Periodicals; Mormons; Religious thought; Philosophy and religion
Independent national quarterly established to express Mormon culture and examine the relevance of religion to secular life. It is edited by Mormons who wish to bring their faith into dialogue with human experience as a whole and to foster artistic and scholarly achievement based on their cultural heritage. The journal encourages a variety of viewpoints; although every effort is made to insure accurate scholarship and responsible judgment, the views expressed are those of the individual authors and are not necessarily those of the Mormon Church or of the editors.
Dialogue Foundation, 900 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90024
Backstage Library Works - 1180 S. 800 E. Orem, UT 84097
Rees, Robert A.
Pages scanned at 400ppi on Fujitsu fi-5650C sheetfed scanner as 8-bit grayscale or 24-bit RGB uncompressed TIFF images. Images resized to 950 pixels wide, 150 dpi, and saved as JPEG (level 8) in PhotoShop CS with Unsharp Mask of 100/.3.
Digital image, copyright 2004, Dialogue Foundation. All rights reserved.
charter annual subscription), letters, articles and donations (soon to be tax-deductible). Claudia L. Bushman, Editor Exponent II Box 37 Arlington, Mass. 02174 archeology and the book of mormon The issue of Dialogue with my article arrived and I have been deluged with letters from angry readers. It reminds me of the time that I wrote a review of One Fold and One Shepherd by Thomas S. Ferguson. I was accused of being anti-Mormon by the believers and of being too kind to the Mormons by the non-believers. This made me think that after all I might have been fair to both sides. One reader has accused me of being theologically unsophisticated but this was not the purport of my article. I simply wanted to point out that even a sympathetic and knowledgeable outsider fails to be convinced by the so-called evidence put forward by over-zealous, would-be archaeologists. Those believers who think that the outside world is going to be bowled over by irrefutable archaeological evidence are deluding themselves I am afraid. To paraphrase a famous saying, "Render unto science what belongs to science, and unto religion what belongs to religion." Michael D. Coe Department of Anthropology, Yale University Dialogue is growing brave in allowing someone to address an issue so sensitive as the historical claims of The Book of Mormon. For too long we were told that the question of whether or not the archaeological record supported or refuted the claims of the Book of Mormon could not be asked because (1) no one who was an authority on American archaeology of the period claimed by the Book knew anything of the Book of Mormon and (2) no one who knew the Book of Mormon was competent enough in the archaeology of the period to talk authoritatively about it. How did you convince Michael Coe, the authority on the archaeology of America in the period of which the Book of Mormon purports to be a record, to take time from his other commitments to bother to comment on it? It is a testimony of Coe's generous feeling toward Mormons, if not toward our Book, that he took the book seriously enough to read it before rejecting it. Ian Montague Paris, France Letters to the Editor I 9 "Mormons and Archeology: An Outside View," in the last issue. Prof. Coe places the event of the "nonsensical" Zelph, the white Lamanite, at Spring Hill, Missouri, and thereby confuses it with the equally nonsensical (from his point of view) nephite altar and the whole Adam-ondi-Ahman problem. While we do not know much about either problem or locale, we do know that the proper setting of the Zelph story was on top of a mound on the west bank of the Illinois river, probably in Pike Co., 111., while everything connected with Spring Hill and Adam-ondi-Ahman is in Daviess Co., Missouri. In case any of your readers wish further light and knowledge regarding these two places and problems they might read Lawrence O. Anderson's, "Joseph Smith: A Student of American Antiquities," The University Archaeological Society Newsletter (January 30, 1963, pp. 1-6; published at BYU), and Robert J. Matthews, "Adam-ondi-Ahman," BYU Studies, 13 (Autumn, 1972), 27-35. Stanley B. Kimball Department of Historical Studies Southern Illinois University Edwardsville continuing dialogue on the "negro question" My gift subscription to Dialogue began with the recent arrival of Volume 8, No. 1. Its motif, the Negro and the Church, was particularly apropos, for my current inactive status was caused, in part, by "the Negro question." Therefore, I devoured the various articles voraciously. I found Bush's panoply of Church history impeccably researched and objectively stated, but it did not assuage my own philosophical questions. Thomasson's effort was only that. Nibley's apologia was a mixed bag that left me mixed up. It was not until I got to "The Mormon Cross" that I felt empathy. (Mr. England understands my dilemma; he is writing to me.) England's article is built around a curious framework that even he says "sounds like a cop-out," but his final paragraph (p. 85) left me with a satisfied feeling. There are things that all Mormons, jacK and non-jack, can do. More than ever before, let us get on with the task. If your Spring, 1973, issue is indicative of the general quality of Dialogue, then I look forward to the day when I can extend my gift subscription with a paid one. Lon Rand San Rafael, California May I make one small correction in Michael Coe's interesting and challenging article, I would very much like to express my appreciation for your efforts. Since joining the