aders, Forum iProof SeekersI have admired your willingness todiscuss Book of Mormon origins insome recent issues. Underlying muchof the growing neo-scholasticismamong Mormon "scholars" is what Iconsider to be a crude attempt to pravetheir religion. This attempt is crudenot only in its methods, but in itsmotives as well, for a "proven"religion is a frightening thing indeed. Icannot escape the suspicion that whatthe proof-seekers are really lookingfor is a stick with which to beatothers. Once this stick is in hand, theunfaithful can be beaten intofaithfulness, the sinners intorepetance, and finally, a recalcitrant,unbelieving world into conversion.Most orthodox Marxists insist thatthat ideology is scientifically proven,and we needn’t look hard forexamples of how that "proof" hasbeen put to use. Whatever tlheirapproaches, be it word count, NewWorld archeology, or a prettying-upof Church history, the proof-seekersgenerally make their conclusionsbefore beginning their research.Whatever dedication their activitiesmay seem to demonstrate, there issomething fundamentally un-Mormonabout their motives, because "proven"religions or ideologies always seek toforce the human will. The basic LDSbelief in free agency must extend tobelief as well. God withholds certainknowledge of things in order that wemay exercise such agency. Proof-seekers attempt to thwart this greatwisdom. In addition, they underminethe credibility both of seriousMormon scholarship, and ofMormonism as a religion which ishospitable to unbiased, intellectualinquiry.

The origins of the Book of Mormonare shrouded in a good deal ofmystery. While academic historians m.ayyet find relevant material and producemuch competent research on Book ofMormon origins, for religious purposes,it is better left shrouded in tnystery. Itis probably ultimately unknowableempirically whether the Book ofMormon is a genuine historicaldocument or a pseudepigraphousdocument. What would an individual’sreligious faith lose by consigning this

question to the Real of the Unknownand Unknowable? Very little, Icontend, because then it would enterthe Realm of Faith by default, andthat is where religious (not pseudo-historical or pseudo-scientific) inquirybelongs.

Roger ThomasBloomington, Indiana

Mormons Misconstrue Old TestamentI wish to second the excellent articleon "Mormons Christianizing the OldTestament" by Charles in your issueof December last. Few could havewritten a more competent piecerevealing the imposition ofMormonism upon the revered Torahand Prophets. As .asserted, there canbe no evidence in the text itself forthe very strange Mormonmisconstructions. ,.The sacred textbelongs to us: we have studied it allour lives: everyone, with Mormonsforemost, is just trying to get on thebandwagon. When Charles writes,"The law of Moses was not given as ablessing or an aid in righteous living,but rather as a burden, an oppressivepunishment," Charles correctlyinterprets, for the first time, suchverses as Deuteronomy 11:26-27,23:5, 30:1,19, Joshua 8:34. Usually,your people go on about messiah bornas a child, a son with a governmenton his shoulder, to be called God theMighty, the Everlasting Father--butthis is all misapplied, since messiahwas to be a righteous mortal who wasto be an instrument of God, not adeity at all. God the Mighty, theEverlasting Father, can be translatedany number of ways since modernpsychology has conclusivelydemonstrated that the meaning ofwords is arbitrary.. Certainly messiahwas not to be a substitute for all men,since animal sacrifices on the alter[sic] could never signify anything ofthe kind. The real problem is thatmost Mormons show profoundignorance of the simplest notions ofnormative Old Testament theology,even though very few of them seemignorant of what the Hebrew textreally says.

I have read Torah all my life, and tohear what comes out of the mouth ofsome Mormons, excepting Charles,

would make my hasidic greatgrandfather grave. Charles cornes tothe most telling point in writing,"Perhaps the view of the conceptionof God is the most significantdifference between Old Testame~tthought and the Mormonreinterpretation of it. The Israelitedeity was single, not multiple.’" Therewill always be, it seems, some fanaticto counter that Eloheim is in thegrammatical plural. But to say somakes absolutely no differencewhatsoever--the point is impertinentand clearly unimportant to all--andthere is no use in bringing forward, asevidence internal to the Masorah text,that the 1Mormons" translation "Gods"is proper or multiple conception ofGod agree.s with the account. I havealso taught Torah and do so agree.how imperative it is that the nc)wcetranslate all plurals in the plural,except this one--where ever it occurs.Thus, probably the most correcttranslation of the first line would be,"In the beginnings G, od created theheaven and the earths." Also, theHebrew juxtaposition JehovahEloheim translates "Jehovahs’ God."How desirable that you continue tofeature such carefully written workand logica’,lly argued articles to thediscredit of Mormonism and itsimposition, I am sure you well enoughknow. Charles is without question thebest normative theologian theMormon Church has produced.

Avner Gig

Book of Mormon DifficultiesSUNSTONE is to be commended :for itsarticles o~: "Defending the Keystone,"attempting free inquiry into what is avery thorny problem for modernMormonism.

Mormons. however, should also readfor themselves B.H. Roberts’s "Bookof Mormon Difficulties.’" Articlesabout it can never hope to producethe overwhelming irnpression of thisscholarly, objective work written by aman of knowledge and integrity.

Roberts ir’t the manuscript itselfsuggested four possible responses thegeneral authorities, his originalaudience, could give, none of which hethought satisfactory.. The first couldsuggest teat the Book of Mormon wasabout only a small part of thepopulations of the Americas, aresponse contradicted by the bookitself. The second response couldflatly contradict the findings ofmodern science, especially linguisticsand anthropology, an obviously poorchoice. The third was couched in aquestion: can we place our revealedtruths against science and "calmlyawait the vindication we feel sure that

time will bring to the Book ofMormon?" He answers correctly that"it certainly would have no effectupon the educated class throughoutthe world. It would only exciteridicule and contempt in them." Thefourth choice is silence, which Robertsadmits is a "confession of defeat."Several times he begs the brethren forany other answer; he is especiallyconcerned that the youth of thechurch receive it soon from thoseauthorities who have the power to askGod for it.

What was the response, and has beenthe continuing response for almostsixty years? George Smith Jr. quotedGrant Ivins saying, "Churchauthorities would not sanction itspublication."

They chose silence.

Adrienne Morris

Prooftexting the RestorationWith all of the current praise of yourmagazine at both the local andnational level, I’m sure the last thingyou are in need of is a letter ofcommendation. However, I was soimpressed with the past issue that Icouldn’t allow myself to pass up theopportunity to say thanks! Inparticular I found the "Sunday SchoolSupplement" to be both timely andrewarding (a survey of Lowell L.Bennion’s book Understanding theScriptures, 1981).As a Sunday School teacher (andstudent of the scriptures) I am greatlyconcerned about the approach andapplication of scripture within theChurch. It seems to be a generalconsensus of most that our churchand people have suffered a steadydecline in matters pertaining to thescientific study .of religion and thescriptures. This decline has beenaccompanied by and perhapssupported througla the developmentof unwarranted scripturalfundamentalism. Fortunately throughthe efforts of a growing nucleus ofscholars commited to the Church andthe "scientific method" we are seeingthe development of a new scriptural-consciousness throughout the church.It is the efforts of scholars likeBrother Bennion that is making thisdevelopment possible.

The most difficult task of the SundaySchool teacher is to motivate andteach the class to read the OldTestament (and all scripture for thatmatter) with a more critical andhistorical attitude. Too often in theChurch we get so involved in tryingto "liken the scriptures unto ourselves"that we forget to whom the scriptures

were originally written. As a peoplewe must begin to think of the OldTestament in its own perspective, toread the Old Testament for what it isand not what we think it is. The OldTestament is not just a book of moraland ethical teachings nor is it justsource material for proof-texting therestoration of the gospel in moderntimes. It is rather, an immense historyor narrative of the Hebrew people andis far removed historically, culturally,linguistically, and philosophically fromour own people--hence the difficultythat arises from its mere reading. Ithink in the long run that if the OldTestament is going to have any realmeaning for us as Latter-day Saintsit will only be made possible as weapply the principles Brother Bennionhas so beautifully taught us--and aswe become better readers andstudents!

Randal L. HepnerHuntington Beach, California

More on Joseph III BlessingPermit me to further clarify RichardHoward’s comments concerning theRLDS acquisition of the Joseph SmithIII blessing (Sunstone 6:3).

On 24 February I wrote to Mr.Howard’s office offering to trade theblessing document for a Book ofCommandments. I stated that I wouldconsider this trade offer binding onmyself until 8 March and requestedthat the RLDS Church let me knowone way or the other as soon aspossible, "because there are a fewother interested parties whose offers Ido not want to put off for long.’"

When Howard and I met on 2 Marchhe indicated that it would beimpossible to make such an exchangeby my self-imposed deadline of 8March. I was told that extensivelaboratory tests of the documentwould have to be conducted beforethe RLDS Church could even considermy proposition. Howard also told methat he thought my price (a Book ofCommandments) was too high, and heasked me what else I might considerwhen the time came to negotiate atrade. Because of Howard’s statementthat it would be "impossible" to makean exchange by 8 March, I consideredmyself ethically free to sell theblessing elsewhere.In our telephone conversation of 3March I did not agree to go toIndependence on 17 March for ahandwriting analysis of the blessingdocument. Actually, I was quite vagueand careful not to commit myself. Itold Howard that I would talk withhim in a few days.

In his letter to Sunstone Howard statesthat the LDS Church was "chagrined"with the circumstances surroundingtheir acquisition of the blessingdocument. Actually, no one from theLDS Church has ever given me anyindication of displeasure with myhandling of this affair. Indeed, theLDS Church not only knew that I hada tentative agreement with the RLDSChurch, but encouraged me to try toget out of it. (Let me emphasize,however, that the decision that myconditional agreement with Howardhad been abrogated was entirely myown. The LDS Church did not know,nor did they inquire into, the specificterms of my agreement with theRLDS Church.)I am glad that in the end things haveworked out so well for bothChurches: The LDS Church was ableto demonstrate their disconcern forthe blessing by magnanimously givingit to the RLDS Church. This highlypublicized event also contributed anair of veracity to the document whichhas made it difficult for LDS Churchmembers to discount itsauthenticity--much more so than ifthe RLDS Church had acquired theblessing document directly from aprivate co[lector/dealer.

Mark W. HoffmanSandy, Utah

Amniocentesis Justified?The divergent views published in"Abortion, Politics and Policy" werethought provoking and mindexpanding. By the time I finishedreading the articles, I felt confidentthat I do have a conviction, that Iknow where I stand on one of themost critical issues of the day. Thanksto you and to the authors of eachviewpoint.In that I agree with Richard Sherlock’spremise, I considered not callingattention to a small but serious mis-statement in his first paragraph. Dr.Sherlock refers to amniocentesis as "aprocedure justified only if a woman willconsider abortion for a fetus that isdefective." Many have tried to labelamniocentesis as a "search anddestroy" tactic. Such is not the case.Amniocentesis can be the analysisnecessary prior to treatment. On April26 of this year, a University ofCalifornia medical team performed theworld’s first known successful surgicaltreatment of an unborn child. Othersuccesses have been brought aboutsince that date. What better place canbe found than the mother’s womb foran infant to heal after surgery? Inrecent years we have seen muchadvancement in the repair of

September-October[3

defectively born infants. We can lookforward to the correction o~� manymore defects now that it has beenproven that such work can be done inutero.A mother with reason to suspect aprospective defective birth ~nightsurely justify the minimal rlisk ofamniocentesis, ultra-sound scans, etc.in an effort to know, to prepare for,and in some cases to correct beforebirth the condition of her infant.

Stanley R. BrewerSalt Lake City, Utah

Stone in Bottomless WellWriting to Sunstone readers is likedropping a stone into a bottomlesswell, then waiting for an echo. Whatshould be a relevant subject to theMormon community, B. H. Roberts’sexamination of challenges to Book ofMormon authenticity ("Defending theKeystone," two articles, SUNSTONE,May-June 1981), evoked onlysuperficial responses. It would seemthat some readers have written offthe "keystone of our religion" as justso many words and don’t care torespond, while others casually dismissthe questions that haunted genera]authority .Roberts through the 1920s.Roberts encountered a similarlyinadequate response in 1922, then anenforced silence when he was deniedpermission to publish. He discussedhis 141-page "Book of MormonDifficulties" with President Grant, theTwelve, and the Seventies on January4, 5, 26, 1922, and then with James E.Talmage and Anthony Ivin~ at thehome of James H. Moyle on February2, April 28, and May 25 of that year.(In my footnote # 1, SUNSTONEinadvertently omitted reference tothose dates in the Personal Journals ofJames E. Talmage--BYU SpecialCollections, as well as the January 4,1922 entry in the Diary of George F.Richards--Church Archive~.) In aJanuary 9, 1922 letter to PresidentGrant, five days after the firstpresentation before the Churchcouncils, Roberts expresseddisappointment in the response giventhe issues he had raised: "There wasso much said that was utterlyirrelevant, and so little said, ifanything at all, that was helpful in thematters at issue that I came awayfrom the conference quitedisappointed... I cannot be otherthan painfully conscious of the factthat our means of defense, should webe vigorously attacked along the linesof Mr. Couch’s questions, are veryinadequate.’" (Special Collections,University of Utah)

Later that year, Roberts’sinvestigations were interrupted by acall to serve as Eastern States MissionPresident, and afterward, when hewanted to publislh his comparison ofthe Book of Mormon to A View of theHebrews, "the Church authoritieswould not sanction its publication."(Grant Ivins letter of Dec. 26, 1967,footnote # 1 in SUNSTONE article)

The issues remain unanswered: TheBook of Mormon seems to put NewTestament material into an OldTestament time period and quotesBiblepassages before they were written--itquotes the Old Testament prophetMalachi before he wrote and it hasChrist speaking ]Peter’s words beforePeter spoke them. Finally, theapparently misread conclusion in bothSUNSTONE articles: Importantsimilarities to A View of the Hebrewsindicate that Joseph Smith could havewritten (not did write) the Book ofMormon.

Now that Roberts’s concerns havesurfaced again sixty years after headdressed thern to President Grantand Church councils, where are thecommitted Latter-day Saints with ascholarly defense of the authenticityof the Book of Mormon?

George D. Smith, Jr.San Francisco, California

No Royal RoadMr. Norman J. Barlow’s criticism ofMs. Charles’s article (Rea~ders’ Forum,March-April 1981) misunderstandsthe real question at issue in anydiscussion of critical biblicalscholarship and the LDS community.He argues that an LDS interpretationof the Bible must be distinct frommainstream commentators if thetruthfulness and importance of therestored gospel is to be reflectedtherein. On the contrary, the realissue is that LDS commentators mustbe willing to humbly submit to God’sword given both today and in agespast and be honest, judicious, andcompetent in their efforts at learningwhat that word is and was. Deliberateattempts at a "Mormon exegesis" or a"Mormon translation" are doomed tofailure, because humility and honestyare ill at ease with deliberation tosecure LDS advantage. By naivelyassuming a propositional model ofrevelation, Barlow conflates severalconcepts which are in reality quitedistinct.First, ! agree with Barlow that ourunderstanding of God’s dealings inages past is deepened and enlarged bythe living revelation, but I do notagree that this necessarily implies thekind of authoritarian, extrinsic, and

propositional "royal road" to historyand exegesis for which Barlow argues.Barlow suggests that the concept ofrestoration (rather than reformation)requires one to suppose that theextrinsic, categorized, andpropositional formulations of LDSorthodoxy (as if such a credalmonolith existed in iMormonism)reflect the extrinsic formulations ofthe true faith in the biblical period insuch close detail that the LDSformulations are a reliable guide toestablishing critically the ritual[s,beliefs, and ideas of’ancientChristianity and Old TestamentJudaism and Yahwism. This argument,however, is a gross reductionism. Theterm holds much more meaning thanmerely the idea that true doctrines,once lost, are now available again. If"restoration" were this alone, thenany religion mimicking exactly LDSbeliefs, rituals, or modes of expressionwould also be a "restoration" of theancient true religion and would betrue in the same manner and degreeas Mormonism. However, thesethings do not constitute the truth ofthe restored gospel.Rather, it is the tacit dimension of ourfaith--what we call variously the lifeof the spirit, the power of authorityof the living God involved in anextraordinary way in our communityand personal life--which constitutesthis truth.. Only secondarily do thecategorizations of our experience ofthis spiritual life, authority, power, orholiness sustain and reflect the truthof the gospel thus constituted.Because of this, a testimony of therestored gospel does not necessarilylogically require assent to the claimthat these secondary matters are thesine qua non of continuity between OldTestament Yahwism, New TestamentChristianity, and modern Mormonism.Thus, modern scriptures and doctrinesare not necessarily critically reliabledata in tee reconstruction of thehistory o~ the religions involw.~d orthe meaning of their scriptures asintended by their inspired huma~tauthors. They reflect inspiredinterpretation, application, andmidrashic embelIish:ment of biblicaltexts more than they reflect theequally ir~spired intent of the originalhuman author. Since God revealshimself and his truths to humankind"in their weakness, after the mannerof their language, that they mightcome to understand" (D&C 1:24), theextrinsic categorizations, thoughimportant and truly reflective of Godand his truth, are subject new.~rthelessto conditi.oning factors in culture,history, language, and modes .ofthought. Revelation does not occur ina vacuum.

Barlow’s position manifests the

Sunstone/4

"historylessness" so well described byMark Leone: faced with apparentdifferences between LDS formulationsand biblical formulations, Barlowwould have us "correct" the biblicaltext which to his mind is obviouslyerroneous, rather than struggling tounderstand the historical horizonsupon which the divergentformulations appeared. This openswhat Arrington ,a,n.d Bitton have calleda "huge loophole in our belief in theBible: "as far as it is translatedcorrectly" is here understood byBarlow to mean "as far as it agreeswith our pre,sent understandings"rather than ’as far as it accuratelyreflects what we know of its originalsense." Barlow’s appeal to the badtransmission or translation argumenthas a hollow ring, since clearly thereare no external controls over theclaims one might make about theBible given such a position.Related to Barlow’s misunderstandingof the conditioning factors at work inrevelation’s historical horizon isBarlow’s second major confusion ofissues. He appeals to the "practice ofscholars, critics, and exegetes" toargue that we should be open touniquely LDS sources in our biblicalcriticism. This is a patentlydisingenuous argument, since Barlowadmits that none of the experts towhom he alludes would share hisenthusiasm when he claims that usingthe Book of Mormon "to aid inunderstanding the Old Testament isprecisely equal to using the Dead SeaScrolls or the Nag Hammadi (,s.ic)Library to understand the Bible.’Note that all the LDS sources whichBarlow would like to see at the rootof an LDS criticism of the Biblecannot be dated critically earlier thanthe late 1820s. The Book of Mormon,for example, presents itself as havingancient origins as well as divine ones.Yet it simply cannot be said inhonesty and awareness of the factsthat it is ancient in the same way thatthe Nag Hamadi or Qumran texts, oreven the major biblical manuscriptsare: for one thing, its text is availableto us only in the English of anineteenth century American. Thetext, indeed, presents itself as theproduct of relatively late antiquitymthe work of fourth century A. Doredactors (Mormon and Moroni); andthe obvious influence of the KingJames Bible on its language, text(when parallel passages are involve),and theology is in evidence on nearlyevery page. To ~oe sure, there areenough peculiarities of style andconception which indicate that itsclaim to antiquity should not bedismissed lightly. However, oneshould not on this account followBarlow in thinking that this guaranteesthe importance of the Book ofMormon as a central piece of evidence

in reconstructing the meaning ofother ancient scripture. It is preciselywhen one is willing to submit to allthe evidence, and as a result begins tonuance one’s use of various sourcesthat one begins to use a criticalmethodology and starts to acquire the"background" which Barlow admits isnot "as extensive" among LDSscholars as it is among normativeChristian and Jewish exegetes. Isubmit that Barlow’s suggestion thatwith more time LDS biblicalscholarship will outstrip non-LDSexegesis will never be realized untilLDS scholars and the communitywhich supports them disabusethemselves of precisely the smug self-assuredness which bears the fruit ofdeliberate inattention to detail andrefusal to engage in serious dialoguewith others about the scriptures andtheir intent.Finally, Barlow confuses the inspiredliterary artifact of scripture with itssubject matter. As a result, Barlowseems unable to distinguish betweenthe intent of a human author and thesurplus of meaning provided a text byan inspired community in the dialectic

of history. Thus, Barlow tends to seethe scriptures primarily as sourcebooks for doctrine, as a repository forproof texts of modern teachings,rather than as a condensation of theliving God and his truth in varioussettings.Perhaps by making more carefuldistinctions, Mr. Barlow could channelmore profitably his obvious love ofthe gospel and concern for the faith ofZion’s youth. To suggest that wemust choose the living prophets overthe dead ones, or choose dead onesover living ones, misses the point. Ifwe truly wish to listen carefully toGod’s word, we must allow what hehas said and what he now says tostand on its own, withoutharmonizations or anachronisticimputations of meaning. To dootherwise would be a betrayal, be itwell intentioned, of our belief in allthat God has revealed, does nowreveal, and will yet reveal.

Anthony A. HutchinsonPh.D. Candidate in Biblical Studies

Catholic University of America

pdateWomen in Medicine at BYUThree female LDS physicians talkedabout the problems and possibilities ofintegrating church activities, personallife, and a career in medicine at the"Women in Medicine Seminar’ held atBYU on September 16.

Over 165 people attended theafternoon sessions which featured Dr.Anne Osborne, assistant dean at theUniversity of Utah Medical School andRelief Society General Board Member;Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, a physician atthe BYU Health Center and mother ofone child; and, Dr. VirginiaArmstrong, also associated with theUniversity Health Center, teamphysician for women’s sports at BYU,and mother of six.Dr. Osborne said women’s choices areoften based more on culturalexpectations than on the gospel orwhat the Lord wants them to do. Sheasserted that a career in the medicalprofession is a viable option for afaithful LDS woman and ought to bea personal, though prayerful decision.

According to pre-med student Barbara

Hurst, the seminar was organized tocounterbalance the notion that acareer in medicine is not an acceptableoption for Mormon women. Thepressures at BYU to stay in the home,non-supportive male counterparts,and the stiff competition inherent inpre-med classes often dissuadefreshman women from becomingphysicians, said Hurst. "If they cansurvive their freshman year," sheadded, "most women who go into pre-med find other, supportive females inthe program and eventually get intomedica~ school."Alternative Publications at BYULast year the Open Door Club wasorganized to promote the pursuit ofintellectualism and more directcommunication between students andthe administration at BYU. It hassince spawned two publications aimedat a student readership.The first is an unofficial guide toclasses and professors similar to thosefor other major universities. Itincludes both the faculty’s and thestudents’ opinions on which courses

September-October/5

and instructors constitute tl~e creamof the crop at BYU, as well as asmattering of interesting commentsand statistical trivia about theinstitution. The club’s secondpublishing venture is a weeklynewspaper. Called the Seven~!h East Press,the new paper was prompted by anadministration take-over of the DailyUniverse’s managing editor position, ajob formerly held by a student.Although Ron Priddis, one of thepaper’s organizers, said his publication"is not planning on being overtlycritical of anybody or anything," itwill investigate academic controversiesnow considered "sacred cows."The paper will be sold for ten centsthrough local businesses, door-to-door, and on the BYU campus like anyother private paper.

New Edition of Standard WorksA significant change in the wording ofa Book of Mormon prophecy is one ofmany spelling, stylistic, andgrammatical corrections made in tl~enewest edition of the Book ofMormon, Doctrine and Covenants,and the Pearl of Great Price. Thepassage promising that righteousAmerican Indians would become a"white and delightsome people" hasbeen changed to read "pure anddelightsome people."According to Church spokesmanJerry Cahill, the 1840 edition of theBook of Mormon, edited by JosephSmith, contained the words "pure anddelightsome." Cahill said no oneknows why later editions reverted tothe former phrasing.An article in the Salt Lake Tribunereported that various Church leaders,including President Kimball, "haveused the phrase to describe theeventual state of righteous Indianmembers of the church. Kimballasserted in a 1960 address thatchildren participating in the church’sIndian placement program werelighter complexioned than theirbrothers and sisters living on thereservation."When asked whether Churchmembers should believe that faithfulIndians will become lightercomplexioned, Cahill told the Tribunethat they should assume that they willbecome a "pure and delightsomepeople."

Hoary Dissenting PamphleteerFans of Mormon Jack Anderson willbe pleased to hear that thecontroversial columnist has added anew magazine to his investigativeenterprises. The first issue of The

Investigator, published by Anderson,came off the press in Septemberoffering "a rival account of reality, ameasure by which to judge the eficacyof leaders and wl~ether the truth is inthem, an unauthorized stimulus toaction."Departments featured in the newpublication included "Raising Hell," anexpose on Jimmy Carter and his"Good Old Boys,’" written byAnderson, and ’"Fleecing America!" byWilliam Proxmire. Other articlesinvestigated the wealth of the RedCross, great art scams, a possible pre-attack tip-off to Pearl Harbor, and thestatus of the war on cancer.

Dedicated to "the truth without falsereport or wishful thinking," editorWilliam McGraw wrote, "it is the roleof the hoary dissenting pamphleteerthat The Investiga’~or seeks to revive."

Mother’s Place in Home"A mother’s place is in the home,"Elder Ezra Taft Benson, president ofthe Quorum of the Twelve, toldfemale members of the Churchat the annual general meeting of theRelief Society Saturday evening,September 26. Decrying "alternativelife styles," Benson stressed the needfor devoted mothering. "It is amisguided idea that a woman shouldleave the home, where there is ahusband and children, to prepareeducationally and financially forunforeseen eventualities," he said.

"It is a fundamental truth that theresponsibilities of motherhood cannotbe successfully delegated. No, not today care centers, :not to schools, notto nurseries, not 1:o babysitters. Webecome enamored with men’s theoriessuch as the idea of pre-school trainingoutside the home for young children.Not only does this put added pressureon the budget, but it places youngchildren in an environment away frommother’s influence."Counseling mothers to "carefullycount the cost before you decide toshare breadwinning responsibilitieswith your husbands," Bensonsuggested that some "active Latter-day Saint families" are experiencing"difficulties with their childrenbecause mother is not where sheought to be--in tlne home." Indeed, hestressed, "The seeds of divorce areoften sown and the problems ofchildren begin when mother worksoutside the horne."As an example to modern mothers,Benson described the eighteenthcentury mother of 19 children, one ofwhom was religious reformer John

Wesley. He also shared excerpts f~omthe letters of several successfulhomemakers. One asserted that theLord will help every woman "find joyand fulfillment in her role in thehome," while another said the task of"molding children’s characters" ismore important than "a collegeeducation, a job, developing talents oranything else!"

Benson urged women to "radiate aspirit of contentment and joy withhomemaking" and suggested thatmothers give their daughtersopportunit:ies to practice homemakingskills i~ order to prepare for the"highest, most noble profession towhich a woman might aspire"--homemaking.

Other speakers at the session, whichwas broadcast from the Taber~acle tomore than 2300 close_d-circuitlocations, were general Relief SocietyPresident Barbara B. Smith; Maria.n R.Boyer, Homemaking Counselor’;Shirley W. Thomas, EducationCounselor, and Elder’ Gordon 13.Hinckley, ,counselor to Preside~ttSpencer W. Kimball.

Elder Hinckley introduced the themeof the meeting: "Charity NeverFaileth.’" After citing the example ofthe William Martin l~tandcart companyand the charity of the Saints in theValley who aided their arrival,Hinckley expanded the definition ofcharity to include forgiveness ofothers’ faults and offenses and anabandonment of the spirit of criticism.Referring to the tendency of themedia to find fault, Hinckley defendedmen and women in positions ofauthority, suggesting they needsupport rather than criticism. Headvised the sisters to curb theirtongues when tempted to criticize. Heconcluded his talk with a personaltribute to Sister Camilla Kimballwhose low_~ of learning and devotionto husband and famil~y makes her afitting example to all women.Entitling l’~er talk "Relief Society inTimes of "lTransition,"’ PresidentBarbara B. Smith encouraged ReliefSociety members to be prepared tooffer charitable help wheneverneeded, especially to those understress because of transitions in theirlives.Counselor Shirley W. Thomasreviewed the educational programs ofthe Relief Society, stressing theimportance of the mother educationlesson to all sisters, whether or notthey "haw!_~ children in their homes."Said Tl-~omas, "As women in theChurch we are familiar with the

Sunstone/6

terms patriarch and patriarchalorder .... We do not speak much ofmatriarchs, we call them insteadmothers. The mother is thecounterpart to the patriarch of ahome. Mothering is also an eternalfundamental work. It has to do withbringing life and love, and it is largelylearned." Citing the example of youngcollege students who visited a nursinghome, Thomas remarked, "MotherEducation lessons deal not with thephysical processes of giving birth butwith the nurturing qualities that canhelp every child of God live in thelight .... Mother Education can benot only suitable but enriching for allRelief Society members."Counselor Marian Boyer declared,"The roots of Relief Society in welfarelie at its very founding," and urgedpresent-day sisters to exercise charitywithin the welfare system, since "thepoor are still with us." As examplesshe cited Relief Society aid extendedto South Vietnamese refugee childrenand the volunteer assistance offeredduring the Teton Dam disaster. Boyerurged Relief Society presidents to"instruct visiting teachers on how to

Papal Encyclical on "Human Work"Pope John Paul II recently issued "hismost comprehensive statement onsocial issues," according to the LosAngeles Times. In the third encyclical ofhis papal career, John Paul stronglybacked labor unions and workerparticipation in management andcondemned both rigid capitalism andcollectivist systems that eliminate allprivate ownership of the means ofproduction.

Opting for a socialist middle ground,the encyclical further opposed the

¯ "dehumanizing excesses" of moderneconomic systems. "We mustemphasize and give prominence to theprimacy of man in the productionprocess, the primacy of man overthings," said the Pontiff. Written inPolish and carrying the Latin title,"’Laborem Exercens’" or "On HumanWork,’" the encyclical also urged thatworkers receive a just wage--adequate to support a family and

recognize signs of depression, ofloneliness, and physical want" so thatneeds would not’go unmet.

ErrataThe following footnotes wereinadvertently omitted from J. D.Williams’s article in vol 6:4, p. 44.33. Linda Sillitoe, "Fear and Anger inVirginia: The New Mormon Activists, PartII," Utah Holiday (April 1979):9-10, 12.34. Paul Swenson, "Who is BeverlyCampbell and Why is Everyone Afraid ofHer?" Utah Holiday (February 1980):12-14.35. "Mormon Money Worked againstFlorida’s ERA," The Miami Herald (20 April1980):1. See also "Church OrchestratedFlorida anti-ERA Drive, Report Details," SLTribune (21 April 1980).

36. See the First Presidency’s encylical,"Political Involvement Urged," Church News(8 March 1980).37. The Church and the Proposed Equal RightsAmendment, A Moral Issue, p. 17.J. D. Williams is a professor of politicalsicence at the University of Utah. Foundingdirector of both the University’s Bureau ofCommunity Development and HinckleyInstitute of Politics, he authored a collegetext for Little, Brown entitled PublicAdministration: The People’s Business.

Foldallow mothers to devote themselves"exclusively to their families" if theyso desire; called for radical reforms toprotect farmers from big landowners;and accused multinationalcorporations of widening the gapbetween rich and poor nations byfixing high prices for their productswhile trying to keep prices low forraw materials. According to theIntermountain Catholic, Father KennethDoyle, a Catholic News Bureau chiefin Rome, pointed out that "peoplewho look to the encyclical for easyanswers to specific problems may bedisappointed .... The encyclical offersbroad ethical guidelines readers canuse to answer labor questions and toevaluate and reform existingsystems."

A Praying PeoplePrayer appears to be a regular part ofthe lives of many Americans. A studyentitled "The Unchurched American"

by the Princeton Religious Centerrevealed that 8 out of 10 adults in theUnited States pray at least once a day.Ten percent of those say they pray"about twice a day" while 17 percentindicate that they pray thr.ee times aday or more.

When the same people were askedhow they prayed during a 30-dayperiod, 86 percent said they did soprivately by themselves, 48 percentduring a worship service, 35 percentwith members of their families atmeals, 16 percent with members oftheir family other than at meals orchurch services, and 16 percent as aregular part of some extra-ecclesiastical group to which theybelonged. Another 15 percent claimedthey prayed constantly--prayer istheir life--and 13 percent either hadother responses or did not know.

SACRED ARCHITECTURERev. Anne ThiemeGiven the billions of dollars going intothe construction and renovation ofchurch buildings nation-wide, churcharchitecture is an important concernthese days. A church’s image in thecommunity can be its most importantasset or liability, and its building is amajor determinant of public image. Inaddition to community impact, ourbuildings determine "who we are andwhat we do for a generation ormore."1

Of course the sacrality of publicworship does not derive from itsbeing held in a special place orthrough its use of special objects butvice versa: "It is the holiness ofecclesia in action that touches place,furniture, and objects and makes themspecial.’’2 Thus it is the lives of thehost people, more than nostalgia orprinciple, which are fundamental totheir sacrality.Contemporary architects seemespecially sensitive to the fact thatworship celebrations involve thewhole person, calling on all thehuman faculties--body, mind, senses,imagination, emotions, and memory.Their designs strive to be morewholesome than precious, moreexpressive than impressive, morehospitable than imposing.3According to James Doon, consultanton architecture and the arts for thePresybterian Church in the UnitedStates, people want to be involved inthe action of worship. Proclamation,devotion, learning, service, andfellowship are all components ofworship, each important but none ableto stand on its own. Buildings thatisolate devotion from learning, from

September-October/7

hospitality are "heretical buildings."Churches, according to Doon, need tobe multipurpose buildings in order tolive up to their mission.

St. Boniface Church in Milwaukee,Wisconsin, having faced risingmaintenance costs and a changingneighborhood, decided it was cheaperto start over than to renovate. Thus ittore down its romanesque-stylebuilding, sold the property, andbought a neighborhood supermarketwhich it transformed into an effectivemulti-purpose building for worshipand community programs.Some architects recommend thatchurches open into an outdoorgathering space large enouglh for theentire congregation in order toaccommodate people’s need :For a"stand and talk" space as well asworship space. Calvary BaptistChurch, a black congregation inMilwaukee, drew on the model ofAfrican twin hut gathering spaces andconstructed two identical concretetowers to serve as sanctuary andfellowship hall. The vestibule whichseparates the two has natural lightingand a ready atmosphere of welcomeenhanced by warm tones from thenatural wood ceiling and orangecushions.

Speaking to the same need, Europeanarchitect Gottfried Bohm, using alight steel structure with aluminumspanned masonry walls he designed inKettwig near Essen, created a coveredspace between parish buildings. Thespace is like a village square, withboth intimate appearance and easyaccess. It is used both for fe]llowshipand for open air events by thecongregation.When asked how we are to i~dentifyour buildings as churches, scholarJohn Dillenburger replied:

Certainly, when the church was the centerof the life of a community, its visiblecenteredness called attention to itself fromevery angle of sight: reality and symbolwere joined. Today, the church is not thecenter of the community, though it may bea center for a segment of a communitythat overlaps with other communities.Surely there is a way in which churchbuildings may be recognized that liessomewhere between the traditional steepleand the sign "Jesus Saves." Thatrecognition may well have to do with theform and reality of the building, ratherthan with the obvious props to which weare accustomed.sIn surburban St. Paul, architect~RalphPapson designed St. Thomas AcquinasRoman Catholic church to fit in with,rather than to dominate, itsneighborhood of single story homes,.

Solid walls reflecting its concrete andsteel structural system, it is a lowbuilding which gives an impression ofdirectness, simplicity, and economy.The church’s building does not haveto look like anything else, past orpresent. Certainly the CrystalCathedral, Garden Grove CommunityChurch’s sanctuary with its five-pointed star of 10,500 windows, takesadvantage of this freedom. It isdescribed by its pastor as a "twenty-two acre shopping center for JesusChrist." It boasts a main "’showroom"with doors eighty feet high andtwelve feet wide opening onto the"drive in" portion of the worshipspace.6On the whole, contemporaryarchitects agree that worship spaceneeds to be focused on the people.Based on his study of the history ofchurch architecture and the needs ofcontemporary worship, FredericDebuyst suggests that hospitality isthe prime characteristic to be strivedfor. "A theater or auditorium is notand cannot be a model for theliturgical space. We have used them assuch, consciously or unconsciously,for a long time. A far better model isthe home.’’7

Likewise it is best to design a worshipspace that does not require voiceamplification. When seatingcongregation and ministers, the aim isto enhance movement rather than toemphasize rank or distinctions. Aboveall, the people need to have a sense ofdirect contact with the primarysymbols of their worship, whetherspeaker’s desk, altar, or scripture.There are, of course, varioustechniques to emphasize religiousthemes architecturally. Placing thebaptismal font at the church entranceunderscores that it is by baptism thatwe are included within the faithcommunity. The use of circular orsemi-circular seating arrangementsexpresses the fact that the church is afamily of believers gathered forworship. Use of stark concrete wallscan suggest the unfinished quality ofour human condition. Placing the

choir among the congregation ratherthan in front of it emphasizes itsfunction to assist in thecongregation’s song rather than toperform for it.

One effective communion table wassimply a table set with place settingsand chairs. Similarily a baptismal fontsunk into the church floor, four feetin diameter and kept full of runningwater, can serve as a constantreminder to that congregation of theneed for cleansing.sAbove all, we are concerned withbeauty, for it is beauty which mostdirectly evokes, and is most fitting tofacilitate, our experience of the divine.Architect Robert Rambusch arguesthat we "’can’t preach the genuinenessof Christian life within buildingswhich display imitation stone,imitation stained glass, imitationwood, and imitation plants.’’9

In Environment and Art in CatholicWorship, the National Conference ofCatholic Bi:shops underscores thatpoint: "Ew~ry word, movement, object,and appointment in our worshipought to be real in the sense that it isour own, coming from our deepestself-understanding.’~0To this end, the Interfaith Forum onReligious Art and Architecture holdsan annual conference to educate andto foster excellence among thoseprofessionals working in planning,designing, and financing religious artand architecture. Annual awards aregiven for architectural design, art forsacred spaces, and stained glass.Workshop topics at their 42ndConference held in Chicago this pastMay included Theology--a Basis forArchitectu~al Design; Stewardship ofEnergy in Design; and Barrier Free--Architectu~:e for the Handicapped.It is an exciting era in which not onlythe forms of our church institutionsand worshi.p are changing but theforms of the buildings as well.

Notes1. Ezra Earl Jones in "Friendly Spaces," ChristianCentury, September 21, 1977, p. 807.

2. Bishop’s Cc,mmittee on The Liturgy, Envirc.nmentand Art in Catholic Worship, Washington: 1978, p. 8.

3. "Integrated Buildings," Christianity Today, J~aly 6,1971, p. 44.

4. Ibid., p. 44.

5. John Dillenberger, "Art in the ReligiousCommunity," Faith & Form, Fall 1980, p. 31.

6. "Crystal Cathedral," Christianity Today, August 8,1980, p. 29.

7. Richard Hovda, Strong Loving and Wise,Washington: 1976, p. 6.

8. "Gospel and Architecture," Christianity Today,April 23, 1976, p. 807.

9. Ibid., p. 808.

10. Enviro, men.! and Art in Catholic Worship, p. 20.

Sunstone/8