Letters to the Editor

View PDF

Dear Sirs: 

I am enclosing a check for $20.00 as a donation to Dialogue. I sincerely appreciate the efforts which have been made by the Dialogue staff to present such stimulating material. 

I will do what I can to promote subscriptions among my acquaintances. Thank you for calling my attention to the financial plight of my favorite publication. 

Harold W. Simons 
Mission Hills, California 

[! (Ed.)]

***

Dear Sirs: 

Professor Mayfield’s article on the Arab Israeli Conflict [Summer 1969] was an excellent analysis of a dilemma that shouldn’t be. As the executive of an organization that has worked for years to redress the imbalance of information on this dispute in the United States and to delineate America’s best interests in the Middle East, I have frequently been asked by fellow Mormons how I reconcile my work with my membership in the Church (or, indeed, my calling as a bishop’s counselor). The question always seems to imply that my Mormonism should make me an advocate of everything that the State of Israel or its leaders say and do. 

In fact, it is my Mormonism, my Church taught concern for truth, for morality, for justice and for the rule of international law that compels me to question seriously the actions of Israel over the past twenty years. If to reconcile is to make consistent or congruous, as the dictionary indicates, then it is the individual Mormon’s unquestioning support for Israel’s every action that must be reconciled. Clearly and provably, time and again, Israel has been found to be in violation of most of the international rules that man has laid down for the conduct of nations. Twice she has mounted large-scale military attacks and taken territory by force of arms in violation of the UN Charter and that principle for which the U.S. has been fighting in Vietnam. Consistently she has ignored UN resolutions. Even since the 1967 war she stands in violation of the Geneva Convention on the administration of occupied territory and protection of civilian persons (In 1951, Israel became a signatory to the Geneva Convention, but will not ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). 

I would certainly not suggest that Israel has not been provoked or that this is a one-sided issue. It is not. But it is significant that Israel has so seriously offended international law and order that she stands almost alone in the international community and can now only muster support from a reluctant United States. 

Do we really serve the long-term interests of Israel by supporting her immediate intransigencies? Since the 1967 war has worsened rather than improved Israel’s position in the area, can she not be persuaded by her U.S. (and Mormon) friends that an America which has friendly relations with the Arab states can be much more help than an America frozen out of the area and replaced by the USSR and/or China? 

As one who has studied the area and its problems over the past thirteen years and lived there for seven, I am convinced that we are allowing another “Vietnam” to develop in the Holy Land. President Johnson made two serious foreign policy mistakes: escalation in Vietnam may rank second in history to his tactical error in not requiring Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands after the June war, as Eisenhower did after the 1956 adventure. Americans, and particularly high-principled Mormons, should ask themselves now the question Eisenhower posed in a nationwide address on February 20, 1957: “Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its own withdrawal?” or, later in the same address: “I would, I feel, be untrue to the standards of the high office to which you have chosen me if I were to lend the influence of the United States to the proposition that a nation which invades another should be permitted to exact conditions for withdrawal.” 

A withdrawal in 1967, forced by the U.S. through the U.N. as in 1956, would have defused the conflict and found America on the side of principle, of law, of international morality. As a great power we cannot always stop quarrels or the hurling of harsh words. Sometimes we cannot even prevent a fight. But we can and must separate the combatants when we have the capability to do so and see that neither party gains from the other in their use of violence. By requiring withdrawal as we did in 1956 we could and should have required Arab cooperation in opening the canal, straits, etc., and recognizing Israel’s sovereignty. 

The theology of this controversy, as delineated by our scriptures and prophets, is not so clear to me that I can set aside morality, law and justice. Since my belief in the prophecy that there will be evil in the last days does not require me to be evil so the prophecy will come to pass, my belief in the prophecy that Jews will return to Palestine in the last days does not require me to lend support, approval or loyalty to the illegal actions of the civil state they have established. 

I am grieved by the eagerness of influential Mormons to support Israel’s every policy and action, while at the same time taking little interest in seeking Israel’s cooperation on the other element of the prophecy—the conversion of Jews to the gospel. For Israel may be the only “advanced” and “democratic” country that completely for bids proselyting within its borders. 

No, it is precisely because I am a Mormon, with deep-felt religious values, that the Arab-Israeli conflict does not represent a dilemma for me. Here, as in every other situation, the principles of justice, morality and law are the “iron rod.” 

Orin D. Parker 
Executive Vice President 
American Friends of the 
Middle East, also a 
Director of American 
Near East Refugee 
Aid, Inc. 
Washington, D.C. 

***

Dear Sirs: 

In reply to Mr. Gordon Jones’s letter [Fall 1969], his gratuitous insults to liberal Republicans need no answer, but his reference to the dangerous myth of the “Southern Strategy” does require comment. He reflects the opinion of a small segment of the Republican Party who still seek the legendary “hidden” conservative coalition. That quest has gone on for years and was partially responsible for wrecking the Goldwater campaign in 1964. It could have equally disastrous results in 1972. 

Fascination with that legend—like the fascination with buried treasure—occurs largely because it seems to hold the promise of instant success for comparatively little effort. The legend is periodically revived by books like Mr. Kevin Phillips’ apologia for the “Southern Strategy.” The present attempt to forge a coalition with Wallace partisans and disgruntled Southern Democrats has a surface plausibility, but a careful study of American voting behavior will demonstrate how ephemeral the advantage would be. 

Laying aside the dubious morality of writing off large numbers of oppressed citizens, there is evidence that most Republican rank-and-file prefer more moderate to-liberal Party leadership. This was brought into focus in a fine essay by Herbert McClosky and colleagues, “Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers,” American Political Science Review 54 (June 1960): 406-29, and there has been considerable evidence validating their conclusions since then. Certainly it was confirmed by the Republican successes of 1966. But the “Southern Strategists” would, quite cynically, wrest the direction of the Party to suit their own ends. Where is the morality in that? 

Even more persuasive is the fact that the “Southern Strategy” proved how disastrous it can be in the 1968 presidential campaign. Before the G.O.P. Convention the Nixon campaign strategy was correctly and meticulously conceived. Evidently after the Convention there was an attempt to implement the “Southern Strategy” and it contributed to the near defeat of Richard Nixon. Polls taken in late September gave Nixon a minimum lead of nearly 12% over Humphrey. Since scientific polls have been taken, the average shift in the electorate from September to the election has been around 3%, which made a Humphrey victory a near impossibility. Through a bad “calculus for victory” the Republicans squandered a nearly insurmountable lead and Humphrey came within a shade of victory, in one of the most remarkable electoral comebacks in our political history. Thus, the disaster potential of the “Southern Strategy” has been once again well demonstrated. While it might produce occasional short range advantages, over the long haul it can only spell defeat for the Republican Party. Those who advocate it should spend more time studying the serious research on American voting behavior. 

In conclusion, I want to make a comment about Mr. Jones’s unwarranted implication that Romney, if nominated, might not have been a successful vote-getter. Shortly before his death, President John F. Kennedy argued that his toughest opponent in 1964 would be George Romney, which says a great deal about Romney’s political appeal. 

David K. Hart 
University of Washington 
Seattle, Washington 

***

Dear Sirs: 

Having just returned from field research among the Shoshone Indians in Nevada, I read with interest the article on the Joseph Smith Papyri by Benjamin Urrutia [Summer 1969]. I was amazed to find that all of the major hypotheses of this article parallel the ideas set forth in a number of articles previously published by Mr. John Tvedt ness and me. Since I assume Mr. Urrutia was unaware of our articles, I regard such an independent arrival at the same conclusions to be a felicitous confirmation of my own theories. When independent* researchers using the same facts reach the same conclusions, one is led to feel that there is something in the facts which impels toward those conclusions. 

My own detailed researches into the papyri began as far back as December 1967, when I was permitted to examine the original papyri in the library vaults at B.Y.U. I immediately began translations of the Sensen text, the symbols of which I recognized as being also in a journal of Joseph Smith (the so-called Book of Abraham Manuscript) which parallels Book of Abraham verses with Sensen text hieroglyphics. These yielded a very un-Abrahamic, but definitely Egyptian message. Thereafter, joined by Mr. Tvedtness, we proceeded to compare the words of the papyrus to the verses of the Book of Abraham to which they were juxtaposed by Joseph Smith and found in every case semantic parallels between the Egyptian words and the English verses. These we have detailed in newsletters of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology (cf. #109, October 25, 1968, and #114 June 2, 1969). 

For instance, one finds that the Egyptian word for travel was placed by Joseph Smith next to verses dealing with travel, Hor (form of Horus, the name of the clan which unified Egypt) with verses concerning the discovery and settling of Egypt, Osiris (the god killed by another god, or the deceased Pharaoh) with verses concerning the destruction of the pagan gods, the death of the Priest of those gods, and mourning in the house of Pharoah! The most evident parallel to any lay reader is the one mentioned by Mr. Urrutia: the determinative for woman paralleled to the short verse referring only to the daughters of Haran. But though “surprisingly close,” it is not “closer than elsewhere,” as Mr. Urrutia puts it. It is simply more evident to most readers. The closest, and certainly the most complex parallel I would suggest to be Khonsu (the Egyptian moon god, also called The Traveler) which Joseph Smith juxtaposed with verses which refer no less than six times to the concept of traveling and also contain the name of a god, Libnah, which would be an acceptable anglicized form of the Hebrew word levenah, meaning moonl Such parallels are found only when one compares the Egyptian words and the English verses as Joseph Smith juxtaposed them which indicates that he understood the words he was working with. 

Joseph Smith’s entire handling of the Sensen text is done as by one who knew the meanings of the words of that text. (As a final example of this, let it be pointed out that not only did he treat the text as if written from right to left, but he also made no incorrect or unacceptable divisions of Egyptian words, but rather worked only with valid Egyptian morphemes something no layman would be expected to be able to do successfully.) 

Such are but a few facts which we have previously put forth as supporting the hypothesis of a mnemonic “camouflaging device” such as was suggested in your journal by Mr. Urrutia. Our own articles not only set forth this idea as possible explanation for the “dilemma” of the “Abraham Papyrus,” as Mr. Urrutia has done, but also give detailed evidences which support this hypothesis over and above others which have been suggested. 

Richley H. Crapo 
Salt Lake City, Utah 

***

Dear Sirs: 

The Dialogue special issue on “Mormonism and Literature” [Autumn 1969] was so fascinating that I read it during one whole day. Housework was a little haphazard that day because Dialogue was propped, among other places, on ironing board and kitchen counter. 

With regard to Kenneth B. Hunsaker’s criticism of Ardyth Kennelly’s two novels, Peaceable Kingdom and Up Home, I rise to the defense. Ardyth and I were students together at Oregon State College in 1931. She wrote well and had something in each issue of Manuscript, a printed journal of the best pieces written by students in English classes. (Only one of my pieces was accepted; it was a description of my Mormon grandfather in Snowflake, Arizona.) 

Ardyth Kennelly in her two books catches the folkways of women in the home: how a mother tastes the gravy on the stove to see if it has enough salt; the feel of a baby’s skin after a bath; the way the baby looks out from under the blanket as he rests on his mother’s shoulder. There are also some wonderfully funny parts in the books. Well, what I’m trying to say is that these books rang a bell for me as a woman, wife, and mother. 

In Up Home, Mrs. Toone succeeded in getting herself sealed to both her deceased husbands. I told this to a Sunday School class of young people, who were properly shocked. That one man might have several wives sealed to him was just fine, but for a woman to look forward to more than one man in heaven was another kettle of fish. 

Kenneth Hunsaker says that Linnea Ecklund, the chief character in both books, kept a messy house. He must have read the books too rapidly. Actually, Linnea was a good housekeeper. The one who kept the messy house was Mrs. Orbit, who had the terrible habit of reading novels. She not only bought the paper-backed kind but went to the library and drew books out, two at a time: 

The beds would not be made, the ironing close to mildew, the cold dishwater not thrown out the back door, the left- overs moldering in the pantry. . . . The stove would not be blacked, the ashes showering down upon the hearth, the children free as birds, herself in a morning sack with unkempt head of witch’s hair.

Leaving Ardyth Kennelly’s books, I want to say something about the ideal of perfect housekeeping perpetrated in materials written for L.D.S. women as well as for other American women in the nineteenth century and much of our own. The most quoted maxims were “Cleanliness is next to godliness” and “Order is Heav’n’s first law.” In fact, rather recently when I was teaching an adult Sunday School class, a seminary teacher scolded me for saying that perfect housekeeping can be a detriment to the family. He maintained that perfect housekeeping is part of the package of good character. 

I am told by women who remember Ogden and Salt Lake City at the turn of the century that the Relief Society visiting teachers, on their way out of the home just visited, sometimes ran a finger along the door panel to find out if there was dust, because one of their functions was to help women learn to care for their newly acquired niceties. 

My Mormon grandmother in Snowflake reared most of her eleven children in two rooms. If she kept a path clear between the beds she was doing well. She was Relief Society president for seventeen years, but she was not the kind to worry about dust on the door panel. In her spare time Grandma read everything she could lay her hands on, educating herself. She also kept a written journal of the important events of the town. One July the Governor of Arizona came to Snowflake to give a patriotic talk and knowing that May Hunt Lar son kept a history of the town, he asked her to put together a few notes for his talk. This she did, and afterwards she penned into her journal: 

“I wrote the speech for the Governor of Arizona and he gave it pretty good.” 

Alison Comish Thorne 
Logan, Utah 

***

Dear Sirs: 

Your latest issue [Autumn 1969] produced one big plus and one small minus for me. The big plus was Douglas Thayer’s short story. The story was vivid, the use of the time element superb, and the sentimentality never got out of hand. It is most encouraging to find someone in the Church writing this well. 

It would be even more encouraging to know that there were perhaps half a dozen other stories entered in the contest which were just a cut below Mr. Thayer’s prize winner. The editors are to be congratulated for encouraging such creative activity. With diligence we may get some kind of standards for the writing of fiction in the Church which have been so lacking in the past. 

The small minus was the picture on the cover. I admit I am not an courant as far as art styles go, but I simply don’t see much aesthetic value in an Esterbrook pen (that was an Esterbrook, wasn’t it?) and pastel colors. The publication of this cover appears to me to be an attempt to lure the youthful reader to pick up Dialogue. I appreciate the need to broaden the readership base of your journal, but I would hope that Dialogue would not join the cult of youthism which currently afflicts our society. What is needed most at present are some standards of taste in artistic and aesthetic endeavors. 

Robert M. Pixton 
Salt Lake City, Utah 

***

Dear Sirs: 

I am thoroughly enjoying reading the current issue of Dialogue and am once again impressed with the fine literary quality of this publication. Through your publication I have been introduced to many facets of Mormonism that would otherwise never have come to my attention, such as drama, art, etc. Your objectivity inspires confidence in the intellectual integrity of the editors. You are rendering a real service to all branches of Mormonism. 

We have appreciated your including Re organized (RLDS) publications in your occasional listing of literature. Thus far I have not seen my own studies included. They may be too early to be regarded as current but I am passing the names of the unpublished research works on to you any way. They are as follows: 

A Study of Some Representative Concepts of a Finite God in Contemporary American Philosophy with Application to the God Concepts of the Utah Mormons. 

Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Southern California, August 1954 

The Philosophy of Joseph Smith and Its Educational Implications. 

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, March 26, 1963. Avail- able through University Microfilms, Inc., 313 N. First St., Ann Arbor, Michigan. $4.05

Garland E. Tickemyer 
President, Quorum of 
High Priests, RLDS 
Assoc. Prof, of Philosophy 
Central Missouri St. College 

***

Dear Sirs: 

Much has been said in recent issues regarding the apparent paradox of the Church so recently having decided to ban cigarette advertising on its own radio stations. I believe this only touches on a deeper paradox which is even harder to rationalize. 

I remember when, about a year ago or so, the Church purchased station KBIG, a station with a potential audience I would guess at around ten million, or somewhat less. A few of us around here engaged in the fantasy that there would be a new programming policy. What an opportunity for the Church! How I could wish to be the programming director! We would have fine symphonic music, chamber music, opera in the evening; on Sundays we could have the Tabernacle choir for a while, and do can tatas, oratorios, organ works. We could revive the art of radio drama with plays on Church History or the Book of Mormon, or with the work of Clinton Larson (“Whatever is Praiseworthy or of good report, we seek after these things”). But the fantasy was, of course, vain—after all, KSL was never any great shakes in the cultural field. Too bad. As I now occasionally tune in “our” station, I find nothing of which to be proud; the same desolate waste of rock and roll (well, I like that too, but in moderation, and emanating from outlets other than “ours”), and endless commercials. 

Now that social events are occurring at an ever faster pace and the Church is increasingly being criticized, it seems we need not only the cultural growth and the intellectual image a new programming policy might lend (“the Glory of God is Intelligence”), but we need a public window by which the defenders of the faith can show the world where we really stand. Surely the Negro-discrimination charge ought to be discussed on a deeper level than the fatuous and self-defeating statements of President Wilkinson. Would not a debating panel on “our” station serve a critical need? 

The Church has been beating the pulpit for years about our necessity to “be in the world and not of the world.” Now it has one of the greatest pulpits of all, but one which seems reserved for Churchly functions only on General Conference weekends. As the policies of the Church are guided by continuing revelation, it would seem appropriate to conclude, from the example set, that continuing revelation declares it is better to make a buck than to spread the Gospel ideals! Alas, it would seem that the Church is hiding its light under a bushel of commercials. 

A. Guy VanAlstyne 
Los Angeles, California