that history should be faith promoting, not necessarily accurate. Many of the problems that the Church faces today can be laid at JFS’s feet.
Interesting question, RL. My take on where we look for correct belief and action today:
The scriptures, but as a source of information about Heavenly Father’s plan, not the world in general. So, less emphasis on the Old Testament and more emphasis on the Book of Mormon. In fact I’d draw a straight line from President Benson emphasizing the Book of Mormon to our current emphasis on Christ, his atonement, and his grace. For those who weren’t there, emphasizing the Book of Mormon implied deemphasizing books by general authorities. A Marvelous Work and a Wonder disappeared from my mission prep, for example (Jesus the Christ stayed), and Doctrines of Salvation and Mormon Doctrine got less airtime too.
The unified voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. Individual general authorities can have and express opinions (and JFS expressed plenty), but they are not Church doctrine. Things like the Family Proclamation are a different matter.
Guidance for our day, notably current and recent General Conference talks. In practice that includes Church policies and the Handbook. They can and frequently do change, but if your bishop is wondering “What’s the correct action in this situation?” the Handbook is the first place he’ll look.
RLD Thanks for your detailed answer, that seems like a fair assessment.
I like a conference talk talk or lesson on a talk here or there but in my ward it seems a bit overused.
I miss a book I can read like the teachings of the prophet series or I like just keeping up with come follow me.
I wouldn’t style JFS as a theologian, not by training, temperament, or output. Rather, I would style him as a dogmatist. He saw a perfect match in his belief and correct belief, and of course the problem with dogmatically expounding such correct belief is that any differing belief is error, which means that anyone with a differing opinion is benighted or apostate. I think dogmatism is uncharitable, and I regret that dogmatism seems to abound in our church culture today.