Dr. Matthew Bowman has just released a new biography on Joseph Fielding Smith. Bowman is the Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California. The Mormon Studies chair Bowman holds at Claremont Graduate University is the oldest in the country, having been established over 15 years ago. Bowman is the third person to hold the chair, following Richard Bushman and Patrick Mason. Patrick Mason left Claremont to take the chair at Utah State University.
Don’t miss our other episodes with Dr Matthew Bowman! https://gospeltangents.com/people/matthew-bowman/
Mormon Studies
Other Mormon studies chairs exist at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley (held by Deidre J Green), and the University of Virginia. Although not directly affiliated with Claremont, the late Jan Shipps is credited with making the study of the Mormon tradition a legitimate academic pursuit for those outside the tradition, enabling universities like Claremont without historical ties to Mormonism to establish such a chair. Before the endowed chair, Anne Taves, a professor interested in Mormonism, taught American religious history at CGU, and Armand Mauss was involved in fundraising and occasionally taught classes.
Introductions to Mormon Thought
Bowman is also involved in the “Introductions to Mormon Thought” book series, which he co-edits with Joseph Spencer. Published by the University of Illinois, the series aims to stimulate the growth of Mormon intellectual history through accessible introductory volumes on important Mormon thinkers. The series broadly defines “Mormon thinkers” to include artists like CCA Christensen and Minerva Teichert, alongside more traditional intellectuals. The books are intended to be short, accessible, and explore how these individuals influenced how members of the Mormon tradition understood themselves. The series uses the term “Mormon” intentionally broadly to encompass all denominations and movements originating from Joseph Smith’s work, including fundamentalist Mormons and figures from the Community of Christ. While initially planned for 10-15 books, the series is doing well and is expected to continue. Other volumes in the series cover figures such as Eugene England (by Christine Hagund), Vardis Fisher (by Mike Austin), Sonia Johnson (by Chris Talbot), Lowell Bennion (by George Handley), Hugh Nibley (by Joseph Spencer), and Richard Bushman (by JB Haws). A future volume is planned on Eliza R. Snow (by Deidre Green), and Bowman hopes for one on Sheri Dew.
Joseph Fielding Smith
Bowman chose to write his book in the series about Joseph Fielding Smith, though his initial interest was in Bruce R. McConkie. He agreed to write about Smith instead to secure another author’s participation in the series. Bowman views Joseph Fielding Smith as Bruce R. McConkie’s intellectual parent and considers him the most significant LDS theologian of the 20th century, leaving a deeper and more persistent mark than others like James E. Talmage. While McConkie was influential, Bowman sees him more as a systematizer of his father-in-law’s ideas rather than being an original. Other significant 20th/21st-century Mormon thinkers mentioned include B.H. Roberts, Margarita Bautista, Sheri Dew, and Leverne Parmley..
A significant fact about Joseph Fielding Smith is that he was the grandson of Hyrum Smith and the son of Joseph F. Smith. Bowman emphasizes that being a “Smith” was incredibly important to Fielding Smith, shaping his sense of duty and responsibility to continue his family’s work. His memories of his father and uncle’s violent deaths and his father’s need to hide from federal marshals profoundly influenced him, fostering a sense of defensiveness and a perception that the world was hostile and persecuted the family for their beliefs. This background deeply marked his legacy and understanding of his life’s mission.
Bowman suggests that Joseph Fielding Smith contributed significantly to fostering a “circle the wagons mentality” within the church. Unlike figures such as John A. Widtsoe and B.H. Roberts, who sought dialogue with the outside world, Fielding Smith saw it as threatening and believed his job was to defend the church against those trying to destroy the truth. This defensive posture spread among his followers and readers, increasingly becoming the church’s general mentality, perhaps starting earlier than often assumed, possibly in the 1930s with his opposition to evolution. This opposition led to public disagreements, including with James E. Talmage, who endorsed the idea of an older earth.
Evolution was not something Joseph Fielding Smith thought highly of. The son of Joseph F. Smith and grandson of Hyrum Smith, was a prominent figure in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As an apostle from 1910 and later Church President, he became known for his strong defense of traditional doctrines, often clashing with those who sought to reconcile faith with modern scientific and academic thought.
Joseph Fielding Smith Evolution
One of the most famous conflicts involved the theory of evolution and the age of the Earth. Smith staunchly opposed the idea of an old earth, particularly the notion of human-like creatures or pre-Adamites living before Adam and Eve. His core objection wasn’t simply to evolution itself, but to the idea that there could have been death before the Fall of Adam and Eve. Smith believed that death entered the world because of the Fall, and if death existed before then, it would undermine the necessity and efficacy of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. This principle of no death before the Fall was central to his arguments.
This perspective led to direct clashes with contemporaries like James E. Talmage and John A. Widtsoe, who were generally more open to scientific ideas. The most notable dispute involved B.H. Roberts’s book manuscript, The Truth, The Way, The Life, which attempted to reconcile a very old Earth and the possibility of pre-Adamites with the Genesis account. Roberts proposed that Adam and Eve were the first humans with souls, not necessarily the first biological humans. As a member of the church’s publications committee, Smith absolutely rejected Roberts’s ideas, protesting their publication to the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. While this conflict brewed behind the scenes, Smith publicly denounced the idea of an old Earth and pre-Adamites in a speech. In response, Talmage gave a talk endorsing the possibility of an older Earth, highlighting some public disagreement among church leaders. Ultimately, the First Presidency chose not to endorse either side and requested both men cease public conflict on the issue, preventing Roberts’s book from being published at that time. Smith, however, outlived many of his contemporaries and later published his own book, Man His Origin and Destiny, which strongly attacked Darwinism and the higher criticism of the Bible.
Family Trauma
Smith’s career as a defender of traditional beliefs was significantly shaped by his upbringing and early experiences. His father, Joseph F. Smith, was called to testify before Congress during the Reed Smoot hearings. During these hearings, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS), led by descendants of Joseph Smith Jr., saw an opportunity. Richard Evans, an RLDS apostle, issued broadsides accusing the LDS Church of corruption, denouncing Brigham Young for originating polygamy and blood atonement, and claiming the RLDS Church was the true successor to Joseph Smith. This became a “family feud.” Joseph F. Smith was infuriated and asked his son, Joseph Fielding Smith, to refute Richard Evans.
This charge launched Joseph Fielding Smith into a career of research and writing, focusing on apologetics – the defense of religious beliefs. He published pamphlets refuting Evans, arguing that polygamy originated with Joseph Smith Jr., not Brigham Young. This pamphlet feud led to exchanges in newspaper op-ed pages and solidified Smith’s path. He began working in the Church Historian’s office during this time and soon became Church Historian, serving for decades until he became Church President in 1970.
Fight with Academics
His long tenure as Church Historian meant he had significant influence. Unlike contemporaries like Talmage, Widtsoe, Joseph Merrill, Adam Bennion, and B.H. Roberts who sought to engage with the rising world of professional academia and show Mormonism as respectable by their standards, Smith viewed professional academics with suspicion. He saw many as hostile to faith, pointing to academic works that explained religious experiences through non-religious lenses, such as a biography suggesting Joseph Smith Jr. was epileptic. Smith believed these scholars were “out to destroy religion” and therefore he saw no need to build bridges with them.
Hiding First Vision?
A significant controversy involving his time as Church Historian concerns the 1832 account of Joseph Smith’s First Vision. This early account was contained in a diary under Joseph Fielding Smith’s custody. At some point, three pages containing this account were removed from the diary. While it is unclear who exactly removed the pages, Smith is considered a plausible candidate because the document was in his custody, specifically in his office safe. However, other people also had access to the archives. Smith did later show the 1832 account to a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. The removed leaves were eventually restored by archivists in the 1990s. Smith was ultimately blamed for the incident, as allowing such treatment of a “priceless document” was considered quite scandalous regardless of who performed the action.
Joseph Fielding Smith’s legacy is complex, marked by his unwavering dedication to defending the faith as he understood it against perceived threats from both inside and outside the church. Is the Church changing with regards to academics & evolution? Do you agree that the defensiveness of JFS continues to be seen in the modern Church?
Wheat & Tares 
Can’t wait to get a copy, Matt does great work. With the recent biography of Joseph F. Smith and the upcoming one of Bruce R., this gives us biographies for three generations of the family — all of whom were key figures in 20th-century Mormon history.
I think it’s a stretch to call JFS a “theologian,” which implies deep thinking and an approach that seeks deeper principles to systematize a body of doctrine, making it consistent and coherent. When I read work by JFS, I see largely shallow thinking that eschews any effort to make the broad span of Mormon doctrine mutually consistent or base it on deeper or central principles. But maybe the biography will convince me otherwise.
Apart from that objection to his general approach (shared by Bruce R.), being thoroughly anti-science and anti-evolution is so out of step with the 20th and 21st century approach to theology, it marks him as a fundamentalist thinker, not a theologian. Real theologians, Christian theologians, grapple with modern science, as well as actual history and thoroughly informed biblical studies.
l believe Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie had mostly negative influence on LDS Church doctrine. It has been lessening over the years, but we still aren’t back to the days of Talmage and Widtsoe as far as liberality of thinking.
Dave, I hear you but even though you disagree with the theology of JFS, Matt Bowman argues his theology was more influential on the overall church theology (even if apologetic or bad) than any other theologian.
I’m with Dave in thinking that Joseph Fielding Smith was not a theologian. Yes, he significantly impacted the theology of the church — most certainly yes — but does the definition of theologian mean anyone who impacts theology?
All that said, I look forward to the book and to better understanding the real impact of JFS and his son-in-law on our church culture.
Rather than being a shepherd of an expanding, modernizing Church as his predecessor was, JFS likely saw his apostolic/prophetic role as a protector of the “family business” and guardian of the Smith family legacy. To us studying him decades later, he stands as another example of the fruits of Church-sponsored nepotism, for better or worse (but mostly worse).
I think Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie (and others) were the right men for the job they were tasked with in the 60s & 70s. It doesn’t matter (to me) that they got the science wrong on the question of evolution–that wasn’t their primary concern. What mattered most to them was protecting our divine heritage as children of God. There was a lot of wrangling in those days over the question of our beginnings because of the seeming disconnect between the Biblical narrative of the creation and the historical claims of evolution. And so something had to be done to ground the saints in the foundational doctrines of premortal life, our identity as divine offspring, and so forth.
@Jack, words matter. Their certainty in what they thought was right and wrong has impacted generations, holding us back from thinking and believing better. So what exactly were they protecting? Seems more like dogma than the truth and yet the thing that has been preserved is dogma rather than the truth. Truth requires an openness these men did not possess. I’m sure they were good people, but I think the church would be better off if we divested ourselves of their legacy to move forward. Correlation has watered down the church and doctrine so much, there is just no exploration or development any more. We continue to have this anti-science sentiment and it is just dangerous at times. To be clear, there is a disconnect between the Bible and science. Evolution is a demonstrable fact. The Bible is a collection of rhetorical literary work and thus completely misses the boat on anything like the origin of life. McConkie’s fidelity to the scriptures as a source of pure truth may seem noble, but further investigation makes it seem sad he couldn’t be more open to thinking more openly.
I do think that JFS’s defensiveness is still seen in the church. And it saddens me. I still hope that we get over it. His love for the gospel put his mind into a box, and couldn’t think outside of that box.