Letters to the Editor

View PDF

Dear Sirs: 

Your poemed portraits proveth much
(They prove both plus and minus) 
So let old Ernie have his view—
Give deference to his highness. 

Robert Baer 
El Cerrito, Calif. 

***

Dear Sirs: 

I have read with interest the article by Mark Cannon entitled “Mormons in the Executive Suite” in the Autumn 1968 issue of Dialogue. 

One of the significant consequences of Senator Smoot’s interest in advancing the career opportunities for promising young Mormons has been the large number of Mormons who have passed through George Washington University. In fact, with the possible exception of the University of Utah Law School, more Mormons have graduated from George Washington University Law School than from any other law school in the country. Generally speaking, Mormons have enjoyed a very high reputation in all of the University’s professional schools. I can recall, for example, when I was serving as Assistant to President Thomas H. Carroll, that he would often go out of his way to point out to alumni groups and other persons interested in the University the fact that law students from Mormon backgrounds tended to be exceptionally reliable, to be very dedicated in their academic commitment, and to go on, in large numbers, to productive personal and professional lives. 

This has also been true for our Medical School. For example, in the early 1960’s both sons of a leading Southern California Mormon obstetrician and gynecologist, Dr. George E. Judd, graduated from our Medical School. One son is Lewis L. Judd, who went on to do postdoctoral work in psychiatric medicine at UCLA, and the other was Howard Judd, who went on to postdoctoral work in obstetrical medicine at Harvard. At the time that Howard took his M. D. degree at George Washington, his father was invited to attend the ceremonies in his capacity as the National President of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. I mention this to you to underscore the close connection between the Mormon community and this University, especially in the professions. I am sure, for example, that a listing of graduates of these schools would turn up many names of Mormons who have been very prominent both in the Church and in their careers, including a number of the. men whom you have mentioned in the article. 

Robert S. Jordan, Director, 
Foreign Affairs Intern Program, 
School of Public and International Affairs, 
George Washington University 

***

Following is an unsigned letter sent from Reno Nevada: 

Just finished reading your latest edition of what you call Dialogue—more properly should it be branded ROTTEN PROPAGANDA—it sounds like words of an apostate. Yet an apostate has enough honor to represent himself as an apostate.

You are making a living for yourself and family there is no doubt in my mind as a person who loves to tear down—certainly you are not a builder. 

If there is anything of poor report or unworth—you seek after those things, certainly you are not a builder. 

It is evident that you are educated but surely you are not intelligent. 

Some of the most disparaging propaganda accounts of Mormons I have ever read don’t begin to come up to the harm a good people can receive from literature such as you publish. I believe if you have enough guts to really want to know your end you can find it by reading the 121 Section of the D & C. 

Has any one in this world profited by tearing down other people—not just Mormons but any people. Wouldn’t it be so much better if you would try and look for the good in people rather than the bad always, then publish it? 

I don’t know what your background is but in my opinion you would discredit any sect or group by becoming one of them. 

It was a pleasure for me to burn your last issue. I predict you will regret before you die every article of rot you have printed. 

Did it ever occur to you that there is no perfect person on earth. Surely you have that understanding—then if this be true don’t you think you could pick anyone and find plenty material to propagandize. Wouldn’t it be so much better to look for the good rather than the bad—and publish it as you do. 

It’s such an easy thing to tear down—but it takes a real person to build. 

[We certainly agree—Ed.] 

***

Dear Sirs: 

I have just read the latest issue of Dialogue, with your interview with me as one of its features. I want you to know that I deeply appreciate the fair way my views were presented. The interview was certainly a model for accuracy and brevity. Fair, understanding treatment was given to the wide range of extremely important subjects discussed. 

My most sincere thanks to all of you. 

Arthur V. Watkins 
Washington, D.C. 

***

Dear Sirs:

Having taught one Negro in eighteen years obviously qualifies Wilford E. Smith [Review, Winter 1968] as an expert on the Negro question. 

John L. Lund 
Seattle, Washington 

***

Dear Sirs: 

Every time I had the opportunity to talk with Mormons, members of academic communities in various countries, they often complained about the lack of cultural and intellectual creativity in the branches and wards. The missionaries let us partake of the important spirit of the principles of the Gospel, but too often we don’t dare to go further, as if the purity of God’s Work is threatened by any exterior growth. Meanwhile many hanker after literature, art, philosophy, metaphysics in the light of the Gospel. Probably the apostate results of these sciences in the old Christian European churches scare the members. Also our intellectuals usually stand alone in a branch, and avoid their noetic abilities to bump against the incomprehension of others. So, without creating distinctions between the members as a whole, your advice to start corresponding with scholars will benefit many of us. 

As you asked me, a few words about myself: born in 1946, I have been brought up in a good Flemish Catholic family. My father is a historian and art-critic, director of the Mayer van den Bergh Museum in Antwerp; my mother, graduate in Pedagogy and Theology, works intensively for the doctrinal renovation of the oecumenical movement. In high-school (Atheneum of Berchem, Antwerp) I followed the Latin-Greek section (humaniora antiqua). In 1964 I went to the State University of Antwerp to study philology. It was then that I met the Elders and received a strong testimony of the Truth. In order to get rid of my “disastrous ideas” my parents sent me in 1965 to the new, severe Catholic university of the Jesuits, “Saint Ignatius.” It turned out to be a wonderful time. After two months I was elected President of the Faculty Student Body, a position I held for two years. The Jesuits have given me a thorough knowledge not only of classical languages and history, general and romantic linguistics and literature, but also of philosophy, metaphysics and medieval history, especially ecclesiastical since the primitive Christian church. In September 1966, after more than two years impatient waiting my parents gave permission for my baptism. In June 1967 I received my bachelors-degree (candidatura) with “distinction,” as “one of the three best of the year.” 

For my masters-degree (licencia) I went to the State University of Gent, where I continued the former subjects, adding paleography and hermeneutics. I succeeded this year with “great distinction” as first of the Faculty. My thesis is the critical edition of the Gospel of Mark from a stemma of un known old-French manuscripts of the early XIII century. Next year I will get a special diploma (agregate) allowing me to teach in senior high-school. I speak Dutch and French as mother tongue, English and German as second language, and beside the classical Latin and Greek, essential and active part of my studies, I have had two years passive study of Italian, Spanish and Russian. 

Concerning my future plans, I want to do my military service first, this lasting one year. Normally, because of my academic results, I will become Assistant-Professor at the University. But then I’ll have to work on a compulsory doctorate-thesis about a dull aspect of romanic medievalism, while I prefer of course to work, in the light of Mormonism, on my favourite subject: “The apostasy through the changes in Biblical manuscripts and through the spreading of Apocrypha,” or as a wider field “medieval mythology as ethnical deteriorated traditions of revealed eternal principles.” I trust the Lord will show me the best way, as I received my Patriarchal blessing August 22nd. 

I hope these lengthy considerations did not bother you too much. Also sorry for language mistakes, it is difficult to have an actual idiosyncrasy reflected in the spirit of a language which is not a mother tongue. 

Wilfried Decoo 
Ghent, Belgium 

***

Dear Sirs, 

I am writing regarding your article in the Summer 1968 issue, “On Mormon Music and Musicians,” by Professor Lowell Durham. I enjoyed it very much. I am grateful for these fine musicians in our church who have produced music through the years which has gained us high respect and recognition all over the world. Their music has done much to bring the gospel to the attention of the world. 

My other comments are on some of Prof. Durham’s observations at the close of his fine article: “Original pop music in the church has mushroomed and spread far more quickly and widely than Robertson’s anthems”; “The poetry is generally poor to mediocre and the music is most objectionable”; and “They have NO PLACE in a sacrament meeting or during the Sabbath day.” 

First, I point to the fact that the top composers named by Professor Durham—highly educated, talented, spiritual and dedicated—are definitely at the top in the Church. Most of us are in the hinterlands—in the trenches, in the Sunday-to-Sunday, Tuesday-to-Tuesday action involving, as dear Alexander Schreiner said, “The rich and poor, young and old, the cultured and the uncultured.” I would say 90% of these wonderful people have never studied music. 

Where do we get music (outside of our hymns) which will impress and inspire our rich, poor, young, old, cultured and uncultured? 

It is well that our general music committees are constantly trying to pull the standards of music up throughout the church. It is necessary. It is well to do big things, have fine selected choirs, beautiful oratorios, and MIA festivals. It is marvelous! I am proud of them and proud to be part of them and to help train our people for them. 

However, personally, I am concerned with music which will impress listening and singing Mormons, every week of the year and inspire them to do the things for others and for themselves which they might not otherwise ever do. The people of the 90% majority are inspired to faith, good works, and adherence to God’s commandments by simple, beautiful, or stirring melodies, and words which are good and true and carry a plain message which relates to present, every day life and the commandments which we are trying to live. Do Dr. Robertson’s anthems fall in this category? 

Here on ward and stake levels we are constantly asked to come up with musical numbers on short notice for sacrament meetings, Dear to My Heart Nights, youth conferences, temple meetings, standards nights, genealogy meetings, etc. We are often asked to train a chorus on short notice for these. This may not be the ideal set-up, but that is how it is. Our singers are busy. Their attention and talents are pulled in many directions. They do not have the time to do difficult numbers. A good many of them are highly capable, but in a ward we cannot pick and choose, especially among the young. We take all who wish to come. We want to keep them singing. Where is the music for these? 

Our church is built on inspiration and heavenly gifts. If the gift is genuine, it stands the test of time and flourishes because of its own goodness. I think this is a good test for original music by Mormons, whether it comes from the ranks or from the general board musicians. I have seen many of each which young people simply are not interested in singing. I respect the opinions of our church young people. They are a highly intelligent generation. They will choose the good when it is offered them and means something to them. 

I say, “Let each song stand or fall on its own merits—judged by singing Mormons.” A poor song may be sung a few times, but it will not stand through the years. And no matter how “Good” a song is by high music standards, if our people do not take it to their hearts, what good is it to the work of the Lord? 

In 1948, after hearing an inspiring talk on Temple Marriage by Sister Blanche Stoddard of the Relief Society general board, I was struck with the realization that we had no music concerning this important part of our religion. I wrote “The Temple By the River” (or “The Temple of the Father”), which Prof. Durham claimed is not fit to be sung on the Sabbath day. His mis-statements concerning this song lead me to believe that he had neither seen a copy nor heard it sung: It is a song of testament and exhortation, not a love song as he intimated. It is written in simple, three-part harmony, not in “close” harmony. It has never been published by the MIA. Through the years it has spread to every part of the world where the church is located. It has been sung in every LDS Temple and translated into several foreign languages. It is used as a sermon in every kind of an LDS meeting, and at weddings and funerals. 

One good brother said to me, “When I first heard it I thought it was the most beautiful song I had ever heard in my life.” A lady said “The words are wonderful, but where did you ever get such a beautiful melody?” I answered in truth, “From heaven.” 

I do not speak for others’ music, but I believe there is a need for my kind of music in the church. It is more artful than a hymn, carries a more modern message, and is within the time and talent limits of ordinary singing Mormons. . . . 

I now have twelve published songs on LDS themes, which are being used all over the Church as sermons in various meetings. If these are not fit for the Sabbath day, the Church membership should be informed, and I should be informed at once. We are members in good faith and certainly have no wish to be performing “trash. Perhaps I have been led astray in my thinking by the tears, words, letters of gratitude and the enthusiasm of our people in all walks of life, for my Mormon Music. 

I have mailed Professor Durham my two dollar packet of 12 songs so that he can see for himself just how “corny” each one is. But until our top composers can put out some real Mormon songs which fit the occasions for which we need them, and which truly appeal to our people, young and old, in a way to deepen their gospel convictions, I will have to recommend my own. 

Marie Manwaring Anderson
Shelley, Idaho 

***

The following is a response to the letter from Mimi Irving in the Autumn 1968 issue: 

I shall not, as you do, deal in ad hominems. Suffice to say that I do not concur with your opinions. Modern Egyptologists are not, in fact, saying the same thing as those earlier Egyptologists, great as many of them were. Nibley went to great pains in the Era this year to show, via abundant quotation (rather than the unfair censorship, doctoring, and secrecy of Spaulding), just what those Egyptologists did say about J. Smith and about each other. I know of no sarcasm in his words. He is direct, and simply repeats what the modernists are all saying: That all of science at that time was far too heady and overconfident, and that it took an Einstein, a W. F. Albright, a Bertrand Russell, an L. Wittgenstein, et al., and a stock market crash, among other things, to bring us back to reality. 

This is the age of scientific verification, random sampling, and skepticism of skepticism itself. Nibley is merely one of the best students of the age, and is highly respected in academic circles. A general perusal of his articles (in academic journals or Church oriented publications) and books, as well as an acquaintance with the general scholarship of the past 200 years, establishes him in my mind as one of those men of whom we see only 4 or 5 per century. 

Prof. David Riesman of Harvard seems to agree with this estimate of his erudition, although he is far more qualified than I to discuss the question. It was in 1963, at BYU, I believe, that he stated that Nibley was the “Thomas Aquinas” of the Mormon Church, and that his own erudition paled before Nibley’s. Riesman and I are not Mormons, but religion has nothing to do with following good scientific method, and I believe in a merciless testing of any hypotheses which come my way. The fabric of Nibley’s words holds together surprisingly well for a scholar who is supposed to have a “split personality” or “two masters.” 

Your premise that the LDS Church is built on an edifice of “contradictory beliefs” can only be demonstrated by showing just what those beliefs are, and in what way contradictory, and even McMurrin has a bit of a problem with that, as fine a philosopher as he is. 

Robert F. Smith 
Ontario, California 

***

Dear Sirs: 

I would like to comment on Richard Howard’s article in the Summer issue regarding the Book of Abraham and the Reorganized L.D.S. Church. There is considerable evidence showing that the Book of Abraham was more than an item of curiosity in the early R.L.D.S. Church. It is especially important to point out that the doctrine of a plurality of Gods, which this volume teaches, was believed not only by many of the membership but also by the highest leaders in those days. 

Mr. Howard states that his church has taken a “conservative” position regarding the Book of Abraham because of its “doctrinal content and implications.” He earlier states that the “conservative” position was that of neither endorsing nor condemning the Book of Abraham. He ties this position to the year 1896. 

This may have been the “official” position of the R.L.D.S. Church in 1896, but that certainly was not the case in the early Reorganization. In those days, when the Reorganization was just getting started, the Book of Abraham was treated with utmost respect and was often quoted from by writers in official publications. The first publication issued by the Reorganization, A Word of Consolation to the Scattered Saints, referred to the Book of Abraham in support of priesthood lineage. 

At the end of a quotation from the Book of Abraham in the first volume of the True Latter Day Saints’ Herald (p. 270), there is the following which certainly indicates the attitude of the leaders of the early Reorganization: 

. . . now she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. (Book of Abraham, translated through the gift and power of the Holy Ghost by Joseph Smith.) 

In 1860 the early Reorganization was arguing with the Temple Lot Church (Church of Christ or Hedrickite Church) in regard to the Doctrine and Covenants, and at that time reference was made to the Book of Abraham as follows: 

Now we propose to prove that all revelations which Joseph gave unto the church, we are bound to “give heed un- to.” If the first edition of that book is divine, all the subsequent revelations which are contained in the Book of Covenants, in the Book of Abraham &c, and which he gave unto the church, are equally divine. (True Latter Day Saints’ Herald, March, 1860, p. 63.) 

The foundation of the Reorganization was based upon the acceptance of all these books as divine. 

In the True Latter Day Saints’ Herald for 1860, pp. 280-83, we find almost four pages defending the doctrine of a plurality of Gods, using the title of “A Plurality of Gods.” It begins: 

By the quotations of our Utah correspondent from the new translation of the Bible and from the Book of Abraham, it will be perceived that a plurality of Gods is a doctrine of those books. Al- though it is an unpopular doctrine, it is a doctrine of the common versions of the Bible. It is true that there are “plain and precious things which have been taken away” from the Bible, and this is true in reference to this subject, but there is enough remaining to show that the doctrine is true. 

On p. 283 the article concludes: 

These scriptural evidences concerning the order of the Kingdom in the exaltation of the sons of God, show that the revelations in the New Translation of the Bible, and in the Book of Abraham, concerning the Gods, all harmonize together. When this doctrine came forth in these books, it became a stumbling block to some people. We hope that the evidence which we have presented on this subject will be advantageous in the removal of their stumbling block out of the way. 

In 1865, the R.L.D.S. Church published a book entitled A Synopsis of the Faith and Doctrines. One chapter, or section, deals with the Godhead and a sub-section under that is entitled “A Plurality of Gods.” There are several pages following devoted to scriptural references that support this doctrine. 

On the basis of these and many other references at my disposal, I believe that the implication made by Howard that his Church membership rejected the Book of Abraham and the doctrines that it taught is inaccurate. In the early days of the Reorganization the membership believed not only in the Book of Abraham as scripture but also in its doctrine of a plurality of Gods. 

Ward H. Forman 
Tulare, Calif. 

Richard P. Howard replies: 

My brief Dialogue article, “A Tentative Approach to the Book of Abraham” (Summer, 1968, pp. 88-92), made no attempt to document the reverence felt for the Book of Abraham by some of the leading officials of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints during the 1850s and 1860s. To have done this would have accommodated those with a concern similar to that of Mr. Forman; however, such would have been unrelated to the primary purpose of the article. 

History agrees with Mr. Forman’s point that the early leaders of the Reorganized Church (1852-1866) held the Book of Abraham in high regard; that they promoted its use as reprinted in the True Latter Day Saints’ Herald; and that they espoused its doctrine of a plurality of Gods. Many other published and unpublished sources demonstrate the esteem held by some of the early leading officials of the Reorganized Church, both for the Book of Abraham and for the idea of a plurality of Gods. In 1865 a council of top church leaders voiced their belief in the scriptural basis of the plural God doctrine. Published church writings in those early years contained numerous quotations from the Book of Abraham. 

An evidence of the emotional and spiritual maturity of the Reorganized Church through the years has been the historical fact that continually its leaders have felt free and obligated to evaluate and question the validity of stances important to our historical traditions. In exercising this responsibility some positions once considered sound have, under closer study and in the light of experience and new understandings, been amended or replaced. The Reorganized Church has discerned that when measured against the demands of the call of Christ to a corporate life of faith in the One Eternal God, some earlier views were theologically unjustified, irrespective of how or when they arose within the church or its leadership. 

This is what happened with the Book of Abraham in the Reorganized Church between 1865 and the early twentieth century. Joseph Smith, Jr.’s, speculative doctrine of a plurality of Gods, together with the racial “superiority-inferiority complex” inferred in his Book of Abraham, was being gradually rejected by Reorganized Church leaders in the last generation of the nineteenth century. Thus the early attachment to it of the 1850s and 1860s was responsibly left behind. Today the Reorganized Church neither denies nor is embarrassed because of its early position on these matters; it simply has rejected it as unsound. An emphasis on this in the article might have appeared in sensitive to the feelings of those who still view the Book of Abraham as divinely inspired scripture. Obviously it did not matter to the central thrust of the Reorganized Church’s present approach to the Book of Abraham in the light of twentieth century developments in Egyptology. 

The article, written prior to the publication of the independent analyses of Wilson, Nelson, Heward, et al., could only have speculated whether their conclusions would vindicate the work done by Mercer and others in 1912. But by now much material has been published by the above named Egyptologists, all decisively reinforcing the 1912 Egyptologists’ divorcement of the Book of Abraham from any possible connection with that ancient patriarch. 

Because of this, some members of the community of Restoration scholars may now desire seriously to consider the Book of Abraham as simply the product of Joseph Smith, Jr.’s, imagination, wrought out in the midst of what to him must have been a very crucial and demanding and complex set of circumstances. This may call for a consideration of the evidence that the Book of Abraham is neither a scholarly translation (Joseph Smith appears not to have had any understanding or key to Egyptian symbols, either hieroglyphs, hieratic writing or demotic signs), nor an “inspired translation,” as many have considered Smith’s earlier work on the Book of Mormon to have been. 

Mr. Forman has responded to a peripheral matter relating only indirectly to the article. Might others perhaps wish to respond to the central issue implied in it? This might more fully satisfy the readers of Dialogue, many of whom may be seeking a viable, twentieth century interpretation of the Book of Abraham which not only sustains their integrity but also refines their sense of history. 

Richard P. Howard 
Church Historian 
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 
Independence, Missouri

***

Dear Sirs: 

I was intrigued by the article in your Winter 1968 issue, “If Thou Wilt Be Perfect . . .” by J. R. Moss. I took this as a scathing—and perhaps deserved—denunciation of modern materialism in the Church. However, in making his point, the author has repeated every platitude I have ever heard on this subject. Further, he did not drive to the heart of any one of his main points and establish the difficulty of carrying out his recommended practices. Finally, he did not suggest a single way of implementing a plan of action to do better. 

Let me point out a few facts about the well-publicized “Other America.” I will ignore the problem of the lazy few who do not want to work. I don’t know whether they should starve or not. I believe that the majority of men want to contribute an honest day’s work for their pay. For these men, neither charity nor “make-work” projects are satisfying. Many of these men can not be trained to compete in our society for satisfying work. Neither the church nor the government (nor I) have been able to come up with a realistic solution to this problem. Furthermore, most of these men have enormous pride and would prefer me to “keep my nose out of their business.” Finally, if I could find a way to help them, I would do it through an impersonal organization so that they would not have to hate me for my charity. 

Now, let me indicate the facts of economic and political life. I work hard and unabashedly for money, influence, and power. I work also because I love my work, but I have found that is not enough. The reasons are the following: First, I have a wife and two children, and as a father and husband, my first duty is to them. I have seen enough of the world to know that money and influence can buy opportunities for them to develop their talents which are unattainable by any other means. As an example, I would love to send my children to an excellent private school I know of but I cannot afford it. Second, there are several things that I would like to accomplish before my life is over. Some of these things are projects that could have a positive influence on a large number of people. I have found that most of these projects are impossible unless I have money, influence, and power. The world is full of people whose hearts are in the right place but are completely ineffective in accomplishing good works. I would like to tout the virtues of a man who is willing to do what is necessary (within the limits of morality) to push a good project through. 

Finally, I have nothing against rich classes. Many waste their money and are foolish, but many invest their money wisely and provide a capital base for the industrial nation that has provided for me. Brigham Young tried to develop an economy by taxation (tithing) and public investment. The result was that most of the people were without means for private investment and private industry suffered. He was not able to develop the base of small industries he needed so badly in the Intermountain West. (See Great Basin Kingdom by Arrington). Also, most of his public investment schemes failed (sugar, iron, lead, cotton, wine, citrus industries). I do not wish to fault Brigham Young or his enterprises or the Mormons in Utah. Remarkable things were accomplished by them in a hostile land. I only wish to point out some of the pitfalls of a system that brings a more “uniform” distribution of wealth. When the Christ sets up His system, He will undoubtedly work out safeguards to allow the “uniform” system to work but we have not been able to accomplish this yet.

If Brother Moss has any clear solutions to these problems I would like to see another sermon printed in the pages of Dialogue that outlines them. 

Leonard H. Wald 
Torrance, California 

James Moss replies: 

Mr. Wald’s simplistic rationalizations are an excellent example of the very attitudes that most concern me. They could appropriately be titled, “How To Avoid Obeying the Scriptures for Fun and Profit,” a game of hide-and-seek commonly played by some members of the Church whenever the Word of God requires us to sacrifice our stake in society’s material values. His complaints about the problems of economic sharing are a complete evasion of the central fact that the Lord has commanded it and that He has given us a celestial plan to achieve it. Enoch used it successfully; the Nephites prospered on it for two hundred years. The problem is not in obtaining a plan but in finding people willing to live it. And we are certainly not that people if we cling to Mr. Wald’s illusion that “money, influence and power” are necessary to accomplish worthwhile personal goals or good in society. Where in such a theology is room for the humble Carpenter from Nazareth? 

Mr. Wald should be less concerned about the “facts of economic and political life” and more concerned about the facts of eternal life. Brigham Young may have failed in the eyes of a capitalist but he was extremely successful from the viewpoint of the gospel: The Saints learned great lessons in community action, mutual dependence, loving, non-competitive cooperation, and conservation of resources before the influx of gentiles and pressures from the American society and government forced them, late in the nineteenth century, towards the prevailing mode of exploitive individualistic capitalism. If Wald’s ideal is a man who is “willing to do what is necessary,” he should realize that the first necessity for a Mormon is to obey God’s will as revealed in the scriptures. It is obvious that he needs to hear “every platitude” over again, particularly those of Jacob, Alma and the Lord Jesus Christ. The Savior has already set up His system—that is, the Church and the revealed principles my essay reviewed that the Church is to continually struggle to put into practice. As a church we bear the particular responsibility to prepare ourselves spiritually and practically and establish a divine economic system based on the kind of personal sharing and equality the scriptures describe—before the Lord will come. We need fewer complainers and more doers. 

***

Dear Sirs: 

Just this past Sunday night our Dialogue study class voted to split into two groups—along the boundary lines of the 4th and 5th Wards. This split was necessitated by our explosive growth—interest is mushrooming. . . . 

May I say that I have received every issue of Dialogue—from Spring ’66 thru Winter ’68—and, as a result my testimony has grown by “leaps and bounds.” I know not about others but I would surmise that if they have been students of the Gospel in depth, a study of Dialogue—every issue—cannot help but cause growth in testimony. . . . Am I not right in assuming that some who may have strayed from the fold may have been wooed back to take a more mature look at the Church? 

Norman L. Dunn 
Portland, Oregon