Letters to the Editor

View PDF

Dear Sirs: 

. . . . Dialogue can become a source of intellectual sastisfaction that will complement and augment the spiritual satisfaction abundantly provided by the Church. To become such a source it must be vital and current and must not be pedantic or pretentious. I say this because those of us who need Dialogue the most have limited knowledge of history, literature, and philosophy. Obscure references or quotations will be lost on us. “We” are the growing number of Church members educated in the biological and physical sciences and engineering. Our ward here in Wilmington, Delaware (DuPont, Hercules, Atlas, etc.), has about thirty members with Ph.D.’s in these fields. . . . I don’t imagine we’re unique. 

So talk to us and with us about God and His Church. And let us write an article or two. Best of luck.

A. U. Daniels 
Wilmington, Delaware 

***

Dear Sirs: 

In Mr. Mangum’s article “Free Agency and Freedom — Some Misconceptions” it seems to me the principal misconception is Mr. Mangum’s. Moral freedom and its adjunct, moral responsibility, stem from two sources: (1) the inherent ability of the individual, eternal (uncreated: Doctrine and Covenants 93:29) primordial intelligence to will its own acts independently of any causes external to itself; (2) the environment of this intelligence, including the spiritual and material body in which it is clothed and surroundings and the influences to which it is subjected. Without the first there could be no moral responsibility. Indeed, if man were wholly a creation of God then He, not man, would be responsible for men’s actions. Mr. Mangum, who states “Man is a creation of God…,” is not alone in erring on this point. The teacher’s supplement of the current Gospel Doctrine course, “The Gospel in the Service of Man,” states that “the eternal intelligence was organized into ‘intelligences’ . . .” thus denying the eternal individuality of man (Abraham 3:18, 19) and there by denying his moral responsibility. It is only in the realm of the second that God or man can enter; and as God with his superior knowledge and power can frustrate or over-awe the primordial intelligence in any exercise of its own will so can man in a lesser degree. Witness the effect of drugs, accident, disease, fear, early conditioning, false teachings, etc., on the ability of men to direct their own lives. The story of the war in heaven certainly has its counterpart here on earth and it takes on added significance insofar as it does. If Mr. Man gum seeks a scriptural evidence of God’s concern for the deprivation by man of a suitable environment for his fellowman to achieve the purpose of his existence he need turn only to the story of the flood or of Sodom and Gomorrah. 

Since free agency, which is identified with moral freedom by Mr. Man gum, of necessity requires both the eternality of the individual intelligence or will and a suitable environment for the free exercise of that will (identified with freedom by Mr. Mangum) it would appear that the concepts of free agency and freedom cannot be separated as Mr. Mangum would have us believe. This, however, in no way diminishes the importance of his interesting discussion of freedom. 

John H. Gardner 
Brigham Young University 

***

Dear Sirs: 

“Anti-intellectualism in Mormon History,” Dialogue, Vol. 1, No. 3, by Davis Bitton, presents a most interesting example of “intellectualism.” 

The author, on pages 124 and 125, states “the Church became predominantly Republican” in its leadership, in that it “was represented by Senator Reed Smoot, President Heber J. Grant, and President J. Reuben Clark, Jr. — all conservative Republicans.” Footnote No. 28 states that President Grant “switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party at the beginning of the century.” 

I lived in the same neighborhood with President Grant for many years. I personally know of active assistance he rendered the Democratic Party in the 1918 political campaign. He was always known as a Democrat at least until the middle ‘thirties when the Democratic Party apostatized from its traditional principles. From 1918 to 1925, Charles W. Penrose, an ardent Democrat, served as Counselor to President Grant. Anthony W. Ivins, also an active Democrat (whose son stated in my presence less than eighteen months ago that his father was a Democrat until the day he died) served as a counselor to President Grant from 1921 to 1934. 

It is not my purpose here to criticize these brethren either individually or collectively for their political beliefs. But I do feel compelled to correct the record. President Grant did not “switch from the Democratic to the Republican Party at the beginning of the century,” and the Church leadership was not “predominantly Republican.” Mr. Bitton, in stating it was, is guilty either of poor research, none at all, or of manufacturing his facts. 

Mr. Bitton charges repeatedly that the Church has had a “garrison mentality.” In doing this, he does not understand inspired leadership as an accepted doctrine of the Church. By using this expression, he imputes a rigid regimentation to the Church membership which is entirely unwarranted. 

This is but illustrative of Mr. Bit ton’s “intellectualism” in treating his subject. To refute the many other critical assertions of the writer of this article would take many pages, and would endow a dignity to it to which it is not entitled. It is sufficient to say that Mr. Bitton’s “intellectualism” consists principally of repeated cliches, insinuations and misstatements of facts which illustrate quite definitely that he has not the capacity to objectively discuss the subject. 

A few words are also appropriate concerning “Separation of Church and State,” which appeared in Vol. 1, No. 2. A rational reader feels to agree with much of what is said, including some of the conclusions set forth. 

However, one who reads the article without having a more complete knowledge of the facts of political life in Utah is subconsciously or otherwise led to the conclusion that the Republicans are the “bad guys,” and that the Democrats are the “good guys,” for all the examples of violation cited by the writer were perpetrated by the Republicans, the Democrats being the innocent victims. 

I personally know of many violations by members of both political parties. The human weakness of mixing politics with religion certainly has not been confined to one party. One of the latest was an attempt by the Democrats in Utah to convert two stake conferences into a vast political rally just prior to election. 

The writer of the article, by imputing evil only to Republicans admits that his research was pitifully incomplete. In the future, if he will but call upon me when his research takes him into the field of political wrongdoing, I shall be pleased to help, that he may avoid bias or prejudice. 

William D. Callister 
Salt Lake City, Utah 

***

Dear Sirs: 

As pertaining to many Dialogue contributors among whom Davis Bitton is but one, may I observe: 

It would seem that there are some, perhaps even many, who see the need for a great intellectual awakening, crusade, reform to roll forth and cleanse once for all and forever the terrible stigmas associated with the “Mormon” church today. To put forever to an end the outmoded image of a tottering and decadent leadership so far out of step with the present and future needs of this people. 

I’ve always wanted to go with a winner so — I’m ready to follow. But before I go, may I put out a question or so for answers? 

How many of these learned intellectuals who stand ready to serve God and man in this great purge are full tithepayers of consistent record? How many have put God into their debt by their quiet works among the poor and needy? How many are a consistent part of the thirty-five per cent attending Sacrament Meeting week after week? How many have completed their searching and doing for their kindred dead that they might provide eternal crowns of glory for them and theirs? How many are among the meek and lowly who have given unselfishly and unstintingly of themselves to support by earnest and prayerful supplication and service those now chosen of the Lord? How many are true examples to their fellows as pertaining to strict adherence to principles of the words of wisdom offered by a loving God and Father? How many give oral testimony to their knowledge of the truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught now — and always before — through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints? How many are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not merely “Mormons”? 

As I said, I’m ready to follow, but is it all right if I wait for these answers? In the meantime — I hope to see you in church. 

J. Maurice Clayton 
Salt Lake City, Utah 

***

Dear Sirs: 

James B. Allen was just in his criticism of Davis Bitton for presenting us with twenty-four pages of anti intellectualism without really denning the term. Not until Professor Bitton gets specific in outlining three levels of anti-intellectualism within the Church (pp. 131-132) do we begin to get a clear idea of his meaning in the context of Church history. One thing about anti-intellectualism seems certain, however. Whatever it is, we do not like it, and we wish the tag could be attached to someone else. This fact (and the immediate reaction of most members of the Church on hearing the charge indicates that it is a fact) makes Professor Bitton’s article all the more timely and important. If the Church is afflicted with anti-intellectualism, and if this is bad, then we need much more dialogue to bring this into the open, examine it, and prescribe a cure. This, of course, was not Professor Bitton’s task and he is to be highly commended for helping to bring the Church into a proper historical perspective regarding anti-intellectualism. 

More serious than a failure to define the term, however (we really do have some idea of what anti-intellectualism is), was what I consider a false association of nineteenth century Mormonism with the Enlightenment. I am surprised that Professor Allen did not catch this, and since the idea of rationalistic Enlightenment-Mormonism-intellectualism in the nineteenth century is something of a basic premise to the first part of the article, the readers of this article should be made aware of the nature of this premise. 

On page 112, immediately under Roman numeral I, we read: “In several respects the Mormonism of the nineteenth century was less hostile to intellect than the common assumption has had it. For one thing, Mormonism had much in common with the rationalistic Christianity growing out of the Enlightenment.” What I consider three errors of fact contained in these two sentences make the subsequent thesis of Mormonism-rationalism—intellectualism in the nineteenth century very questionable. 

1. The analogy is too anachronistic to be valid. The Enlightenment had reached its apex nearly 100 years before the organization of the Church in 1830. Locke was dead in 1704, Leipniz in 1716, Pope, Swift, Montesquieu and Christian Wolff were all dead by 1755. Kant’s “Was ist Auf klarung,” which appeared in 1784, was really more of a statement on Romantic individualism than Enlightenment. Any ideas from the Enlightenment that survived Sturm und Drang, Romanticism, and the Great Awakening hardly survived in their original rationalistic form. 

2. There was no “rationalistic Christianity growing out of the Enlightenment.” If any religious movement can be affiliated with the Enlightenment it is Deism, which was certainly not Christian. The most dynamic religious movements to follow immediately on the Enlightenment in England and subsequently in America were Methodism and the Unitas Fratrum (United Brethren or Moravian Brethren), personified by John Wesley and Ludwig Zinzendorf. Both movements (originally one organization) had their primary inspiration from the German mystics and Pietists of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, and were primarily anti-rationalistic. 

3. Ironically, the Enlightenment was in itself anti-intellectual. The concepts of the Enlightenment thinkers on the universal availability of truth, their constant raillery against “pride,” their “celestial mechanics,” their “chain of being,” their devotion to rules and classical simplicity — all these are anti-intellectual (if by the term intellectual we mean such things as a constant seeking for the truth, a questioning of cliches and authoritarian statements, a “divine discontent,” a searching of the “unfathomable depths,” a belief in the philosophy of becoming). Arthur Lovejoy has expressed the basic anti intellectual nature of the Enlightenment in the article: “The Parallel of Deism and Classicism,” (Modern Philology, Feb., 1932). Under the sub-heading “Rationalistic anti-intellectualism” he says: 

The presumption of the universal accessibility and verifiability of all that is really needful for men to know implied that all subtle, elaborate, intricate reasonings about abstruse questions beyond the grasp of the majority are certainly un important, and probably untrue. Thus any view difficult to understand, or requiring a long and complex exercise of the intellect for its verification, could be legitimately dismissed without examination, at least if it concerned any issue in which man’s moral or religious interests were involved. 

This excellent paper by Professor Lovejoy was first read before the annual meeting of the Modern Language Association of America at Washington, D.C., in 1930 — which is also a slight contradiction of Professor Allen’s statement that “the term anti-intellectualism came into vogue only in the 1950’s.” 

Discounting the individuals and looking for an intellectual “movement” in the eighteenth century we do not find it in the Enlightenment, nor in Mysticism-Pietism. Without writing an article on the subject I can only say that I believe the real concept of intellectualism as we understand it (without defining it) was formulated most brilliantly by Friedrich Schiller and Friedrich Schlegel in the late eighteenth century with their delineation of the mind that is at the same time reflective and intuitive, respectful of authority and “rationalism” and also capable of new insights gained through feeling, emotion, or inspiration. We find this all through Goethe’s writings, we find it through the writings of the German Romanticists and through the writings of the later English (Romanticists. This was not some type of intellectual schizophrenia. It was a mind which was capable of both thought and feeling in a harmonious unity. Coleridge, after a year in Germany, writes: “The poet’s heart and intellect should be combined, intimately combined and unified with the great appearances of nature, and not merely held in solution and loose mixture with them.”

In this context in the early nineteenth century we find a true intellectualism, and (you knew it was coming) a careful analysis will show that Joseph Smith (and several of his contemporaries in the Church) had this type of intellect. They were respectful of authority and “ration ism” but at the same time they possessed sufficient humility to recognize the non plus ultra of human effort and rationalistic endeavors, and consequently they received much truth beyond the grasp of the empiricists. They were respectful of and grateful for revelation and inspiration but at the same time they realized that revelation was not always an answer to a problem, but often a formula by means of which they could solve the problem themselves. 

There are, then, two types of anti-intellectualism. We are anti-intellectual when we see all revelation as the answer and conclude, therefore, that there is no need to solve the problem, or worse, we deny there is a problem. We are anti-intellectual also when we see rationalism (logical or empirical) as the only source of truth. There is no monopoly of either type of anti-intellectualism in the Church. There may, however, be an imbalance in that too many of us have sought so diligently for the answers that we have neglected our divinely given power to solve the problems — in which case Professor Bitton is right after all, and “over intellectualizing is the least of our worries.” 

Garold N. Davis 
Boulder, Colo.

***

Dear Sirs: 

During the past two years there have been a number of articles in L.D.S. publications concerning the age of the earth, organic evolution, and, in general, how certain scientific facts and theories relate to the Book of Genesis and to the revelations of Joseph Smith with respect to the creation of man. 

Also, Davis Bitton, in his article, “Anti-intellectualism in Mormon History,” in issue 3 of Dialogue, briefly discussed some of the problems that members of the Church face as they attempt to reconcile Church doctrine with modern scientific knowledge. 

It appears rather important in present day Mormon doctrine that Adam existed as an actual historical person some six thousand years ago, as the first and the “father” of the human race. Yet the abundance of knowledge, especially in the fields of genetics, geology, and anthropology, show that men, or men-like beings, have existed for hundreds of thousands if not more than a million years. (Dr. Louis S. B. Leakey’s discovery in Olduvai Gorge in Tanganyika of the fossil man Zinjanthropus is dated at approximately 1.75 million years.) It is also rather apparent that 6,000 years ago the so-called races of man were as diverse in physical characteristics as they are today, and that they were dwelling on all of the continents of the earth that are presently inhabited. 

How does a Mormon anthropologist look upon this problem? I hope that in a future issue of Dialogue this topic will be discussed. 

Mark F. Harris 
Fremont, Calif.

***

A special issue on religion in an age of science is in the early planning stages. [Ed.]

***

Davis Bitton replies: 

I have no desire to claim that early Mormonism was a religion of the Enlightenment. If my article conveyed that impression, Garold Davis that approximately two generations intervened between the end of the Enlightenment (as it is usually understood) and the beginnings of Mormonism. But surely he would not wish to be understood as saying that Deism was the only religion of the Enlightenment, without qualification. In addition to the Deists (non-Chris tian by definition), there were “supernatural rationalists” like John Locke and rationalist apologists like Bishop Joseph Butler who tried in different ways to reconcile their Chris tian faith with reason. And there were mavericks like Joseph Priestley. Rejecting the traditional creeds, Priestley was at once a materialist, a skeptic, and a believer in the Biblical prophecies. After moving to America he participated in founding the Unitarian movement, which, along with Universalism, can quite properly be described as a kind of rationalistic Christianity growing out of (not simultaneous with) the Enlightenment. It is with such liberal Christianity of the early nineteenth century that Mormonism had much in common. This similarity is not questioned by Mr. Davis, who indeed agrees with several of my basic points. 

More relevant than his discussion of chronology is his idealized portrait of the mind both reflective and intuitive, incisively logical yet marvelously responsive to feeling and inspiration, independent yet respectful of authority. The trouble is that authority and reason, logic and intuition, do not always tell us the same thing. Besides, what do we do in the Church when my reason and your reason come to different conclusions, when your reason threatens my emotional nostalgia, or when authority clashes with our combined intellectual and emotional integrity? A “harmonious unity” of thought and feeling would doubtless go far towards solving such problems, both individually and collectively, but this has always been far easier to label than to achieve. In the meantime, given the simple fact of our human limitations, it ill behooves anyone to equate his own perspectives with the eternal gospel or to impugn the loyalty of those who interpret things differently. The Church, as Paul reminded us, is one body with a diversity of gifts, of administrations, of operations: “And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.” 

***

Dear Sirs: 

The letter of Mr. Robert D. Preston in the Winter Issue (No. 4) typifies a type of erroneous thinking by many members of the Church. In commenting on Dr. J. D. Williams’s article in your second issue he stated, “I would challenge Dr. Williams or others of his orientation to justify the Welfare State in light of what have always been fundamental tenets of the church.”

Apparently to Mr. Preston anything other than a John Birch conservative orientation smacks of welfare statism and is contradictory to the revealed work of God. Many misguided individuals in and out of the Church believe that the Gospel teaches that an individual or system is either good or evil and that approaches to society’s problems are similarly restricted to a moral dichotomy of right or wrong. 

What is the “Welfare State” to Mr. Preston? Is it the enlightened, humanitarian approach to the question of the civil rights of the Negro as exemplified among many others by our own great leader Governor Romney? Is it the “Christian” hand extended across the sea as exemplified by our Peace Corps? Are these examples of the “liberal political persuasion” castigated by Mr. Preston? 

The terms “liberal” and “conservative” have little meaning either in the political arena or in our Dialogue of Mormon Thought. While categorization to many is essential, it is a dangerous and often misleading practice on the whole. 

The more meaningful dialogue, to me, as a Church member, is over the question of “activism” versus “passivism.” For too long we as L.D.S. people have withdrawn into our comfortable shell of isolation, busy with our Church work but unconcerned with the ills of the society within which we live and work. (I might say that the John Birch Society is at least to be commended for their active concern about the plight of our country.) 

Christ did more than any man to correct the evils of his contemporary society. He strove to elevate the concepts of love, charity, honesty, chastity, justice, and fairness in his fellow men. He went out of his way to associate with and administer to the lowly, dispicable, and hated of his time. 

However, the tendency of too many in our Church is to restrict our love, compassion, and charity to our own. Too often we draw the line with our religion, our color, our nationality, or some other arbitrary classification of human beings. 

Carrying this concept to the political arena the question becomes this: Is it incompatible with the Gospel as we understand it to support activism in government? What facet of the revealed word is violated when we support politicians who are oriented toward positive governmental measures to correct some of the social and economic ills of our society and in the international society of nations?

Gary R. Ricks 
Santa Barbara, Calif. 

***

Dear Sirs: 

Could we please have some sort of enlightened comment about a book that is being foisted on the women of the Church? The atrocity is called Fascinating Womanhood, but according to its contents could more accurately be called Deceitful, Capricious and Irresponsible Womanhood. I believe that because of its point of view that women do their finest work as mothers and wives, it has been accepted on that basis without further investigation into the matter of how women accomplish this work. According to the book’s author, woman must resort to the age-old deception of coquetry, little white lies, and women’s wiles in order to achieve her desired goal — to be loved. It stems directly from the ancient prescription of how does “inferior” woman ply “superior” man and thus gain her own personal desires. We are told in Fascinating Womanhood that by using woman’s inferior position wisely and through inflating the male ego, she will receive respect, admiration, protection, and love in marriage. (A sorry indictment of the male.) If we believe what the author tells us, we accept the premise that womanliness is forced artificiality and admitted inferiority. Woman can only emerge from this position as artificial and inferior. 

If woman is to achieve something more than fascination, she must be taught to sharpen her perception, develop her intellect, improve her sense of humor, apply tenderness, understanding, compassion, and love to all of her relationships — and she will need no artificialities. She will be quite genuine and sufficiently able to receive love and admiration and cope with life’s problems as a human being, regardless of sex. Woman is not inferior nor is she a fool. Fascinating Womanhood would like to make us think so. 

Renee P. Carlson 
Alexandria, Va.

***

FASINATING WOMANHOOD, by Helen B. Andelin, will be reviewed soon in DIALOGUE. [Ed.]