What do you think?
Rate this book
Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring
Twice in the final years of his life, Elder Neal A. Maxwell told a grandson of Henry Eyring's, You need to write your grandfather's story. This is that story of Henry Eyring, perhaps the most acclaimed scientist ever to come from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a book about science and Mormonism, written to be easily understood by newcomers to both subjects. It demonstrates why one of the Church's highest-profile intellectuals was also one of its humblest believers. In fact, this story of Henry Eyring shows how intellect and belief go hand-in-hand and how simple, faithful people can change the world.
330 pages, Hardcover
First published February 6, 2008
53 people are currently reading
1787 people want to read
About the author
Henry J. Eyring
5 books17 followersHenry J. Eyring is the 17th president of Brigham Young University-Idaho. He previously served as both the Academic and Advancement vide president at BYU-Idaho as well as director for the MBA program at Marriott School of Managment at Brigham Young University.
Eyring was born in Palo Alto, California to Henry B. Eyring and Kathleen Johnson Eyring. He later received B.S., MBA and J.D. degrees from Brigham Young University (1985, 1989, 1989) in Provo, Utah. After graduating, Eyring worked at the consulting firm Monitor Group from 1989 to 1998, During that time he also served as a director of SkyWest Airlines. From 2002 to 2003, he was a special partner with Peterson Capital.
From 2003-2006 Eyring served as the president of the Japan Tokyo North Mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. From 2007-2012 Eyring served as the president of the BYU–Idaho 6th Stake.
Eyring's first book was a biography of his grandfather and namesake, award-winning chemist Henry Eyring. He is also the co-author of a biography about his father and namesake, Henry B. Eyring, apostle and member of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Eyring and his wife Kelly have five children and reside in Rexburg, Idaho. Their son, Henry C. Eyring, is a professor of accounting at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Eyring was born in Palo Alto, California to Henry B. Eyring and Kathleen Johnson Eyring. He later received B.S., MBA and J.D. degrees from Brigham Young University (1985, 1989, 1989) in Provo, Utah. After graduating, Eyring worked at the consulting firm Monitor Group from 1989 to 1998, During that time he also served as a director of SkyWest Airlines. From 2002 to 2003, he was a special partner with Peterson Capital.
From 2003-2006 Eyring served as the president of the Japan Tokyo North Mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. From 2007-2012 Eyring served as the president of the BYU–Idaho 6th Stake.
Eyring's first book was a biography of his grandfather and namesake, award-winning chemist Henry Eyring. He is also the co-author of a biography about his father and namesake, Henry B. Eyring, apostle and member of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Eyring and his wife Kelly have five children and reside in Rexburg, Idaho. Their son, Henry C. Eyring, is a professor of accounting at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 305 reviews
April 6, 2011
3 1/2 stars.
The book itself was simple and slightly choppy, but the excerpts and quotes of the subject, Henry Eyring, were delightful and enlightening leaving this reader with a desire to go to the source and seek out The Faith of a Scientist, written by Henry Eyring (not to be confused with the son/Apostle, Henry B., or grandson/author, Henry J.).
Because this book was borrowed (and I couldn't mark my favorite pages), I'm leaving my favorite quotes here (there are many.):
Our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts - they are eternal. How long the Earth has been organized is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of his fathers, and from these pieced out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the Earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would all be reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant (page 55)."
Accurate dating of events by radioactive elements decaying in the rocks and in textile fibers and elsewhere makes possible an accuracy in chronology which was undreamed of a generation ago. In effect, clocks are set going whenever these materials are laid down. these clocks can often be read with great accuracy. Such data, with many kinds of cross-checks, leads to an antiquity for life on this earth of at least some six hundred million years. These conclusions are well known and will surprise no one... My conception of the gospel is that the scriptures record the dealings of God with His Prophets and His People. By living in accordance with their teachings, we may expect to reach the Celestial Kingdom. To be understood, the Lord must reveal Himself in a language His Children can understand. Of necessity, many things not necessary for their immediate progress are omitted, to be revealed later, and to be discovered by man's own enterprise. There are some people who throw away the scriptures and restrict themselves to science and related fields. Others use the scriptures to the exclusion of other truth. Both are wrong. Latter-day Saints should seek after truth by all avenues with earnest humility. There is, of course, no conflict in the gospel since it embraces all truth. Undoubtedly, however, science is continually challenging us to think through again our conceptions of the gospel. This should work both ways, of course (pp. 58-59)." (emphasis added)
The Gospel embraces all truth. Brigham Young especially emphasized the propriety of seeking all truth. The assumption that because a man understands something about the operation of the Universe he will necessarily be less faithful is a gratuitous assumption contradicted by numberless examples. God, who understands all about the Universe, is apparently not troubled by this knowledge.
Some people drift when they study, but some people drift when they don't study. If the Church espouses the cause of ignorance it will alienate more people than if it advises men to seek after the truth even at some risk(p. 60).
In my judgment there is room in the Church for people who think that the periods of creation were (a) 24 hours, (b) 1000 years, or (c) millions of years (p. 62).
There are two men in each of us: the scientist, he who starts with a clear field and desires to rise to the knowledge of Nature through observation, experimentation and reasoning, and the man of sentiment, the man of belief, the man who mourns his dead children, and who cannot, alas, prove that he will see them again, but who believes that he will, and lives in the hope - the man who will not die like a vibrio, but who feels that the force that is within him cannot die (p. 124).
Thank you for your letter of January 22nd. I was trained as a mining engineer, so the evidence seems to me to point toward an age of the earth of between four and five billion years and to the existence of pre-Adamic man. I don't think that it is reasonable to explain the observed geologic formations on the theory that they were moved from some other world. Since as Latter-day Saints we believe life exists in other worlds I have no difficulty in reconciling myself to the idea of life before Adam and to a great age of the earth. Our scriptural accounts are brief and don't seem to me to rule out these possibilities. The scriptural emphasis is on God's dealings with Adam and his descendants, and the treatment of pre-Adamic history is sketchy, no doubt for good reason... (p. 125).
When two ideas seem opposed, we ultimately choose one or the other, even if both may be true. To do otherwise, we rationalize, is to choose confusion and befuddlement... Henry, though, was content with this kind of ambiguity. In fact, he liked such puzzles. In his mind, for example, science and religion weren't fundamentally at odds with one another; they just weren't fully reconciled yet. Henry reasoned that God knows all the answers and will ultimately reveal them and show how everything fits together... (p. 165).
Apparently a good mind makes errors like a poorer one, but simply thinks faster, oftener, and longer, so has more good ideas (p. 176).
I LOVE THIS ONE:
I do not know just how soon or when we will know more. I am sure the Lord is not particularly frightened at his clever children. I am sure that He thinks they are pretty dumb. So people who think He is jealous have quite different ideas of how great He is than I do. I think that all of the things that we think are clever, that we might do, must be so trivial to Him that I am sure that He is not jealous. do not worry about it. I mean, do not hold off on any bright ideas that you have for fear the Lord will be worried about you overtaking Him. I think it will be safe (p. 180).
After a very pleasant morning in discussion with Professor Einstein, we walked together at noon through what had been a rose garden but was now planted with a field crop. I plucked a sprig and asked Professor Einstein what it was. He did not know. We walked a little farther and encountered the gardener sitting on his wheelbarrow. His reply to same query was, "It is soybeans." Even for a first-rate mind, what gains attention is not just propinquity but interest. Professor Einstein's mind was too busy with more important things... Usually when Henry told this story, he ended it with the quip, "Einstein didn't know beans." (pp. 194-95)
Einstein heard the theory of humans being resurrected and replied, "What about dogs?" Flummoxed by this unexpected question, the best Henry could offer was his belief that the Supreme Being would take due care. "I'm a little weak on dogs," he said, "But I'm sure that He is sensitive to all needs." Afterward Henry confessed, "I don't think Einstein was overwhelmed by my answer (p. 263)."
If you insist on knowing pi exactly, you are asking for the impossible, since the series never ends...The statement that we can never know everything about the Gospel is thus a mathematical certainty, since here is one truth which has no finite terms...By diligent study... we can get a better and better idea of the true picture. But to ask for the whole picture is meaningless - we can't get it in a finite time (pp. 228-29).
Actually, you do not ever prove anything that makes a difference in science or religion. You set up some basic postulates from your experience or your experiments and then from that you start making deductions, but everything that matters is based upon things you accept as true (p. 234).
If we interpret the world precisely as the Prophet Joseph did, we are entirely unworthy of his tremendous precedent-breaking example. The Church, from its top-most councils to the man in the street, is at its best when it is undergoing thoughtful change. 'Fundamental Principles' are never well enough understood by mortal man that they can't be said better (p. 240).
...Henry disdained those who grew too confidant of their wisdom and its value to the world. He probably offended, for example, an acquaintance who suggested in a private conversation that the Church was lucky to have the support of learned men such as themselves. His confidant made the mistake of using the words "we intellectuals." Resentful of being so classified, Henry sternly replied, "Don't ever call me an intellectual - I just do chemistry." (p. 244)
Perhaps the believer never does more disservice to religion than to support the truth with bad arguments (p. 245).
With each new discovery, the skeptic finds less need for God, while the devout Latter-day Saint sees in it one more evidence of His overruling hand.
It was ever so. The Bible speaks of the four corners of the earth. In the time of Columbus, there were those who thought a flat earth was a religious necessity. When it turned out to be round, Christ's teachings were found to be just as consistent with the new view as with the old. Later, when Galileo verified the theories of Copernicus and said the earth moved about the sun and so could no longer be considered the center of creation, there were bigots ready to burn him at the stake. When the smoke of battle cleared away and men looked at matters calmly, it became apparent that nothing essential had been lost. A lot of human philosophy disappeared, but it turned out to be unnecessary (p. 247).
...He recalled the discussion these scientists had over dinner:
One of them turned to me and asked, "How many of these people believe in a Supreme Being?" I said, "I don't know; let's ask them." There was no objection. I said, "Now, let's put the question as clearly as we can. How many of you think that 'There is a Supreme Being' best represents your point of view, and how many think that 'There is no Supreme Being' best represents your point of view? Let's not have a long discussion about what we mean, but just choose between these two propositions." All twelve said they believed (p. 256).
He was famously forgiving, for example, of the alleged weaknesses of his fellow Church members. He often repeated a witticism to this effect:
Some people have pointed to some member of the Church and said, "Now Dr. Eyring, that's one of your brethren, and he's not what he out to be." My answer is this, "Well, you ought to see what he would be like if it weren't for the Church (p. 277-8)."
The book itself was simple and slightly choppy, but the excerpts and quotes of the subject, Henry Eyring, were delightful and enlightening leaving this reader with a desire to go to the source and seek out The Faith of a Scientist, written by Henry Eyring (not to be confused with the son/Apostle, Henry B., or grandson/author, Henry J.).
Because this book was borrowed (and I couldn't mark my favorite pages), I'm leaving my favorite quotes here (there are many.):
Our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts - they are eternal. How long the Earth has been organized is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of his fathers, and from these pieced out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the Earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would all be reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant (page 55)."
Accurate dating of events by radioactive elements decaying in the rocks and in textile fibers and elsewhere makes possible an accuracy in chronology which was undreamed of a generation ago. In effect, clocks are set going whenever these materials are laid down. these clocks can often be read with great accuracy. Such data, with many kinds of cross-checks, leads to an antiquity for life on this earth of at least some six hundred million years. These conclusions are well known and will surprise no one... My conception of the gospel is that the scriptures record the dealings of God with His Prophets and His People. By living in accordance with their teachings, we may expect to reach the Celestial Kingdom. To be understood, the Lord must reveal Himself in a language His Children can understand. Of necessity, many things not necessary for their immediate progress are omitted, to be revealed later, and to be discovered by man's own enterprise. There are some people who throw away the scriptures and restrict themselves to science and related fields. Others use the scriptures to the exclusion of other truth. Both are wrong. Latter-day Saints should seek after truth by all avenues with earnest humility. There is, of course, no conflict in the gospel since it embraces all truth. Undoubtedly, however, science is continually challenging us to think through again our conceptions of the gospel. This should work both ways, of course (pp. 58-59)." (emphasis added)
The Gospel embraces all truth. Brigham Young especially emphasized the propriety of seeking all truth. The assumption that because a man understands something about the operation of the Universe he will necessarily be less faithful is a gratuitous assumption contradicted by numberless examples. God, who understands all about the Universe, is apparently not troubled by this knowledge.
Some people drift when they study, but some people drift when they don't study. If the Church espouses the cause of ignorance it will alienate more people than if it advises men to seek after the truth even at some risk(p. 60).
In my judgment there is room in the Church for people who think that the periods of creation were (a) 24 hours, (b) 1000 years, or (c) millions of years (p. 62).
There are two men in each of us: the scientist, he who starts with a clear field and desires to rise to the knowledge of Nature through observation, experimentation and reasoning, and the man of sentiment, the man of belief, the man who mourns his dead children, and who cannot, alas, prove that he will see them again, but who believes that he will, and lives in the hope - the man who will not die like a vibrio, but who feels that the force that is within him cannot die (p. 124).
Thank you for your letter of January 22nd. I was trained as a mining engineer, so the evidence seems to me to point toward an age of the earth of between four and five billion years and to the existence of pre-Adamic man. I don't think that it is reasonable to explain the observed geologic formations on the theory that they were moved from some other world. Since as Latter-day Saints we believe life exists in other worlds I have no difficulty in reconciling myself to the idea of life before Adam and to a great age of the earth. Our scriptural accounts are brief and don't seem to me to rule out these possibilities. The scriptural emphasis is on God's dealings with Adam and his descendants, and the treatment of pre-Adamic history is sketchy, no doubt for good reason... (p. 125).
When two ideas seem opposed, we ultimately choose one or the other, even if both may be true. To do otherwise, we rationalize, is to choose confusion and befuddlement... Henry, though, was content with this kind of ambiguity. In fact, he liked such puzzles. In his mind, for example, science and religion weren't fundamentally at odds with one another; they just weren't fully reconciled yet. Henry reasoned that God knows all the answers and will ultimately reveal them and show how everything fits together... (p. 165).
Apparently a good mind makes errors like a poorer one, but simply thinks faster, oftener, and longer, so has more good ideas (p. 176).
I LOVE THIS ONE:
I do not know just how soon or when we will know more. I am sure the Lord is not particularly frightened at his clever children. I am sure that He thinks they are pretty dumb. So people who think He is jealous have quite different ideas of how great He is than I do. I think that all of the things that we think are clever, that we might do, must be so trivial to Him that I am sure that He is not jealous. do not worry about it. I mean, do not hold off on any bright ideas that you have for fear the Lord will be worried about you overtaking Him. I think it will be safe (p. 180).
After a very pleasant morning in discussion with Professor Einstein, we walked together at noon through what had been a rose garden but was now planted with a field crop. I plucked a sprig and asked Professor Einstein what it was. He did not know. We walked a little farther and encountered the gardener sitting on his wheelbarrow. His reply to same query was, "It is soybeans." Even for a first-rate mind, what gains attention is not just propinquity but interest. Professor Einstein's mind was too busy with more important things... Usually when Henry told this story, he ended it with the quip, "Einstein didn't know beans." (pp. 194-95)
Einstein heard the theory of humans being resurrected and replied, "What about dogs?" Flummoxed by this unexpected question, the best Henry could offer was his belief that the Supreme Being would take due care. "I'm a little weak on dogs," he said, "But I'm sure that He is sensitive to all needs." Afterward Henry confessed, "I don't think Einstein was overwhelmed by my answer (p. 263)."
If you insist on knowing pi exactly, you are asking for the impossible, since the series never ends...The statement that we can never know everything about the Gospel is thus a mathematical certainty, since here is one truth which has no finite terms...By diligent study... we can get a better and better idea of the true picture. But to ask for the whole picture is meaningless - we can't get it in a finite time (pp. 228-29).
Actually, you do not ever prove anything that makes a difference in science or religion. You set up some basic postulates from your experience or your experiments and then from that you start making deductions, but everything that matters is based upon things you accept as true (p. 234).
If we interpret the world precisely as the Prophet Joseph did, we are entirely unworthy of his tremendous precedent-breaking example. The Church, from its top-most councils to the man in the street, is at its best when it is undergoing thoughtful change. 'Fundamental Principles' are never well enough understood by mortal man that they can't be said better (p. 240).
...Henry disdained those who grew too confidant of their wisdom and its value to the world. He probably offended, for example, an acquaintance who suggested in a private conversation that the Church was lucky to have the support of learned men such as themselves. His confidant made the mistake of using the words "we intellectuals." Resentful of being so classified, Henry sternly replied, "Don't ever call me an intellectual - I just do chemistry." (p. 244)
Perhaps the believer never does more disservice to religion than to support the truth with bad arguments (p. 245).
With each new discovery, the skeptic finds less need for God, while the devout Latter-day Saint sees in it one more evidence of His overruling hand.
It was ever so. The Bible speaks of the four corners of the earth. In the time of Columbus, there were those who thought a flat earth was a religious necessity. When it turned out to be round, Christ's teachings were found to be just as consistent with the new view as with the old. Later, when Galileo verified the theories of Copernicus and said the earth moved about the sun and so could no longer be considered the center of creation, there were bigots ready to burn him at the stake. When the smoke of battle cleared away and men looked at matters calmly, it became apparent that nothing essential had been lost. A lot of human philosophy disappeared, but it turned out to be unnecessary (p. 247).
...He recalled the discussion these scientists had over dinner:
One of them turned to me and asked, "How many of these people believe in a Supreme Being?" I said, "I don't know; let's ask them." There was no objection. I said, "Now, let's put the question as clearly as we can. How many of you think that 'There is a Supreme Being' best represents your point of view, and how many think that 'There is no Supreme Being' best represents your point of view? Let's not have a long discussion about what we mean, but just choose between these two propositions." All twelve said they believed (p. 256).
He was famously forgiving, for example, of the alleged weaknesses of his fellow Church members. He often repeated a witticism to this effect:
Some people have pointed to some member of the Church and said, "Now Dr. Eyring, that's one of your brethren, and he's not what he out to be." My answer is this, "Well, you ought to see what he would be like if it weren't for the Church (p. 277-8)."
May 4, 2019
Guys, I didn't see this coming, but this is my favorite book I've read this year. I read dozens of sections out loud to Chris because they were so funny or tender or historically fascinating (scientific advances, tons of Utah/Mormon history, battles in Mexican Revolution, etc.).
March 6, 2008
FINALLY- A book that is completely logical about science and religion. I have always believed that one could be a true scientist and have a testimony of God and His work. I highly recommend this book to all those who have an appreciation for science (especially if you love the physical sciences). I wish that I would have had a better understanding of physics so that I could have an even deeper appreciation of Eyrings contributions. Eyring was an incredible man, insanely intelligent, loved his family, dignified, and humble. In my mind, he never needed to win the Noble Prize, he attained a level of respect with his collegues that was simply priceless. This book really symbolizes why it is so important to be educated in all aspects of life--and why you should just have faith that God will manifest the truth to you.
December 4, 2009
I loved this book. And I highly recommend it to anyone who has trouble balancing "logic" with "faith."
I am typically not one to read biographies, but this one sounded really good to me and came with a good recommendation and I'm glad I read it. While giving the story of Henry Eyring and his life, it showed how it's possible to a scientist, believe in scientific things, believe in logical things, but still have a strong and vibrant faith.
Eyring was a high caliber scientist who worked with Einstein and other famous scientists throughout his life. He spoke out on science and religion often for the Church with the hush hush support of its leaders (they often called on him to give such talks).
Being a contemporary of Joseph Fielding Smith, it showed in various parts of the book, how they disagreed (quite vehemently at times) but still remained friends. This being because Smith believed in a literal interpretation of scripture i.e. 7 days of 24 hours for the creation period; and Eyring believed what Science, specifically geology, showed to be the facts of a much older Earth.
He lived by the credo that the Church only requires its members to believe truth and that if the members feel threatened by science, they should change realize that they should not, if it is true science they it shouldn't conflict with the gospel, and if it does then we don't fully understand what's going on yet.
What I really like was that he said that religion's fear of science is often misguided because when great scientific changes have happened in the past, they have not affected religion as religion thought they might. When the Earth was finally accepted as being round and not flat, or when it was discovered/accepted that the Earth was not the center of the Universe (both ideas strongly opposed by religion), religion wasn't adversely affected! Nothing changed other than philosophies of man, and this had no bearing on the gospel truths that matter to man's salvation. Eyring pointed out that it is the same with many scientific things that religion fears today.
Although the book never states whether Eyring believed in organic evolution, it does point out that he studied organic evolution a lot, and that he certainly entertained the idea that that was how God achieved creation, though he obviously couldn't be sure.
Great stuff with too many quotes and parts I liked to pick just one or a few to put in this review.
I am typically not one to read biographies, but this one sounded really good to me and came with a good recommendation and I'm glad I read it. While giving the story of Henry Eyring and his life, it showed how it's possible to a scientist, believe in scientific things, believe in logical things, but still have a strong and vibrant faith.
Eyring was a high caliber scientist who worked with Einstein and other famous scientists throughout his life. He spoke out on science and religion often for the Church with the hush hush support of its leaders (they often called on him to give such talks).
Being a contemporary of Joseph Fielding Smith, it showed in various parts of the book, how they disagreed (quite vehemently at times) but still remained friends. This being because Smith believed in a literal interpretation of scripture i.e. 7 days of 24 hours for the creation period; and Eyring believed what Science, specifically geology, showed to be the facts of a much older Earth.
He lived by the credo that the Church only requires its members to believe truth and that if the members feel threatened by science, they should change realize that they should not, if it is true science they it shouldn't conflict with the gospel, and if it does then we don't fully understand what's going on yet.
What I really like was that he said that religion's fear of science is often misguided because when great scientific changes have happened in the past, they have not affected religion as religion thought they might. When the Earth was finally accepted as being round and not flat, or when it was discovered/accepted that the Earth was not the center of the Universe (both ideas strongly opposed by religion), religion wasn't adversely affected! Nothing changed other than philosophies of man, and this had no bearing on the gospel truths that matter to man's salvation. Eyring pointed out that it is the same with many scientific things that religion fears today.
Although the book never states whether Eyring believed in organic evolution, it does point out that he studied organic evolution a lot, and that he certainly entertained the idea that that was how God achieved creation, though he obviously couldn't be sure.
Great stuff with too many quotes and parts I liked to pick just one or a few to put in this review.
August 8, 2013
If you have ever wondered how to reconcile long held beliefs taught by your religious leaders and holy scriptures, with what you now to know to be scientifically true, e.g.:
* A 6000 years old earth that it was created in 7 days vs. overwhelming scientific evidence that points to an earth that is 4.5 billion years old.
* On the first day of Creation the night was separated from the day; on the third day the plants were put on the earth; but the sun was not created until the fourth day vs. the fact that night and day are caused by the earth’s rotation around the sun, and that plants need sunlight to survive.
* The sun gets its light from (depending on the scripture) Christ, or a planet named Kolob vs. the sun's energy coming from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium.
* The Earth having foundations and cannot be moved vs. the fact that we are rotating at over 1000 mph and moving around the sun at over 67,000 mph.
* God's anger causing earthquakes vs. plate tectonics.
* That man was created from the dust of the earth and then a rib taken from him to create woman vs. evolution (denying the theory of evolution is pretty much like denying the theory of gravity at this point - Dr. Eyring himself supports that position).
* That the earth was destroyed by a flood and every species was preserved on an ark; and different languages are the result of a curse at the Tower of Babel vs. reason and rationality.
* That Joseph Smith and Brigham Young believed and taught that people lived on the moon and the sun vs. well, you get the idea... if you are looking to reconcile the religion with the science... this book is NOT for you.
About 80% of the book is biographical information on Dr. Eyring, his parents, grandparents, siblings, children, and extended family; about 10% is a poor attempt to explain Dr. Eyring’s scientific achievements; about 9.9% is testimony bearing from the author, and about .01% is discussion of how Dr. Eyring reconciled his beliefs with the scientific evidence. Note that there is no attempt to provide any scientific evidence to support any of the aforementioned (or any other) religious claims.
So how does Dr. Eyring reconcile a belief in the supernatural claims of religion vs. the overwhelming scientific evidence that refutes it? Pretty much the same way that we all do, which includes some are all of the following:
1) Confirmation Bias - ignore or discount information that is disconfirming of your belief and place high importance on any information that supports it.
2) Create a new story to support the belief. From the book - "It is interesting to recall that, in ages past, religious men felt that their faith hinged on the notion that the earth was flat. However, when it was found to be round, they discovered that their basic religious ideas had survived without perceptible damage. In fact, the great underlying principles of faith were brought into bolder relief when the clutter of false notions was removed from about them.”
3) Recognize that we don't know why the evidence doesn't support the beliefs, but have faith that God will explain it to us at some point in the future - probably on the other side.
4) Choose to believe.
At times I admired Dr. Eyring’s defense of the evidence. He said "If the Church espouses the cause of ignorance it will alienate more people than if it advises men to seek after the truth even at some risk". He clashed with some church leaders who wanted him to take a more literal view of the Bible; particularly Joseph Fielding Smith (an apostle at the time) who "sensed that intellectualism - both within and without the Church - would only increase, and that science might produce discoveries more threatening to faith even than evolution".
Dr. Eyring affirmed that the earth was "between four and five billion years old. The evidence is strong enough that arguing for a younger earth - such as the one implied by a literal reading of the biblical creation account in Genesis - is nearly as bold as arguing for a flat earth."
Dr. Eyring was in a difficult position as a scientist and a believer. The church leaders "privately encouraged [Henry] to address the subject of science and religion as the opportunity presented itself".
"The church had taken no official position on either evolution or the age of the earth. Elder Smith, though, felt the necessity of claiming the strategic high ground relative not only to these challenges, but also to any others that science might present. He did this by advocating scriptural literalism. In other words, all scriptural accounts - including those of the creation - were to be read literally, regardless of contrary evidence or opinions".
"The drawback of this position, of course, was that it required scientific findings contrary to scripture to be disregarded. Believing LDS scientists and students thus found themselves in a quandary. It was one thing to hold fast to spiritual beliefs that couldn't be proven scientifically, as President Clark had challenged. It was another thing to deny - as a condition of faith - science itself".
It's interesting that "In addition to speaking publicly, Henry acted as an informal science advisor to the senior leaders of the church. At the same time that the First Presidency were dispatching him to seminars, they sought his opinion on scientific matters. He was quick to reply, for instance, to a March 26, 1952, request from the First Presidency for insight into the age of the Earth". It is interesting to me that not only did these church leaders have their scriptures that already told them that earth is only 6000 years old, but more importantly that these were Prophets, Seers, and Revelators who could talk to God and yet were looking to Dr. Eyring to help them figure this thing out.
At times, however, I was very disappointed that a scientist would not take a more skeptical view of claims made with absolutely no evidence to support them. The book mentioned several times that Dr. Eyring knew certain things because Joseph Smith proclaimed them. One example: "He knew from Joseph Smith's testimony that man is created in the image of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, and they that they have bodies of flesh and bone."
Really? He knew it because Joseph said it? Joseph also said men lived on the moon and they dressed like Quakers, so did he "know" that also? People have claimed to have seen ghosts, aliens, Santa, bigfoot, Nessie, Elvis (post-mortem), the chupacabra, etc. Do any of those "testimonials" constitute evidence? Most scientists (as well as most judges and juries) know better than to take claims that are unsupported by evidence as truth.
The biggest disappointment for me came in Henry's very unscientific way of dealing with paradoxes like the ones I described above: "Yes, these two facts seem contradictory. Let's assume that they are both true and see if we can find the missing pieces that reconcile them". This approach is the opposite of critical thinking and the antithesis of the scientific method. This is the very definition of confirmation bias – making an assumption and then deliberately looking for information to corroborate your beliefs and discarding evidence that doesn't support them. I can only assume that he only took this approach when it came to religion only, and hope that when it came to his research he used some actual science.
A final pet-peeve about this book is that the author uses very few quotations. Instead he repeatedly gives the following disclaimer: "Spelling and punctuation in quotations from unpublished sources have been standardized for increased readability. In addition, in some cases extraneous material has been excised from quotations without use of ellipses, again for purposes of readability." He feels that quoting Dr. Eyring (and others) without using quotation marks or ellipses (to indicate where he removed words from the original quote) makes it more readable.
I don't believe that's true, but even if it is more readable, it’s certainly less accurate. You are left wondering whether this was actually a real quote from the individual or the authors summary of what he/she said. I felt that much of what the author said about Dr. Eyring was his own opinion. Unfortunately Dr. Eyring is not around to verify whether the author’s opinions of his philosophy and scientific method are accurate or not.
* A 6000 years old earth that it was created in 7 days vs. overwhelming scientific evidence that points to an earth that is 4.5 billion years old.
* On the first day of Creation the night was separated from the day; on the third day the plants were put on the earth; but the sun was not created until the fourth day vs. the fact that night and day are caused by the earth’s rotation around the sun, and that plants need sunlight to survive.
* The sun gets its light from (depending on the scripture) Christ, or a planet named Kolob vs. the sun's energy coming from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium.
* The Earth having foundations and cannot be moved vs. the fact that we are rotating at over 1000 mph and moving around the sun at over 67,000 mph.
* God's anger causing earthquakes vs. plate tectonics.
* That man was created from the dust of the earth and then a rib taken from him to create woman vs. evolution (denying the theory of evolution is pretty much like denying the theory of gravity at this point - Dr. Eyring himself supports that position).
* That the earth was destroyed by a flood and every species was preserved on an ark; and different languages are the result of a curse at the Tower of Babel vs. reason and rationality.
* That Joseph Smith and Brigham Young believed and taught that people lived on the moon and the sun vs. well, you get the idea... if you are looking to reconcile the religion with the science... this book is NOT for you.
About 80% of the book is biographical information on Dr. Eyring, his parents, grandparents, siblings, children, and extended family; about 10% is a poor attempt to explain Dr. Eyring’s scientific achievements; about 9.9% is testimony bearing from the author, and about .01% is discussion of how Dr. Eyring reconciled his beliefs with the scientific evidence. Note that there is no attempt to provide any scientific evidence to support any of the aforementioned (or any other) religious claims.
So how does Dr. Eyring reconcile a belief in the supernatural claims of religion vs. the overwhelming scientific evidence that refutes it? Pretty much the same way that we all do, which includes some are all of the following:
1) Confirmation Bias - ignore or discount information that is disconfirming of your belief and place high importance on any information that supports it.
2) Create a new story to support the belief. From the book - "It is interesting to recall that, in ages past, religious men felt that their faith hinged on the notion that the earth was flat. However, when it was found to be round, they discovered that their basic religious ideas had survived without perceptible damage. In fact, the great underlying principles of faith were brought into bolder relief when the clutter of false notions was removed from about them.”
3) Recognize that we don't know why the evidence doesn't support the beliefs, but have faith that God will explain it to us at some point in the future - probably on the other side.
4) Choose to believe.
At times I admired Dr. Eyring’s defense of the evidence. He said "If the Church espouses the cause of ignorance it will alienate more people than if it advises men to seek after the truth even at some risk". He clashed with some church leaders who wanted him to take a more literal view of the Bible; particularly Joseph Fielding Smith (an apostle at the time) who "sensed that intellectualism - both within and without the Church - would only increase, and that science might produce discoveries more threatening to faith even than evolution".
Dr. Eyring affirmed that the earth was "between four and five billion years old. The evidence is strong enough that arguing for a younger earth - such as the one implied by a literal reading of the biblical creation account in Genesis - is nearly as bold as arguing for a flat earth."
Dr. Eyring was in a difficult position as a scientist and a believer. The church leaders "privately encouraged [Henry] to address the subject of science and religion as the opportunity presented itself".
"The church had taken no official position on either evolution or the age of the earth. Elder Smith, though, felt the necessity of claiming the strategic high ground relative not only to these challenges, but also to any others that science might present. He did this by advocating scriptural literalism. In other words, all scriptural accounts - including those of the creation - were to be read literally, regardless of contrary evidence or opinions".
"The drawback of this position, of course, was that it required scientific findings contrary to scripture to be disregarded. Believing LDS scientists and students thus found themselves in a quandary. It was one thing to hold fast to spiritual beliefs that couldn't be proven scientifically, as President Clark had challenged. It was another thing to deny - as a condition of faith - science itself".
It's interesting that "In addition to speaking publicly, Henry acted as an informal science advisor to the senior leaders of the church. At the same time that the First Presidency were dispatching him to seminars, they sought his opinion on scientific matters. He was quick to reply, for instance, to a March 26, 1952, request from the First Presidency for insight into the age of the Earth". It is interesting to me that not only did these church leaders have their scriptures that already told them that earth is only 6000 years old, but more importantly that these were Prophets, Seers, and Revelators who could talk to God and yet were looking to Dr. Eyring to help them figure this thing out.
At times, however, I was very disappointed that a scientist would not take a more skeptical view of claims made with absolutely no evidence to support them. The book mentioned several times that Dr. Eyring knew certain things because Joseph Smith proclaimed them. One example: "He knew from Joseph Smith's testimony that man is created in the image of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, and they that they have bodies of flesh and bone."
Really? He knew it because Joseph said it? Joseph also said men lived on the moon and they dressed like Quakers, so did he "know" that also? People have claimed to have seen ghosts, aliens, Santa, bigfoot, Nessie, Elvis (post-mortem), the chupacabra, etc. Do any of those "testimonials" constitute evidence? Most scientists (as well as most judges and juries) know better than to take claims that are unsupported by evidence as truth.
The biggest disappointment for me came in Henry's very unscientific way of dealing with paradoxes like the ones I described above: "Yes, these two facts seem contradictory. Let's assume that they are both true and see if we can find the missing pieces that reconcile them". This approach is the opposite of critical thinking and the antithesis of the scientific method. This is the very definition of confirmation bias – making an assumption and then deliberately looking for information to corroborate your beliefs and discarding evidence that doesn't support them. I can only assume that he only took this approach when it came to religion only, and hope that when it came to his research he used some actual science.
A final pet-peeve about this book is that the author uses very few quotations. Instead he repeatedly gives the following disclaimer: "Spelling and punctuation in quotations from unpublished sources have been standardized for increased readability. In addition, in some cases extraneous material has been excised from quotations without use of ellipses, again for purposes of readability." He feels that quoting Dr. Eyring (and others) without using quotation marks or ellipses (to indicate where he removed words from the original quote) makes it more readable.
I don't believe that's true, but even if it is more readable, it’s certainly less accurate. You are left wondering whether this was actually a real quote from the individual or the authors summary of what he/she said. I felt that much of what the author said about Dr. Eyring was his own opinion. Unfortunately Dr. Eyring is not around to verify whether the author’s opinions of his philosophy and scientific method are accurate or not.
April 3, 2019
4.5 stars. This was a really well written biography and I loved all of the insight into Henry Eyring's life. He was tremendously brilliant but still down to earth and relatable. A few of the anecdotes of his life were comical enough I had to read them out loud to my husband. I loved all of his discourses on science and faith and how his beliefs in one strengthened the other. It was also a great length (right around 300 pages). It can get tiresome plodding through an overly lengthy biography but this one was perfect and concise. I'd highly recommend this (whether you are Mormon or not)!
April 26, 2022
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. - F. Scott Fitzgerald
My paternal grandfather was a miner, a chemist, a philosopher, and above all a seeker of truth. I remember giving this book to my dad years ago because (I think?) his dad was acquainted with Henry Eyring. Since my dad passed away in December, I can't ask him. And that is the real pain of waiting to read my own copy of this book until now, the real pain of losing him. I just want half an hour on the phone with him to talk about this book! (as if that were really all I wanted...)
A Wonderful fact to reflect upon, that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other. A solemn consideration, when I enter a great city by night, that every one of those darkly clustered houses encloses its own secret; that every room in every one of them encloses its own secret; that every beating heart in the hundreds of thousands of breasts there, is, in some of its imaginings, a secret to the heart nearest it! Something of the awfulness, even of Death itself, is referable to this. No more can I turn the leaves of this dear book that I loved, and vainly hope in time to read it all. No more can I look into the depths of this unfathomable water, wherein, as momentary lights glanced into it, I have had glimpses of buried treasure and other things submerged. It was appointed that the book should shut with a a spring, for ever and for ever, when I had read but a page. It was appointed that the water should be locked in an eternal frost, when the light was playing on its surface, and I stood in ignorance on the shore. My friend is dead, my neighbour is dead, my love, the darling of my soul, is dead; it is the inexorable consolidation and perpetuation of the secret that was always in that individuality, and which I shall carry in mine to my life's end. - Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities , Chapter 3
One of the legacies of my father was a strong belief that God is a scientist and that science and religion are not actually contradictory—it's just our own and collective understanding and interpretation of them are imperfect—that is where the contradictions lie. So reading this book was like sitting with my dad or his father. It was great and I cried a lot.
It's not a particularly amazingly constructed or written book—but much of it is taken from Dr. Eyring's speeches and writings and he was obviously a delightful person. Oh, how I miss these older generations that have passed on—all of my grandparents are gone, my father is gone. I miss their perspective and their wisdom so much. Reading this book brought them back to me for a few hours. So my fifth star is unabashedly and utterly personal. It's really a 3-4 star book and definitely hagiography. It's more like a really well done family history project than a true biography. I am used to that with Deseret Book publications, so that was not a surprise.
Some favorite quotes:
"There are lots of things, of course, that science does not know, but to me the saddest thing I see is people who feel that science threatens them religiously. It could not possibly threaten us religiously, because the same God who made our religion, that same God is making the universe. Science might threaten our understanding of religion. I'm not doubting that—that some of us, including me, have such a faulty understanding of our religion that almost anything might threaten it...we must get our religion in the kind of shape that it cannot be threatened by anything that science discovers or does not discover." (emphasis mine)
"What is true about the gospel of Jesus Christ—not what you understand and think, which is partly nonsense, no matter who you are—But what is really true is all that we are committed to. That will stand any kind of treatment or anything that you can imagine."
"We owe it to ourselves to understand the world we live in—science, music, and art... We do have to know science. We have to know everything about the world, and more than that, if you are afraid that science is going to knock the gospel over, you really haven't got your religion in shape. There isn't anything to worry about between science and religion, because the contradictions are just in your own mind. Of course they are there, but they are not in the Lord's mind because He made the whole thing, so there is a way, if we are smart enough, to understand them so that we will not have any contradictions. Let us struggle to do that."
"Some people pointed to some member of the church and said, 'Now Dr. Eyring, that's one of your brethren, and he's not what he ought to be.' My answer is this 'well, you ought to see what he would be like if it weren't for the church.'"
"If an idea is wrong, it will fail; if it is right, nothing can stop it."
If you like this one, try An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown .
My paternal grandfather was a miner, a chemist, a philosopher, and above all a seeker of truth. I remember giving this book to my dad years ago because (I think?) his dad was acquainted with Henry Eyring. Since my dad passed away in December, I can't ask him. And that is the real pain of waiting to read my own copy of this book until now, the real pain of losing him. I just want half an hour on the phone with him to talk about this book! (as if that were really all I wanted...)
A Wonderful fact to reflect upon, that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other. A solemn consideration, when I enter a great city by night, that every one of those darkly clustered houses encloses its own secret; that every room in every one of them encloses its own secret; that every beating heart in the hundreds of thousands of breasts there, is, in some of its imaginings, a secret to the heart nearest it! Something of the awfulness, even of Death itself, is referable to this. No more can I turn the leaves of this dear book that I loved, and vainly hope in time to read it all. No more can I look into the depths of this unfathomable water, wherein, as momentary lights glanced into it, I have had glimpses of buried treasure and other things submerged. It was appointed that the book should shut with a a spring, for ever and for ever, when I had read but a page. It was appointed that the water should be locked in an eternal frost, when the light was playing on its surface, and I stood in ignorance on the shore. My friend is dead, my neighbour is dead, my love, the darling of my soul, is dead; it is the inexorable consolidation and perpetuation of the secret that was always in that individuality, and which I shall carry in mine to my life's end. - Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities , Chapter 3
One of the legacies of my father was a strong belief that God is a scientist and that science and religion are not actually contradictory—it's just our own and collective understanding and interpretation of them are imperfect—that is where the contradictions lie. So reading this book was like sitting with my dad or his father. It was great and I cried a lot.
It's not a particularly amazingly constructed or written book—but much of it is taken from Dr. Eyring's speeches and writings and he was obviously a delightful person. Oh, how I miss these older generations that have passed on—all of my grandparents are gone, my father is gone. I miss their perspective and their wisdom so much. Reading this book brought them back to me for a few hours. So my fifth star is unabashedly and utterly personal. It's really a 3-4 star book and definitely hagiography. It's more like a really well done family history project than a true biography. I am used to that with Deseret Book publications, so that was not a surprise.
Some favorite quotes:
"There are lots of things, of course, that science does not know, but to me the saddest thing I see is people who feel that science threatens them religiously. It could not possibly threaten us religiously, because the same God who made our religion, that same God is making the universe. Science might threaten our understanding of religion. I'm not doubting that—that some of us, including me, have such a faulty understanding of our religion that almost anything might threaten it...we must get our religion in the kind of shape that it cannot be threatened by anything that science discovers or does not discover." (emphasis mine)
"What is true about the gospel of Jesus Christ—not what you understand and think, which is partly nonsense, no matter who you are—But what is really true is all that we are committed to. That will stand any kind of treatment or anything that you can imagine."
"We owe it to ourselves to understand the world we live in—science, music, and art... We do have to know science. We have to know everything about the world, and more than that, if you are afraid that science is going to knock the gospel over, you really haven't got your religion in shape. There isn't anything to worry about between science and religion, because the contradictions are just in your own mind. Of course they are there, but they are not in the Lord's mind because He made the whole thing, so there is a way, if we are smart enough, to understand them so that we will not have any contradictions. Let us struggle to do that."
"Some people pointed to some member of the church and said, 'Now Dr. Eyring, that's one of your brethren, and he's not what he ought to be.' My answer is this 'well, you ought to see what he would be like if it weren't for the church.'"
"If an idea is wrong, it will fail; if it is right, nothing can stop it."
If you like this one, try An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown .
February 22, 2017
I enjoyed this book, and especially loved his constantly reiterated belief that science and religion do not have to be at odds with each other. We can all just get along! This from a world-renowned chemist. Love it! A few of my favorite quotes:
"When two ideas seem opposed, we ultimately choose one or the other, even if both may be true. To do otherwise, we rationalize, is to choose confusion and befuddlement.
Henry, though, was content with this kind of ambiguity. In fact, he liked such puzzles. In his mind, for example, science and religion weren't fundamentally at odds with one another; they just weren't fully reconciled yet. Henry reasoned that God knows all the answers and will ultimately reveal them and show how everything fits together."
"Happiness is more a function of worthwhileness than the possession of material things."
"We owe it to ourselves to understand the world we live in -- science, music, and art...We do have to know science. We have to know everything about the world, and more than that, if you are afraid that science to going to knock the gospel over, you really haven't got your religion in shape."
"The gospel commits us only to the truth. The same pragmatic tests that apply in science apply to religion. Try it. Does it work?"
"To people who ask, 'Oh, as a scientist, how can you be a devout Latter-day Saint?' I say, 'Nonsense. My religion is on the same basis as my science. It works. It really makes people better.'"
"When two ideas seem opposed, we ultimately choose one or the other, even if both may be true. To do otherwise, we rationalize, is to choose confusion and befuddlement.
Henry, though, was content with this kind of ambiguity. In fact, he liked such puzzles. In his mind, for example, science and religion weren't fundamentally at odds with one another; they just weren't fully reconciled yet. Henry reasoned that God knows all the answers and will ultimately reveal them and show how everything fits together."
"Happiness is more a function of worthwhileness than the possession of material things."
"We owe it to ourselves to understand the world we live in -- science, music, and art...We do have to know science. We have to know everything about the world, and more than that, if you are afraid that science to going to knock the gospel over, you really haven't got your religion in shape."
"The gospel commits us only to the truth. The same pragmatic tests that apply in science apply to religion. Try it. Does it work?"
"To people who ask, 'Oh, as a scientist, how can you be a devout Latter-day Saint?' I say, 'Nonsense. My religion is on the same basis as my science. It works. It really makes people better.'"
November 16, 2020
Excellent book about the father of Henry Bennion Eyring, member of the first presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This was even better than the bio I read a while back on Albert Einstein, because in so many ways I could not relate to Albert, but in a few key ways I can relate to Henry J Eyring. Particularly when it comes to his attitude about paradox and God's dealings with his children. Very humble, gracious and faithful man with an astoundingly productive, often controversial, and interesting life.
July 12, 2023
I incidentally I read the books American Prometheus and mormon scientist in tandem. As I went through I noticed the similarities and differences of two geniuses who shape the fields of chemistry and physics in the early 1900s. The authors never mention that they meet but they certainly would have read each other’s works and I believe must’ve at some point met.
————————————————————————-
They were both born into wealth
Both had significant challenges growing up
Both were known for their ability to give
One had very unstable relationships and bouts of depression
The other put others needs ahead of him and made his marriage a priority
Both made significant contributions to the world of chemistry and physics, were surrounded by Nobel prize winners, were hailed with other prestigious prizes but neither won the Nobel prize.
Both had training or work experience at Berkeley and Princeton
One was physically fit, the other neglected his health
Both raised by devoutly religious parents, one left his religion the other remained devout
Both, at times, were made fun of for their religious identity
Both were confident but one was arrogant and the other humble
One our family first even when it impacted his career the other while remaining loyal to his immediate family struggled to remain faithful
One was known as a scientist and family man the other as a scientist and a communist.
I read both books during a 93 hr work week in the ICU. While I’m excited for Christopher Nolan’s take on American Prometheus I wouldn’t read it again. On the other hand, Eyring’s book, Mormon scientist carried me through an arduous week. I found strength to remain kind during stressful interactions that week. I found myself going back to its pages to help carry me through another day.
————————————————————————-
They were both born into wealth
Both had significant challenges growing up
Both were known for their ability to give
One had very unstable relationships and bouts of depression
The other put others needs ahead of him and made his marriage a priority
Both made significant contributions to the world of chemistry and physics, were surrounded by Nobel prize winners, were hailed with other prestigious prizes but neither won the Nobel prize.
Both had training or work experience at Berkeley and Princeton
One was physically fit, the other neglected his health
Both raised by devoutly religious parents, one left his religion the other remained devout
Both, at times, were made fun of for their religious identity
Both were confident but one was arrogant and the other humble
One our family first even when it impacted his career the other while remaining loyal to his immediate family struggled to remain faithful
One was known as a scientist and family man the other as a scientist and a communist.
I read both books during a 93 hr work week in the ICU. While I’m excited for Christopher Nolan’s take on American Prometheus I wouldn’t read it again. On the other hand, Eyring’s book, Mormon scientist carried me through an arduous week. I found strength to remain kind during stressful interactions that week. I found myself going back to its pages to help carry me through another day.
May 27, 2013
Henry Eyring was a scientist of international renown. His theoretical and experimental work in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s drew on the principles of quantum theory in better unlocking the mysteries of radioactive dating and other phenomena in the field of geology and chemistry. As a Mormon, his openness to science in general, and to evolution and pre-historic (and pre-Adamic) humans specifically, was considered refreshing by some in the LDS community and also as heretical by a few fundamentalists and anti-intellectuals in the same community. This was a generation after scientifically trained leaders like Elder Talmage and Elder Widstoe held respected positions in the Church, but before Joseph Fielding Smith's views and the views of his son-in-law B.R. McConkie had so pervasively infected Church culture with a contempt for scientific inquiry and the empirical method. Eyring often found himself in the position of promoting reason to the religious and also defending faith to the scientific community. While supremely confident, he nonetheless displayed the true scientist's trait of openness to new ideas and an ability to cast aside old theories when they no longer proved faithful to new data; likewise, he displayed the true spiritual seeker's trait of openness to new ideas and an ability to cast aside commonly held assumptions (or even scriptural accounts) if they are contradicted by new reliable and incontrovertible evidence.
He learned this attitude towards truth from his father, who not only allowed his son to study at the university, but encouraged him with the reassurance that “…in this church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true. You go over to the University of Arizona and learn everything you can, and whatever is true is part of the gospel."
He took that as his mantra through life. The following quote is typical:
"I am obliged, as a latter-day saint, to believe whatever is true, regardless of the source."
Conversely, when it came to his attitude towards scripture or teachings of the leaders of the church, he was just as obliged to NOT believe whatever seemed NOT to be true, regardless of the source. But he was slippery about committing himself to belief in things that expressly challenged orthodox, scripturally-based views (e.g., no death before the Fall). He seemed to hide behind the maxim that he would believe whatever was true, and leave it at that. He was once asked, for example, if he believed that there were humans who lived before Adam and Eve. Well, of course he did--he was a student of the fossil record and radioactive dating and carbon dating--but his answer, both witty and non-committal, nevertheless reveals a great deal of wisdom. What did he believe? He responded: "I believe whichever way it turns out to have actually been.”
A few more quotes of his:
"The scientific spirit is a spirit of inquiry, a spirit of reaching out for truth. In the final analysis, this spirit is likewise of the essence of religion."
"It is interesting to recall that, in ages past, religious men felt that their faith hinged on the notion that the earth was flat. However, when it was found to be round, they discovered that their basic religious ideas had survived without perceptible damage. In fact, the great underlying principles of faith were brought into bolder relief when the clutter of false notions was removed from about them."
"There are some people who throw away the scriptures and restrict themselves to science and related fields. Others use the scriptures to the exclusion of other truth. Both are wrong. Latter-day Saints should seek after truth by all avenues with earnest humility. There is, of course, no conflict in the gospel since it embraces all truth. Undoubtedly, however, science is continually challenging us to think through again our conceptions of the gospel."
"The assumption that because a man understands something about the operation of the Universe he will necessarily be less faithful is a gratuitous assumption contradicted by numberless examples. God, who understands all about the Universe, is apparently not troubled by this knowledge…If the Church espouses the cause of ignorance it will alienate more people than if it advises men to seek after the truth even at some risk."
He learned this attitude towards truth from his father, who not only allowed his son to study at the university, but encouraged him with the reassurance that “…in this church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true. You go over to the University of Arizona and learn everything you can, and whatever is true is part of the gospel."
He took that as his mantra through life. The following quote is typical:
"I am obliged, as a latter-day saint, to believe whatever is true, regardless of the source."
Conversely, when it came to his attitude towards scripture or teachings of the leaders of the church, he was just as obliged to NOT believe whatever seemed NOT to be true, regardless of the source. But he was slippery about committing himself to belief in things that expressly challenged orthodox, scripturally-based views (e.g., no death before the Fall). He seemed to hide behind the maxim that he would believe whatever was true, and leave it at that. He was once asked, for example, if he believed that there were humans who lived before Adam and Eve. Well, of course he did--he was a student of the fossil record and radioactive dating and carbon dating--but his answer, both witty and non-committal, nevertheless reveals a great deal of wisdom. What did he believe? He responded: "I believe whichever way it turns out to have actually been.”
A few more quotes of his:
"The scientific spirit is a spirit of inquiry, a spirit of reaching out for truth. In the final analysis, this spirit is likewise of the essence of religion."
"It is interesting to recall that, in ages past, religious men felt that their faith hinged on the notion that the earth was flat. However, when it was found to be round, they discovered that their basic religious ideas had survived without perceptible damage. In fact, the great underlying principles of faith were brought into bolder relief when the clutter of false notions was removed from about them."
"There are some people who throw away the scriptures and restrict themselves to science and related fields. Others use the scriptures to the exclusion of other truth. Both are wrong. Latter-day Saints should seek after truth by all avenues with earnest humility. There is, of course, no conflict in the gospel since it embraces all truth. Undoubtedly, however, science is continually challenging us to think through again our conceptions of the gospel."
"The assumption that because a man understands something about the operation of the Universe he will necessarily be less faithful is a gratuitous assumption contradicted by numberless examples. God, who understands all about the Universe, is apparently not troubled by this knowledge…If the Church espouses the cause of ignorance it will alienate more people than if it advises men to seek after the truth even at some risk."
December 12, 2010
I really really liked this book. Henry Eyring was a REALLY interesting person! I was really excited to see what he, as a world-renowned scientist had to say about the relationship between science and religion. And he had some great stuff to say. I wish I'd written down this one quote. I bought the book for my dad, so when I get it in the mail, I'll fill it in here. I'll paraphrase for now. He met with a man once and that man asked Henry how he thought God had created the world/man/etc. And he answered by saying, "I believe in whatever way it turns out to really have happened." (That's definitely not the exact wording, but it's close.) That made me chuckle. :D
Anyway, I find it highly amusing that people have a hard time putting the science/religion puzzle together. Ooh, I really like that analogy now that I think of it. It's like there's a 1000 piece puzzle, and we've got 75 pieces, and we're trying to make the whole picture with them, but it's just not going to happen. God's gotta give us the rest of the pieces first, you know? PLUS, as it turns out, about 25 of those pieces we have go to a different puzzle. (Those would be the scientific principles we THINK are correct, but aren't—like the "the earth is flat" piece we threw out a few hundred years ago. In the future, scientists will make new discoveries that better explain natural phenomena and the we thought we knew are gonna be phased out just like the earth being flat.) Good times. Someday, we'll get all the pieces, complete with the picture from the box, and THEN it will be MUCH easier to throw out the bad pieces and put the puzzle together. :)
In my mind, I reconcile things like so: The Earth was created in 6 "creative periods" (rather than the LITERAL 24-hour days) and God was in charge of that creation. The means by which he created stuff... well, the Bible doesn't really say, does it? So there's all SORTS of wiggle room there! For now, I'm happy knowing that God had it all figured out (hence our being here), which means I don't have to worry about it. As far as the entire spectrum of science goes (not just creation/evolution issue), God knows everything. Man does not. We only understand a tiny fraction of the way the world works—the way the human body works! So, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to automatically believe everything scientists say—especially when they start rationalizing that science makes God obsolete. Nice try, but I'm not going there.
ANYWAY. Favorite quotes:
p. 170: "I think anybody can feel the Spirit of the Holy Ghost if he is humble, humble enough to pray, humble enough to really want to, and to live in accordance with the teachings of the gospel."
p. 212: "My father's advice [upon going off to college] left much maneuvering space. A ship in port may snap if tied up too tightly, but never gets far out of line riding at the end of a good anchor which leaves it free to maneuver. A too narrow dogmatism has always, and will always, defeat itself."
p. 215: "Obedience to Gospel principles can make a man master of himself, and thus of his own destiny; there is no greater freedom than that. Nothing of importance is ever accomplished by man except by obedience to correct principles. Obedience is the price of freedom."
Anyway, I find it highly amusing that people have a hard time putting the science/religion puzzle together. Ooh, I really like that analogy now that I think of it. It's like there's a 1000 piece puzzle, and we've got 75 pieces, and we're trying to make the whole picture with them, but it's just not going to happen. God's gotta give us the rest of the pieces first, you know? PLUS, as it turns out, about 25 of those pieces we have go to a different puzzle. (Those would be the scientific principles we THINK are correct, but aren't—like the "the earth is flat" piece we threw out a few hundred years ago. In the future, scientists will make new discoveries that better explain natural phenomena and the we thought we knew are gonna be phased out just like the earth being flat.) Good times. Someday, we'll get all the pieces, complete with the picture from the box, and THEN it will be MUCH easier to throw out the bad pieces and put the puzzle together. :)
In my mind, I reconcile things like so: The Earth was created in 6 "creative periods" (rather than the LITERAL 24-hour days) and God was in charge of that creation. The means by which he created stuff... well, the Bible doesn't really say, does it? So there's all SORTS of wiggle room there! For now, I'm happy knowing that God had it all figured out (hence our being here), which means I don't have to worry about it. As far as the entire spectrum of science goes (not just creation/evolution issue), God knows everything. Man does not. We only understand a tiny fraction of the way the world works—the way the human body works! So, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to automatically believe everything scientists say—especially when they start rationalizing that science makes God obsolete. Nice try, but I'm not going there.
ANYWAY. Favorite quotes:
p. 170: "I think anybody can feel the Spirit of the Holy Ghost if he is humble, humble enough to pray, humble enough to really want to, and to live in accordance with the teachings of the gospel."
p. 212: "My father's advice [upon going off to college] left much maneuvering space. A ship in port may snap if tied up too tightly, but never gets far out of line riding at the end of a good anchor which leaves it free to maneuver. A too narrow dogmatism has always, and will always, defeat itself."
p. 215: "Obedience to Gospel principles can make a man master of himself, and thus of his own destiny; there is no greater freedom than that. Nothing of importance is ever accomplished by man except by obedience to correct principles. Obedience is the price of freedom."
April 9, 2009
I haven't read many biographies. I checked this out because our library had it (I'm checking out every single book published by Deseret Book- I need all the LDS stuff I can get!) Anyway, this particular biography is about Henry Eyring, President Henry B. Eyring's father. I really enjoyed this book. It took me a lot longer than most fiction books, but that's because I had to actually think about what was happeneing- not a bad thing in my mind. Being a math mind, all the chemistry and physics talk interested me, but reading about Henry's life and how he viewed the world- well, it left me feeling like I could do much, much better myself. The chapters on his life paradoxes were particularly interesting to me; he seemed to have the key to understanding anything. He tried as hard as he could to learn everything possible but still accepted that there were things he would never learn in this life. He believed that science and religion work together, rather than providing opposing views (which is how I felt, especially in biology with the whole evolution thing). And he was funny- multiple times I caught myself laughing out loud at something he would say. I also enjoyed reading about his ancestors, mostly because I'm a sucker for pioneer stories, and also because Henry was born in an LDS community where some of my great's were raised (I wonder if they knew each other?!?) There were many parts that left me uplifted, but this story most of all (Henry B. Eyring has actually used this in a recent Conference talk):
"Dad was the senior high councilor in his stake, and he had the responsibility for the welfare farm. An assignment was given to weed a field of onions, so Dad assigned himself to go work on the farm. He never told me how hard it was, but I have met several people who were with him that day. I talked to one of them on the phone, and he said … that the pain was so great that Dad was pulling himself along on his stomach with his elbows. He couldn’t kneel. The pain was too great for him to kneel. Everyone who has talked to me about that day has remarked how Dad smiled and laughed and talked happily with them as they worked in that field of onions.
"Now, this is the joke Dad told me on himself afterward. He said he was there at the end of the day. After all the work was finished and the onions were all weeded, someone said to him, “Henry, good heavens! You didn’t pull those weeds, did you? Those weeds were sprayed two days ago, and they were going to die anyway.”
"Dad just roared. He thought that was the funniest thing. He though it was a great joke on himself. He had worked through the day on the wrong weeds. They had been sprayed and would have died anyway.
"When Dad told me this story, I knew how tough it was. So I asked him, 'Dad, how could you make a joke out of that? How could you take it so pleasantly?' He said something to me that I will never forget, and I hope you won’t. He said, 'Hal, I wasn’t there for the weeds.'"
303 pages, 2009 total: 7021
"Dad was the senior high councilor in his stake, and he had the responsibility for the welfare farm. An assignment was given to weed a field of onions, so Dad assigned himself to go work on the farm. He never told me how hard it was, but I have met several people who were with him that day. I talked to one of them on the phone, and he said … that the pain was so great that Dad was pulling himself along on his stomach with his elbows. He couldn’t kneel. The pain was too great for him to kneel. Everyone who has talked to me about that day has remarked how Dad smiled and laughed and talked happily with them as they worked in that field of onions.
"Now, this is the joke Dad told me on himself afterward. He said he was there at the end of the day. After all the work was finished and the onions were all weeded, someone said to him, “Henry, good heavens! You didn’t pull those weeds, did you? Those weeds were sprayed two days ago, and they were going to die anyway.”
"Dad just roared. He thought that was the funniest thing. He though it was a great joke on himself. He had worked through the day on the wrong weeds. They had been sprayed and would have died anyway.
"When Dad told me this story, I knew how tough it was. So I asked him, 'Dad, how could you make a joke out of that? How could you take it so pleasantly?' He said something to me that I will never forget, and I hope you won’t. He said, 'Hal, I wasn’t there for the weeds.'"
303 pages, 2009 total: 7021
May 29, 2009
I really enjoyed this book. The organization is a little different, but I didn't think it was confusing. Some of my favorite quotes:
"That I was not born smarter is really not my fault." --Henry Eyring
--- I loved his self-deprecating humor.
"As a devout Latter-day Saint the important fact for me is that the Lord is directing the affairs in His Universe, not exactly how He does it. Whether or not some organic evolution was used or is operating seems to me to be beside the point. He is infinitely wise. I just work here. If He told me in detail how He works I'm sure I wouldn't understand much of it." -- Henry Eyring -- This brought to mind my wonderful Astronomy instructor at Ricks College, who bore testimony of the omnipotent power of God and taught that since God was all-knowing and all-powerful that it was possible that God had used the Big Bang to create the Universe. But not to worry too much about it because we'd all find out sooner or later.
From Brigham Young: "As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of his fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the Earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements, or whether he made it in six days or in as many milllions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he gives revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would all be reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant."
"The gospel is to be found not only in the scriptures but in every detail of the world, if we can but read it." Henry Eyring
"In this Church you don't have to believe anything that isn't true. You ... learn everything you can, and whatever is true is part of the gospel. The Lord is actually running this universe." Ed Eyring, Henry's father
If you've ever felt it difficult to reconcile your religious views with science, this is a great read. Wonderful biography.
"That I was not born smarter is really not my fault." --Henry Eyring
--- I loved his self-deprecating humor.
"As a devout Latter-day Saint the important fact for me is that the Lord is directing the affairs in His Universe, not exactly how He does it. Whether or not some organic evolution was used or is operating seems to me to be beside the point. He is infinitely wise. I just work here. If He told me in detail how He works I'm sure I wouldn't understand much of it." -- Henry Eyring -- This brought to mind my wonderful Astronomy instructor at Ricks College, who bore testimony of the omnipotent power of God and taught that since God was all-knowing and all-powerful that it was possible that God had used the Big Bang to create the Universe. But not to worry too much about it because we'd all find out sooner or later.
From Brigham Young: "As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of his fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the Earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements, or whether he made it in six days or in as many milllions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he gives revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would all be reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant."
"The gospel is to be found not only in the scriptures but in every detail of the world, if we can but read it." Henry Eyring
"In this Church you don't have to believe anything that isn't true. You ... learn everything you can, and whatever is true is part of the gospel. The Lord is actually running this universe." Ed Eyring, Henry's father
If you've ever felt it difficult to reconcile your religious views with science, this is a great read. Wonderful biography.
May 14, 2009
Ann, thanks for your take on this. I had begun to bog down with the science. With your comments I started up again and really enjoyed that part--surprisingly. In fact his "Simplifying Assumptions" opened some doors for me on a personal barrier. He was truly an amazing and productive scientist and human being. One thought kept lingering in the back of mind--"How is his wife raising three active boys, he seems so much involved with his work and his active scientific mind, yet he truly values humanity."
Apparently he had a most unusual wife as well. The only direct reference to this question that I recall was that she understood him and his science as well as valued his humanity--one of the great combinations among many. Perhaps it was his obvious goodness and humor as well as hers. She was also an accomplished physical education educator prior to their marriage. That didn't hurt.
A very interesting read of a brilliant mind. His grandson did a good job. It seemed to be an honest portrayal showing the blemishes as well, but with respect. The writer seems to have benefited from his heritage. Thanks once again to Polly and family for this Christmas gift now completed in May.
Apparently he had a most unusual wife as well. The only direct reference to this question that I recall was that she understood him and his science as well as valued his humanity--one of the great combinations among many. Perhaps it was his obvious goodness and humor as well as hers. She was also an accomplished physical education educator prior to their marriage. That didn't hurt.
A very interesting read of a brilliant mind. His grandson did a good job. It seemed to be an honest portrayal showing the blemishes as well, but with respect. The writer seems to have benefited from his heritage. Thanks once again to Polly and family for this Christmas gift now completed in May.
July 4, 2009
Mormon. Scientist.
Unfortunately, that's about all there is to this kindly but shallow tribute to the beloved Mormon chemist. I wish I could give the book a better rating, but as biography, it disappoints.
Here's some of what's missing:
How did Henry Eyring relate to the women in his life (besides his two mothers)?
To what extent did Church responsibilities influence Eyring's transition from a scientist to an administrator, and how did he manage the change?
There are scant allusions to Eyring's parenting style; given his dedication to the role, more detail is in order.
Did Eyring play a role in moderating the doctrinal conflicts between General Authorities (i.e. David O. McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith)?
What was Eyring's essential invention in conceptualizing the reaction complex and to what classes of problems did he apply it? It is reasonable to expect more technical insight from the biography of a great scientist.
Prof. Eyring left a trove of personal and professional documentation. So someday a definitive biography will answer these questions - without in the least diminishing his legacy.
Comment
Unfortunately, that's about all there is to this kindly but shallow tribute to the beloved Mormon chemist. I wish I could give the book a better rating, but as biography, it disappoints.
Here's some of what's missing:
How did Henry Eyring relate to the women in his life (besides his two mothers)?
To what extent did Church responsibilities influence Eyring's transition from a scientist to an administrator, and how did he manage the change?
There are scant allusions to Eyring's parenting style; given his dedication to the role, more detail is in order.
Did Eyring play a role in moderating the doctrinal conflicts between General Authorities (i.e. David O. McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith)?
What was Eyring's essential invention in conceptualizing the reaction complex and to what classes of problems did he apply it? It is reasonable to expect more technical insight from the biography of a great scientist.
Prof. Eyring left a trove of personal and professional documentation. So someday a definitive biography will answer these questions - without in the least diminishing his legacy.
Comment
February 21, 2011
I am really enjoying this book. One more blessing of belonging to a book group. I would have never picked this up on my own, or felt I had time for it.
I enjoyed it so very much!! Thought it would be a tiresome book about the perfect father. Not at all! He was an amazing man with an incredible mind and an untiring testimony. I loved it!!
Too many quotes to even attempt. A wonderful, incredible book!! A must read.
I enjoyed it so very much!! Thought it would be a tiresome book about the perfect father. Not at all! He was an amazing man with an incredible mind and an untiring testimony. I loved it!!
Too many quotes to even attempt. A wonderful, incredible book!! A must read.
March 30, 2009
I read this book with a bookclub and thought it was very interesting and insightful. He was obviously a very bright man and his personality came through in the book. Coming from a science household, I could relate to physics problems on the chalkboard it reminded me of days we developed photos in the basement when I was young.
July 6, 2008
This is very interesting. I love President Eyring so
it was easy to love a book about his father. I love
that it talks about science and the church and how he
stood up for what he believed even being a great scien
tist of our time
it was easy to love a book about his father. I love
that it talks about science and the church and how he
stood up for what he believed even being a great scien
tist of our time
April 29, 2008
Interesting insight into the life and faith of one of the premier scientists of the last century.
July 9, 2015
When it comes to debate on science vs. Religion, this is the best I have read.
" A good Christian does not deny truth." Dr. Henry Eyring.
" A good Christian does not deny truth." Dr. Henry Eyring.
December 27, 2012
I would suggest that the reader (unless he/she is a chemist) not get bogged down in the first chapter. If I were the editor, I wouldn't have put that as the first chapter.
Here are my favorite quotes:
I would recommend that the reader doesn’t get discouraged with the first chapter, but keeps going.
P.4 Dad told him, “in this Church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true.”
As a scientist:
• He was good at simplifying and visualizing things.
• Developed the absolute rate theory (ART) chemical reaction rates
• Mixed chemistry with physics
• Started with a theory and tried to prove or adjust it instead of starting with observations and creating a theory
• If God had wanted him to win the Nobel Prize, he would have p.36
Faith:
• “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” This is an ultimate truth; so are all spiritual truths.
• Joseph Fielding Smith before he was pres. proclaimed scriptural literalism.
• “There is a need for added spirituality, of the kind that leads to brotherhood, to go hand in hand with the scientific progress of our time. God grant that in seeking the mysteries of his handiwork, we may lo learn his great religious truths, which we have been prone to disregard, that our effort might become a blessing to us.” P50
• “Death is not the end; it is but one more step in a great forward march made possible by the redemption wrought by the Savior. This is the spirit of true science—constant and eternal seeking.” P. 51
• “God in his wisdom will reveal more as the need arises.” P. 53
• continue both to believe and to study.
• Brigham Young argued that there was nothing to fear from scientific discoveries.” P. 55
• Latter-day Saints should seek after truth by all avenues with earnest humility. There is, of course, no conflict in the gospel since it embraces all truth.” P. 59
• God knows more than man
• Conflict comes because of incomplete knowledge
• Build confidence in both science and religion
• Respect person while disagreeing with beliefs.
Friendship
• “If you can’t explain something to an eight-year old you don’t really understand it.” P80
Love:
• Raised in a polygamous home
• Rosy optimism
• Pull your own weight—helped pay of the mortgage even after he was a professor at Princeton
• “Henry, of course I want you to be good, but I hope you will be good for something.” P. 95
• treated others as equals
• His refusal to see any tension made it truly disappear in his mind. P. 105
Ambition:
• Born competitor, races, jumping on table
• Lived in St. George
• “Mother and Father seldom scolded, but they never passed up a chance to commend us.” P. 117
Believe:
• “I am a convinced member of this great Church which the Prophet Joseph Smith had the privilege of restoring in 1830 because of the grand ideas that he brought into the world: (1) that we lived before we came here. (2) that we progress eternally; (3) that if we live as the Savior lived, we preach a greater sermon than anything we can say.” P. 136
Fear:
• Of losing a job
• “Whatever you do don’t lose your health benefits.”
• Mexican revolution
• Henry acted all his life as though financial ruin were only a step away. He was loath to spend money. . .” p.151
• He worried more about pleasing God than he did about pleasing his fellowmen.
Master of Contradictions
• “One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise.” P. 164
• “Henry reasoned that God knows all the answers and will ultimately reveal them and show how everything fits together.” P. 165
Confidence and humility:
• “I think anybody can feel the Spirit of the Holy Ghost if he is humble, humble enough to pray, humble enough to really want to, and to live in accordance with the teachings of the gospel.” P. 170
• “As a devout Latter-day Saint the important fact for me is that the Lord is directing the affairs in His Universe, not exactly how He does it.” P. 173
• His confidence in God’s help allowed him to face one failure after another without worry, knowing that success would ultimately come. . . . If you are horrified because it is not perfect to begin with , you may abandon it.”P. 176
• “The best advice I could give to young people would be just that—do the best you can with what you have about you. The future will take care of itself.” P. 177
• good things could come from a bad situation, as long as he gave it everything he had. P. 178
• He was a child of God & needn’t fear any truth.
Discipline and Creativity
• “You can learn something from everyone.” P. 193
• “I deserve no credit as a person who makes great sacrifice. I always do the kind of things that I like to do.” P. 200
Freedom and Obedience:
• Man has God-given freedom to choose, but that moral choices have inevitable consequences. . . . Obedience to divine law as the best possible exercise of his freedom to choose.”
• Obedience is the price of freedom p. 215
• “One doesn’t forget easily testimony lived in the home.” P. 217
• authority to counsel, but not to command
• “The Church would have been perfect if the Lord had not let the people into it. That is where the mistake seems to have been made, but we understand this too. The Church is part of his wonderful plan to work with you and with me.” P. 222
• Obeying freed him from worry.” P. 223
Reasoning more than reasonsP
• “Unlike Henry, most people dislike the unknown. P. 229
• “’Ah, But a man’s reach should exceed his grasp. Or what’s a heaven for?’”p. 230
• “The purpose of living is to grow in wisdom and goodness, and this growth is possible only because God gives man freedom to choose. This freedom necessarily gives man the opportunity to make wrong choices as well as right ones. Our opportunity to grow would cease if freedom of choice were withheld.” P. 238
• “So it is important to everybody, and certainly to every leader, to be as widely acquainted with the things going on in the world and to understand what people are thinking and saying as clearly as he can if he wants to influence other people.” P. 241
• “With each new discovery, the skeptic finds less need for God, while the devout Latter-day Saint see in it one more evidence of His overruling hand.”
Fundamentals not conventions:
• Happiness is more a function of worthwhilenesss than the possession of material things.” P. 257
• When man has used his faculties to do what he can for himself, he can look to a higher source for inspiration and help.” P. 265
People not Public Opinion
• “Criticism is not going to hurt you if you are right.” P272
• “In love and humility the Savior touched men’s hearts. May the Lord help us in our humble way to do the same.” P. 277
• “He loved people. However, he loved God more. Thus, he didn’t worry about others’ opinions of him, and he wasn’t afraid to disagree on matters of principle. Because his love for others came through, few who disagreed with him ever considered him a foe.”
The Kind Father Who created it all”
• After weeding onions “But you didn’t come for the weeds. You came for the Savior. And if you pray, and if you choose to be clean, and if you follow God’s servants, you will be able to work and wait long enough to bring down the powers of Heaven.” P. 288
• When Henry was in intense pain:
o He cried out “Why has God done this to me? With the dawn, he shared the insight that came in answer to his racked prayer: “God is testing me. He wants only strong men in his kingdom.” P. 289
o Elder Maxwell about Henry “He taught us to live well, and in the end taught us to die well.” P. 289 (Mother & Daddy)
• “Believing in this over-all destiny, I can still achieve it only by an infinitude of decisions made one at a time. . . if all the little things are done well, one by one, the big things will take care of themselves.” P. 294
• “The world is really beautiful, and really it’s a wonderful place to live and lots more wonderful if you live in such a way that you can live with yourself.” P. 302
• If we can live close to it (the gospel) and approach, at least, the life of the Savior in the kind of way that we put other people’s interests before our own and in general try to be helpful, we can have a heaven on earth, and life will be a wonderful things.” P. 303
Here are my favorite quotes:
I would recommend that the reader doesn’t get discouraged with the first chapter, but keeps going.
P.4 Dad told him, “in this Church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true.”
As a scientist:
• He was good at simplifying and visualizing things.
• Developed the absolute rate theory (ART) chemical reaction rates
• Mixed chemistry with physics
• Started with a theory and tried to prove or adjust it instead of starting with observations and creating a theory
• If God had wanted him to win the Nobel Prize, he would have p.36
Faith:
• “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” This is an ultimate truth; so are all spiritual truths.
• Joseph Fielding Smith before he was pres. proclaimed scriptural literalism.
• “There is a need for added spirituality, of the kind that leads to brotherhood, to go hand in hand with the scientific progress of our time. God grant that in seeking the mysteries of his handiwork, we may lo learn his great religious truths, which we have been prone to disregard, that our effort might become a blessing to us.” P50
• “Death is not the end; it is but one more step in a great forward march made possible by the redemption wrought by the Savior. This is the spirit of true science—constant and eternal seeking.” P. 51
• “God in his wisdom will reveal more as the need arises.” P. 53
• continue both to believe and to study.
• Brigham Young argued that there was nothing to fear from scientific discoveries.” P. 55
• Latter-day Saints should seek after truth by all avenues with earnest humility. There is, of course, no conflict in the gospel since it embraces all truth.” P. 59
• God knows more than man
• Conflict comes because of incomplete knowledge
• Build confidence in both science and religion
• Respect person while disagreeing with beliefs.
Friendship
• “If you can’t explain something to an eight-year old you don’t really understand it.” P80
Love:
• Raised in a polygamous home
• Rosy optimism
• Pull your own weight—helped pay of the mortgage even after he was a professor at Princeton
• “Henry, of course I want you to be good, but I hope you will be good for something.” P. 95
• treated others as equals
• His refusal to see any tension made it truly disappear in his mind. P. 105
Ambition:
• Born competitor, races, jumping on table
• Lived in St. George
• “Mother and Father seldom scolded, but they never passed up a chance to commend us.” P. 117
Believe:
• “I am a convinced member of this great Church which the Prophet Joseph Smith had the privilege of restoring in 1830 because of the grand ideas that he brought into the world: (1) that we lived before we came here. (2) that we progress eternally; (3) that if we live as the Savior lived, we preach a greater sermon than anything we can say.” P. 136
Fear:
• Of losing a job
• “Whatever you do don’t lose your health benefits.”
• Mexican revolution
• Henry acted all his life as though financial ruin were only a step away. He was loath to spend money. . .” p.151
• He worried more about pleasing God than he did about pleasing his fellowmen.
Master of Contradictions
• “One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise.” P. 164
• “Henry reasoned that God knows all the answers and will ultimately reveal them and show how everything fits together.” P. 165
Confidence and humility:
• “I think anybody can feel the Spirit of the Holy Ghost if he is humble, humble enough to pray, humble enough to really want to, and to live in accordance with the teachings of the gospel.” P. 170
• “As a devout Latter-day Saint the important fact for me is that the Lord is directing the affairs in His Universe, not exactly how He does it.” P. 173
• His confidence in God’s help allowed him to face one failure after another without worry, knowing that success would ultimately come. . . . If you are horrified because it is not perfect to begin with , you may abandon it.”P. 176
• “The best advice I could give to young people would be just that—do the best you can with what you have about you. The future will take care of itself.” P. 177
• good things could come from a bad situation, as long as he gave it everything he had. P. 178
• He was a child of God & needn’t fear any truth.
Discipline and Creativity
• “You can learn something from everyone.” P. 193
• “I deserve no credit as a person who makes great sacrifice. I always do the kind of things that I like to do.” P. 200
Freedom and Obedience:
• Man has God-given freedom to choose, but that moral choices have inevitable consequences. . . . Obedience to divine law as the best possible exercise of his freedom to choose.”
• Obedience is the price of freedom p. 215
• “One doesn’t forget easily testimony lived in the home.” P. 217
• authority to counsel, but not to command
• “The Church would have been perfect if the Lord had not let the people into it. That is where the mistake seems to have been made, but we understand this too. The Church is part of his wonderful plan to work with you and with me.” P. 222
• Obeying freed him from worry.” P. 223
Reasoning more than reasonsP
• “Unlike Henry, most people dislike the unknown. P. 229
• “’Ah, But a man’s reach should exceed his grasp. Or what’s a heaven for?’”p. 230
• “The purpose of living is to grow in wisdom and goodness, and this growth is possible only because God gives man freedom to choose. This freedom necessarily gives man the opportunity to make wrong choices as well as right ones. Our opportunity to grow would cease if freedom of choice were withheld.” P. 238
• “So it is important to everybody, and certainly to every leader, to be as widely acquainted with the things going on in the world and to understand what people are thinking and saying as clearly as he can if he wants to influence other people.” P. 241
• “With each new discovery, the skeptic finds less need for God, while the devout Latter-day Saint see in it one more evidence of His overruling hand.”
Fundamentals not conventions:
• Happiness is more a function of worthwhilenesss than the possession of material things.” P. 257
• When man has used his faculties to do what he can for himself, he can look to a higher source for inspiration and help.” P. 265
People not Public Opinion
• “Criticism is not going to hurt you if you are right.” P272
• “In love and humility the Savior touched men’s hearts. May the Lord help us in our humble way to do the same.” P. 277
• “He loved people. However, he loved God more. Thus, he didn’t worry about others’ opinions of him, and he wasn’t afraid to disagree on matters of principle. Because his love for others came through, few who disagreed with him ever considered him a foe.”
The Kind Father Who created it all”
• After weeding onions “But you didn’t come for the weeds. You came for the Savior. And if you pray, and if you choose to be clean, and if you follow God’s servants, you will be able to work and wait long enough to bring down the powers of Heaven.” P. 288
• When Henry was in intense pain:
o He cried out “Why has God done this to me? With the dawn, he shared the insight that came in answer to his racked prayer: “God is testing me. He wants only strong men in his kingdom.” P. 289
o Elder Maxwell about Henry “He taught us to live well, and in the end taught us to die well.” P. 289 (Mother & Daddy)
• “Believing in this over-all destiny, I can still achieve it only by an infinitude of decisions made one at a time. . . if all the little things are done well, one by one, the big things will take care of themselves.” P. 294
• “The world is really beautiful, and really it’s a wonderful place to live and lots more wonderful if you live in such a way that you can live with yourself.” P. 302
• If we can live close to it (the gospel) and approach, at least, the life of the Savior in the kind of way that we put other people’s interests before our own and in general try to be helpful, we can have a heaven on earth, and life will be a wonderful things.” P. 303
July 19, 2008
When I saw this biography in the Deseret Book catalog, I was immediately intrigued. I love biographies … well, never mind; I don’t love biographies, not really. I love the idea of reading biographies. I love to think that instead of reading the fluffy drivel that usually ends up on my nightstand (Lasso Her Heart, anyone??), I’m reading to broaden my understanding, that I’m “keeping up in my field” (as a history major, just about anything with endnotes counts as “keeping up in my field,” I guess). But then when it comes down to it, despite my good intentions, I end up trudging a little bit through biographies, only averaging maybe one per year.
This one, however, was way less tedious than every other biography I’ve read (does that sound bad? I mean that in a good way. ;-) ) There were two main reasons why.
First of all was the subject. I first heard of Henry Eyring when my friend Mindy quoted him in her mission homecoming talk; she quoted a story (repeated in Mormon Scientist) about Henry Eyring. The book she read from was To Draw Closer to God (fantastic read, by the way), written by his son, current member of the First Presidency Henry B. Eyring. At this point in his life, Henry Eyring (the “Mormon Scientist”) was suffering with the cancer that would eventually take his life:
"Dad was the senior high councilor in his stake, and he had the responsibility for the welfare farm. An assignment was given to weed a field of onions, so Dad assigned himself to go work on the farm. He never told me how hard it was, but I have met several people who were with him that day. I talked to one of them on the phone, and he said … that the pain was so great that Dad was pulling himself along on his stomach with his elbows. He couldn’t kneel. The pain was too great for him to kneel. Everyone who has talked to me about that day has remarked how Dad smiled and laughed and talked happily with them as they worked in that field of onions.
"Now, this is the joke Dad told me on himself afterward. He said he was there at the end of the day. After all the work was finished and the onions were all weeded, someone said to him, “Henry, good heavens! You didn’t pull those weeds, did you? Those weeds were sprayed two days ago, and they were going to die anyway.”
"Dad just roared. He thought that was the funniest thing. He though it was a great joke on himself. He had worked through the day on the wrong weeds. They had been sprayed and would have died anyway.
"When Dad told me this story, I knew how tough it was. So I asked him, 'Dad, how could you make a joke out of that? How could you take it so pleasantly?' He said something to me that I will never forget, and I hope you won’t. He said, 'Hal, I wasn’t there for the weeds.'"
Such humility is certainly admirable — and not what you’d expect from a world-renowned chemist whose Absolute Rate Theory rewrote the textbooks, a man on par with some of the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century. I found the scientific aspects of Henry Eyring’s life intriguing — history of science (especially in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s) is kind of my niche, I guess. He published hundreds of papers in all kinds of scientific fields; his ambition — and talent — was mind-boggling.
But even more interesting was how Eyring reconciled these two halves of his life which, according to some, might be contradictory. How could a man of great learning, a believer in science, remain true — even valiant — in his testimony of the gospel? What of evolution, of dinosaurs, of the earth being billions of years old? To Henry Eyring, there was no real contradiction — all truth is authored by God. Thus it is simply our understanding (of either science or religion) that needs to be altered:
"There are lots of things, of course, that science does not know, but to me the saddest thing I see is people who feel that science threatens them religiously. It could not possibly threaten us religiously, because the same God who “made” our religion, that same God is making the universe. Science might threaten our understanding of religion. I am not doubting that … We must get our religion in the kind of shape that it cannot be threatened by anything that science discovers or does not discover. (p. 241)"
In fact, Eyring seemed to feel that the more he learned of the world, the more it strengthened his faith:
"For one who feels compelled, as I do, to accept the existence of the Master Architect, it is important to examine His handiwork for he light it throws on Him and on His program for His children. (pp. 232-233)"
Additionally, interspersed between some of these poignant, sink-your-teeth-into-this thoughts were some great insights into the humor of this man. There were several times I found myself laughing out loud — not just at the anecdotes themselves but also of the way Henry Eyring would poke fun at himself. Though confident in his abilities, he really didn’t take himself too seriously — as evidenced by the photos of the seventy-year-old graduate dean racing his strapping young research assistants track-and-field style (complete with cheerleaders, marching band … even a few TV reporters). :lol:
So Henry Eyring — yeah, great man to read about.
But not only was the subject matter good — the writing was well-done, also.
Typically, it seems biographies all follow the same chronological pattern: following some quickie introduction, the reader then must slog through chapters upon chapters of family history before even reading about the subject (can you tell I don’t like this approach? :lol: )
Mormon Scientist, however, was not written chronologically. Rather, author Henry J. Eyring (grandson of Henry Eyring) arranged things thematically: there were chapters centered around certain topics (”science,” for example, or “faith”); there were chapters focused on personality traits (”love” and “ambition”).
I imagine it’s usually tricky for a reader to wrap his mind around such an approach — chronologically is usually the more logical route to take — but as the basic facts and framework of Eyring’s life was well explained in the introduction, I didn’t find this thematic method at all confusing. Actually, I rather appreciated the author’s attempts at weaving together many different quotes and anecdotes, boiling them down to an essential take-home principle or two; the whole biography felt very cohesive this way. And, in only the second chapter, I felt like I was reading the climax at the book instead of wading through all the “heritage” sections (these more slow-moving chapters were tucked away in the middle of the book — and even then, the author succeeded in making the reader see why Eyring’s family history was worth discussing, how it shaped Eyring himself).
All in all, this was a terrific biography: good subject (can’t wait to take Celestial Chemistry from Brother Eyring in heaven! ;-) ), well written … and uplifting, to boot. :-D
This one, however, was way less tedious than every other biography I’ve read (does that sound bad? I mean that in a good way. ;-) ) There were two main reasons why.
First of all was the subject. I first heard of Henry Eyring when my friend Mindy quoted him in her mission homecoming talk; she quoted a story (repeated in Mormon Scientist) about Henry Eyring. The book she read from was To Draw Closer to God (fantastic read, by the way), written by his son, current member of the First Presidency Henry B. Eyring. At this point in his life, Henry Eyring (the “Mormon Scientist”) was suffering with the cancer that would eventually take his life:
"Dad was the senior high councilor in his stake, and he had the responsibility for the welfare farm. An assignment was given to weed a field of onions, so Dad assigned himself to go work on the farm. He never told me how hard it was, but I have met several people who were with him that day. I talked to one of them on the phone, and he said … that the pain was so great that Dad was pulling himself along on his stomach with his elbows. He couldn’t kneel. The pain was too great for him to kneel. Everyone who has talked to me about that day has remarked how Dad smiled and laughed and talked happily with them as they worked in that field of onions.
"Now, this is the joke Dad told me on himself afterward. He said he was there at the end of the day. After all the work was finished and the onions were all weeded, someone said to him, “Henry, good heavens! You didn’t pull those weeds, did you? Those weeds were sprayed two days ago, and they were going to die anyway.”
"Dad just roared. He thought that was the funniest thing. He though it was a great joke on himself. He had worked through the day on the wrong weeds. They had been sprayed and would have died anyway.
"When Dad told me this story, I knew how tough it was. So I asked him, 'Dad, how could you make a joke out of that? How could you take it so pleasantly?' He said something to me that I will never forget, and I hope you won’t. He said, 'Hal, I wasn’t there for the weeds.'"
Such humility is certainly admirable — and not what you’d expect from a world-renowned chemist whose Absolute Rate Theory rewrote the textbooks, a man on par with some of the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century. I found the scientific aspects of Henry Eyring’s life intriguing — history of science (especially in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s) is kind of my niche, I guess. He published hundreds of papers in all kinds of scientific fields; his ambition — and talent — was mind-boggling.
But even more interesting was how Eyring reconciled these two halves of his life which, according to some, might be contradictory. How could a man of great learning, a believer in science, remain true — even valiant — in his testimony of the gospel? What of evolution, of dinosaurs, of the earth being billions of years old? To Henry Eyring, there was no real contradiction — all truth is authored by God. Thus it is simply our understanding (of either science or religion) that needs to be altered:
"There are lots of things, of course, that science does not know, but to me the saddest thing I see is people who feel that science threatens them religiously. It could not possibly threaten us religiously, because the same God who “made” our religion, that same God is making the universe. Science might threaten our understanding of religion. I am not doubting that … We must get our religion in the kind of shape that it cannot be threatened by anything that science discovers or does not discover. (p. 241)"
In fact, Eyring seemed to feel that the more he learned of the world, the more it strengthened his faith:
"For one who feels compelled, as I do, to accept the existence of the Master Architect, it is important to examine His handiwork for he light it throws on Him and on His program for His children. (pp. 232-233)"
Additionally, interspersed between some of these poignant, sink-your-teeth-into-this thoughts were some great insights into the humor of this man. There were several times I found myself laughing out loud — not just at the anecdotes themselves but also of the way Henry Eyring would poke fun at himself. Though confident in his abilities, he really didn’t take himself too seriously — as evidenced by the photos of the seventy-year-old graduate dean racing his strapping young research assistants track-and-field style (complete with cheerleaders, marching band … even a few TV reporters). :lol:
So Henry Eyring — yeah, great man to read about.
But not only was the subject matter good — the writing was well-done, also.
Typically, it seems biographies all follow the same chronological pattern: following some quickie introduction, the reader then must slog through chapters upon chapters of family history before even reading about the subject (can you tell I don’t like this approach? :lol: )
Mormon Scientist, however, was not written chronologically. Rather, author Henry J. Eyring (grandson of Henry Eyring) arranged things thematically: there were chapters centered around certain topics (”science,” for example, or “faith”); there were chapters focused on personality traits (”love” and “ambition”).
I imagine it’s usually tricky for a reader to wrap his mind around such an approach — chronologically is usually the more logical route to take — but as the basic facts and framework of Eyring’s life was well explained in the introduction, I didn’t find this thematic method at all confusing. Actually, I rather appreciated the author’s attempts at weaving together many different quotes and anecdotes, boiling them down to an essential take-home principle or two; the whole biography felt very cohesive this way. And, in only the second chapter, I felt like I was reading the climax at the book instead of wading through all the “heritage” sections (these more slow-moving chapters were tucked away in the middle of the book — and even then, the author succeeded in making the reader see why Eyring’s family history was worth discussing, how it shaped Eyring himself).
All in all, this was a terrific biography: good subject (can’t wait to take Celestial Chemistry from Brother Eyring in heaven! ;-) ), well written … and uplifting, to boot. :-D
March 17, 2022
For me, any book that motivates me to truly improve and change my life for the better deserves five stars. Reading about the way Henry Eyring approached science - particularly how he interacted with his students and colleagues - was inspiring to me. The anecdotes from his life made me want to be more positive in all my interactions. I was impressed with the way he responded to his critics and those who had opinions and thoughts different from him. The examples of his letters to others showed that people can disagree in a positive manner.
As a scientist, I enjoyed his approach to science and religion. I have grappled with many questions in my life where I felt science and religion were opposed. Henry Eyring posited that science and religion are "mutually reinforcing, rather than conflicting" (page 1). Eyring was willing to be patient on matters where the two appeared to be at odds, pointing out that many seeming conflicts get resolved when more knowledge is discovered. Eyring learned to be comfortable with ambiguity, feeling that "science and religion weren't fundamentally at odds with one another; they just weren't fully reconciled yet" (page 165).
Part of the book uses experiences from Eyring's life to show how he dealt with seeming paradoxes like confidence and humility, discipline and creativity, freedom and obedience, reasoning more than reasons, and fundamentals and conventions. One thing I learned from this book is that is it good to suspend judgment with we are faced with an apparent contradiction. Rushing to judgment can prevent continued learning, limiting the ability to grow.
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the interaction between science and religion.
As a scientist, I enjoyed his approach to science and religion. I have grappled with many questions in my life where I felt science and religion were opposed. Henry Eyring posited that science and religion are "mutually reinforcing, rather than conflicting" (page 1). Eyring was willing to be patient on matters where the two appeared to be at odds, pointing out that many seeming conflicts get resolved when more knowledge is discovered. Eyring learned to be comfortable with ambiguity, feeling that "science and religion weren't fundamentally at odds with one another; they just weren't fully reconciled yet" (page 165).
Part of the book uses experiences from Eyring's life to show how he dealt with seeming paradoxes like confidence and humility, discipline and creativity, freedom and obedience, reasoning more than reasons, and fundamentals and conventions. One thing I learned from this book is that is it good to suspend judgment with we are faced with an apparent contradiction. Rushing to judgment can prevent continued learning, limiting the ability to grow.
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the interaction between science and religion.
January 22, 2022
This is the book I intended to read in 2011 when I inadvertently came across the Faith of a Scientist written by Henry Eyring himself. This was a good order to read them in because the biography written by his grandson Henry J Eyring gives context and expands upon the ideas his grandfather expressed in his own volume by sharing several stories involving figures as diverse as Joseph Fielding Smith to Albert Einstein. Most interesting and instructive was the way the biography was organized to illustrate his personal traits and seemingly contradictory held beliefs that made him all the more unconventional in the eyes of his religious and scientific colleagues alike. Because he was firm in his beliefs both scientific and religious but also kind, tactful and evangelical in sharing, he was a great unifier to bridge the perceived chasm between the two even though he himself saw no contradiction between them. He viewed any disparity between the two as simply a lack of understanding on our part and was perfectly fine shelving that which could not yet be known while pursuing that which could. His testimony of Joseph Smith and the first vision was paramount and the prophet’s search for truth no matter what the source his lodestone throughout life.
January 13, 2009
So I just loved the last three pages of this book. This man has truly been able to get a grasp on relgion and life. So the following is the last few pages from the book that really touched my heart.
"So for me, I've made a picture of the world. It may be right. It may be wrong. But for me it is very real, and I've had experiences for me which are real, and so for me the onlyt thing that I can do is say, "Try what the Savior said: try it and see if it works, and you;ll find that it does work and that it's tremendously important." Of course it's everything. I mean, you can't put anything in comparison with it. It's really true. I mean, if there is a God who cares and whether we like it or not we're going to stand in judgment (in my case you might speculate that it might be quite soon--thank you, but I don't think it will be that soon), but anyway I've always thought of this picture; I've thought this thinkg that kind of makes me do a little better. I've thought, if the Lord is really just and a little bit harsh, He might just put on that screen up there while all of you are watching in the hereafter and say, "Old Man Eyring --do you remember the night that he preached to you down at the BYU and osunded so noble and fine? Here is what he is really like, here'e the movie of the fellow from the time he was a little boy up throught the whole years. And he had the gall to go down there and preach to you and talk like a Saint, and he's a scoundrel."
Now, that would make me do better. I mean, just to think that makes me try to do a little better. But I don't think He'd do that; I don't think He'd be that harsh. But you know the test of what you ought to do? You ought to live in such a way that you would be perfectly happy to have everything that you do known. And if you don't do that, maybe you'd better change a little bit. I'd say if you're doing somthing that you hope poeple don't know, God knows them, and if He wants to He'll turn that movie on for you. I mean, He'll at least turn it on in your own mind. He may not be so unkind as to show it to all the neightbores, but He will let you see it and He'll remind you, and if you're doing some things right tonight or tomorrow or any other time that you don't care to have anybody else know--or you wouldn't even want to know about them yourself or have to think about them very clearly--I think we better quit. I mean, that' the best test for me to try to do better. I don't want to even look at myself; I mean, I'm not very bad, I'm not even bad enought to be interesting. But dull as I am I wouldn't want to do that; so don't look for anything, because I'm kind of harsh on my graduate students and expect a little more of them and take more of the credit sometimes than I ought to; you know, just not as noble as I ought to be. My wife drives me up here tonight and did it beautifully, and we get over in the parking lot and she talks a little bit about how we ought to have gotten closer, and I get a little bit out of patience and say, "Well, we can't always be perfect," and she remembers. But all of us have got things we've got to do better.
So we ought to make a picture of the world like mine or make a better one, make one that squares with reality more, and in it I think will come this idea: that you are going to have to live with yourself, and that your neightbores may have to know about you a certain amoungt, and that there is going to be a judgement, and that the world is really beaurigul, and really it's a wonderful place to live and lots more wonderful if you live in such a way that you can live with yourself.
So this, then, is sort of the picture that I would give you and end on the note that I can't see any difference between the kinds of arguments that you make to support religion and the arguments that you make to support science. I understand, of course, that there are contradictions of all kind in science, and there are contradictions betweeen various parts of religion in every human mind (but not in God's mind; in a billion years you'll have your problems solved, if you can wait).
And there aren't any problems, really, but I always feel a little bit unhappy when somebody tells me that they'll give me a beautiful picture that reconciles everthing. Baloney. I mean, I can't reconcile chemistry, and they're going to take the whole world and reconcile it and relgion and science and everything in it? I can't do that. I like contradictions. I like a little bit of a mess, and I am glad when one of the brethren says saoething that I think is a little bit foolish, because I think if the Lord can stand him, maybe He can stand me. So that's it, and I think that maybe there's a certain stumbling block that some of us have: we expect other people to be a kind of perfection that we don't even attemt to approach ourselves. We expect the brethren or the bishop or the stake president or the General Authorities to be not human, even. We expect the Lord to just open and shut their mouths, but He doesn't do that--they are human beings; but they're wonderful, and they do better than they would if it weren't for the Lord helping them. I think I would say this, that I don't think there's a finer group in the world than the bishops of the Latter-day Saint Church. Some of the aren't what they ought to be, but just by-and-large you won't find a more devoted group of men than that.
So that's my answer to this remark--somebody says that a student is down here at BYU and he's a member of the Church, but he's a mess. And I say, "Yes, I agree. But you ought to see what the fellow would be like if it weren't for the Church." And that's what the gospel does. It takes all of us withour faults and makes us better. It's a wonderful thinkg, and there isn't anything like the gospel. If we can live close to it and approach, at least, the life of the Savior in the kind of way that we put other people's interests before our own and in general try to be helpful, we can have a heaven on earth, and life will be a wonderful thing. And it's really true, in my opinion."
"So for me, I've made a picture of the world. It may be right. It may be wrong. But for me it is very real, and I've had experiences for me which are real, and so for me the onlyt thing that I can do is say, "Try what the Savior said: try it and see if it works, and you;ll find that it does work and that it's tremendously important." Of course it's everything. I mean, you can't put anything in comparison with it. It's really true. I mean, if there is a God who cares and whether we like it or not we're going to stand in judgment (in my case you might speculate that it might be quite soon--thank you, but I don't think it will be that soon), but anyway I've always thought of this picture; I've thought this thinkg that kind of makes me do a little better. I've thought, if the Lord is really just and a little bit harsh, He might just put on that screen up there while all of you are watching in the hereafter and say, "Old Man Eyring --do you remember the night that he preached to you down at the BYU and osunded so noble and fine? Here is what he is really like, here'e the movie of the fellow from the time he was a little boy up throught the whole years. And he had the gall to go down there and preach to you and talk like a Saint, and he's a scoundrel."
Now, that would make me do better. I mean, just to think that makes me try to do a little better. But I don't think He'd do that; I don't think He'd be that harsh. But you know the test of what you ought to do? You ought to live in such a way that you would be perfectly happy to have everything that you do known. And if you don't do that, maybe you'd better change a little bit. I'd say if you're doing somthing that you hope poeple don't know, God knows them, and if He wants to He'll turn that movie on for you. I mean, He'll at least turn it on in your own mind. He may not be so unkind as to show it to all the neightbores, but He will let you see it and He'll remind you, and if you're doing some things right tonight or tomorrow or any other time that you don't care to have anybody else know--or you wouldn't even want to know about them yourself or have to think about them very clearly--I think we better quit. I mean, that' the best test for me to try to do better. I don't want to even look at myself; I mean, I'm not very bad, I'm not even bad enought to be interesting. But dull as I am I wouldn't want to do that; so don't look for anything, because I'm kind of harsh on my graduate students and expect a little more of them and take more of the credit sometimes than I ought to; you know, just not as noble as I ought to be. My wife drives me up here tonight and did it beautifully, and we get over in the parking lot and she talks a little bit about how we ought to have gotten closer, and I get a little bit out of patience and say, "Well, we can't always be perfect," and she remembers. But all of us have got things we've got to do better.
So we ought to make a picture of the world like mine or make a better one, make one that squares with reality more, and in it I think will come this idea: that you are going to have to live with yourself, and that your neightbores may have to know about you a certain amoungt, and that there is going to be a judgement, and that the world is really beaurigul, and really it's a wonderful place to live and lots more wonderful if you live in such a way that you can live with yourself.
So this, then, is sort of the picture that I would give you and end on the note that I can't see any difference between the kinds of arguments that you make to support religion and the arguments that you make to support science. I understand, of course, that there are contradictions of all kind in science, and there are contradictions betweeen various parts of religion in every human mind (but not in God's mind; in a billion years you'll have your problems solved, if you can wait).
And there aren't any problems, really, but I always feel a little bit unhappy when somebody tells me that they'll give me a beautiful picture that reconciles everthing. Baloney. I mean, I can't reconcile chemistry, and they're going to take the whole world and reconcile it and relgion and science and everything in it? I can't do that. I like contradictions. I like a little bit of a mess, and I am glad when one of the brethren says saoething that I think is a little bit foolish, because I think if the Lord can stand him, maybe He can stand me. So that's it, and I think that maybe there's a certain stumbling block that some of us have: we expect other people to be a kind of perfection that we don't even attemt to approach ourselves. We expect the brethren or the bishop or the stake president or the General Authorities to be not human, even. We expect the Lord to just open and shut their mouths, but He doesn't do that--they are human beings; but they're wonderful, and they do better than they would if it weren't for the Lord helping them. I think I would say this, that I don't think there's a finer group in the world than the bishops of the Latter-day Saint Church. Some of the aren't what they ought to be, but just by-and-large you won't find a more devoted group of men than that.
So that's my answer to this remark--somebody says that a student is down here at BYU and he's a member of the Church, but he's a mess. And I say, "Yes, I agree. But you ought to see what the fellow would be like if it weren't for the Church." And that's what the gospel does. It takes all of us withour faults and makes us better. It's a wonderful thinkg, and there isn't anything like the gospel. If we can live close to it and approach, at least, the life of the Savior in the kind of way that we put other people's interests before our own and in general try to be helpful, we can have a heaven on earth, and life will be a wonderful thing. And it's really true, in my opinion."
April 2, 2018
Twice in one month I heard from a young woman and an older woman anti-evolution statements in church that made me so uncomfortable. I had felt both times when those people spoke as though they believed they were representing Mormon doctrine when I don't feel that they were. Yet, at the same time, I didn't know how to respond without possibly shaking their faith when they clearly felt there was a conflict (or without at least coming across combative since it's the sort of thing that I lack patience for). I was complaining about this to my dad and he happened to be reading this book at the time and he recommended it to me. I am not sure if the book is "amazing," but the man it tells about is definitely amazing! (The length of time it took me to get through this would suggest that maybe the book isn't exactly amazing, but it is really good -- it's just not gripping in the way of a novel, which is what I've been reading a lot of lately.) But anyway . . . the man -- Henry Eyring -- so many things I want to be! He just says things so wisely and gently and kindly and well. He's very practical and very faithful. I admired him so much!
January 31, 2020
This book did an amazing job telling me about some of Henry Eyring’s accomplishments, and taught me a lot about what he believed. I learned some about his family history, which was really cool considering some of it is mine as well. However, even though his life was interesting, it seemed like the book merely glanced over a lot of information; they never went super in depth with anything beyond a slight overview. For instance, the author claimed many times that Henry was a family man, however there was little written about his wife and children, and his life seemed like it was only work, until the last third of the book when they went further into detail on his attributes. Even though it felt superficial in some areas, it felt that way mostly because this book wasn’t written solely for scientists or members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; it was written for everyone, whether they are educated, religious, or neither. It was good read, and I would recommend this book to anyone wanting to learn more about how science and the church can coexist in both individuals and communities.
June 9, 2017
I enjoyed reading about Henry Eyring's life and testimony. I loved that his great passions were science and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He had no difficulty in reconciling the two. He was not afraid to admit that their were things he did not know in both areas. His quest for knowledge and truth was insatiable.
My favorite quote was the advice Henry's father gave when he was leaving for college: "in this Church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true. You go over to the University of Arizona and learn everything you can, and whatever is true is a part of the gospel. The Lord is actually running this universe. I’m convinced that he inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith. And I want to tell you something else: if you go to the university and are not profane, if you’ll live in such a way that you’ll feel comfortable in the company of good people, and if you go to church and do the other things that we’ve always done, I don’t worry about your getting away from the Lord.”
The book itself was rather long winded but their are many gems of wisdom within.
My favorite quote was the advice Henry's father gave when he was leaving for college: "in this Church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true. You go over to the University of Arizona and learn everything you can, and whatever is true is a part of the gospel. The Lord is actually running this universe. I’m convinced that he inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith. And I want to tell you something else: if you go to the university and are not profane, if you’ll live in such a way that you’ll feel comfortable in the company of good people, and if you go to church and do the other things that we’ve always done, I don’t worry about your getting away from the Lord.”
The book itself was rather long winded but their are many gems of wisdom within.
November 26, 2017
What a disappointment! This biography of Henry Eyring could have been so much better! I was hoping for something like Walter Isaacson’s Einstein, since the two men’s lives were nearly parallel. They were both brilliant (and slightly eccentric) scientists whose discoveries rocked the world. They even knew each other at Princeton! But whereas Isaacson’s biography of Einstein follows a mostly chronological timeline, making for easy reading, Mormon Scientist lurches off into one direction, and then another. One good thing I’ll say for the author, Henry J. Eyring (grandson of the first Henry Eyring, and now president of BYU-Idaho)–he does a great job of making his grandfather’s famous Absolute Rate Theory understandable for ordinary readers, at least as understandable as an esoteric combination of quantum mechanics, physics, and chemistry can be. It’s too bad that same clarity didn’t continue through the rest of the book!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 305 reviews