David O. McKay, Genesis, and Evolution: Part 2.

Last updated on: April 5, 2018 at 12:35 pm by Ben Spackman

David O. McKay, Genesis, and Evolution: Part 2. 2018-04-05T12:35:58-05:00 Ben Spackman

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Pierre Lecomte du Noüy, from Wikipedia.

In a previous post, I detailed President McKay’s explicit, published, written approval of a very pro-evolution LDS magazine article. This served as evidence that President McKay did not understand Genesis 1 to prohibit an old earth, evolution, etc.

Shortly after the 1954 publication of Joseph Fielding Smith’s Man, His Origin and Destiny, BYU History professor Richard D. Poll and his wife were invited to discuss the book with the author. Knowing that President McKay disagreed strongly with the book, they managed to arrange a meeting with him on the same day. According to the Polls’ combined notes, made immediately afterwards, President McKay, “striking the desk for emphasis… repeated that [Man, His Origin and Destiny] is not the authoritative position of the Church.” He went on to recommend two books on “the problem of man, nature, and God” which considered “two of the outstanding books of the century”:⁠ A. Cressy Morrison’s Man Does Not Stand Alone and Pierre Lecomte du Noüy, Human Destiny.

I’m not sure either of these merit reading today, but I’ve skimmed both in order to understand how they represented McKay’s views and why he liked them so much. In general, both are pro-evolution, pro-old earth, and assume the validity of general scientific research, all things in conflict between McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith. I won’t go into further details here, (I do in my book) but want to highlight an interesting point from Noüy.

Noüy, like so many others, inherited Enlightenment assumptions that led to a concordist view. That is, science and the Biblical creation account(s) were in concord with each other, they were somehow saying the same thing; On some level, for Genesis 1 to be valid or true, it had to be historical/scientific in some way.

Noüy makes this concordism explicit on p. 113, where he states that he will try to “analyze the sacred text as though it were a highly symbolic and cryptic description of scientific truths.” If you’ve read any kind of older treatment of Genesis, such a statement creates the expectation that the next bits would include things like “‘darkness was over the surface of the deep’ means the atmosphere was still too thick and humid to allow sunlight through.”

Instead, Noüy gets quite original. He turns to Genesis 2-3, and reads the partaking of the fruit of the tree to represent the point in evolution where human(oid)s develop free will, “the birth of conscience.”

From then on, god can forbid this creature to obey certain intransgressible orders given to all the others, the physiological orders, the animal instincts. He can do this because this new being is free, which signifies that his endocrine bondage can cease if he wishes. Man, henceforth, has the choice either of obeying the orders of the flesh and consequently of rejoining his animal ancestors, of regressing; or else, on the contrary, struggling against these impulsions, these animal instincts, and of affirming the dignity he won when he acquired the last and highest liberty. If he chooses to play the part of Man, at the price of physical suffering and privations, he leaves the animal behind, he progresses as a Man, he continues evolution in the moral plane and is on the road which will eventually lead him to the spiritual plane…. The importance attributed by the sacred text to this event, the fact that it develops it and in reality makes it the first human event, the fact that, in spite of his disobedience, this guilty man is chosen as the founder of the human line, proves the henceforth preponderant importance of the liberty of choice.

Quite interesting and innovative. McKay even quotes him on this point in General Conference, October 1963.

This is one of the books pushed by David O. McKay in contrast to Smith’s Man, His Origin and Destiny, which, combined with the previous post about McKay, shows that he read Genesis very differently than Smith.

Speaking of the animal instincts, Noüy here evokes Robert Alter’s condemnation of Esau.

“Esau, the episode [in Genesis 25] makes clear, is not spiritually fit to be the vehicle of divine election, the bearer of the birthright of Abraham’s seed. He is altogether too much the slave of the moment and of the body’s tyranny to become the progenitor of the people promised by divine covenant that it will have a vast destiny to fulfill.” Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 41.

For more readings on Genesis and science, see my posts here and here.

As always, you can help me pay my tuition here, or you can support my work through making your regular Amazon purchases through this Amazon link. You can also get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box on the right). If you friend me on Facebook, please drop me a note telling me you’re a reader. I tend not to accept friend requests from people I’m not acquainted with.

Previous Post

July 31, 2016

BoM Gospel Doctrine Lesson 30: Alma 40-42, Three Generations of Repentance

Next Post

August 6, 2016 BoM Gospel Doctrine Lesson 31: Alma 43-48 aka "The War Chapters I

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category ancient languages Announcements Book of Mormon books D&C evolution Genesis Gospel Doctrine Gospel Doctrine Resources history LDS Church History New Testament Old Testament prophets science and religion scripture study Seminary teaching temple Uncategorized

Select a Month August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 March 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 November 2014 October 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 January 2010 December 2009

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does the name "Elijah" mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

God is Light God Provides God Saves My God is Yahweh