Letters to the Editor

View PDF

Dear Sirs: 

I enjoyed William Robinson’s article [Autumn, 1968], “Mormons in the Urban Community.” 

In order to expose our children to something other than our very isolated Mormon community (Utah Valley), two years ago we exchanged houses with a Congregational minister in Newton, Massachusetts. While in Newton, we became acquainted with the work of Elliot Church in South Boston. In many respects it put our own family commitment to shame. 

The fact that the ward in Alexandria, Virginia, is doing something to help unfortunate people, irrespective of color or creed, is most heartening. I too hope that the Church will institutionalize its effort. Perhaps the recently appointed General Authority from the Washington, D.C., area, Elder Hartman Rector, can help in this. 

Richard M. Taylor 
Spanish Fork, Utah 

***

Dear Sirs: 

In the August, 1968, Improvement Era, President Theodore Tuttle quotes the following plea by Apostle Spencer W. Kimball: 

My young brothers and sisters, I plead with you to accept the Lamanite as your brother, a people who ask not for distant, far-away sympathy, your haughty disdain, your supercilious penny throwing, your turned-up nose, your superior snobbery, and your cold calculated tolerance. I ask you to give them what they want and need and deserve: opportunity and fraternal brotherliness, your understanding, your warm and glowing fellowship, your unstinted and beautiful love, and your enthusiastic brotherhood. 

Would that the Church’s leaders could muster up that kind of eloquence on behalf of our Negro brothers. 

Bruce S. Romney 
Kinnaird, British Columbia 

***

Dear Sirs: 

From the letters to the editors in the Autumn, 1968 issue I note that some people were displeased about getting the Kent Lloyd mailing. Consequently, I think that I ought to let you know my feelings on the matter: 

I was glad to get my copy of the mailing about Kent Lloyd; I found it quite interesting. My only objection was that it did not make it clear why I had received it. I finally guessed that it had come because of my subscription to Dialogue, but I was still somewhat puzzled. I even thought seriously of sending a small contribution, but I did not get around to it. 

I already receive considerable advertising because of my membership in two professional organizations, and I can recognize the source of each piece of advertising from the address label in each instance. I have no objection to receiving such easily identifiable political-campaign advertising as a result of my Dialogue subscription. 

George T. Johannesen, Jr. 
Kalamazoo, Michigan

***

Dear Sirs: 

In the last issue of Dialogue we read for the first time two letters to the editor criticizing the “Lloyd for Congress” committee’s use of the Dialogue mailing list. Following our exciting but unsuccessful campaign, we had turned back to other professional responsibilities designed to improve the quality of urban leadership in Los Angeles. The letters to the editor, along with the Dialogue note of apology to its readers who were offended by the solicitation for financial contributions, however, caused us to reflect on several lessons we learned from our first (but not our last) encounter with practical politics. 

Lesson 1. Our commitment to be “anxiously engaged in a good cause” is not without its personal risks. First, our motives have been questioned by some of our friends who think that what we do is for personal gain only. Second, we have incurred heavy financial losses—the debt for the primary campaign was approximately $20,000, for which we are personally liable. 

Given the staggering cost of Congressional campaigns today (from $50,000 to $150,000) an aspiring young candidate with “democratic values” has these limited alternatives: (a) financing his campaign from great personal wealth; (b) long servitude to one of the major political parties in return for financial backing; (c) going into personal debt for the direct campaign costs; (d) becoming a special interest group lobbyist in return for continuing campaign contributions; or (e) gaining independent financial support by soliciting friends, other individuals who might share the candidate’s personal values, or special interest groups who oppose the incumbent leadership. The Lloyd for Congress committee tried to follow the last alternative—using in part the Dialogue subscription list of readers who, we felt, would share our concern for recruiting qualified candidates. 

Lesson 2. Latter-day Saints do not respond in great numbers to invitations to support a political party candidate, especially if the candidate is a Democrat. For example, see the letter from former Congressman Kenneth W. Dyal in the Autumn issue of Dialogue. Our own experience shows that we sent appeals for financial support to approximately 7,000 Dialogue readers at a cost of $600.00 (including rental of the Dialogue mailing list). We received back $361.00 from twenty-eight readers who responded positively to our letter. We also received eight letters critical of our mailing. These results suggest that most readers did not care one way or the other. 

In addition, it was our experience that a great deal of time and energy was spent convincing Mormons that a candidate from the Democratic party also could be a loyal Latter-day Saint committed to the values of the Gospel and the American Constitutional system. 

Lesson 3. The Church doctrine on the Negro severely handicaps Latter-day Saint political candidates in districts with Negro voters. The 31st Congressional District of California (Los Angeles-Inglewood) is 68% Democratic registration, with 40% of these voters being Negro. The present Jesse Unruh-supported party machine incumbent cannot be beaten except by a Democratic challenger with a well known record in civil rights. Our strategy, then, was to run such a candidate. The election returns from Negro precincts demonstrate that being a Mormon in the 31st District was a serious handicap for a Congressional candidate. Coupled with Lesson 2, it appears from our experience that a Mormon Democratic candidate supporting civil rights issues can plan on receiving limited financial support from Mormons and little support from Negro voters. 

Lesson 4. A Mormon, Democratic candidate for Congress cannot expect more than minimal support from politically sympathetic church members living outside of his district regardless of the extent to which his personal qualifications prepare him to provide national leadership on critical social issues. The Lloyd for Congress committee brochure sent to Dialogue readers listed in detail the candidate’s qualifications as an educator, a community relations expert and a government consultant. The letter accompanying the brochure described his academic training, his church related experience and his understanding of critical community problems. However, most Dialogue readers living in various parts of the country apparently felt that a Congressional election in Los Angeles was of little interest to them. Although the winning of a Congressional seat in California by a qualified candidate may seem of local interest only, because of our Congressional committee system, that same candidate may cast the deciding vote on issues directly affecting programs for voters in New York and Utah. 

These four lessons, then, could discourage those Mormons who consider running for public office or contributing in other ways to the solution of urban problems. By contrast, the Autumn 1968 issue of Dialogue, in which letters critical of our efforts to solicit support appeared, should offer some reassurance. The issue began with the articles on Joseph Smith’s presidential platform, followed by the section on Mormons in the Secular City, and ended with the First Presidency’s recent statement on the obligations of Latter-day Saints to support “political candidates who are ‘wise,’ ‘good,’ and ‘honest’ . . . and to assume their responsibilities as individual citizens in seeking solutions to the problems which beset our cities and communities.” 

Nevertheless, some readers would argue that to expect to influence the direction of public policy in America today is a futile effort because the world is so evil that it cannot be saved from destruction. Others would argue that the world will be saved eventually through God’s divine intervention regardless of what men may do, and therefore one’s only obligation is to family and church. For our part we are committed to the view that individual men and women can make a difference in the quality of life in their communities provided they are well trained with professional skills and committed to the inspired values of our Constitutional system. 

To fulfill this commitment in our own lives we have organized the PEDR Corporation—a professional executive consulting firm in Southern California—and have attempted several approaches to developing urban leaders. During the past two years we have worked with leaders from among the Black Nationalists in Watts, led a seminar for race relations specialists, conducted a community relations program for a city police department, lost a political campaign (!!), completed an urban executive leadership program for top Black professionals and are now consulting with the Urban Coalition in Los Angeles, which includes leaders from all segments of the community meeting together to solve critical urban problems. 

Ellsworth E. Johnson 
Kent Lloyd 
Kendall O. Price 
Clark Rex 
Inglewood, California 

***

Dear Sirs: 

My first day as a freshman in the BYU bookstore was justly rewarded when I came upon the Summer 1968 issue of Dialogue. It is something friends and I have felt a gnawing need for. Particularly of interest were the letters of awareness on the black issue because that was the point of discussion of our group on the ride from California to the “Y.” 

I’ve heard some interesting and strengthening things, stories and quotes and articles of freshness, on the subject I wish each member knew about. This is why I propose that if not a program at least a magazine be initiated for black and white and all church members and investigators who are crucially interested in the problems. This would give an awareness and concern for Negroes that is definitely needed. . . . 

Scott Smith 
Provo, Utah

***

Dear Sirs: 

“Mormons in the Executive Suite” by Mark W. Cannon [Autumn, 1968] was interesting chiefly because of the Mormon background information it set forth concerning some of the nation’s high level government officials and business executives, past and present. The article would have been much more valuable if the author had shown that when the “United Order” turned out to be a dismal failure in practice, church authorities apparently decided to encourage the acquisition of material wealth on the strength of the adopted Calvinist principle that growing rich should not be regarded as altogether unconnected with the will of God—for after all “God is the dispenser of all things.” Perhaps in a future discussion Mr. Cannon will point out how the secular theories and teachings of Calvin and other sixteenth-century reformers gradually became part and parcel of Mormon doctrine. Be that as it may, he has furnished convincing proof that Mormonism is no barrier to the attainment of worldly success. 

Inasmuch as Mormons have been taught since the earliest days of the Church that Luther, Calvin and the other reformers were actually progenitors of Joseph Smith, it would be worth the time of anyone interested in this over-all subject to read The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber and Religion and the Rise of Capitalism by R. H. Tawney. The Merchant of Prato by Iris Origo is also worth consulting because it establishes conclusively that capitalism was already sprouting in the middle of the fourteenth century. Francesco Datini, the merchant Origo wrote about, always captioned the first page of his ledgers with the words “In the name of God and of profit.” 

Joseph C. Fehr 
Rockville, Maryland 

***

Dear Sirs: 

In their note [Autumn, 1968] “The Vietnam War Through the Eyes of a Mormon Subculture,” Knud S. Larsen and Gary Schwendiman lament the fact that “highly active members and recently returned missionaries [are] more hawkish than less active members. … ” The big point missed by the writers is that Communism is atheistic and destructive of religion and free agency. Isn’t it quite natural for a returned missionary or active church member to believe strongly in religious freedom and free agency? Wouldn’t we expect B.Y.U. students to base their Vietnam war attitudes quite heavily on these facts (as compared with a secular university), rather than solely on the intricate historical details of Vietnam since World War II? If free nations do not survive, religious freedom, freedom of dissent, and academic freedom are quite meaningless. 

If a nation has the “gall” to conscript one small fragment of its population to do the fighting for the whole, doesn’t it have the responsibility to give moral support to those conscripted? The courts have constantly up held the legality of this war, and the South East Asia Resolution was in my opinion a de facto declaration of war. This legislation had only two dissenting votes—Senators Morse and Gruening, both of whom lost in the recent elections. 

These matters are relative, but a certain amount of “news control” and “muzzling” of dissent are proper to successfully wage a war. When human life is at stake, the practical approach must take precedent over the idealistic as it pertains to forms of dissent and news releases of military tactics. After all, the President and military leaders have the services of the C.I.A., F.B.I., Diplomatic Corps, etc., from which to acquire classified information and base decisions. For a draft dodging dissenter to play the role of diplomatic or military tactician is quite ridiculous. The respect of informed sources of information is one of the basic attributes of a scholar. 

With our religious teachings on the founding of the Constitution and our government structure being divinely inspired, it is reasonable to expect B.Y.U. students to have more faith in their government than would secular students. The article bemoans the extent to which B.Y.U. students are not involved in the anti-war movement. The California Democrat boss, Jesse Unruh, has recently stated that the Berkeley campus may have to be closed for two years because of the well known turmoil. Isn’t it wonderful that B.Y.U. is not thus involved? 

These so-called highly moral peace movements are well intended, but why don’t their proponents get them started on the other side of the iron curtain? 

J. Darwin Baxter 
San Jose, California 

***

Dear Sirs: 

Upon reading Mr. Robson’s critique of my essay, “A Mormon Concept of Man” [Spring, 1968], my first thought was that no graduate student in philosophy should be as concerned as he seems to be at finding one in a trap while discussing such a subject. Surely he must have learned somewhere along the line that the only way of avoiding being trapped in matters of this kind is to keep one’s trap shut. But then there would be no dialogue. 

As a matter of fact, Mr. Robson completely misses the point in his lengthy discussion of “the trap.” His essay on this theme is interesting and competent, but I fail to see that it is a serious criticism of my paper. Robson’s “trap” has to do with the legitimacy of certain kinds of arguments. My paper is not an argument at all. It is a description of what I consider to be the generally accepted Mormon conception of man. Whatever argument appears in the paper is there only in connection with the claim that I am describing the Mormon position (a point Robson seems to accept), not in relation to any defense of the position. Now, if Robson wants to argue that Mormonism is in a trap, I have no objection. But I do object to his strained and specious effort to put me in it. Because I obviously like the Mormon doctrine as I have described it, he seems to think that my paper is an argument for its truth. Whether the doctrine is true or false or even logical is beside the point of my paper. 

While Robson’s argument is with Mormonism rather than with my description of it, I would seriously question that he has Mormonism trapped. The Mormon concept of man is as easily put in the number four as in the number one position of his schema. The ideas represented in the four steps of the “trap” are not logically derived from one another in Mormonism; they are therefore not logically related, as in the sequence Robson lists. The fact of the matter is that most religions, including Mormonism, start with God and work down to man. Robson’s trap is set. upside down and is quite harmless. 

Robson complains about my use of the word “man.” He says that there is “no such thing as man-in-general,” that man as a concept, or abstract entity, can have no purpose or intentions. However well taken this point may be, it hardly applies. I use the term “man” to stand for God’s children—the human family. And the human family is no more an abstraction than the Robson family. Just as it is meaningful to speak of goals for the Robson family, it is meaningful to speak of goals for the human family. Without accepting the existence of the “social mind” or assuming that the nation has a mind, we can speak meaningfully of national purposes and goals. Similarly, we can speak meaningfully of man’s goals. At any rate, such usage is common in Mormon discourse, and my purpose was to present the Mormon position. 

Robson says further, “Since it is men who have purposes and intentions, and since men have many many different purposes and intentions, it strikes me as highly improbable that they all have one ultimate, supreme, over-arching purpose which we could describe as the purpose of man.” It seems strange that Robson should miss the point that all men may have the same purpose, i.e., self-fulfillment, whatever direction that fulfillment might take. Mormonism does hold that all men share common purposes and that they share these purposes with God. The logic by which Robson concludes that God’s purposes can not be man’s purpose escapes me. Cannot a child and a parent share the same purposes and goals for the child? But whatever answer one may give to this question, I was describing Mormonism, which holds that purposes are shared. 

In this connection I would suggest that in addition to individual-specific potentialities possessed by men, which determine to some extent their purposes and intentions, thus making them different, men also share species-specific potentialities, which make them alike and differentiate them from other species. If one plants grains of wheat he will get wheat and nothing else. And he can determine, at least to some degree, the optimum conditions of its unfoldment. The fertilized human ovum may become an egghead, but it will never become an eggplant. 

The Mormon position is based upon the claim that, in spite of the differences exhibited in men, there are similarities and that the similarities, which stem from a common human psycho-physical core, are more important for arriving at the optimum conditions of man’s development than the dis similarities and idiosyncrasies. In the above terminology the potentiality of man to become like God, a long established Mormon doctrine, is a species-specific potentiality shared by all men which therefore determines man’s common purposes and goals. This means that men can have the same ultimate goals. I insist that this is descriptive of the Mormon position; Robson is rejecting this facet of Mormonism rather than my description of it. 

Robson charges me with being confused on the relation between prescription and description. Here again he forgets that I am describing the Mormon position, which holds that God’s prescriptions are descriptive in the sense that they are laws of hu man behavior, both individual and social. The Word of Wisdom, for example, is regarded by Mormons not merely as prescriptive but also as descriptive, as far as it goes, of conditions or laws of physical health. This is not to say, of course, that men necessarily act in accordance with these laws any more than in stating the law of falling bodies one says that there are bodies or they are falling. In Mormonism description and prescription are joined in a way Robson fails to recognize, for Mormonism, like most other religions, identifies the moral law with the natural law. 

In this connection Mormon ethics can be described as an “ethic of promise” which is contextualist in character. But the Mormon doctrine of salvation, coupled with its concept of time, makes for a radically different view of the context in which moral growth is made. Contextualism of the current, popular variety is too limited in its temporal outlook and too narrow in its application. Mormon contextualism includes the future as well as the present. Man’s actions are seen in terms not only of the immediate situation but also of God’s overall purposes and goals for man, which stretch into an endless future. The Mormon ethic is not merely prescriptive of what man must do; it is also a promise, a description, of what man may become. . . . 

George T. Boyd 
L.D.S. Institute of Religion 
Los Angeles, California 

***

Dear Sirs: 

In reading “The Challenge of Secularism” by James L. Clayton [Autumn, 1968], I wondered if the desire for a stronger appeal within the Church for secular acceptance is timely and within the scope and basic concept of our faith. The author’s desire for a “more realistic approach” which “offers a practical solution” recalls opinions expressed during the second century of the Primitive Church. 

It would seem that after a hundred and more years of activity there are elements within the Church that are outdated and in need of alteration. Yet consideration of any theological change demands a calculated, conservative awareness not only of what might be changed, but also of what might be lost. Are we, who accept prophetic direction as a cornerstone, in a position to make the challenge? Don’t we condemn those of the Primitive Church who were too eager to change the law and disavow the words of the prophets? 

Is now the time for increased introspection within the Church, with the resulting divergence and inconclusive debate? The erosion of any position begins with the seemingly modest compromise, and continues, ever increasing, until the mountain has become the plain. Perhaps the future will bring from our seminary system a paid clergy, and from these, a council to meet and debate questions of doctrine, faith, and morals. Is this the course that would keep truth present in the mind of the searching member? 

What do we as individuals wish to derive from our membership in the Church? Is our future emphasis to be the pride that comes from the establishment of a large sophisticated organization, rich in tradition, art, and worldly acceptance? Does acceptance by God come from the development of the Church and its structures, or from the development of that which is within the individual? In the light of what we are striving to become, as we emphasize the individual over the establishment, what does secularization really have to offer? 

Keith Frogley 
Salt Lake City, Utah 

***

Dear Sirs: 

James Farmer in his letter to you [Autumn, 1968] wonders why so many apostate Mormons spend so much time “lamenting and exposing,” and why they feel such activity is of any importance. Maybe I can help explain it a little, as I have just entered that category, and so am still “fresh” on my feelings. 

I would say it’s because the apostates feel the truth is important; in fact nothing really matters in life but the truth. They felt they had found the truth, and they gave it their heart, might, mind and strength; and then found themselves to be, as they felt, in error. And when you have been deceived on such a scale, you want others to know about it, just as one so dedicated and committed wants others to know about the Gospel. 

It’s a sickening feeling, not a malevolent one, that motivates them. Sickening, because something like the church is needed so badly for an answer to the world’s condition. 

When I see the large amount of New Testament material in the Book of Mormon; when I see the outrageous tampering that has been done with the so-called revelations since their first printing; when I see the burying under an obscuring cloud of words the damaging testimonies in the Solomon Spaulding affair; when I see the varied and conflicting accounts of the first vision and the three witnesses; when I see the other side of the coin of the Mormons’ troubles with their neighbors—the sanctioned “milking of the Gentiles” and counterfeiting and sexual irregularity going on; when I see the biographical glimpses of Joseph Smith through other than “approved” eyes (and such things as his giving a translation of the Kinderhook plates that were later found to be a hoax; which brings up the current Book of Abraham imbroglio); when I see all this and more, I begin to wonder at the integrity and legitimacy of the church, and if it is worthy to be the rock that will sweep through the world breaking down all other kingdoms before it and bringing man’s will back into line with that of the Father. No, Jim, it isn’t that the Gospel isn’t true; there has been nothing said about that; it’s that this church is rotten at its roots, and so should be hewn down before it spreads around any more of its contaminated fruit. 

You condemn the critics. Yet honest searchers for truth owe a large vote of thanks to such as the Tanners for the work they have done to help men see behind the books that the church gives them to read in for their answers. The Church owes them a vote of thanks, too, and should acknowledge it at the time of reckoning. For such endeavor has not been so much destructive as constructive. The idea is not necessarily to get people in the Church “to quit” but to look, at least. I can’t explain the Lehi Stone (Hal Houghey to the contrary), or the similarities in the histories of the Central American Indians to the Book of Mormon account. (I accept the Indians as being in part at least Israelitish, but that’s an other matter.) But if you’re going to go out and set up the New Jerusalem and expect the righteous to rally to your flag, you’ve got to know exactly whereof you speak, and how solid the ground is you’re standing on. Check your premises, is all I for one am asking. And, after doing so, set your own house in order, before you start on the world’s. 

Duane Stanfield 
Salt Lake City 

***

Dear Sirs: 

The autumn issue of Dialogue carries a book review of Wayne Stout’s History of Utah, 1870-1896 by Kenneth W. Godfrey. The supreme objective of any book review is to acquaint the reader with the merits, contributions and spiritual benefits of the newly published book. If the work does not contribute to the educational and moral growth of the truth seeker, then the author has failed in his work. In that case, a book reviewer is not needed. But if the book has merit, the reviewer has a responsibility to point out those truths. The greatest crime in the literary world is the willful desecration of a meritorious book. That was the objective of Mr. Godfrey toward the Stout book. His aim was to pick the book to pieces. Consumed by unworthy motives, he could see no values in the book and was powerless to assume responsibilities of a rational book reviewer. This explains his wild charges of exaggeration and defective historical interpretation. 

Amusing is his complaint of defective “facts.” It is he, Mr. Godfrey, who has no facts about Mr. Stout’s qualifications. After 50 years in the study of Utah history Mr. Stout is accused by a man half his age of incompetence and defective historical research. 

Mr. Stout had read all the diaries and journals of all the pioneers before Mr. Godfrey was even born. He read all histories of Utah in print before 1912. Mr. Stout has written four other large books all based on diaries and journals before 1961. The Journal History has been read very extensively. Still Mr. Godfrey charges a lack of an “accurate or balanced account.” This is another sample of his wild charges, which brand him as a dishonorable character assassin. 

The reviewer’s hop, skip and jump reading has led him to believe the work is highly partisan and discriminatory against the non-Mormons. If the reviewer had examined the index and bibliography, he might have discovered the truth. Twice as many hostile Tribune editorials (pp. 549-50) have been quoted as friendly Deseret News editorials (p. 543). For the period covered, the bibliography includes all anti-Mormon works. Again, the congressional debates covering both Edmunds acts, the Poland and Morrill acts, the speeches for and against statehood were all fully quoted in the history. Still the incompetent reviewer is crying for a “competent historian” who can “produce a major study that will be a real history of Utah.” 

Thousands of book reviews have been written and read by persons who appreciate their inspiration and moral uplift, but never has a book review been written that descended to the level of the Godfrey review. The review exhibits the worst in bigotry, hypocrisy, and deceit. Mr. Godfrey has committed a crime against the literary world. He failed to write the truth. 

Wayne Stout 
Salt Lake City, Utah 

***

Dear Sirs: 

I was pleasantly surprised to read the eloquent review of W. Cleon Skousen’s Fan tastic Victory by James B. Mayfield in your Autumn issue. It is most unusual to find someone willing and able to look past sur face claims for facts in the Middle East problem. 

Mr. Skousen, we assume, is an expert on modern affairs of the Middle East, and so we must suspect that he has deliberately misrepresented the issue by omission of pertinent facts which an expert would be aware of, and has resorted to outright distortion. 

In his very worthy fight against Communism, Mr. Skousen has gained approval and recognition, and, unfortunately, anyone questioning his scholarship and intellectual honesty must be prepared to defend his patriotism. 

I certainly applaud James Mayfield’s review and hope that good Church members will not be too awed by Mr. Skousen’s writings to search for the facts in modern history and in the scriptures for themselves. 

Fayek Saleh 
Las Cruces, New Mexico 

***

Dear Sirs: 

In the Autumn, 1968, issue Max H. Parkin (“Mrs. Brodie and Joseph Smith”) mentions six sources of refutation of Brodie’s No Man Knows My History. The three of these I have personal knowledge of are brief; I assume the others are too. Since Brodie’s book is found in practically every library, one wonders why there has never been written a full-scale point-by-point refutation. I continue to meet people who have read Brodie and who consider her treatise as authoritative. Next, one wonders why no one has undertaken to write a truly objective biography of Joseph Smith. Surely he can and should be explained better than the biased view that Brodie presents. I noticed in the Spring, 1966, issue that Arrington and DePillis mention various sources of information on Joseph Smith without once mentioning John Henry Evans, Joseph Smith, An American Prophet (MacMillan, 1946). I’ve heard that Evans’s work is not as “scholarly” as Brodie’s. What else can you or your readers tell me about Evans (his background: Was he or is he now an LDS?) and the value, or lack of same, of his work? I read this book some time ago, but it seemed to me that his favorable bias was no stronger than Brodie’s unfavorable one. 

I enjoy reading Dialogue very much. Sometimes I find a writer who gives me a great spiritual uplift, i.e., Menlove, Cline, and Burtenshaw in Vol. 1, No. 1. Other times I get disturbed at those writers who, nearing apostasy, have nothing but criticism to offer—but controversy makes for interesting, even provocative reading. Keep up the good work! 

Neil Benner 
Costa Mesa, California