Articles/Essays – Volume 03, No. 3

Letters to the Editor

Dear Sirs: 

As a Dialogue subscriber, I was recently favored with a letter from the “Lloyd for Congress Committee,” asking for a contribution to support a Dr. Kent Lloyd, Ph.D., who is running for Congress in California’s 31st District. Unless I was singled out because of my philanthropic reputation, I assume that other Dialogue readers received similar petitions. Both Mr. Lloyd and Kendall O. Price, his campaign manager, are members of the Board of Editors of Dialogue. 

I call this to your attention because: 1) Although most magazines sell their subscription addresses, it is somewhat irregular for journals like Dialogue to do so, particularly when the letter sent out implies that Dialogue is supporting Mr. Lloyd, which is contrary to the avowed non-political position of the journal. 2) The ad hominem appeal to L.D.S. Church members to support a man because “he has a testimony” seems indefensible, especially when Mr. Romney proved that it was actually a handicap in politics to be a “good” man. Likewise to say—as the letter does—that Mr. Lloyd is a man with “LDS-democratic values” (not the opposite of LDS-Republican values since democratic has a small “d”) is at best vague and at worst sneaky, for I don’t believe that there is the political unanimity among Church members that the statement implies. 3) Finally, Dialogue readers in New York are not necessarily interested in the political aspirations of members of the Board of Editors in California, Ph.D. or no, especially with the burden of supporting our own poormouth presidential candidates through their lean days. 

Robert D. Lewis 
New York City 


Dear Sirs: 

I would like to object in the strongest manner to the liberty which Dialogue has taken with my personal privacy. My subscription to Dialogue does not authorize you to issue my name and address to political, religious, or commercial groups who wish to send me junk mail. In fact, I am not the slightest bit interested in the candidacy of Kent Lloyd for the United States Congress. Your presumption that I and other Dialogue readers would be interested is evidently based upon the false notion that all Dialogue readers are loyal Latter-day Saints who would rather see a member of the Church be elected than any opponent however well qualified—since Lloyd’s opponent’s qualifications were 

not stated. Your decision to allow the use of the Dialogue subscription list for political purposes was surely an error in judgment, and you should assure your readers that it will not occur again. 

If Dialogue offends and alienates its readers by letting it be known that a condition for receiving Dialogue is that the reader must allow his name to be used for junk mail lists, then Dialogue itself is likely to be the real loser. I think too highly of Dialogue to allow some misguided editors to come between the journal and myself, but others may not feel this way. In any event, I consider it a violation of trust for Dialogue to use my name without my permission, and I would appreciate it if you would see that this does not happen again. 

William J. Worlton 
Los Alamos, New Mexico 


We wish to apologize to all of those readers who feel that their interests as subscribers and their rights to privacy were not respected in this matter. When the request came to rent our list to Kent Lloyd for his campaign, we assumed that he was sending out a simple, informational brochure. When we received the materials from Lloyd’s campaign headquarters, we were surprised—and disturbed and concerned about our readers’ reactions. We take full responsibility for not asking to see the materials before they were sent out. 

We had intended to make our list equally available to all L.D.S. candidates, but since we do not have sufficient staff to administer the delicate details of an “equal-time” policy, we have decided that the best course will be absolutely to refuse to allow our mailing list to be used by groups or persons involved in special pleading. In the past, we have exchanged lists with other publishers of scholarly interest; in the future we will restrict our exchanges to those areas. [Ed.] 


Dear Sirs: 

I have often wondered why so many apostate-Mormon and non-Mormon critics of the Church remain so steadfast in their intense interest in all things Mormon. I can understand the reasons why some people leave the Church, for before I received a testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel I had been swayed to the edge of apostasy by them myself. However, I had fully intended that my break with the Church would be complete and final. It seemed to me that if the Gospel were not true, there were many better and more important things to do than to spend the remainder of my life lamenting and exposing. In short, I would rather have been pro-anything than anti-Mormon. 

It is understandable that historians, sociologists, and a few others would have a professional interest in describing critically the Mormon community, but what is the fascination for those who would like to see the Church destroyed or altered beyond recognition? There are many possible motivations for such people, some of them perhaps even noble. But could it be that the driving force of much of the anti-Mormon community (and they do seem to stick together) is fear that the Church is right and they are wrong? Do they have a need to justify to themselves their departure from the community of Saints because they suspect that they might have made the wrong choice? I find it hard to believe that these critics think their largely semi-scholarly work will have much effect on the Church. Rather, it reads more like a literature of mutual reassurance, a literature designed to fill the empty spot in their lives which, in my opinion, should be filled by the Gospel. 

I may of course be wrong—a possibility shared by everyone. I would be interested to read letters from some of these critics which describe their motivations, what they realistically hope to accomplish, and why they feel those goals are of any importance. 

James L. Farmer 
Denver, Colo. 


Dear Sirs: 

I have been receiving your publication for sometime now. I would like to know whom I could thank for sending it. 

I am genuinely pleased with the founding and existence of this new periodical. Courage, candour and love of truth flow like a fresh breeze from its pages. 

What a grief it is for an architect, who concerns himself for good design, to see how the Church loses tremendous opportunities through a kind of authority-bound, committee architecture. It is, as such, readily suited to compound the specific difficulties faced by the missionaries in Europe. This is particularly important because architecture is more a sense of feeling and perception than a mechanical production. 

And now your essay on “Mormon Architecture Today.” May God allow that through it alone a good deal will be changed. 

I heartily wish your undertaking prosperous growth and successful results, including a fruitful dialogue. 

Dr. Gustav K. Ringel 
Döffingen bei Stuttgart, 

Translation by C. Dean Larsen. 


Dear Sirs: 

The value of good architecture as opposed simply to Church buildings has been overlooked for too long. But Mormon doctrine exists because of contradictions in accepted Christian theology, and perhaps a ward house should not be equated with great church buildings past or present. Perhaps the function of a chapel should be dictated by the peculiarities of our theology. 

The juxtaposition of worship and recreation is unfamiliar in other faiths as well as in architecture. The complexity of superimposing chapel and recreation hall, and integrating meetings, baptisms, services, basketball games and plays demands a different kind of building. 

The emphasis on brotherhood and the family, especially through the priesthood, home teaching and family home evening, for example, seems to reinforce the concept of the chapel as an image of the living room. Carpeting might be exactly right in the chapel. 

Many examples of great architecture were erected because of the people’s fear and lack of understanding of life after death, whereas Mormons understand the meaning of this life as temporary in the evolution of individual development. It may be correct for a ward house not to reflect solidity and permanence. The temple, though, serves the functions of eternal ordinances. After seeing the proposed Provo and Ogden temples, I don’t have images of lasting covenants or the beauty of God’s true church. 

Tom Zabriskie 
Cambridge, Mass. 


Dear Sirs: 

The authors of “Mormon Architecture Today” have convincingly expressed the plight of our Church architecture which I have long tried to convey. Until there is a significant change in the policies and awareness of those who perpetuate this “socialized architecture,” the image of this great Church will continue to suffer and our congregations will continue to worship in un-inspiring sanctuaries. 

The blame for this situation does not, however, rest entirely with the Church decision-makers. Those architects who become party to sterility of design by rubber-stamping standard construction documents for local use must share the responsibility for that which is being built. 

All of us in the Church who sacrifice, however little, to contribute funds and labor for new buildings without a real interest or concern regarding their architectural worthiness or the way they function are also contributing to mediocrity. 

David Ames Johnson 
Laguna Niguel, California 


Dear Sirs: 

I can’t stand those architects who say that the Church gymnasiums should either be eliminated or separated from the chapel or sanctuary. Little do they realize that the future leadership of the Church is to be found on the playing floors of Zion. It’s the sanctuary area that saps Zion’s strength. 

Joseph H. Jeppson 
Jr. M-Men Basketball Coach 
Mountain View, California 


Dear Sirs: 

This last General Conference stands as damning proof of the proposition that the Mormon Church stands impotent to face the great moral issues of our time. We should not have to wait for opportunities to bandwagon against bigotry—moral initiative in this area should have been our main concern since the Restoration. 

I for one refuse to allow myself to be put at the mercy of events and history. I cannot wait for my Church to recognize the issues—it is too late for that. I cannot wait for my Church to address itself to the moral dilemmas facing white and black Americans—it is too late for that. I cannot wait for my Church to enter the social arena, to get engaged in the struggle for moral existence because the time is so short. The time is so short and men of positive goodwill are so few that priorities of importance must be established on both the individual and the corporate level to insure that time and talent are used most effectively.

In a sense we are outpatients returning to our various spiritual clinics to receive medicine. We are afflicted with different moral and spiritual diseases—some more serious than others, some of which are terminal. Faced with an epidemic of serious proportions it is incredible that our Church would continue to attempt to treat minor cases and use ancient bromides in such a casual manner when the pews are full of emergency cases. We seem confused as to just what spiritual health really means—the morally sick are actually setting the standards of this health! We are unable to make a thorough diagnosis. Our treatment does not fit the disease—for the disease continues to thrive. 

An undercurrent of racism finds welcome acceptance in this Church. A member unable to cure his tobacco habit will find himself subject to a number of formal and informal sanctions. But a member unable to kick the hate habit finds no sanctions or help. But he quickly finds that he now can hate and feel righteous about it through a number of thinly disguised myths, fairy tales, and rationalizations available for misuse in the Church. It is the adherence to this kind of priority scale and myth that insures the irrelevance and impotency of any action the Church takes. 

The projected effort necessary to attack the myths and attempt a reformulation and the likelihood of success are unknowns that trouble me. If it is the case that the Church is to remain the captive of the disease that grows within it, then I must discard it as I would a worn garment that has long ceased to serve its purpose and usefulness. I believe that redirecting the Church toward its proper mission requires more than just infiltrating the Church with committed individuals; this effort requires an active articulation of a potent moral theory and this is sure to produce major divisions and strains in the Church. The haters presently taking much comfort from the Church’s impotency are likely first to feel uncomfortable, then actively fight the new “heresy” and then perhaps disassociate when hatred and indifference in all its forms no longer are able to find sanction in the Church. The object, of course, is not to drive out the morally sick in the Church but to create a moral initiative whereby the sickness can be treated and not fostered. 

It is my current feeling that an effort to make this Church the vehicle of a moral initiative aimed at the elimination of racism and the myths and rationalizations which make disguised bigotry a marketable commodity in this Church and country is unlikely to meet with success. 

Having arrived at this position, what action ought to be taken with regard to Church membership? I believe the answer to this will not be the same for all of us given the fact that our abilities and alter natives are different. Certainly effectiveness on the individual level in following one’s commitments does not require one to abandon active Church membership—on the contrary, there are abundant opportunities to confront and help modify improper attitudes in the Church. But if we are to follow the imperatives of the Gospel on the corporate, level, we are required to look outside the Church organization. And if a moral initiative is to generate any significant pressure, we know it must be conducted on a corporate level. The real justification of the Restoration was the need of an effective corporate agent to guide man to perfection. This need still exists. Secular organizations, religious organizations, both established and the “underground” or “free” church movement are combating our moral sickness far better than our Church in its official actions. 

Instead of devoting valuable time and energy in a dubious attempt to drag the Church out of the bunny hole of Alice’s Wonderland, we should be investing our time in organizations geared to the real world and to the solution of our moral problems. This conclusion requires that I withhold my substantive support and participation to the extent that it may be given at the expense of support and participation in other organizations with a proper moral perspective. 

I commend those who remain committed to help the Church gain a “moral initiative” for their optimism and faith, but the question still remains whether that course is the most efficient allocation of a very scarce resource. 

Allen Sims 
Arlington, Va. 


Dear Sirs: 

I am grateful for your presentation of the Egyptian material in the Summer 1968 issue of Dialogue. I myself studied Egyptian hieroglyphics at UCLA several years ago in the hope of resolving some of the problems connected with the “Book of Abraham” in Joseph Smith’s favor. Unfortunately, as soon as I had learned the language well enough to use a dictionary I was forced to conclude that Joseph Smith’s translation was mistaken, however sincere it might have been. Fac simile No. 2 in the Pearl of Great Price contained enough readable writing to convince me that it had purely Egyptian significance. This was a disappointment to me, but the discovery has given me more time to restructure my thinking about Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham than most of your readers will yet have had. My faith in the Church rests on personal feeling, but it has to find a place for historical facts as well. 

After the appearance of the photographs of the papyri in the February 1968 Improvement Era I made some attempt to translate the “Book of Breathing(s)” text, with the help of George Moller’s Hieratische Palaographie (Otto Zeller: Osnabruck, 1965), a book which fortunately included a photograph of page 2 of a fairly good text of the “Book of Breathing” (Berlin P. 3135). This page appears to be almost duplicated in a large part of the upper section of the text shown in the Era. I had no such guide to the lower section now translated by Richard Parker, except for an old English translation by De Horrack. This was enough, however, to enable me to translate a number of key words and to determine that the text ended on the lower right-hand side of the Era photograph. I am puzzled by the fact that in this section, which Dr. Parker refers to as Column I, some of the words I see are on different lines than he seems to indicate. “Book of Breathings” is really on line 4, “writings .. . it being placed” is on line 5, “left” is on line 6 (I think), “breathe” is on line 8, and “forever” is on line 9. Altogether he has lost a line. I suspect that some misunderstanding occurred in the editing or printing of this section. I hope that this slight numbering problem does not open the way to an attack on the general accuracy of Dr. Parker’s translation, because such an attack would be unwarranted. The text pictured in the Era is so poor that it can barely be read as it stands, but comparison with better examples of the same text found elsewhere makes its identification certain. It belongs to a kind of literature which is alien to Christianity and to our Church. [See Klaus Baer’s more extensive work on the “Breathing Permit” in this issue (Ed.)] 

Let us not lose sight of what I think is the primary importance of this papyri find. It can free us from our dilemma about excluding Negroes from the Priesthood. Perhaps our Father in Heaven intended the papyri to come to light now for just this purpose. I have shared the growing concern in the Church about this exclusion. In a master’s thesis at UCLA in December 1966 I tried to show that the rule can be explained on historical grounds. The story involves the slavery arguments in the United States which were already current in the time of Joseph Smith, as well as the precarious situation of the young Church in its environment. I also tried to show that none of the scriptural arguments for racial inferiority seem to be valid, including those implicit in the Book of Abraham. Church policy in this matter can only be defended as a decision which once must have seemed necessary and acceptable. What cannot be defended, even though it can be understood, is the fact that this legitimate decision carried along with it into the present time a set of assumptions and traditions which are not correct. 

My family and I have supported the Church in the past and we are not going to join the critics who wish to use this problem to break down the Church. Only the Church authorities can solve this problem in a satisfactory way. We can help them best by trying to understand just how difficult and complex the situation is. At the same time, however, we can work with human brotherhood as individuals. We can refuse to repeat statements which are unkind and of doubtful truth. We alone are responsible for what we say and do, even after allowances are made for other influences. The Church taught me that, just as it taught me to always try to find the truth. I believe that in the long run the organization will be consistent with its own fundamental teachings, especially if those of us who see a need for changes do not withdraw ourselves in a self-righteous way. At times it is a great temptation to do so. We have college-age children who report from schools in Oregon and California that the rule which excludes Negroes from the Priesthood also makes it nearly impossible for Mormon students to talk to their friends about the Church. This rule is the one thing that nearly every college student seems to know about Mormonism. Because of it, many young idealists have closed their ears to the Church. It is hard to tell our children that the solution is not simple, that it is not just a rule which needs to be changed, but attitudes which are generations old. The children say, “Something has to be done, Mother,” and they look at me. For the moment, this letter is the best I can do. 

Naomi Woodbury 
Tarzana, California 


Dear Sirs: 

In 1912 our Church writers were not so brave in their answers to Bishop Spaulding’s pamphlet Why Egyptologists Reject the Book of Abraham; and it seems that Dr. Nibley’s enthusiasm for the academic work of our present-day Egyptologists (“We can be everlastingly grateful that they are among the ablest and most honorable scholars who ever lived,” Dialogue, Vol. Ill, No. 2, p. 105) is only tempered by his scorn of Egyptologists now dead who said virtually the same thing. He says in the Improvement Era: “Now part of the secret of the unusual productivity of the Egyptologists of 1912 was a buoyant adolescent confidence in their own newly found powers, which present-day scholars may envy, but which they can well do without.” Sarcasm is a poor substitute for honest scientific facts and Egyptologists, living or dead, have without exception identified the facsimiles printed in the Book of Abraham as pertaining to the Book of the Dead, rejecting the notion of their being a record of Abraham. Dr. Nibley is indeed walking a tightrope, praising conscientious scientific work of scientists on the one hand and accepting their conclusions, and upholding the contradictory beliefs of the Church on the other by looking for explanations in the field of “translated” revelation. Whatever the answers may be, he is either becoming a “split personality” or he is unsuccessfully trying to “serve two masters.” 

Mimi Irving 
Salt Lake City, Utah 


Dear Sirs: 

For more than fifteen years this observer has watched with interest the growth of data on the Joseph Smith Papyri—Book of Abra ham question. There has been extreme difficulty at times in obtaining the most meager information. Many letters were written and contacts made without avail. We know of more than a few times when investigation has been carried on by persons having opportunity and ability from within the “establishment,” only to be crushed under the pale of authority and character censure. This observer is no stranger to such treatment and even from within his own church (I am an Elder in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and one time pastor of the Salt Lake Branch). Nevertheless, each time something has been added to the total store of knowledge to be used by the next investigator. 

The barrier of ignorance and fear was cracked when “Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar” was published by Modern Microfilm Co. in Salt Lake City and made freely available to everyone. Only portions could be had earlier. The existence of the “Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri” was known to us and to others more than two years before being given to the Utah Mormon Church. Our only lament is that we did not reach it fast enough. We are thankful for its publication even though the “establishment” appeared to be pressured into it. Thus the gates of interest and investigation have been opened. Now the flood of articles by Wilson, Howard, Parker, Heward, Tanner, and Nibley, including papyri photographs, is available for study in the Summer issue of Dialogue. 

Dialogue as an independent Journal of Mormon Thought has already done much to foster and preserve intellectual freedom in all the churches of Latter Day Saintism. It is no longer proper for authoritarian religious bodies to “protect” the errors of the past through censorship, punitive attitudes, and relegation. Certainly in the search for truth, all are entitled to do research with freedom of thought without fear of incrimination. Expose’s always do considerably more damage in discrediting the “establishment” than freely available knowledge. As faithful Latter Day Saints, we have no good reason to be afraid of our history or to be ashamed of it. Its true perspective is what we need today to help appreciate our heritage. Faith in historical error, no matter how sincere, can never make the error true. Historical truth brings understanding of our origins, determination for present progress, and confidence in future achievement. 

James D. Wardle 
Salt Lake City, Utah 


Dear Sirs: 

I admire the agility—oops, sorry!—ability of the theoreticians, apologists and ersatz scholars to take temporary haven in each cul-de-sac along the ferret’s burrow. But eventually, if not now, it will be overwhelmingly clear that “undue haste and overzealous faith” lent approbation to a “translation” of the papyri that obviously was never intended by the Prophet Joseph. At any rate, the lost is found, the inscrutable is now legible to an extent that leaves scant refuge for temporizing. And I, with many other devoted members of the Church, look for a resolute analysis accompanied by courageous action from the top. We have had more than enough brassy piety from self-anointed author-authorities. 

James L. Nash 
Salt Lake City, Utah 


Dear Sirs: 

The First Presidency’s letter on the matter of repeal of section 14-b of the Taft-Hartley Act was not an act of stepping across an ill-defined boundary. They and other general authorities have stepped across this line many times and this is but a further extension of those crossings. They have as yet not realized that many of us resent these crossings into merely political questions. . . . 

In the letter on the matter of repeal of 14-b they suggested that opposition stemmed from our belief in man’s free agency. I suggest that those who are trying to insure that this right is not abrogated look in their own backyard before condemning the working man to low wages, low benefits for his family, and no job protection. Their opposition to compulsory membership in a union does not follow through to our fine Brigham Young University. There they insist that a student take a religion course each semester if he wants to attend. I don’t challenge that right. With a union shop the same is true. If a man wants to work in an establishment where there is a union shop he must join the union. I suggest that a little hypocrisy is involved favoring conservative businessmen who make up the leadership of our Church. 

The First Presidency would be, as would our union membership, shocked if I wrote on my union letterhead informing them that I thought their requirement for religious study at BYU was an attack on my free agency. This has nothing to do with a union or unionism. I suggest that this is also true of the attack on the repeal of 14-b. It has absolutely no standing with my religious beliefs. 

C. Clifford Adams 
Los Angeles, Calif. 


Dear Sirs: 

I read with interest the article on Church and State by H. G. Frederickson and Alder J. Stevens. I was most disappointed, however, in what I consider their very weak conclusion that “Both Kenneth W. Dyal and David S. King were defeated in 1966; their votes on 14b were doubtless a factor.” 

This deduction is most inconsistent with their other data. The author’s table (The Mormon Congressmen, p. 222) indicated the percent of Mr. Dyal’s constituents who are L.D.S. as “very small.” How then could opposition to Mormon Church leaders’ political views possibly be a factor in his defeat? 

The other case of Mr. King is equally weak when one considers that he was defeated by another Mormon Congressman who had stated his independence on political issues. It is regrettable that an otherwise interesting and informative article was weakened by the above quoted conclusions. 

Mrs. Larry Staker, 
Salt Lake City, Utah 


Kenneth Dyal responds: 

As I recall, when queried by Mr. H. George Frederickson and Alden J. Stevens concerning the percentage of Mormons in my District, I did consider the percentage small compared with the Utah Congressional Districts. 

There were, however, five Stakes serving portions of the 33rd Congressional District. And out of proportion to their numbers, many Mormons did and do hold positions of prominence. 

I received much adverse criticism during the election of 1964 from right wing persons not of the Church, but the strongest and most violent opposition came then and in 1966 from members of the Church. Mrs. Staker deserves an explanation, however, as to how a relatively small number of people, compared with the large population of the District, could influence the election. I admit these persons were in the minority, but were a highly organized, vocal, and militant minority making their influence felt through out the electorate. A few examples may illustrate in order for us to draw our conclusions: 

We noted the strong feeling of some of the membership even prior to my announcing for public office in a number of incidents. Our daughter, Karen, who was in top leadership in her high school, was requested to become the secretary of a right wing organization on the campus of the junior college she was planning to attend. After real consideration, and entirely due to her own decision, she refused. The following Sunday she was baited in the lobby of the chapel following Sunday School by adults as well as students, who said she had been forced to turn down the offer because her father was a Democrat—the same as being a Communist. Karen didn’t approve of the methods and attitudes of the organization. But the reaction of Mormons was most interesting to us. Quite frankly, it ruined our Sunday luncheon, as she was in tears over the episode. 

During this period it was regularly reported to us that at firesides frequent comment was made that Democrats could not be good Mormons and that the Council of Twelve and other General Authorities were all Republicans. This type of absolute falsehood was used throughout the five Stakes. As a former Stake Mission President, I was concerned at this kind of political pressure, especially as we noted the effort being placed on new converts. 

Two sisters from the Colton Ward arrived at our home early one morning (one had evidently cried most of the night) to discuss her son who was to leave for his mission and who had been convinced by extremists that because of his parents’ registration as Democrats they were embracing communism. The mother was so upset that I finally called President Brown on the phone and he assured her she could be both an active Democrat and a good Mormon. His statement didn’t change any attitudes of her fellow ward members, however. 

I was called in by Monsignor Nunez, Pastor of Our Lady of Guadalupe, who advised me he felt kindly towards me and my brother due to our interest in the disadvantaged Mexican-American youngsters on the west side; he felt obligated to tell me his people believed the Mormons “hated” them and he felt concern over their attitude, which had been strengthened by the appearance of prominent Mormons on the stage of an anti communist rally held at the National Orange Show just prior to this time. He felt that they would judge me as a Mormon by what they had heard Mormons say at the rally. 

Following this same rally, I was called on the phone by prominent Jewish citizens who asked if the statements made by the speakers (the roster included two Mormons) were the attitude of the Church as a whole, since the anti-Semitic flavor was so noticeable. 

Following my election in 1964 the situation among our people became noticeably worse. I confess my strong attitude on legislation was not particularly helpful. So I concur with the implied thought of Mrs. Staker that 14b was not the only factor; there were others. 

I was one of the fifteen Congressmen who, at their own expense, went to Selma to administer a voting questionnaire to present to the Attorney General, Mr. Katzenbach. I wanted to know first hand of the conditions in the stockade, the voting registration procedures, and about the incarceration of Dr. Martin Luther King. 

I did not incite riots or march in Selma, but carefully, as did my colleagues, checked the actual conditions. I was accused by Church extremists of inciting riots and this was later used against me by Gentiles in the campaign. 

My son Tim, a handicapped youngster, asked if he could participate in the march in Selma. He is not a hippie or a long-hair, but he did feel deeply on the subject and as far as I know was the only priesthood bearer in that famous march. 

After my trip to Selma I began to receive numerous vicious letters in Washington; not only on the subject of 14b, but in the area of racial relations and civil rights. 

On an early return to my District, I was publicly attacked in priesthood meeting by a member of my quorum for my stand on 14b. The speaker read the First Presidency letter in full. In some forty years of activity in that Stake I had never discussed political questions from the pulpit and did not on this occasion. I had been personally assured by a member of the Presidency that I was a member in good standing, regardless of my vote on 14b. 

Let me quote from a study by Redlands University’s Dr. Robert L. Morlan, who is referred to in the Frederickson-Stevens report: 

The Mormon Congressmen, said First Counselor Hugh Brown, were indeed free to vote on the issue as they saw fit. The letter was an opinion, and not “di- vine revelation.” In response to a series of questions submitted in writing by a representative of the Associated Press, President McKay denied that any special event had prompted the initial statement, indicated that it was not to be construed as the word of the Lord, and made it clear that a Mormon Congressman who voted for repeal would not be considered to have rebuffed the President of the Church. 

This information, however, was not given the Saints in my District, so I imagine in their minds I was still guilty of some kind of apostasy or rebellion. 

Another interesting legislative problem came to many Congressmen in the Tobacco Subsidy Bill. Following the Surgeon General’s plain statement on the danger of smoking it was desired by many that some kind of warning should be attached to the cigarette carton or package. When this requirement was added to the bill, the press, because of the attendant publicity, no longer called it properly a tobacco subsidy bill, but labeled it the “Tobacco Warning Bill.” This was fakery, as the warning, “Caution: Tobacco Smoking may be harmful to the health” was considered innocuous and was agreed upon only to obtain the subsidy. 

I was, by principle, opposed to a subsidy on tobacco, and voted against the measure, as it stood, thus opposing the weak “warn ing” requirement along with the subsidy. I received a deluge of letters from L.D.S. members wanting to know how I could vote against their children and how a Bishop could vote for tobacco and against warning our young people. I answered as many of these letters as I received, explaining my stand and the need for me to vote as I did and demand stronger legislation. How many Mormons were angry at me and did not write I do not know. Note the August 31, 1968, issue of the Church News editorial page entitled, “The Year’s Understatement.” The article completely substantiates my stand, though two years late. 

The easiest thing for both David King and me would have been to vote yes on the tobacco bill, for we both knew our constituencies were being fooled by the bill and would be happy at an erroneous vote. Incidentally, every tobacco state senator voted for the warning label law, which indicates how much real effect that legislation would have on the smoking habit. Here, as on 14b, our people missed the point entirely. 

By this time in my District anti-Dyal talk among certain Mormons had become so general that Mr. Phil Dreyer (a Gentile) my campaign director, phoned me in Washington and told me he was concerned over my re-election since some of my own people were so bitter against me. 

There were too many examples like the following two: I had a report from a County Department head who advised me a fellow County officer (Mormon) had been circulating among his newer personnel and stating they should not vote for Dyal inasmuch as he had been rejected by his own people and the Church to which he belonged. One Relief Society President tried to convince a new convert that she couldn’t vote for me inasmuch as I had left the Church. The sister was so disturbed about these charges she visited my mother and they called me long distance. The President was not aware I had helped convert this sister to the Church when I was Bishop. How many others did she convince? 

I was advised the Colton Democratic Club was refusing to support me. I attended their meeting to learn why and entered it with a well known Mormon, Judge Lawrence Madsen. We were astonished to learn that this group was so incensed at the actions of Mormon extremists in their community they had decided as a group not to support any Mormon, believing that the extremists represented Church policy. They demanded a meeting with the Stake President to request removal of one of the extremists who was using her Church position to influence young people in high school and college. We read them the statements of the brethren on civil rights, the two-party system, and the John Birch Society to prove to them that Church policy was not as represented by extremist individuals. 

By letter and phone call we felt a strong increase in anti-Dyal sentiment following the 1966 General Conference of the Church. Strong right-wing Mormon leadership from my County went to that Conference and attended both the Conference and the Robert Welch banquet which was held in Salt Lake City at the same time. These people held conferences with Birch Mormon leadership in Salt Lake and one of them from my Stake spent the train ride returning to California soliciting every Bishop in my District against my candidacy. 

On returning to the District after the late adjournment of the 89th Congress, I was dis mayed on my first visit to Sunday School to see on the blackboards of two classrooms—”Dyal is a nigger lover”—”Dyal is a Communist”—”Dyal is a dirty Jew”! ! ! Part of my shock was because just a few months prior to this time I had washed these new blackboards as we installed them in the new chapel we had worked so hard to build. I was Bishop of that Ward and our wonderful ward members sacrificed tremendously to construct it. I would have been just as disturbed had the name been any other ward member’s. It deeply hurt me to see how quickly some parents had indoctrinated their children into hate activities. 

At two local Democratic campaign meetings, Mormon hecklers attended to ask questions calculated to express their lack of confidence in me, not as a public official, but as a member of the Church. 

When we found throw-aways on our windshields in Church parking lots on Sunday mornings and were advised by friends that this was being done pretty much throughout the County, we did not have any difficulty in realizing there was a concerted, well directed campaign to discredit me and prevent my re-election. The throw-aways were not in the nature of our time-honored system of political debate, but were for character assassination, defamation, and slander. There were repetitions of these incidents and others throughout the entire District; the program was well organized. I heard the same stories about us from Gentiles in Twentynine Palms as I did in Needles or in Ontario. Mormons in all of these communities were claiming that we served liquor to teenagers in our home; that my wife consorted with Negroes (and this latter with a vicious context) , that our membership was in question and the old reliable that we were being duped by Communism. 

My Gentile friends told us the Mormon extremists had decided to “single-shot” me and pay little or no attention to other political campaigns. However, I know of no organized Church-Stake leadership participation of this kind in the campaign. The people to whom I have referred were individuals seemingly united in a common “hate Democrats” program. On the other hand I know of no positive action taken by leadership to counteract the character assassination on me. My mother expressed the general attitude well when she said to me, “In those classes I attend, it is evident that Democrats in this area are second-class citizens of the Church.” 

I think Mrs. Staker is correct when she indicates that 14b was not the only reason for the defeat. I believe my vote on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had as much bearing on L.D.S. opposition as 14b. Also, I voted for the Teachers Training Corps; for Medicare; to change the House Rules; on the seating of the Mississippi delegation; for the Immigration and Naturalization Bill (and did I get hate mail on that one! You would think that many members of the Church thought they came over ahead of the Indians and had never read the Book of Mormon on the subject of God having a hand in immigration!). 

I have felt I was following the counsel of the brethren who had made statements on the two-party system; against the forwardness of the Birch Society; and in behalf of Civil Rights, and that I was in step with the Prophet. The Prophet’s words concerning his approval of the two-party system were largely ignored by our people. 

Please note that these statements of the brethren, as far as I can ascertain, were never read by the Bishops in most of these Stakes to their congregations. 

Some of my House colleagues suggested that I back down on some of my stands until after the election. I refused to do so, and if I had it to do over I would vote again just as I did before. Wouldn’t change one single teller, voice or roll call vote. The 89th did a tremendous job—I am happy to have been associated with it, and shall await the justification of history. 

I do affirm now my attitude on California’s Proposition 14 on Open Housing; my vote on 14b; on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and my right to run as a Democrat and still be a Temple attender and faithful member of the Church. 

It was obvious from Mr. Dreyer’s report and from others on my staff, as well as the personal type of incident I have given you that a well organized, militant group with out regard for ethics or responsibility can do much to defame and destroy a person’s reputation and character throughout a wide circle of people. No area was too small to interest this group. There was a definite hate syndrome against the Jews, Mexican-Americans, Negroes, and other minority peoples. Since I was their champion in housing (Proposition 14), in hospitalization, and other programs, I suppose the concerted and well financed drive was inevitable. In the brief three weeks of campaigning over my tremendous District, I was met at every turn with concentrated Mormon opposition, dedicated to influence Gentile votes. 

Ken W. Dyal 


Dear Sirs: 

We feel that one regrettable omission from Lowell Durham’s enlightening paper on Mormon music and musicians is Dr. Joseph Lenough Anderson, who is presently Chairman of the Division of Humanities, Minnesota State College, Marshall, Minnesota. Dr. Anderson studied at Oberlin College and with Dr. Alexander Schreiner and then completed his Doctor of Music degree in organ performance and musicology at Northwestern University in 1965. Earlier he had conducted the Akron Symphony Orchestra and various choral groups, and had guest conducted the Cleveland Symphony as well. During his organ concert tours in the Midwest and East he was acclaimed as among the most gifted of young American organists. 

After completion of his doctorate, Brother Anderson served for more than a year as concert organist at the Hyde Park Chapel in London. One day we would love to hear him perform in the Tabernacle. 

R. J. Snow 
Marilyn M. Snow 
Santa Barbara, Calif. 


Dear Sirs: 

I have just read Lowell M. Durham’s article, “On Mormon Music and Musicians,” published in Dialogue: volume 3, number 2, Summer 1968, and have found many commendable aspects. The BYU Music Faculty was particularly complimented by reference to its leadership in music in the Church. I am pleased that Brother Durham has spent so much time in preparing the material. May I make a few observations and corrections that should be made for further clarification. 

1. Omissions from Appendix I, pp. 38-39.

1. Quentin Nordgren, PhD Theory, Indiana, 1955 BYU. 

2. Glenn R. Williams, DMA Performance, Eastman, 1961 BYU. 

3. Ralph G. Long, DMA Performance, Eastman, 1962 U. of Jacksonville. 

4. Gordon Green, PhD Musicology, In diana, U. of Western Ontario. 

5. C. Loran Lee, PhD Music Ed., BYU, 1965 Butte College, Oroville, Calif. 6. Ramon Fuller, DMA Composition, Illinois, U. of Maryland. 

(New doctorates, as of August 1968, granted at BYU, Eugene Stoddard, Hemit, California, and James Mooney, Cal Poly, Pomona, California). 

2. Regarding Appendix III: p. 40.

BYU should have had listed, as of Spring 1968, 13 doctorates (add Quentin Nordgren, Robert Cundick, and Glenn Williams). As of Fall 1968, add three more (Dr. Clifford Barnes, Dr. Clawson Cannon and Dr. James Mason) to total 16 doctorates at BYU.

3. It seems worthy of note that John R. Halliday received the first PhD ever granted in theory in the U.S.A. 

4. On p. 35 the author makes a point of how many musicians have left BYU, but makes no mention of how many of significance have been trained at BYU (Booth, Robertson [received Master’s here], Gates, Weight, Samuelson, etc., etc.) . There is some feeling that outstanding musicians have been leaving BYU music faculty, and the records should be corrected. In fact, of the 11 that were mentioned, six left because of Church indifference and Robert Cundick is really still on the faculty at BYU. This would mean we have lost only four faculty members in twenty years because of professional aspirations. We have grown to thirty-five full time faculty members during this time which seems a rather negligible loss. 

5. Regarding “Other Church Choirs,” pp. 34-35. Some mention of the excellence of the BYU Choirs would have been appropriate. Since the publication of this article the BYU A Cappella choir has received international fame, through a 1968 summer European tour and Eisteddfod Festival first place award with 23 nations competing. Also, the BYU Symphony received national acclaim at the Music Educators National Conference in March 1968. 

A. Harold Goodman, Chairman 
Music Department 
Brigham Young University 


Dear Sirs: 

Dialogue, along with other Church publications and the general membership, has not come to grips with any of the major problem areas of our society in any detail or with any real emphasis. As a result we have had Dialogue for two years and still no appreciable change in the Church’s understanding of the problems of society and certainly no attempt to present solutions. 

The Church’s irrelevance is understandable with men like Elder Benson in the hierarchy, but if the scholars and intellectuals cannot see through the prevailing myths and irrelevancies and get to the real moral issues of the day, then I have little hope that the Church will change from its present position of moral impotency and become a leader in setting the standards of religious living. It is indeed sad to see a publication with the potential of Dialogue wasting its time discussing Church architecture or esoteric aspects of Church history, or literally being an apologist for Mormon bigotry. As examples, the only article on the Negro problem was apologistic in nature; the Roundtable on the Vietnam war achieved its emphasis through the choices of participants; there has been nothing of any merit about poverty and the Church’s role in solving that problem; and the use of non-Mormon theologians or intellectuals has been minimal. 

What I am saying is that religion’s responsibility is to set moral standards and engage in the kinds of activity which will produce Christ-like people. If Dialogue continues to shy away from involving itself in the kind of issues which are capable of producing such action it is nothing more than an intellectual’s Improvement Era or a Mormon historical journal. Please, editors, let’s see you become involved. 

Stephen F. Darley 
Long Branch, New Jersey 

[Sock it to us (Ed.).] 


Dear Sirs: 

Thank you for the subscription offer, but I never waste my time on literature that is neither for anything or against anything—in other words—”middle of the road.” 

Your brochure reeks of liberalism. You say your journal is neither liberal nor conservative, as if to be one or the other would be a detriment to your publication. Yet you quote leading liberal publications like Time and the New York Times, which are known for their anti-American reporting and editorializing. Then there is Governor Romney, who is about as liberal as a Mormon can get and still call himself a believer in Christ. 

Personally, I like to read literature like the Improvement Ira [sic], which is pro-Ameri can, conservative and full of the basic precepts that made our church and nation great. 

You quote Romney in regard to equal opportunity, equal rights and equal responsibilities; yet you do not give equal space to the American conservative viewpoints. So in other words you do not believe in or practice the humanitarian concepts you publish. 

I dare you to exercise equal responsibility and publish a conservative article. You know my address if you have the courage to send me a copy of the article. 

Arthur J. Hollowell 
3130 Old Stage Road 
Central Point, Oregon 97501 

[Sock it to us (Ed.).]