Bp. O. F. Whitney Spoke of Temple & Spiritual Salvation which is one one with the Lord every relijous Scientific truth is a religious truth. Science is another name for Knowledge. Faith is the Motive power of all action. (Sept. 9, 1883, pg. 485)

The Darwin reference was from a Jan 16, 1882 sermon by Elder L. R. Martineau, where he “Refered to the nonsensical Ideas of the Darwin theory” (pg. 316).

After reading Orson F. Whitney’s 1882 article on evolution, which the 1909 statement drew upon for its content, I noticed that the 1909 statement’s point that “[i]t is held by some…that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation” draws upon Whitney’s description of “[t]he Darwinian theory.”

Whitney writes:”THE recent death of Professor Charles Darwin, the famous author of the ‘Origin of Species,’ and one of the ablest enunciators of the theory and doctrine of evolution, brings vividly to mind the lamentable condition of the modern world, with its scientific vagaries and religious absurdities, and the many unscriptural and unreasonable ideas so widely prevalent concerning man’s origin and eternal destiny. The Darwinian theory, which is but one phase of the philosophy of evolution, might briefly be presented as follows: Man is a development from the lowest orders of the animal creation” (emphasis added).

The apostles almost never air their differences publicly, no matter how deep those differences. They used to address controversial issues publicly, but they didn’t challenge each other publicly – at least at the time of DOM. There’s no mystery there; they simply made a conscious decision to change the previous public wrangling and settle things privately – even in instances like Mormon Doctrine where there was real and deep sentiment against the work – and, especially, the title.

The best example of this is the debate over the Priesthood ban – where the avoidance of public dispute while disagreeing privately was intense.

President McKay made public statements about evolution.

President McKay did not make public statements about McConkie or Mormon Doctrine.

Why?

My mother was a secretary in Pres. McKay’s office. She reported directly to Claire Middlemiss. The woman was the perfect secretary in about every imaginable measure – and was absolutely devoted to Pres. McKay. Her notes and minutes were as close to a taped record as is possible. From a historian’s perspective, they were the gold standard of documentation.

Why can’t we take the same position which people now take to Brigham’s Adam/God theory and apply it to any and all anti-evolution statements? For instance, we can say the following of Joseph Fielding Smith:

-He was speculating.
-He was misunderstood.
-His views were never presented for a vote by the church membership. (What doctrines have been voted on?)
-He misunderstood Darwin.

And so on.

You dismissed Prince’s fine biography as “third-hand scurrilous rumors” and called it “revisionist history packaged in an attractive binding.” How is that not bashing Prince’s work?

Because this blog is dedicated to approaching Mormon history on scholarly terms, and because each blogger is a historian, I’m particularly sensitive to glib dismissals of professional historical work as “third-hand scurrilous rumors.” And to me, it is neither “reasonable” nor “prudent” of you to make such accusations on this blog.