Deseret News | Grandson tells story of famous LDS scientist

Reader comments
Grandson tells story of famous LDS scientist

Page:
1
2
Next >

Timj | 7:48 a.m. Feb. 10, 2008

Awesome. Definitely look forward to reading it.
I also recommend the book "Reflections of a Scientist." Hard to find, but excellent book by the scientist himself.

teg | 8:39 a.m. Feb. 10, 2008

Most wouldn't recognize the high correlation between science and religion. Both are born of faith. Dr. Eyring knew the paths could be and were one in the same. You receive a measure of the Spirit by accepting 2+2=4.

Rob | 8:57 a.m. Feb. 10, 2008

That is going to be a wonderful book to read. I just like to look at President Eyrings face. It is so full of love, kindness and joy.

Comments continue below

tfuller | 9:41 a.m. Feb. 10, 2008

great to hear this biography has been written. i will buy it and read it. Henry Eyring was a great and good man. i had two of his sons as instructors or professors at the U in the 60's.

many stories abound, and it will be good to have many of them available in one volume

Cato | 9:46 a.m. Feb. 10, 2008

This book is a joke. It shows what a hack of a scientist Eyring really was. He allowed his religious faith to bias his work, and it is evident.

Mormons don't make very good scientists. Oh, they are alright for dotting the i and crossing the t on the work of others, but they lack the independent thought necessary to really contribute to science.

Rick Shelton | 9:53 a.m. Feb. 10, 2008

This article could have included a mention of what made this scientist "famous". I believe he was a chemist, but it's lazy reporting not to at least include which field of chemistry. Also, the statement "would have been nominated for a Nobel Prize [if only]" is a little presumptuous.

wjgram | 10:31 a.m. Feb. 10, 2008

I am pleased to read this article, and to know there is a book written about Pres. Henry B. Eyring's father. A long time ago I read his book "The Three Degrees of Glory". He had a way of explaining spiritual things with his scientific knowledge. I gave my book away, so I hope to see some of the text from that book in this new book. Either way, it will be a great book, and I look forward to reading it.

Dr. Eyring | 10:33 a.m. Feb. 10, 2008

Henry Eyring was a brilliant chemist and a man of strong faith. This is a wonderful example of the compatibility of religion and science. He realized that truth is truth regardless of the institution. I think every LDS member should read his book, "Reflections of a Scientist" since the general membership seems to perceive science as a godless pursuit. I remember hearing an institute teacher tell a class that "the Telestial kingdom would be full of murderers, liars and scientists." Such ignorance is inexcusable.

Hooray, for perseverance | 10:42 a.m. Feb. 10, 2008

I am so thrilled to know this book is going to be published and I can buy it for my own personal library. My most favorite kinds of books to read are NON-Fiction. Biographies and autobiographies are also up at the top of the list. All my adult life, I have been a member of the Church. I read every book I could get my hands on, via the public library--of the biographies and teachings of our latter-day prophets. As a young mother, it assisted me to teach my own children to become better people through the only examples I had from reading about the general authorities lives. So, Thank you sir, for you diligence and follow through at the admonition of an apostle, you listened, heard the meaning and what a great connection you have now to your grandfather and namesake. I am certain he oversaw through the veil what you were doing and prompted you to write what you did. I look forward to a feast reading your book. You are to be commended, Henry J Eyring! Anna McIntire, convert of 40 yrs in March. :)

Jake | 10:59 a.m. Feb. 10, 2008

YOU ARE THE JOKE !!!

re: cato | 10:58 a.m. Feb. 10, 2008

Your characterization of mormon scientists shows how bigotry can cloud the mind to make an educated person sound uneducated. What does it mean to be a "free thinker"? As a general rule, most scientists (mormon and non-mormon alike) are so afraid of their peers that if an opinion is written in a book by someone with an ounce of ivy-legue background, they accept it as fact without the least bit of scrutiny. It becomes fact ever more, never to be questioned again. Seriously, try to talk "out of the box" with any science professor and see what kind of "free-thinkers" the secular world is full of.

re: cato | 11:08 a.m. Feb. 10, 2008

Show me a scientist with "independent thinking" and I'll show you a scientist that has lost his credibility within academic circles. Secular scientist hold onto "theories" as being facts no differently than evangelicals angrily defending Jesus. It becomes no different than just another religion.

Tom | 12:02 p.m. Feb. 10, 2008

Considering the considerable lack of world-class LDS scientists, I think this work is long overdue.

Lack of world class scientist | 12:36 p.m. Feb. 10, 2008

World class scientists are a small bunch. The LDS have contributed as much as any other religion. Science has long since been an important part of the religion. Just read some of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and you see that science has long since interested the church leadership. I think Talmage and Widtsoe were no slouches amongst international scientific elite circles....I don't know if you'd call them world class but they were well known in the scientific world during their lives and contributed to its knowledge. Clinical and agricultural scientist whom are LDS are plentiful!

Jaybee | 1:17 p.m. Feb. 10, 2008

Don't forget to write about Dr. Eyring's annual footrace with students at the U. of U.

NASA alumna | 2:09 p.m. Feb. 10, 2008

Don't forget about Dr. James C. Fletcher, the scientist that headed NASA twice. I was priviledged to work for him when he headed NASA for the second time. He was called upon to lead the "return to flight" effort following the Challenger accident.

Every person I met at NASA had a great respect for Dr. Fletcher and his scientific and administrative capabilities.

Members of the LDS church can be proud of both Dr. Eyring and Dr. Fletcher.

DeLaval Milker | 2:41 p.m. Feb. 10, 2008

Shouldn't mormons produce scientists, ballerinas, beauty pageant winners or politicians at roughly the same percentage as the general population? If so, why is it news...and if not maybe ask why. I think this is trying too hard to attach mormon to someone who did something; another grab at mainstream or normalcy for its' own sake. Romney association, we could call it.
A great scientist is a great as a scientist. I don't give a Rat's if they're mormon. Don't matter.
Although, I do wonder how a mormon archaeologist or geneticist rationalises some church stuff with science.

tfuller | 2:49 p.m. Feb. 10, 2008

continuation of tribute to Henry Eyring.

i appreciate the mention of Dr. James C. Fletcher, along with Dr. Eyring. I can see his (Fletcher's) signature on my framed U of U BA degree (Physics '66), on the wall, from where i sit writing this; it is a source of some pride to have his signatue on the degree, as well as a feeling of accomplishment for having stuck with the program (quite a few years ago).

when NASA was down and all but out, they called in Dr. Fletcher.

Shelama | 3:50 p.m. Feb. 10, 2008

Eyring (the "hack" as per 'Cato') won the very prestigious Priestly Medal (1975), the Linus Pauling Medal (1969), multiple other prestigious prizes, was considered for the Nobel prize for his work on absolute reaction rates, authored more than 500 of papers, and authored, co-authored or edited close to two dozen authoritative and well reviewed professional books. And gave some of the most wonderful, well received, educational and entertaining seminars for undergraduates in the physical sciences (including quantum mechanics) at the University of Utah after it lured him away from Princeton's Graduate School. His seminars were among the high points of my undergraduate work at the UoU in the late 60's. Cato, I am sure, will be only to pleased to now provide for us his C.V. and bibliography so we can see what a "real" scientist does, and what justifies his assessment of Eyring as a "hack." Which we will gladly accept with a vote of thanks.

Alan of Orem | 3:57 p.m. Feb. 10, 2008

Since someone asked, from Wikipedia:

Henry Eyring (February 20, 1901 ï¿½ December 26, 1981) was a Mexicanï¿½American theoretical chemist whose primary contribution was in the study of chemical reaction rates and intermediates. A prolific writer, he authored more than 600 scientific articles, ten scientific books, and a few books on the subject of science and religion. He was also a recipient of the National Medal of Science in 1966 for developing the Absolute Rate Theory of chemical reactions. He was also elected president of the American Chemical Society in 1963 and the Association for the Advancement of Science in 1965.

A few more LDS scientists approaching Eyring's stature could be mentioned, certainly a number at least in porportiontion with LDS population. And merely "competent" scientists about in the Church. Like Dr. Erying, they generally tend to be of the more liberal and open, less "doctrinaire" variety of LDS with regard to their faith, but as a whole no less devoted and faithful to God and willing to serve their Church.

We even have some decent geneticists and archaeologists running around.

Dale Newton | 4:35 p.m. Feb. 10, 2008

This is a book I need to read and a man I need to discover.

Have you ever taken Chemistry? | 7:34 p.m. Feb. 10, 2008

Cato,

On what grounds is Dr. Eyring a hack? The formula that he discovered with regard to rate of chemical reactions is taught in every Organic and Inorganic Chemistry throughout the world.

A Relative | 8:08 p.m. Feb. 10, 2008

We invited Henry Eyring, Sr. to dinner in Pennsylvania, the night before he received the Priestley Award. That award is the second highest honor in Chemistry, second only to the Nobel prize.

East Coast Comment | 9:01 p.m. Feb. 10, 2008

What I like about this book is that it reopens a lost conversation about science and religion, with one of the great examples in the Church. I really enjoyed the book and found it insightful and accessible. The book is also unique on this subject in that it shows the patterns of family and commitment that produce this type of dedicated scientist. I hope the book gets widely read and opens up a product dialogue in the Church.

Rich | 10:38 p.m. Feb. 10, 2008

My view is the same as Brigham Young's -- that truth is truth no matter the source, and that Mormonism is a belief in the truth. It is not a true doctrine that any man is infallible, including past or current church leaders, and even including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or Thomas S. Monson. Mormons should be careful to base their testimonies on truth and not on various interpretations of scripture or simplifications of scientific theory. Anti-Mormons often focus on contradictions between science and what a long-dead LDS leader might have said. We all must search for the truth ourselves and not rely on the opinions of men. Do animals evolve? Do native Americans have DNA more similar to Asians than Middle Easterners? Were Mayan temples the sites of Book of Mormon stories? I seek the truth and do not accept what is often a popular opinion as truth just because the majority of my peers believe it. My faith is sustained by a reliance on basic principles. I will never know the answers to many questions. That doesn't mean there is no truth to be found. On the contrary, those who are open minded are able to learn.

Dr. Steve R. Lynn | 10:46 p.m. Feb. 10, 2008

The small book entitled "The Faith of a Scientist" was inspiring to me as I studied the sciences earlier in my career. I have met President Henry B. Eyring and have felt the Holy Ghost present in such a great degree while we were speaking with a young man at a hotel in Nashville a few years ago. I turned to another man who was observing the conversation between Elder Marriott and the first man and said, without even really thinking about it, "The Church is true and you need to find out more about it." To which he responded - I am sure by the Spirit, "I know it is and I will." Science cannot really explain that perhaps, nevertheless, there were other aspects of that meeting that did let me know in no uncertain terms that it was not by chance.

science geek | 10:54 p.m. Feb. 10, 2008

Henry Eyring the scientist, wrote the book "Faith of a Scientist," available in special collections at the University of Utah. It's excellent. If you want to buy a copy there are very long waiting lists at used bookstores to secure a copy. In that book Henry Eyring talks of many great scientists he knew over the years, about half who believed in God. He states that the more he learned about science the more it validated he belief in God. As someone with several relatives who are respected scientists and Mormons, including a geneticist who travels worldwide and collaborates with scientists of many backgrounds, I can tell you successful scientists belong to no one faith, or to atheism. This geneticist takes his secular learning seriously and his religious faith, and believes that someday, when he knows everything, all the dots will connect. But for now he relishes the joy of discovery. The same outlook belongs to the two geologists in my family, who don't understand how dinosaurs and carbon dating fit in with Biblical accounts of creationism. They are strong Mormons and intelligent scientists, also respectful of all they don't know as humans in a great big universe.

Raymond Takashi Swenson | 9:38 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Being old enough to have heard Henry Eyring speak to an Institute of Religion group at the University of Utah, and having read his book, I think the difference between Eyring, a great scientist, and other scientists who are atheists, is Eyring's great humility, his understanding of how much he did not know about the world. Scientists like Richard Dawkins who claim that science supports their atheism believe they are smarter than any possible god, whereas Eyring explained that, taking a cue from the Book of Abraham, there is always someone smarter than you, and if you ranked the intelligence of all beings, the smartest of all would be God. Eyring mentioned that he once visited with Einstein, and as they came out of his home, he saw beans growing in Einstein's garden. He asked Einstein what variety they were, and Einstein confessed he did not know. So Eyring said, "Just remember, Einstein didn't know beans." Even the geniuses among us don't know everything there is to know. There are more than enough "gaps" in the personal knowledge of any scientist for his ignorance to encompass God.

Thomas | 10:10 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

"There would always be things between science and religion that couldn't be reconciled."

I wonder what Elder Eyring meant by that.

My experience has been that whenever a conflict arises between religion and science, it's because one of them is trespassing on the other's territory. Religion shouldn't ask people to accept by "faith" things that, given enough hard work and study, can be discovered and known through rational inquiry; likewise, science shouldn't presume to opine on metaphysical matters that are by the very definition outside the ability of rational inquiry to discover.

Some great comments here | 11:04 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

This is one of the few threads I've read where the insightful comments out numbered the idiotic.

Justin Barney | 11:43 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

I was priveleged to take a chemistry class from Professor Henry B. Eyring at the University of Utah. It was the last year he taught at the University. Chemistry was not my best subject. I struggled to get passing grades but I will never forget Professor Eyring. In some of the quite moments between chemistry lessons he shared with us his testimony and belief in God. He demonstrated a balance in life between his scientific acomplishments and his faith in God. He helped me to balance my life during that important time in my personal development. I am grateful to Professor Eyring. The science is long forgotten but I will never forget those quite moments between the chemistry lessons.

Von Stocking | 2:23 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

One of the highlights of my high school and college years, as a dedicated chemistry and sciences student was learning about Dr. Eyring.

At the time the Science vs Religion "war" was raging. I had lots of input from both sides.
Then he shows up, elected by his peers to be President of the American Chemical Society, and simultaneously a member, perhaps chairman, of the Sunday School General Board.

A scientist told me, though I have never heard it from his own voice, that Dr. Eyring had zero problem with understanding Creation vs Evolution because God had simply used six very long (multi-million year?) periods or "days" to handle the necessary development = creation. That fits with everything I have since learned in both true science and true religion, which can never disagree.

One Who Knew Dr. Eyring | 3:08 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Perhaps "Cato" would like to reveal his/her true identity so that his/her scientific education, credentials, and background could be properly vetted to determine the veracity of the "claim" that Dr. Eyring is a scientific "hack."

Anonymous | 3:32 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

There was a biography done on Eyring as a U of U Masters thesis in about 1980. The letters between Eyring and President Smith are in the thesis, and are a good read. Eyring, in my opinion, would qualify as an independent thinker who didn't feel pressure to compromise his intellectual honesty, even when he was disagreeing with LDS hierarchy.

Harvard Ph.D. | 3:42 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

My feeling is that scientists in general are relatively open-minded. Good scientists are creative, and have tremendous impact in the world for good. And religious people shouldn't downplay that impact, because science offers great hope for our troubled world. All that I've read indicates that Eyring was very creative, and he did a lot of good in the world, and in helping the LDS church members be open to science and not be anti-science.

A Geneticist and PhD | 4:43 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

The conflict between science and religion only occurs when one blures the lines between theory and supposition. Having worked my entire life in applied genetics (plant breeding) I am confortable with both my science (Genetics) and religion (LDS). I have seen (caused) directed biological change, random evelotion dosn't make much sense to me. Boy is there a lot to learn anbout this field in the hereafter.

Linda Phillips | 7:37 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

All the rhetoric aside, I believe President Eyring to be an inspired man of God. Whatever may be said about him, there never would be called a man into the Presidency of the Church and as a prophet, seer, and revelator that was anything but honest and faithful to the Lord. I am grateful for his accomplishments and the fact that his grandson took the time to write about his grandfather. My son, Dale, stated before his death that most scientists are athiests. I am appreciative that there are some that are not so as to help us understand more fully the correlation between the two worlds-science and faith. Certainly God has no questions about how He operates. It is too bad that intellectual persons waste the time arguing the point. I sustain Elder Eyring in his new calling and support his grandson in following an Apostle of the Lord's request to assist us in understanding the amazing accomplishments of a man we love so dearly.

elloj | 7:46 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

In regards to Cato. We mock what we don't understand. Man is infinite in understanding in comparison to God. Spencer W. Kimball said it best in his talk "Absolute Truths".

http://www.byub.org/findatalk/details.asp?ID=8

Eric | 8:46 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I think some of the people commenting are confused about who the scientist was. The biography was written about President Henry B. Erying's FATHER by President Eyring's SON.

Kirtland Stout | 8:51 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

As often as I can, I read Deseret News and other LDS-oriented media online, including readers' comments. I've noticed that in the string of comments about almost any pro-LDS article, a certain pseudonym shows up: Cato. Whether the article be about the Tabernacle Choir, BYU football or basketball teams, General Conference or a well known Latter-day Saint, the psdeudonym Cato is always there to throw in remarks disparaging to the Church and Latter-day Saints. It would appear that he does it to spoil and attempt to ruin any article that casts Latter-day Saints in a good light. Cato is an anti-Mormon and nothing else. It's obvious that he or she isn't a bright light, as the comments reflect the writing style of a junior high school dropout and the social graces of a cave man.

Please, please disregard the inept and disparaging comments of Cato. They're not worth reading.

C Kendall | 9:05 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

As the wife of an engineer and mother of several future scientists, I look forward to adding this to our library. Our boys need to know that Truth and Science are not incompatible.

Re: Eric | 9:03 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Yeah, I too was confused for a little while. Too many Henrys. And in that picture of Henry J, he looks exactly like his father!

SF Blue | 10:29 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I read "Reflections of a Scientist." I thought that was a brilliant book. I wanted asnwers about animal evolution and I thought I would get some insight from a great scientist. It acutally really helped me. Eyring bascially said there is a lot of evidence that proofs evolution from animals. If so then that's the way that God had planned it. It helped me not to be so stubborn when it comes to science and God. I can't wait to read this version.

lulu from Canada | 10:42 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

This article is absolutely wonderful. Thank you for the comments that make me understand more about the relationship science-faith.

I will buy this book with a lot of interest.

Doubts of a Scientist | 11:18 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Because of the advances of science, religious faith has continually retreated from things that were "known."

A few examples:

Galileo's heliocentric doctrine overturned the religious ideas that the earth was the center of the universe, which religious authorities "knew."

Because of their absolute conviction about the origins of mankind, LDS and BYU religious leaders forced three prominent professors out of BYU in the early 1900's because they taught organic evolution. But today, Church-owned BYU has retreated, and biology faculty freely teach what these early professors were fired for.

Most recently, Church retreated from the doctrine that Native-Americans descended from Lehi. This doctrine was held with such conviction that special missions were commenced to ï¿½gather scattered Israel ï¿½ i.e., the Indians;ï¿½ thousands of Native-American children were placed in white LDS homes to fulfill the prophecy to become a ï¿½white and delightsome people.ï¿½ This doctrine was so ï¿½trueï¿½ that it was published (written by Bruce R. McConkie, Thomas S. Monson, and Boyd K. Packer) in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon. Despite their prophetic status, DNA science forced a retreat from what everybody so passionately ï¿½knew.ï¿½

If the prophets look to science for truth, then who needs the prophets?

Jud | 11:37 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Dr. Henry Eyring (the scientist) changed my life. When he told me 40 years ago, "You never need to accept anything that isn't true," I breathed a sigh of relief at age 17 (given some of the weird things my seminary teachers were telling me). Every LDS young person should know this man and his teachings.

Anonymous | 11:44 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

So, in other words, when President Hinckley says, "Bring the truths you have..." he is really begging for some ANSWERS because he doesn't HAVE any!?

Klimber510 | 3:02 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

The Eyring family is remarkable. Their standards for academic excellence and achievement are inspiring. I spent much of my freshman year at the UofU mentored by a nephew of Dr. Eyring. I learned what it meant to aspire to much more than the minimal requirements to get an "A" grade. I hope learning of Dr. Eyring will inspire others to achieve.

liz | 3:03 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I am about half way through this book at the moment, and it is wonderful. I have really enjoyed the time I've spent reading it. It is so refreshing to hear the viewpoint that science and religion are compatible,even if we don't understand how right now. If they are both correct,which I believe they are, then they must be compatible. Dr. Eyring was a brilliant man whom I wish I had the opportunity to know.

Faith of an Engineer | 3:33 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I listened to Henry Eyring in church, as well as read his book "Faith of a Scientist." The interesting idea in his mind was not that church leaders could sometimes express their opinions and get things wrong, but that sometimes they could indeed speak for God and get things right. His best explanation for the order and regularity of the universe was the influence of a Divine Creator, and many scientists agreed with him.

Eyring also taught the folly of taking some concepts in the scriptures too literally.

For example, a good scientist might ask whether the Jaradites in the Book of Mormon were from Central Asia, and whether the frequent Jaradite words in the Nephite record indicates interaction with the remnants of a surviving Jaradite population. A good scientist might also recognize that the absence of Jewish DNA in American Indians may also be a result of Lehi and his family not being Jewish. Perhaps we need not be quite so smug in what we "know" as scientists. After all, a theory is only as good as the assumptions that it is based upon.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.