Q714 Transcript

Transcript prepared by Fielding M. McGehee III. If you use this material, please credit The Jonestown Institute. Thank you.

To return to the Tape Index, click here. To listen to MP3, click here.
To read the Tape Summary, click here.

Unidentified woman 1: —1 A Street, Apartment 2, San Francisco, California. I would do anything— any means to this chur— for this church. If anyone caused or tried to harm this church, I would kill the president or stake my life upon this church in order to protect the pastor.

(Tape edit)

Harris: My name is John Harris, and I’m a violent revolutionary, and I killed three children.

(Tape edit)

Interviewer: Your name?

Jackson: Corrine Jackson. I would kill any government official that would stand in the way of our church progress. (Tape edit) My address is P.O. Box 62, Redwood Valley, California.

(Tape edit)

Interviewer: Your name?

Tardy: Armella Tardy.

Interviewer: Who?

Tardy: Armella Tardy.

Woman: State what you’d (unintelligible)

Interviewer: What would— What would you do for this cause?

Tardy: (Brightly) Oh. I would— I would kill um, murder, or do anything, you know.

Interviewer: Who?

Tardy: Oh, I’ll kill [former President Richard] Nixon and [former President Gerald R.] Ford, and anybody else like him.

Interviewer: All right. (Tape edit) Okay, what’s your name?

Canada: Mary F. Canada.

Interviewer: Mary Canada?

Canada: Mary F.

Interviewer: Okay, Mary, what would you do for this cause?

Canada: I’d do anything (unintelligible under background noise).

Interviewer: Well, what can you do? If somebody was threatening to— threatening us and hurting this cause, what would you do to them?

Canada: I’d tell them to take me.

Interviewer: What else would you do?

Canada: I’d die for this family— (tape edit) if— if I had to do.

Interviewer: You’d do what?

Canada: Kill the president.

Interviewer: Okay.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What’s your name?

Richards: Ada Richards [phonetic].

Interviewer: Where do you live?

Richards: 1719 – 15th Street.

(tape silence for several seconds)

Interviewer: Who would you kill?

Richards: I’d kill the president.

Interviewer: Okay. And that’s good—

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What’s your name?

Pryor: Netha Mae Pryor [phonetic].

Interviewer: Netha?

(tape silence for several seconds)

Pryor: I’d murder or steal, I’d do anything—

Interviewer: Who would you kill?

Pryor: Anybody get in of our way.

Interviewer: Give me a name. Who would you kill?

Pryor: The president.

Interviewer: Who?

Pryor: Ford.

Interviewer: Okay.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: Okay, what’s your name?

Lathan: Emil Lathan [phonetic].

Interviewer: Okay. Where do you live?

Lathan: Oakland. 1610 – 14th Street.

Interviewer: Okay. And what would you do for this cause?

Lathan: Anything that I could.

Interviewer: Well, what— Like what?

Lathan: Well, whatever it comes to.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: Okay, what was your name?

Lorraine Davis: Lorraine Davis.

Interviewer: Okay, Lorraine. What would you do for this family?

Lorraine Davis: Well, I’d— I’d do whatever— Whatever it takes for the fa— for the family, and Father uh. (unintelligible under interviewer interruption)

Interviewer: What would you be for this family? If it became necessary, what would you be for this family?

Lorraine Davis: Well, for Father, I’d be— I mean, could I— I—

Interviewer: What would you be?

Lorraine Davis: I’d say— Well, whatever Father says. If it’s violent, I’d be violent. If Father sa—

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What was your name?

Verser: My name is Valerie Verser [phonetic].

Interviewer: Valerie, what would you do for this cause?

Verser: Well, I would be a revolutionary for the family and for Father. I would be a violent revolutionary.

Interviewer: Okay. Thank you.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What’s your name?

White: Roberta White.

Interviewer: Where do you live, Roberta?

White: 840 Rockdale Drive, San Francisco.

Interviewer: What would you do for this cause?

White: I would be a violent revolutionary (unintelligible phrase under background noise)

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What’s your name?

Dyson: Florine. F-L-O-R-I-N-E. D-Y-S-O-N. Florine Dyson.

Interviewer: Thank you. What would you do for— (unintelligible phrase under background noise)

Dyson: Oh, I would give my life. I— uh, uh, oh, this revolutionary that Jim Jones calls for.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What’s your name, girl?

Alexander: Leslie [Lesey] Alexander [phonetic].

Interviewer: What are you?

Alexander: I am a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What is your name?

Delly: Lily Delly. [phonetic]

Interviewer: Where do you live, Lily?

Delly: 828 Athens Avenue.

Interviewer: What are you?

Delly: I am a violent ru— revolutionary, and I will do anything for this cause.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What’s your name?

McMichael: Gloria McMichael.

Interviewer: What are you, Gloria?

McMichael: I am a violent revolutionary, and I would do anything for this cause.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What’s your name?

Forks: Viola Ford [Forks?].

Interviewer: What are you, Viola?

Forks: A violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What’s your name?

Eas: Ruby Eas. [phonetic]

Interviewer: What are you, Ruby?

Eas: I’m a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What’s your name?

Snubley: Beatrice Snubley [phonetic].

Interviewer: What are you, Beatrice?

Snubley: (Speech impairment?) I am a— a— okay, a revolutionissionary.

Interviewer: Okay.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What is your name?

Cooper: My name is Blanche Cooper. I am a violent lution— (laughs)

Interviewer: Revolution—

Cooper: Lolu— Revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What is your name?

Walker: Wesley Walker.

Interviewer: What are you?

Walker: I’m a viol— vile revolutionist.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What is your name?

Pursley: My name is Marilyn Pursley. I’m a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Anderson: My name is Jimmy Anderson, and I’m a violent revolutionary, and I’ll kill for this cause.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What is your name?

Elick Richmond: Elick [phonetic] Richmond, Jr.

Interviewer: What are you?

(whispered prompt, by interviewer?) I’m a violent revolutionary.

Elick Richmond: I’m a violent revolutionary.

(whispered) —do anything for this—

Elick Richmond: I’d do anything for this cause.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What was your name?

Bertha Richmond: My name is Bertha Bernita Richmond.

Interviewer: What are you?

Bertha Richmond: I’m a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: Your name?

Atkins: Michelle Atkins.

Interviewer: What are you?

Atkins: I’m a violent revolutionary, and I’ll kill for this cause.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What’s your name?

Miles: Michael.

Interviewer: Mike who?

Miles: Miles.

Interviewer: Wh— What are you, Mike?

(whispered prompt, by interviewer?) I’m a violent revolutionary.

Miles: I’m a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What’s your name?

Dandy: Willa Dandy.

Interviewer: What are you?

Dandy: Violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What is your name?

Rodriguez: Gloria Rodriguez.

Interviewer: What are you?

Rodriguez: I’m a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What’s your name?

Janet Tupper: Janet Tupper.

Interviewer: Janet? What are you?

Woman: (aside) Right.

Janet Tupper: A violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Rita Tupper: I’m Rita Tupper.

Interviewer: What are you?

Rita Tupper: A violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Phyllis Chaikin: I’m Phyllis Chaikin, a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Mary Martin: My name is Mary Martin, I’m a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Cassandra Minor: My name is Cassandra Minor, and I’m a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What was your name?

Henry: Henry (last name unintelligible)

Interviewer: What are you, Henry (last name unintelligible; sounds like “Todd”)?

Henry: Um—

(whispered prompt, by interviewer?) A violent revolutionary.

Henry: A violent (stumbles over word several times) revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Kerns: My name is Carol Kerns, and I’m a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Davis: My name is Mabel Davis, and I’m a violent revolutionary.

King: My name is Teresa King, and I’m a violent revolutionary.

Laws: My name is Megaline [phonetic; could be Magdaline] Laws, and I’m a violent reso— revolutionary.

Groot: My name is Pauline Groot, and I am a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Kice: My name is Christine Kice. I am a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Watkins: (Stumbles over words)

Interviewer: What’s your name, dear?

Watkins: Earlene Watkins, and I’m a violent (stumbles over word several times) revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Julianna Wyle: My name is Julianna Wyle, and I am a violent revolutionary.

Jackie Wyle: My name is Jackie Wyle, and I am a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Pat Keeler: Pat Keeler. I am a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

De Pina: (stumbles over words) revolution.

Interviewer: What is your name?

De Pina: Miguel De Pina.

Interviewer: What are you, Miguel?

De Pina: A violent revolution.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What’s your name?

Sims: Uh— Andrew Sims. Andrew Sims.

Interviewer: What are you?

Sims: Violent revolution.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: Your name?

Spriggs: Nate Spriggs.

Interviewer: Uh— What are you, Nate?

Spriggs: A violent reso— revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: Your name?

Hoyer: Barbara Hoyer. I am a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What’s your name?

Swinney: Dave, and I’m a violent um, revolutionist.

Interviewer: What’s your full name, David?

Swinney: David Eugene Swinney.

(tape edit)

Wyman: Marva Wyman [phonetic], I’m a violent ruso— revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Lisa Lewis: Name is Lisa Lewis, I am a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Smith: My name is David E. V. Smith. I’m a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Baker: My name is Brich [phonetic] Baker, and I am a—

(Whispered prompt) Violent revolutionary.

Baker: —violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: What’s your name?

Wise: Vannie Wise [phonetic].

Interviewer: Where do you live?

Wise: On— in— on Broderick.

Interviewer: Okay. What are you?

Wise: A violent ruso— ruso—

(Whispered prompt) Revolutionary.

Wise: Revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: Your name?

Rodgers: Mary Rodgers, and I’m a violent ru— revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Hill: My name is Howard Hill, and I am a violent revolutionary when the time is right. (Laughs)

Upshaw: My name is Eric Upshaw, and I’m a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Barry Lewis: My name is Barry Lewis. I’m a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Drain: My name is Judis Drain [phonetic], and I’m a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit) (tape edit)

Georgia: My name is Georgia Necotin [phonetic], and uh— and I’m a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Symington: My name is Gail Symington, and I am a violent revolutionary.

Anita Kelley: My name is Anita Kelley, and I’m— am a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Sly: My name is Mark Sly, uh— and I am a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Unknown man: My name is (unintelligible name; could be “Marvin Warsher”), and I am a follower of revolutionary. (tape edit) My name is (same unintelligible name), and I want— and I am a violent revolutionary.

(tape edit)

Joann Davis: I am Joann Davis. I am a violent revolutionary. I have the ways and the means to do it.

(tape edit)

Interviewer: Your name?

Flowers: My name is Rebecca Flowers. I’m a violent revolutionary.

 

Side 2:

Part 2:

Harold Dowler: —in fairness, threw out that man, and uh, I said to him, I said, well, Art, I don’t think we can blame ourselves, we were fair and open and aboveboard, and we have no apology for anything that we did, and he said, well, I know that, but what we should have done is organized ourselves to— to really try to push this thing through, instead of just uh, you know, letting the opposition organize and not uh, not try to respond to that. And I said, well, you know, I don’t— I just don’t that being the Christian way. I— I’m not opposed to being organized, but I’m— I’m also not in favor of fear tactics, that kind of stuff, you know, or getting into name-calling and that, I don’t think that has any place in the church, you know. It’s not a very— That’s not a very healthy thing.

J.R. Purifoy: Um-hmm.

Dowler: So— So I think we— we’ll see where it comes. I— I think the impact of uh, Peoples Temple, uh, will, will— will mean that that church will never be the same, as I say, after that vote. Uh, there is a lot of— (Pause) (sighs) There is a lot of difference of opinion between people in that congregation and the— and the group that uh, was in favor of the merger, of course, are people who— who are in favor of inclusiveness. The merger was defeated by people who are very much opposed to inclusiveness, who want to have their own little— their own little group, and decide who can be in it, and who can’t. That’s what I think, so— So I don’t know where it’ll— you know, where it’ll all end up, uh, I think it’s too early yet for people to have uh, finally decided what it’s all about.

Purifoy: Well, what was your attendance running before uh—

Dowler: Oh, our attendance is running a hundred, on a good Sunday, in the summer.

Purifoy: And what— What did it run uh, today?

Dowler: Well, today it was back up again. It was— (stumbles over words) I’d guess, if I didn’t count, or hear anybody that counted, but I would— it was up again today. There’s still a lot of enthusiasm. The— The group that opposed this was called on the carpet pretty clearly by Bill Reed who— and by myself, but uh, Bill’s been very clear about it. He said, you know, you folks are either gonna have to put up or shut up, because— And I guess he— I haven’t seen it, but he says he’s putting an article in the— in the paper this week, in our church paper about it this week, uh, saying you, know, hey folks, (laughs) don’t play that kind of game with us. You gotta get off uh, center and do things.

Purifoy: Yeah, that (unintelligible word under interruption)

Dowler: So the attendance was up today. The attendance was up, uh, like what you would expect it in the fall, when everything’s really going and that, uh, very good attendance today, as far as our congregation is concerned. You know, uh— It’ll be interesting to see whether, you know, whether that continues, and that kind of thing.

Purifoy: Well, what about the leaders of the— of, you know, of the church, the—

Dowler: I think they’re pretty depressed right now, I— I think in fairness, they’re pretty depressed, J.R., I uh— that’s my impression.

Purifoy: Well, that’s uh, that’s been our concern, because uh, we sure didn’t want to cause any division of any kind—

Dowler: Right.

Purifoy: —did not mean it to come a division at all.

Dowler: Well, they— They’re not— There’s— You can’t— I don’t think you can accept any responsibility for their depression. They’re— They’re uh— The leadership was very— was very pleased with what went on, and uh, uh— (Pause) But as I say, it’s uh— I’ve only had one other experience, my— my more than ten years of— of work— uh, in a— in a professional leadership position, uh. When people get involved in the business of fear tactics and uh— and name-calling kind of thing, in that, uh, you know, I— I think that’s the church at its very worst, uh, ‘cause I think that’s what our world kinda thrives on, and I think that’s contrary to the gospel, contrary to the way of faith. And Dan Thornton, uh, was ring leader of this thing, and Dan’s just a— a— (Pause) I— I really don’t know about Dan. He— He’s a real enigma to me, and I’ve— I’ve just uh— Dan just became more and more and more ruthless in this thing, and uh— and his wife, of course, uh, loving every bit of it, uh, Margaret’s uh— The people tell me that if you had to live with her, that’s the way I’d be too, but I— I don’t know, I uh— I don’t think that’s the excuse for a grown man.

Purifoy: Well, I’m sorry. I— What I— I— I thought it was Bill Reed that caused the problem, but if I remember correctly, it was Dan.

Dowler: Oh, no, it was Dan. No, no, Bill is— Bill worked and worked and worked. He— Bill is— Fact is, Bill is— If— If— The— The fact that things are as— are going well right now is really attributable to Bill. Bill’s uh— Bill’s uh—

Purifoy: I just had my names confused.

Dowler: Sure, sure. No, I understand. Bill’s uh, is the new chairman of the board. Bill’s a super, super guy right now. He’s uh— Bill’s got a capacity to help people laugh and kind of chuckle at themselves, and the church sure needs that right now, and uh— and uh— No, there’s some very angry people at uh— at Dan uh— But as I say, I’m— I’m— I’m proud that uh, that none of those people have uh, you know— no one has chosen to— to be malicious in response to Dan. Um, a lot of people have been very badly hurt, but uh— uh— it’s been my position that uh, we, you know— I— I think it’s not appropriate to respond in kind, ‘cause to respond to Dan uh, the way he does, is uh, you know, is really destructive of personhood. I think it’ll— it’ll eat you up like a cancer. I think that’s probably what’s wrong with Dan. I think he’s a man who’s, you know, really possessed with some real trouble inside. I don’t know what the story is, but—

Purifoy: Well, what’s been his attitude since the vote?

Dowler: Well, uh— No, no, I think Dan’s attitude is sort of uh, pretty self-righteous about the whole thing, pretty pleased and uh, and uh, as I say, I think uh, you know, very, very self-righteous, and uh, I think that’s kinda where he is on the thing. It’s uh— He— His— He— He portrays himself as a man who has really saved the church from despair and destruction, and as I say, the leadership is— is uh— is uh, really very— you know, very unhappy, ‘cause Dan has not been a good leader at all through the years. He’s uh— He has uh, muscled his way into leadership in various areas, but has not proven to be a good leader when he has it. There were people this week entertaining the thought of just uh, of putting pressure on Bill Reed to say, Bill, why don’t you just resign and let Dan have the chairmanship, and uh— you know, ‘cause the fact is, if they turned the leadership over to this group, why, the thing’d be dead in a matter of a couple of months, and uh— ‘cause there’s simply no— There are no stewards in the group. There are people in there who like to talk, but then, the gospel doesn’t survive on talk. It takes people who are willing to put their money and their life on the line, so— So I don’t know where we’ll— where that’ll all— where that’ll all come out, uh— I was uh— I’m still very, very concerned about whoever it was that called up Jim’s uh, place, and made such ugly remarks, and that— and uh— I’ve— I’ve tried to kind of put that out of my mind, I uh— There— (Word unintelligible under interruption)

Purifoy: Well, we’ve put that out of our mind. That wasn’t even an issue with us. We— We get a lot of these crank calls anyway. The— A week doesn’t go by with what we don’t get them.

Dowler: Yeah. Sure.

Purifoy: Because being the kind of uh, group we are and having the kind of a leader we have, we do incur people’s wrath along with the goodwill of many.

Dowler: Right. Right.

Purifoy: Such as the newspapers and the Sun-Reporter, and the Tribune, and oh— (stumbles over words) We’re the only church, Harold, that has ever been written into the Congressional Record.

Dowler: Yeah. Yeah. Are you aware now that Ralph Rath is just very very pleased about y’all. I don’t know whether you ever saw the article. He wrote an article uh, the week before this merger. It was in Wednesday the— whatever that date — I don’t have my calendar in front of me — before the eighteenth, there was an article in the Tribune that day uh, with a picture of uh, Bill and Art Gunn and myself, and a story about the fact that we were going to vote, and just mentioned Peoples Temple, but there was nothing about him, but Ralph uh— Ralph really has uh, an interest in Peoples Temple and is a— is just a beautiful person.

Purifoy: Would you give me the name again?

Dowler: Yeah, Ralph Rath. R-A-T-H.

Purifoy: Ralph Rath.

Dowler: He’s the only religion writer in the whole Bay Area. He is with the Oakland Tribune. Ralph is a former Roman Catholic priest.

Purifoy: Well, what did he have to say about us? I’m curious.

Dowler: Well, he didn’t say too much about Peoples Temple in the— in the article, he just said uh, I think he described Peoples Temple as an innovative congregation. I think that’s his uh, sort of one-line description, but he— In our— You know, he spent over an hour talking with Bill and uh, Art and I that Monday prior to that article, and was very very hopeful that this thing would go through, uh, ‘cause he felt like it was the most exciting story that uh, that he’d run into in— in— (Laughs) you know— He said it’s the most exciting story he’d discovered since he’d been here. Uh— and uh— (Word unintelligible under interruption)

Purifoy: Does he— Did he indicate that he knew anything about us?

Dowler: Well, he— he apparently knows the name and that. He’s— (Laughs) He said to me, he said, um— I said something about, I said, now Ralph, I want you to be very careful on that, uh, writing about Peoples Temple, I said, I’m not interested in— nor capable of speaking for them, and I— so I said, whatever kind of story you write, I— I want you to understand that uh, we’re not going to be saying a lot about Peoples Temple, I said, you can— Whatever you write about this church, uh, that’s fine. He said, ohh, I— I know about Lester Kinsolving.

Purifoy: (Laughs) He did.

Dowler: (Laughs) He just— He’s— He’s a great big tall guy, and he just roared clear down to his shoes, and he said uh, yeah, and uh, uh, Brooks, uh, uh, oh, what’s his name, the photographer that was with him said, what are you laugh— what’s that all about? He said, oh, boy, he said uh, professional muckraker, he said, got a hold of Jim Jones, and he said, he’s sorta taken it on. He knew the whole story.

Purifoy: Uh-huh.

Dowler: He knew the whole story. He said, uh— He said— ‘Cause I was just standing there, I— You know, I—

Purifoy: Yeah.

Dowler: All I’d ever talked to Ralph about was on the phone and uh, I— we’ve had him on our TV program and that, but uh, he didn’t know me as a— as a person that well, but he knew the whole story about Kinsolving.

Purifoy: Well, what’d he say about it?

Dowler: Oh, he— he said just exactly what you and I would say, that uh, you know, he said it’s just yellow journalism, and uh, this guy makes his living by uh, throwing mud on people and trying to destroy them, and he said one of his uh, people that he’s after is Jim Jones and Peoples Temple, and uh— so uh, Ralph’s position was that uh, if Kinsolving uh, disliked them that much, he said, it’s bound to be a pretty good organization.

Purifoy: (Laughs)

Dowler: So he was kinda— (laughs) He— He knew the whole story about that, so uh, I told him, I said, well, if you know about Kinsolving, then you can understand that uh, Peoples Temple has had some pretty— some pretty rough days with that of publicity and that most of us, uh, are just not real gung-ho to have that kind of things written about us, and he said, you don’t need to explain to me. He knew about that.

Purifoy: That’s good.

Dowler: But uh, Ralph is a— is a very interesting person in his own right, and I think, as I say, interested in— interested in Peoples Temple and particularly interested in the uh, you know, the whole kind of uh, way in which Peoples Temple operates and that, so— So I— I would keep him in mind. He could be a— He could be a good friend for you, if you’re ever interested in the Tribune and that, but uh, but if you ever want a— a story about anything in the— in the Bay Area on that in the Tribune, why, if you call Ralph and tell him you’re from Peoples Temple and that, uh, my hunch is he’ll— he’ll see to it that he gets some time free to— to talk with you. So um— He—

Purifoy: That sounds good.

Dowler: Yeah, I uh, he was uh, he wanted to know— He wanted me to call him first thing Monday morning and tell him, and he was disappointed the vote went the way it did, ‘cause he was— he was certainly helping, ‘cause he said, well, I’d like to write more about Peoples Temple, and I said, look, Ralph, if the thing goes through, then you can write about Peoples Temple, you’ll have them right here, and you can— you’ll have a real story to do, but I said, if you write about them now, and this thing hasn’t gone through, uh, then you know, we could be writing stuff that isn’t uh, isn’t the fact. So I said, if I were you, I’d hang loose and see if you have a story to do if uh— after this vote goes through.

Purifoy: Well, that’s appreciative [appreciated], uh—

Dowler: So uh—

Purifoy: It was good that he didn’t, be— because he coulda had a story in it, and he didn’t.

Dowler: Sure, sure. No, he’s a— as I say, he’s— he’s a— he’s a good man. He’s a— He’s a man worth knowing, and he’s interested in— in doing— doing good— good stories and that, and— and is deeply committed to religion. His— His comment to us was, he was very appreciative, he said, you know, I get people telling me to write stories about uh, the churches, and then, he said, the fact is, there aren’t that many churches uh, in downtown area that are doing anything worth me writing a story about. So um— and uh, of course, that’s been my position. I’m uh— I’ve been talking that to my brothers there uh, for several years now, saying uh, you gotta do something more than have a bake sale to think it’s newsworthy. Uh, that isn’t going to get the world’s attention anymore. The world uh, is going to hell on an intercontinental ballistic missile, and the church, uh, you know, ought to be in the middle of that, saying something about uh— about how it’s going, and— and doing something about it as well, so the world can understand it.

Purifoy: How did the people that were there the Sunday morning Jim was, how did they react to him?

Dowler: Oh, I think there was very fa— very favorable. The people who were opposed to him, of course, uh, were— were not— you know, frankly, they didn’t even spend their time listening. Uh, I think that’s a fair statement. I think that uh, the— the— as I say, the handful of people who were opposed to him didn’t uh— didn’t take time to listen to what he had to say, they didn’t— they couldn’t afford to really hear what he said, ‘cause I think if they would really hear what he said, it would be, you know, I— I— I think that’s, you know— if you really listen— To listen means to submit to influence, and so, if you really listen to somebody like that, uh, you may have to do some new thinking about where you’re coming from, and Jim was unbelievably candid and— and fresh in his approach, and straightforward and uh, not evasive in any way, and uh, uh, I— We— We had— We had a number of people who were on the fence until that day, who said, “Wow.” (short laugh) Heck, it’s not hard for me to make up my mind. I know where— I know what I’m going to vote next week, so uh— so I think people who were uh, le— legitimately uh, hanging on the fence—

End of tape

Tape originally posted February 2003

Originally posted on June 16th, 2013.

Last modified on February 18th, 2016.
Skip to main content