From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: RE: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 30 May 2002 21:12:41 -0500 At 12:30 AM 5/30/02, Jacob Proffitt wrote: >I don't want to pick on you, Eric, because this is *such* a common >phenomenon, but it *shouldn't* be. We need to seriously take our teen >and early twenty men aside and tell them to pull their head out. It >*isn't* all about them. Their life isn't going to be forever marred if >they fail to attain that *next* level of professional recognition. Most >of us figure it out in our thirties or forties, but by then, we've >missed the most interesting part of our kids' lives and added a lot to >the burden of our poor wives. Why aren't we telling people about these >things? The baby exhaustion, sure. But we need to tell the men that >their career isn't the most important thing that will ever happen to >them and these family-killing obsessions aren't justified. Just a minute, now. Who said it is the fault of the men for thinking it is= =20 all about themselves? How often is the reason the men are overworked is either (a) to afford the= =20 baby and all the stuff that goes with it or (b) because someone=97often the= =20 wife=97is asking them why Brother Jones down the street got a promotion and= =20 they didn't? -- Ronald W. ("Ronn") Blankenship mailto: ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 30 May 2002 20:31:39 -0700 Jana says: "While I was in the throes of the baby years, I struggled and fussed and woke up each morning wondering why my life was so out of control. Though it wasn't wholly miserable, it was hard beyond anything I expected. My marriage suffered, my testimony wavered, and my self-esteem was nil." I can easily believe that caring full time for a number of little children erodes anyone's energy and self confidence. My wife and I raised one child, a daughter. It was a very happy, fulfilling experience. Now we are retired and together putting in many hours for five or six days each week caring for our daughter's two sons, seven and two. We are happy to be involved. I take some pride in having developed advanced mothering skills in my retirement. However, dealing with both of the boys at once when I am alone is tough. Each wants my full attention. Dealing with just one of them for many hours without a break is tough. If nothing else, I am bored. I've often said to Althea, "How do mothers with a lot of children do it?" The recent comments of mothers like Jana on the AML-list indicate that they just muddle through. They feel chronically drained, inadequate, and lost to themselves. I have a memory of my own mother standing at the kitchen counter whacking a tough steak with a large butcher knife and crying. I knew she was frustrated and angry. Now I know why. Is the notion that families have to be large an indispensable Mormon doctrine? Couldn't families with nicely spaced children in modest numbers fit into the Gospel scheme? Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 30 May 2002 21:03:38 -0700 We need to seriously take our teen > and early twenty men aside and tell them to pull their head out. It > *isn't* all about them. Their life isn't going to be forever marred if > they fail to attain that *next* level of professional recognition. Most > of us figure it out in our thirties or forties, but by then, we've > missed the most interesting part of our kids' lives and added a lot to > the burden of our poor wives. Why aren't we telling people about these > things? The baby exhaustion, sure. But we need to tell the men that > their career isn't the most important thing that will ever happen to > them and these family-killing obsessions aren't justified. > My husband, John, teaches Course 12 Sunday School. A few weeks ago he asked his kids what they want to be when they grow up. He got a variety of answers from the boys, all centered around a profession (lawyer, accountant, athlete, etc). The girls, without exception said they wanted to be mothers. I see 2 problems with this, one stemming from the girls' response, the other from the boys'. However, in responding to Jacob's comment above and my husband's survey, I would say that the church and our society are doing a shoddy job of teaching men that their priority is their family and not their career. When the boys were questioned about their responses they all admitted that they wanted to be fathers, too, but that that just didn't really factor into their plans for the future. My LDS father spent much of my young years pursuing professional success (while his wife had 5 children in 7 years). His job sent him travelling the globe (I still have some of the gifts he brought from Russia, Canada, Japan). He was on the road about 3 weeks of each month. It is sad that my most distinct childhood memory of him is the smell of cigarette smoke that lingered on his clothes from the long hours he spent in airports (before they were smoke-free). When I was in college he sat me down and apologized for what he'd done. He said that he'd made a huge mistake and had hurt me, my siblings and my family. He repeated his regrets as he was dying a few years ago. John spent a few years pursuing success in the corporate world--putting in long nights at the office, travelling and such. I can't say that the damage it did to our family is irreparable, but it came quite close. We've since pulled back, re-examined our lives, our dreams, and our visions of the future. John's taken a significant pay cut to work for a university where he can keep reasonable hours. My kids _love_ that Daddy puts them to bed at night. They love that John can leave work to be at the school Jog-a-thon. There are trade-offs, most of which center around the fact that we live in an affluent and upwardly mobile community. We are an anomaly here--we don't own a home, we drive one car, we buy used clothes, we give 2 or 3 gifts to our children for Christmas. Yet, somehow this seems to matter less and less as we've focused on what's really important to us as a family. I think that the articles in this month's Ensign corroborate what Jacob and I are saying about families. They reiterate the need for fathers to be important influences in the home. I am hoping this is a signal that the tide is changing and that, at least for LDS, we will start seeing a change in the attitudes of our youth (and our adults) toward fatherhood over the next few years. Jana Remy -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Accepting Each Other's Offerings (was: Money and Art) Date: 30 May 2002 22:52:29 -0600 Tracie Laulusa wrote: > And maybe, just maybe, we > should also be sure we are not falling into the habit of "reverse prejudice" > by belittling the offerings of others because we perceive them as being more > able to give for whatever reason. There's a social rant/snivel here that I'm trying to figure out where to place. Both Tracy and Gae Lyn Henderson have touched a nerve with me--not because I think they're wrong, but because I pretty much whole-heartedly agree with them yet still feel a sort of self-righteous indignation at the concern or respect we choose to bestow on one person or group while withholding it from another. My own internal dissonance is driving me nuts, and I'm trying to figure out how to stop it. In the absolute measure of things, some offerings have more value than others, and as a result have more impact for good. The rich person who donates a truckload of new clothing to the needy has had a greater impact on facilitating the general welfare with that offering than my paltry donation of a Hefty bag full of well-mended but well-used oversized work shirts and pants. In real terms, the rich person has aided more poor people than I have, and as such has performed a greater work of public charity than I have. The wealthy person's offering was better than mine. In an effort to retain a good feeling about my own offering I can argue about the percentage of my wealth versus the percentage of the rich patron's wealth. But then I have to argue that the commitment the poor family made when it gave up its five coats was a substantially greater portion of their wealth than my Hefty bag was. The poor person's offering was better than mine. I know--that's not the point. It's not the amount of the offering, or the percentage of wealth, or the number of beneficiaries that matter. What matters is that we look inside ourselves and choose to move to action in support of those with need; we build good because it's good, whether that effort is easy or hard. The fact of giving is the evidence of a heart and mind directed toward righteousness. Any offering made with real intent is equally valid in the eternities, and none of us should judge the quality of anyone else's offering. Yet in Mormon culture we tend to tell the stories of the exceptional offerings--to the exclusion of more mundane offerings. We admire the wealthy anonymous donor and the struggling poor family. It seems like we praise every demographic except the one to which I belong. I don't hear a way to win without making a heroic effort each and every time out. In other words, everyone's offering is better than mine. I know--that's still not the point. And yet inside my head I cringe a little whenever I hear how special or notable someone else's offering was. I compare the extent of my offering and see it as less. And that's when the internal argument starts up. One part of me argues that I did well by giving in the first place and that another's exceptional goodness is not necessarily a reproach of my own--we aren't living the law of competitive righteousness after all. I did well and deserve to feel satisfaction in that effort. I should take the works of exceptional people as glorious examples of those who have drawn very near to God and revel in their goodness while recognizing that I can become better than I am. It's a simple fact, a recognition that there is always more opportunity to progress. The voice of hope and a desire to do well. Another part of me feels stung that I didn't do better and berates my offering as trivial, noting all that I could have done better and all the limits of my effort, finally condemning the act as paltry and meaningless and living proof of my utter unfitness to call myself a Mormon and a child of God. How could I have dared to feel even a small satisfaction at a job well-done when there is so much more that I could have done--and should be doing? The voice of judgment and condemnation. Then a third part of me notes the self-indulgence of both arguments--while recognizing kernels of truth in each. That part of me recognizes the value of doing good works and seeks the good feeling that should be coming of it, but that always seems to be subsumed under the recognition of how much more could be done. That part of me knows that if my heart was really right with my god, I would know joy and wouldn't feel so desperately inadequate all the time, yet I am a better person today than I was ten years ago and I want to be even better tomorrow. The voice of hope foundering in despair. Of course at that point Judgment-Boy and Self-Satisfaction-Man start pounding on Founder-ella from both sides and the result is a state of inner turmoil devoid of either satisfaction or resignation. A fight that I can never win, but that I also can't withdraw from without giving up who I am. All of which represents a pretty substantial snivel. But it's also the nearly constant state of my own psyche. If I understand the Model Mormon Mother syndrome, it's the state of an awful lot of Mormon women, as well. Then again, everyone else seems so normal and well-adjusted and happy, maybe it's just me after all. Maybe it's only self-justification. So... We shouldn't judge each others' offerings, and yet we often do--whether in an effort to condemn others, justify ourselves, or condemn ourselves. Maybe we shouldn't criticize the large(er) offerings of the wealthy, but we often feel stung at our own inability to do more and seek to find a basis on which to feel better--a selfish desire, but not necessarily indicative of ugly intent on our own part. We shouldn't reverse discriminate, but then we shouldn't discriminate at all. So how does one tell such stories without snivelling? Without sounding like we're just trying to jerk tears? Where's the line between sharing difficult experience or questions or doubts, and throwing ourselves a pity party? I hate the fact that I cringe when people speak eloquently about the difficulties of baby exhaustion and the stress of being a Mormon mother. I know that stress, and I know that I've contributed to it in my own family--and I feel terrible about it and want to do what I can to alleviate it. At the same time, my whole role as a Mormon father is based around my ability to provide a good home for my family, yet I hear very little about the stresses on Mormon men--and I know that men tend to cut each other less slack than women do; we can be pretty hard on each other, just as we're hard on women, so there's not much of a community of support for those of us who feel overwhelmed but are men. I know that recognition of the pain of Mormon mothers is in no way intended to trivialize the pain of anyone else. At yet I do have at least a momentary twinge of self-pity when other peoples' struggles are discussed but mine are not. I hate that twinge, and yet it happens--perhaps less often and with lesser duration than it did a few years ago, but it's still there. The battle between who I am and who I want to become. What's the point? There are two points, I guess. First, I think we need to cut each other more slack all around. Maybe we have justification for feeling slighted when one person's pain is recognized and another's isn't, but maybe if we acknowledged others' struggles instead of dismissing or minimizing we wouldn't create so many losers in an argument that has questionable merit at best. Maybe their pain really is less than ours when measured on an absolute scale, but what difference does that make? We should mourn with those that mourn--whoever they are and for whatever reason, because none us is justified in saying they brought their own pain on themselves. Second, we need to tell our stories, whatever their subject matters and whatever their slants. And we should be little bit charitable in how we judge the lives presented to us in those stories. Criticize craft, question research, but refrain from judging to worth of the souls involved in telling that story. A friend recently told me of a challenging story she had written that was rejected with a note saying that Mormons just didn't act they way the characters did--except that some Mormons *do* act that way. Once again I feel caught between conflicting desires--to encourage all people to tell their stories whether those stories make sense to me or not, and demanding that we tell our true stories as well as we possibly can so that those true stories can be read and enjoyed by the widest possible audience. I'm not sure these are really conflicting desires, but to realize both we need to be both more compassionate and thicker-skinned than we seem to be right now. *I* need to be both more compassionate and thicker-skinned. I still think it's possible--or at least I hope it is. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 31 May 2002 01:07:04 -0600 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > But we need to tell the men that > their career isn't the most important thing that will ever happen to > them and these family-killing obsessions aren't justified. I'm all for it, but how are you going to get the message across, when the very essence of men's self-image is defined by their ability to produce? And the very essence of men's ability to attract women is defined by the same thing? (How many women's personals do NOT insist that the man be a professional?) The message you want to get out will be utterly lost in the din of messages that regularly brainwash men that they better have an impressive career or they are nothing. Even a prophet of God point-blank telling them that their career successes are meaningless if their families fail didn't get the message across. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] LaBute Essay Date: 31 May 2002 08:58:57 +0000 Here's a recent piece by Neil LaBute about why he writes, from the British newspaper The Guardian. Be warned, LaBute uses a good deal of crude language. The play's still the thing Neil LaBute has a formidable reputation for writing and directing screen hits such as In the Company of Men. So what's he doing writing a succession of plays for the Almeida? Because, he says, theatre is best. Sunday April 21, 2002 http://www.observer.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,687779,00.html _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Upcoming Summer Movies Date: 31 May 2002 09:16:00 -0500 The Los Angeles Times has an article about some upcoming summer movies. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-050502sneaks. story A few excerpts below, with added notes in brackets: THE BELIEVER Drama IDP/Fireworks Pictures With: Ryan Gosling, Summer Phoenix, Theresa Russell, Billy Zane. The idea: A Jewish skinhead. Writer-director: Henry Bean. So? So scary, studios balked. [Latter-day Saint actor Ryan Gosling received much critical praise for this role.] SERVING SARA Comedy Paramount With: Matthew Perry, Elizabeth Hurley, Bruce Campbell, Amy Adams. The idea: Process server weighs an enticing offer from his beautiful target. Writers: Jay Scherick, David Ronn. Director: Reginald Hudlin. So? Hurley-burly over Liz's baby adds spice to mix. [Dallas-based actress Alaina Kalanj, a devout Latter-day Saint, has a small role in this movie.] LITTLE SECRETS Drama IDP/Samuel Goldwyn With: Evan Rachel Wood, Michael Angarano, David Gallagher, Vivica A. Fox. The idea: Guilt-nagged peers entrust preteen with secrets. Writer: Jessica Barondes. Director: Blair Treu. So? Kid stars from "Once and Again," "Will & Grace," "7th Heaven" give big screen a shot. [Directed by Latter-day Saint director Blair Treu, and featuring a bevy of Utah/LDS actors, including Rick Macy and Tayva Patch, who both had major roles in "Brigham City"] DIVINE SECRETS OF THE YA-YA SISTERHOOD Comedy-drama Warner Bros. With: Ellen Burstyn, Ashley Judd, Sandra Bullock, James Garner, Maggie Smith. The idea: Lifelong Southern friends stage unorthodox intervention for a wayward daughter. Writers: Callie Khouri, adaptation by Mark Andrus from popular Rebecca Wells novels. Director: Callie Khouri. So? The women are engaging, and James Garner is sympathetically fatherly. [Screenplay by Mark Andrus, who was nominated for an Academy Award for "As Good As It Gets", and also wrote the critically acclaimed "Life as a House" and the tepidly received "Late for Dinner."] MINORITY REPORT Science-fiction Fox/DreamWorks With: Tom Cruise, Colin Farrell, Samantha Morton, Max von Sydow. The idea: In 2054, a psychic police unit arrests killers before they act. Writers: Scott Frank and Jon Cohen; based on Philip K. Dick story. Director: Steven Spielberg. So? Potent package. [Produced by Latter-day Saint movie producer Gerald Molen, the producer of "The Other Side of Heaven."] POSSESSION Drama USA Films With: Gwyneth Paltrow, Aaron Eckhart, Jennifer Ehle, Jeremy Northam. The idea: Two scholars retrace romantic path of Victorian poets. Writers: David Henry Hwang, Laura Jones, Neil LaBute; based on A.S. Byatt novel. Director: Neil LaBute. So? Intricate psychological material is right up LaBute's alley. [Latter-day Saint film director Neil LaBute's long-awaited new feature film. The book is excellent. Will this film surpass LaBute's previous box office best -- $25 million for "Nurse Betty"?] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Random Thoughts Date: 31 May 2002 08:08:04 -0600 On Wed, 29 May 2002 08:54:44 -0700 "Susan Malmrose" writes: > Are there any LDS books that deal with this issue, other than > _Secrets_? I read it not too long ago, and I appreciated > what it attempted to do. I'm wondering if there are any other > novels that deal with the subject without being so obviously > a teaching tool, though. There is a one-act play, "Confessions," published in Wasatch Review International: A Mormon Literary Journal; Volume 3, Issue 1; 1994. scott -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: [AML] Stresses on Men (was: Baby Exhaustion) Date: 31 May 2002 09:26:10 -0600 (MDT) > Well, we could stop treating it as normal. At least this aspect of it. > I don't want to pick on you, Eric, because this is *such* a common > phenomenon, but it *shouldn't* be. We need to seriously take our teen > and early twenty men aside and tell them to pull their head out. It > *isn't* all about them. Their life isn't going to be forever marred if > they fail to attain that *next* level of professional recognition. But we need to tell the men that > their career isn't the most important thing that will ever happen to > them and these family-killing obsessions aren't justified. > > Jacob Proffitt I don't think it is about this. Most guys I know who are working two to three jobs and are hardly ever home are doing it because its the only way to stay out of debt while raising a family and going to college - and the church leaders keep hammering on and on and on and on about how as men we are to provide for the family and make sure thy are physically taken care of and that we incur no debt at all. I;ve actually fallen into some debt because I decided it was more worth it to be home at least some of the time and help my wife out with the kids, but that apparently makes me a bad father because I'm not "providing" for my family as much as the next guy. Perhaps this coudl be a literary thing - it seems that far too often men are shown as negelecting their families to pursue ladder climbing - are there cases where instead its shown to be a result of a misplacede desire to follow the church commandments of "provide" and "stay out of debt."? --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tait Family" Subject: Re: [AML] Lit-crit Recommendations Date: 31 May 2002 12:01:21 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- . What works > do you see as essential to the way you view literature (and culture)? What > about when it comes to Mormon literature? > > I'm open to a wide range of approaches and topics. Help me create a > reading list. > > ~~William Morris Some important titles on my bookshelf: Literary Theory by Terry Eagleton (University of Minnesota Press, 1983): This book is certainly dated by now, and I don't necessarily remember much of his discussion of various critical approaches. But the first chapter, "Introduction: What is Literature?" has been one of the most influential things I have read in developing my own critical approach. Sensational Designs: The Cultural Work of American Fiction 1790-1860 by Jane Tompkins (Oxford, 1985): This work was one of the most important in opening up the field of new historicist criticism and revaluing women's literature (formerly known as 'sentimental' fiction) and popular literature in general. Tompkins' is not so much concerned with whether a given work meets modern ideas of 'good' literature, but in understanding what function that work was serving for its audience. Her approach is very fruitful for looking at Mormon literature (i.e. 'home literature') both historical and contemporary. Finally, I treasure the work of Seamus Heaney. Much of his poetry is a form of literary criticism, and his criticism is poetic. He is challenging and infuriating at first, but, to me, always uplifting. I have the following titles on my shelf (these are critical essays, not collections of his poetry): The Redress of Poetry (Noonday Press, 1995) The Government of the Tongue (Noonday, 1988) The Place of Writing (Scholars Press, Atlanta, 1989) His nobel lecture, Crediting Poetry, is available online at the Internet Poetry Archives: http://www.ibiblio.org/ipa/heaney/index.html This site is wonderful, not least because you can listen to Heaney read some of his own poetry in that lovely Irish lilt. "Casualty" is exquisite, and heartbreaking. Heaney's comments on balancing the demands of art and the demands of politics and ideology are applicable to Mormon artists. Thank you for asking this question! I haven't picked up these books in too long, and now I'm going to go enjoy them again. Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Nuclear Family (was: Baby Exhaustion) Date: 31 May 2002 20:11:59 -0600 ---Original Message From: Jonathan Langford > And Jacob Proffitt replied: > > > >But the problem isn't the nuclear family, or the wives. > > Jacob then goes on to make many excellent points that I agree > with. On this first point to which Jacob is responding, > however, I think I see Barbara's point, and agree with her. > I think part of the problem *is* our notion of the nuclear > family, and our expectation that nuclear families ought to be > self-sufficient, particularly in the rearing of children. > > First, a couple of definitions. The term "nuclear family," > as I'm using it here (and as I think Barbara was using it), > is one husband, one wife, and all relevant children thereto. > No grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Those I'm all > considering as parts of the extended family. Excellent distinction. I think you're on to something here and it's important. China, for example, is starting to see some unexpected social problems brought about by one-child families--mainly to do with extended families. One child means no aunts or uncles. It also means no back-up should the one child become disabled in some way. And it means that each couple bears the full weight of caring for *four* aged parents. This is particularly discernible in rural populations, but I think that the same problems exist in urban populations, they're just harder to discern. > I'm not sure that human experience has yet demonstrated that > it's possible to have a stable society based on nuclear > families alone, without extended family support. I'm not > sure there's even been any significant effort to try, until > the American frontier and subsequent (e.g., post-World War > II) increases in geographic mobility created circumstances > where a large number of families were far away from any > extended family. Even today, families tend to rely a lot on > extended families for support, both financial and in terms of > child-rearing--where they are available. But I think that > the conceptual model of "the family" in American society is, > largely, that of a nuclear family that manages pretty much on > its own. I don't think this is nearly as strong a model, > even today, in Europe (certainly my time as a missionary in > Italy led me to believe that it's not). But I think it is > the way we in America believe it should be, even when it > doesn't work out that way--and therefore it's the standard we > work toward, and measure ourselves against. Again, I think you're probably right, here. I don't think that we were ever intended to be self-sufficient nuclear families. I've been wondering for a while about the effects of government welfare on the extended family. With welfare, a young adult child doesn't have to cultivate extended familial relationships. Don't like the parent's rules? Have a kid and you are magically an adult who doesn't have to pay any more heed to them. In extending an impersonal safety net, we've also insulated against the ties that bind us to our family (or community) even when we're tempted to tell the nutballs to take a hike. We're less tolerant of personal weaknesses or personality clashes because we don't have to be tolerant if we don't feel like it. Which is really a way of saying that ostracism--which used to be the driving force behind most social rule enforcement--is no longer a significant factor in social behavior. And it comes at the same time as an unhealthy emphasis found often in the Church on self-sufficiency. You've probably even had a priesthood lesson or two about "Becoming Self-Sufficient". An unfortunate choice of terminology and an impossible (and I think undesirable) ideal. (explanatory digression: I think those lessons are actually trying to teach personal responsibility and the concepts are unfortunately superficially similar). > I suspect (though I don't know, not having studied this) that > in earlier cultures, there was probably a lot more > labor-pooling in the child care department. This would also > have had the advantage of socializing the child with other > children his/her own age. It also would have had the > advantage of exposing the child to a variety of adults and > adult role models--people who could supply different needs > and relate to children in different ways. We do that to a > large extent, of course, with today's educational system, and > with babysitting and day care, but I wonder if it's as > effective, or if it doesn't lose a lot of the values of the > older system--e.g., that it may not be *my* parent watching, > but it's *someone's* parent, or uncle, or whoever. And my > parent may be watching us all tomorrow, and at any rate is > probably on call in some sense. I liked a previous example (wish I remembered who brought it up) of the early settlers in Utah where young women would spend time with a new mother and take over the household. Wonderful example. And I think that possibly the greatest value from the system is the functional apprenticeship it imparted. Men had the same forces at work. Children would begin doing household chores when they were young and as they grew up, boys would gradually spend more time with their fathers, working alongside them, learning the trade, but more important, learning to be men. Obviously, that isn't an unalloyed good thing, but I think that by and large it was a valuable system--and I think we feel its lack today. Children today are taught by adults, but seldom in a real-world, hands-on environment and I think it is, over-all, less effective in terms of social, non-linear types of lessons. We're more efficient at imparting knowledge and process and much less efficient at imparting wisdom or morals. > (There's a fascinating book, by the way, titled _Women's > Work_, about the history of weaving and textiles in > prehistoric and early historic cultures, that talks among > other things about why weaving so often was women's work. It > uses an anthropological model that talks about what the > requirements are for work that women will do. Foremost is a > requirement that it be something that can be done more or > less safely while tending small children. Weaving and > textiles fit that requirement in a way that much other labor did not.) I've often wondered if our mainly Victorian image of past women's work (and hence women's place) is terribly accurate. I remember a professor pointing out that the Victorian's were pretty much a low-point of women engaged in the marketplace. The point was that even shortly before the Victorians, women had a much more active market presence in industries that were home-based (I believe that textiles was the example and that one reason for the change was the technological change that centralized textile production--taking it out of the home). > In any event, I don't think our society has come up with > adequate substitutes for the extended family (and the local, > closely connected community). And I do think that's part of > the overall problem with baby exhaustion in today's culture. > It even plays (I think) into part of what Jacob mentioned in > another post, that is, the notion that men believe they have > to devote so much of their energy in their twenties and such > to establishing themselves in their careers. Yes, this is a > problem of values, but I think it may be a problem of > structures and expectations as well. The ideal, in American > society, is that from the moment (at least, if not before) > that a man marries, he should be able to support his family > fully and be independent. I wonder if that isn't an > unrealistic expectation. Again, in extended family systems, > I think there may have been more of a transitional > period--where the married son continued working largely with > his father. > > It may sound here like I'm idealizing extended family > systems. That's not really my intention. I think they have > problems, too. I think that it's very difficult to create > cultural change in such systems (e.g., people changing their > religion), which may be one of the reasons why the Book of > Mormon talks about people being dependent on the traditions > of their fathers, and why the Church's restoration came at a > time when that very mobility (both physical and conceptual) > was blossoming, particularly in the areas where the Church > was first successful. But I'm not sure we've come up with a > good substitute yet, and I agree with Barbara that our ideal > of how the nuclear family "should" work can contribute to the problem. I think I agree. I admit that my remarks weren't informed at all by extended family dynamics. I think it might be another example of how economic forces have changed from implicit support of families to direct antagonism to them. Technology, increasing workforce specialization, and mobility are all factors that combine in ways that tear families apart in ways that prior generations never experienced. I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to be a pioneer--not physically, obviously (says the flabby desk-jockey), but probably spiritually and socially. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Otto Abels Harbach Date: 31 May 2002 14:38:30 -0500 Does anybody on AML list know if Otto Abels Harbach was a Mormon, or the son of Mormon immigrants? Born 18 August 1873, Salt Lake City. Died 24 January 1963, New York City. Born to Danish immigrant parents Adolph Hauerbach and Sena Olsen. In 1918 Harbach married Eloise Smith Dougall of Salt Lake City. Playwright and lyricist. One of the most famous lyricists of the Broadway stage. 25 movies were made from his plays and musicals, including: The Desert Song; Rose Marie; Lovely to Look at; Tea for Two; Up in Mabel's Room; Sunny; No, No, Nanette; The Firefly; Roberta; The Cat and the Fiddle; Men of the Sky; Golden Dawn; Kid Boots; Youth's Desire; Madame Sherry. He also wrote "I Won't Dance," which was featured in "What Women Want" (2000) starring Mel Gibson, and he wrote the songs for "On Moonlight Bay" (1951). Had a cameo appearance in "Men of the Sky" (1931) as a French major. His home town of Salt Lake City, where he frequently came to visit relatives, honored him on October 23, 1957,with a special program that included selections from his many works. More information is here: http://www.utahhistorytogo.org/utachiev.htm and here: http://us.imdb.com/Name?Harbach,+Otto+A. (from which sources the above info was taken) Just wondering, Preston Hunter -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Random Thoughts Date: 31 May 2002 14:58:01 -0600 LDS Books dealing with pedophilia: I don't think Brian Evenson's _Father of Lies_ qualifies as a teaching tool. It does deal with the issue. Probably wouldn't be of much help, though. I don't know about _Secrets_. Linda Silitoe's _Secrets Keep_ deals with the issue (along with a number of other issues.) Honestly, I have no idea how a writer would broach this subject in a way that would portray the pedophile as something less than monstrous. I have such memories of Arthur Gary Bishop's confession of murdering all those little boys in Utah, and of 4-year-old Danny Davis crying, "I want my mommy" before Bishop killed him. Those words have haunted me for years. I guess it's the fact that I am a mommy and I know there are pedophiles. Maybe the key to writing a book dealing with the issue WELL would be to use a mother's perpsective--not the mother of the victim, but the mother of the pedophile. I never read the book Jeffrey Dahmer's father wrote about him, but it might be a starting point for someone who wanted to take this subject on. If my husband had to deal with it in our little stake, I imagine that most stakes have to deal with it. I know internet pornography includes sites for pedophiles to whet their appetites. I would never write about this subject, but it looks like somebody ought to. [Margaret Young] Susan Malmrose wrote: > > hint of something he has had to encounter in a disciplinary council: a > case (or > > more than one--I don't know) of pedophilia. It is almost impossible for > me to > > even imagine that any member of my stake could be a pedophile. Then > again, > > most of us would be surprised to learn about the trials our neighbors are > > dealing with, or the temptations they fight (or don't). > > Are there any LDS books that deal with this issue, other than _Secrets_? I > read it not too long ago, and I appreciated what it attempted to do. I'm > wondering if there are any other novels that deal with the subject without > being so obviously a teaching tool, though. > > Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: [AML] Baby Joy (was: Baby Exhaustion) Date: 31 May 2002 18:49:36 -0600 Amy, Your post really touched me too, because I think you raise an excellent question. How do you know when to have a child? You said you wondered about getting inspiration. That sounds like a good idea to me. My post was pretty negative and when I went hiking later that morning in American Fork Canyon and sat on a rock near the top of a mountain in the glorious sunshine, the thought went through my mind that I should send another post out saying, "life is amazing and fantastic and I feel so happy." Life has ups and downs and I know you realize that motherhood is the same way. Maybe you get plenty of information about the positive side. But frankly, I feel an obligation now to balance things. I emphasized a certain side of things for rhetorical purposes--discussing some difficulties that mothers experience when they feel pressure to have babies because of duty. But let me be perfectly honest. I loved it too. If I hadn't enjoyed being pregnant and nursing as much as I did I probably would have found some rationale to avoid it. I was fortunate in that I didn't get very sick during pregnancy and I actually embodied the "glowing with health" stereotype about pregnant women. And I truly loved breastfeeding. Few things have given me as much satisfaction. The physical pleasure of feeding my babies was something I looked forward to during each pregnancy (at least considering some of the other difficulties--soreness, leakage, infections). But it gave me a sense of purpose that I will probably never duplicate. Plus I adored my babies and I thoroughly enjoyed staying home--not being employed--and devoting myself to their care. And if you could see my six sons now--well, I'm a proud mother of six tall handsome strong gorgeous men. So where do I really come down on this issue? I think that couples should make careful, thoughtful decisions about size of family based on the capacities of both spouses. If the father does not have the time or energy to be involved that should be a consideration. And to be fair to my husband, he changed a lot of diapers and still is an involved father, despite feeling overwhelmed at times just as I did. Gae Lyn Henderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: [AML] Re: Baby Exhaustion Date: 01 Jun 2002 14:11:15 -0400 I come to this thread late, and as a male.(Whose youngest child is 32 years old) and like Eric I regret some of my youthful male centeredness (is that the same as chauvinism?). We have six children, one of whom was adopted. I'm not aware that we ever had any feeling of obligation to bring spirits to the earth, in fact a couple of our children were conceived in spite of avidly practiced birth control. I personally seemed to be perpetually busy outside the house with graduate school, teaching theatre in small departments (which means coming home to eat and returning for rehearsals most of the time). In addition to jobs and education we always lived in small branches which means that we both had multiple church callings: primary, Sunday school, relief society, scouts, and I served in eight branch presidencies, a couple of Sunday School Superintendency (back when it was a REAL job), a district council (read high council) district presidency (sorry Thom, I don't know any way to explain this without my personal experience), and was a Branch President twice. I knew that there was stress and I tried to help, but I never realized how much until one meeting when Jan (my favorite female) was sitting out in the congregation coping with four kids (the next two hadn't arrived yet) and they were rambunctious. I was sitting up on the stand trying to "help" by making threatening gestures at the kids when she, impatient with my interference, brought the two youngest up to the stand and plopped them in my lap. Instant laughter from the congregation and some realization for me. I do want to state that sometimes women working outside the house is good, because there is a sense that the whole worth of the being is not the progress of the children. She got two Masters degrees and and Ed Specialist degree in this time, and looking back it may have been what kept her sane. When our children got old enough for her to teach full time, she became a totally different woman. Unfortunately they became teen agers and I think that was a time of mutual stress. (It is hell when your kids are smarter than you, and a real salvation when, in spite of my failings, she was smarter than they. I have saved all the posts on this subject. I am going to send them to my son (or perhaps to my daughter-in- law). I have a new understanding of her as well. (As a point of information, our fifth was adopted and the sixth was accidental--- but a source of great rejoicing-- We finally had girls) Richard B. Johnson, (djdick@PuppenRich.com) Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kellene Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 01 Jun 2002 21:56:45 -0600 > From: "Angela Hallstrom" > > And two, I feel > a little less entitled sometimes to complain about how difficult it is out > here because I have chosen this path. I read this from Angela and just wanted to elaborate a bit. . . . I certainly didn't want my original post to sound like I was complaining, although I can certainly understand why it might have sounded like that. :-) (utterly and completely exhausted sure doesn't sound like I'm having a picnic!) And I'm not saying that Angela is saying we're complaining. But in case anyone thinks I was, I wanted to clarify. I am not complaining. These children are the absolute most important thing I have done, am doing, or will do in my life (along with helping to create the type of marriage that both my husband and I want to last forever). But just because I'm involved in the most critical and important project of my life doesn't mean I can't (or don't) feel the stress and challenge of the job. And I don't think recognizing the "right" number of children, with or without guilt, means that you escape all this "baby exhaustion" either--for the same reasons cited above. What we're doing is extremely valuable and important, and that simply cannot be done without a fair (HA!) bit of effort and sacrifice. so, I'm not complaining. But I'm sure open to insight, support, encouragement, advice, etc. . . . :-) (Which I sure feel I've gotten from all of you. THANKS!) Kellene -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Dave SHIELDS, _The Pendulum's Path_ (Review) Date: 02 Jun 2002 10:26:26 -0800 Review ====== Title: The Pendulum's Path Author: Dave Shields Publisher: Xlibris Corporation (www.Xlibris.com, author@daveshields.com) Year Published: 2001 Number of Pages: 328 Binding: Quality Paperback ISBN: 1-4010-3027-0 Price: Around $20.00, varies by source Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle Generally, when reviewing a good book with flaws, I list all the good things first, then briefly mention the flaws. Instead, I choose to begin this review with a mention of its major flaw -- poor editing -- and get it out of the way. Boulders are "huge," not "hugh." "Site" and "sight" are different words. It's "copyright," not "copywrite." "Its" and "it's" are different words. And so on, and so on. Having said that, and pushing editing issues to the side, "The Pendulum's Path" is a terrific book! It's been a long time since I've enjoyed a Mormon-related novel, independently published, as much as I enjoyed this book. "The Pendulum's Path," set in contemporary Utah, tells the astounding story of the Crump family. We first meet Tom Lewis (a member of the Crump family clan), a mortgage salesman and happily expectant husband, as he and his wife plan for the arrival of their first child. One day, while walking their dog through a nearby park, they encounter an old, eccentric man who turns out to be Tom's long-lost uncle Martin. Despite Tom's efforts to reconnect, Martin maintains his distance. But a cryptic comment causes Tom to realize that he knows little, if anything, about his family. He had long ago given up on Mormonism; he and his wife enjoy a cold beer at the end of a long day! And so begins Tom's quest for his past. Through sheer force of will, he compels Martin to recount his early history. The revelations are shocking and life-changing for Tom. His job, his marriage, all seem on the verge of disaster as he pursues his quest for identity and truth of his own place in the family history. Through a series of vivid flashbacks, author Dave Shields holds the reader captivated as he recounts a fascinating, and disturbing, world of early 20th century Mormonism in Utah. Readers must be aware that this isn't a pretty picture. From a dominating, hypocritical father to a submissive, and deeply flawed, mother and family, this isn't a feel-good account of forever families. Instead, it is a graphic description of the effect of dysfunction and repression in a publicly-respectable Mormon family. Father, Bishop and, later, Stake President, is a thoroughly unappealing character. The children are easier to like, but as Shields shows, this isn't necessarily a good indicator of later success in life. As Tom's relationship with Martin grows, and as he learns more of his personal history, he becomes more and more aware of how fleeting family relationships can be, how fragile we all are in a world filled with stern realities. Once-admired relatives turn up as flawed and failing. Relationships once thought to be solid are now understood to be brittle and infirm. And once one's past is undermined by truth, one's present (and future) trembles with the awful realizations. As the story develops, so does Tom's understanding of his bloodline, and as this understanding grows, so does his awareness of the broken nature of his heritage. Culminating in a harrowing mountain climb with Martin, the threads of Tom's life come together with clarity and a sense of final resolution that will shape the future of Tom and his family. Readers should be aware that Shields resorts to harsh language from time to time, the kind that Deseret Book and such would reject out of hand. But somehow the language fits the situations. It's never gratuitous. "The Pendulum's Path," as its title suggests, swings back and forth between the present and the past, but the story-line is easily followed. I generally dislike this style of writing, but Shields makes it work nicely. However, from time to time, I wondered if there weren't two writers at work here. I found the flashbacks to be far more compelling than the present story, although I enjoyed both. Perhaps this was deliberate. And when I finished the book, I thought Shields ought to have added a chapter to tie together some loose ends. But, then again, life doesn't always come to a satisfactory end. Perhaps this, too, was deliberate. "The Pendulum's Path" will never be mistaken for faith-promoting literature. It will never be on the recommended reading list for LDS youth or Relief Society reading circles. Graphic and honest, it takes the reader on a wild, nearly unbelievable journey through the trials of a Mormon family, whose respectability is nothing more than a facade, and the effects of hypocrisy and judgementalism on an extended family. I was very glad to have read this book. Despite its flaws, "The Pendulum's Path" is a gripping, engaging story, very well written by a very talented writer. It will remain in my collection as an example of literate alternative Mormon fiction. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com 2002-06-02 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maren Allen Subject: [AML] Motherhood Literature (was: Baby Exhaustion) Date: 02 Jun 2002 13:41:27 -0700 (PDT) The idea of some sort of book to offer support to mothers of young children= is wonderful. Humor and reality must be a part of it. I have two little= girls, ages 3 and 16 months (they are 22 months apart) who are the light of= my life (while they are sleeping or when I'm away from them), but I can= relate to falling in bed and feeling glad my family is still alive. I have= often found myself wondering if maybe I shouldn't have ever had children= because I'm not cut out to offer endless patience, understanding and= unconditional praise to young kids. Somedays, I would love to leave them= at a daycare and let someone else raise them while I continually nurture my= intellect with something besides what a mouse will do if you give him a= cookie , but on the other hand, I worry that if I pursue any of my own= ambitions my daughters will grow up to be menaces to society and that I= will be cast into outer darkness for not being a perfect mormon wife (wake= up with husband at 6:00 a.m., fix him a full breakfast, pack his lunch,= kiss him goodbye, get the kids up, feed them, clothe them, prepare them to= be the valedictorian of their class, while I bake bread, sew everyone's= clothes, feed them again, teach them to behave perfectly, have a hot meal= on the table when husband comes home, clean up, attend enrichment meeting,= and do my visiting teaching). THe ideas that young kids are not always, okay rarely, joyful to be with 24= hours a day seems to be such a taboo topic - I have often thought there= should be a support group where young mothers can freely vent frustrations= and feelings without feeling like a failure. =20 It would also be great to be able to get parenting techniques, that actually= work, and ideas for different phases from other parents in similar= situations. [Maren Allen] Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup --0-2097172402-1023050487=3D:74513 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: KGrant100@aol.com Subject: [AML] Exhaustion (Baby and Otherwise) Date: 02 Jun 2002 23:19:23 EDT I so appreciated the discussion about exhaustion faced by young and older mothers because I resonated with it in a poignant way. But ironically, it's not because I have children, but just the opposite--I'm in my 40's, single, and childless. As odd as it might sound, living alone can be exhausting. I have a good life with blessings and happiness. But trying to do everything alone (from full-time work to church service to maintenance tasks like grocery shopping and car repair) is physically and emotionally draining, and I there are times I don't feel I can keep going. The commonality of our feelings got me thinking about why our experiences are so similar even though our lives are so different. What are the common threads? Is this a female phenomenon or one of the necessary trials of mortality? Some random thoughts: *I agree with those who mentioned the importance of health. Iron deficiency and hormone imbalance can both contribute to feelings of exhaustion in women, as can diet. After a persistent viral infection some years ago, I adopted a modified version of Dr. Christopher's "mucusless diet," cutting out white flour and white sugar, among other things (www.herbsfirst.com). Wow, what a difference! I also find Dr. D'Adamo's blood type diet helpful (www.dadamo.com). *Hugh Nibley would argue that much of our exhaustion and isolation is due to our modern lifestyle. In _Approaching Zion,_ he talks about the fragmented lives we lead because we aren't living the law of consecration. So without starting our own communes :) are there ways to approach the spirit of the law of consecration which would help our current situations? *What about the role of expectations? It's hardest for me when I think, "This isn't how it's supposed to be." Young mothers hinted at something similar: "I thought this was supposed to be a joyful time, but I don't feel joyful." Has anyone ready Byron Katie's new book, _Loving What Is_? She treats the subject of expectations *In one of his books, John Gray relates how he overheard his wife talking with several other women, each of whom had varying numbers of children. All of them were tired! One mother with "just" two children was in awe of the mother with seven, and said, in effect, "I thought I had it bad--I don't know how you do it." The woman with seven children replied that each woman gives all she can, whether she has few children or many (or, I might add, no children at all). John Gray said this helped him appreciate and support his wife more, which is wonderful. But on the other hand, could "giving all" possibly be part of the problem? Maybe we need to worry more about "giving right" than "giving all." ("Don't run faster than you have strength . . .") A few weeks ago I had an interesting dream. I was driving up a very steep hill in my car (a stick-shift Saturn), and as I got to the top of the hill, I could tell I didn't have enough momentum to make it. I gunned the accelerator, which kept me moving forward a little, but as the car finally lost its forward motion I put on the brakes. Then I released the brakes and tried to move forward by gunning the accelerator again. It didn't work, and I started rolling backwards down the hill, swerving to miss other cars and almost hitting one of them. When I woke up, the problem was obvious, though it hadn't been in my dream: I had never downshifted! The message for my life seemed clear: When I'm going up a steep hill I can't stay in third gear, as if I were on level ground, and still get up the hill. At some point, I have to shift to a lower gear (i.e., redirect/focus my energy) in order to give adequate energy to the most important task. I can't go as fast in low gear, but I can make it up the hill. *What is the role of faith in Christ in all of this? More than once the Spirit has reminded me of Isaiah's words: "They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength . . ." (Isa 40:29-31.) I have felt this renewal at crucial times. How can we call upon the Lord's promises for additional strength? (A close single friend and I pray specifically and continually for each other, and we both find this helps significantly.) Kellene, I think your book does need to be written, and it does need to be geared toward young mothers. I think it could really help them. I think it needs to be courageously honest about challenges, causes (including how we ourselves might contribute to the problem), and potential solutions. And maybe another book could follow which focuses on a wider group of women--young mothers, mothers of teens, singles, widows, single mothers, etc. Switching gears--since we're invited to share publications, just wanted to mention that I just had an article published in the Ensign on singles in the ward family. Kathy [Grant] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: [AML] Censoring Comments (was: MOORE, _Lamb_, Review) Date: 03 Jun 2002 00:44:20 -0600 Eric Samuelsen: > > Couple weeks ago I was teaching Sunday School, that lesson on > phylacteries, > you remember it? The lesson manual (which I generally loathe > anyway) wanted > us to ask people what kind of stuff they had on the walls of their houses, > and to, like, put post-it notes on all of it, labeling it 'leads > me to God,' > or 'leads me away from God.' I wasn't going to do that, obviously, nor > recommend it, but thought a general lesson on iconography might be of some > interest, and, as a sort of ice breaker, mentioned that if you walked into > my house the first thing you'd see would be all the book cases > crammed with > books. And a sister in the ward (who I really like, actually) said, "but > you only have good books, right? You don't have any bad books." We had the phylactery lesson today. I was so glad to read this tonight (Thank you Eric!) so I could list-vocalize the internal dialogue I was having about labeling and getting rid of materials in our homes. I refrained from making the comment in class I wanted to make: that we broaden the definition of what leads us to God, and whatever we do make sure not to limit it to banal Mormon kitsch and Disney movies. But I didn't say it. I had already exceeded my self-imposed comment limit. The fact is that the class does not have an unlimited tolerance for Sister Henderson-thinks-shes-an-intellectual-tries-to-liberalize-our-thinking type statements. If only they knew the restraint I show and the empathy I have for their irritation at my volubility. Anyone else censor themselves this way? Gae Lyn > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: [AML] Censoring Comments (was: MOORE, _Lamb_, Review) Date: 03 Jun 2002 00:44:20 -0600 Eric Samuelsen: > > Couple weeks ago I was teaching Sunday School, that lesson on > phylacteries, > you remember it? The lesson manual (which I generally loathe > anyway) wanted > us to ask people what kind of stuff they had on the walls of their houses, > and to, like, put post-it notes on all of it, labeling it 'leads > me to God,' > or 'leads me away from God.' I wasn't going to do that, obviously, nor > recommend it, but thought a general lesson on iconography might be of some > interest, and, as a sort of ice breaker, mentioned that if you walked into > my house the first thing you'd see would be all the book cases > crammed with > books. And a sister in the ward (who I really like, actually) said, "but > you only have good books, right? You don't have any bad books." We had the phylactery lesson today. I was so glad to read this tonight (Thank you Eric!) so I could list-vocalize the internal dialogue I was having about labeling and getting rid of materials in our homes. I refrained from making the comment in class I wanted to make: that we broaden the definition of what leads us to God, and whatever we do make sure not to limit it to banal Mormon kitsch and Disney movies. But I didn't say it. I had already exceeded my self-imposed comment limit. The fact is that the class does not have an unlimited tolerance for Sister Henderson-thinks-shes-an-intellectual-tries-to-liberalize-our-thinking type statements. If only they knew the restraint I show and the empathy I have for their irritation at my volubility. Anyone else censor themselves this way? Gae Lyn > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ryan Orrock" Subject: [AML] Brigham City Believable Character? (was: Random Thoughts) Date: 03 Jun 2002 12:40:09 +0200 > Andrew Hall wrote: > "I don't know much about psychotics, but wouldn't the killer have shown a > few more signs of his problems than he did? Could he really have fooled his > wife and Wes and everyone for so long that he was a normal, nice guy?" "I was asked to consult on a case where a Phoenix-Tucson area professional person, president of his firm and head of his church's committee on helping troubled children, was found to be a serial rapist who had violently raped a number of women at gun- or knife-point in the Arizona area. In doing the background study on him, I found him to come from an exemplary background and trouble-free childhood. He was an outstanding student in high school and college. "His wife, children, business and church associates had not the slightest inkling of his double life or dark side. The only significant negative factor in his life was an adolescent addiction to pornography which, for the most part, was kept secret from others. " - Dr. Victor Cline Source: http://www.ldsleadingfamilies.com/pornography/steps.htm Ryan Orrock -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: daryoung@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 03 Jun 2002 18:11:38 GMT Kellene, I would enjoy and read rabidly (and rapidly) both books. But you should know that a book of the second type you describe has already been written: _A Joyful Mother of Children_, by Linda Eyre. I have read it and enjoy it very much. But it didn't go far enough for me. I need a book that talks more specifically about baby exhaustion and its effects on the sexual relationship in a marriage as well as its other effects. So many books (and talks and RS lessons) "focus on the positive"--and by doing so, seem to deny the negative. I don't mind hearing suggestions and stories of people who have conquered--IF I know they started off feeling negative and miserable. When I know a person has reached the depths that I have, I can admire the heights they climbed too as well. I hope you write this book, and I hope you are brutally honest and open. Just a thought--I bet you could get some of the women on this list to contribute essays for you to edit and compile . . . Darlene Young ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Lit-crit Recommendations Date: 01 Jun 2002 14:09:08 -0800 Norton has just issued a MAMMOTH anthology of western literary criticism. It's about 2000 pages long in 8 point type. If you just want an overview of the players, it's a place to start. I think it's about $75. The nice (and annoying) thing about it is that the selections are all primary texts. So the obtuse people are still obtuse - at least 90 percent of them ;). However, there are little intros to each of the critics that give vague overviews. If you already know a little about literary criticism, it's a good book. For those who have not yet taken the plunge, I would suggest something more light weight. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Nuclear Family Date: 03 Jun 2002 08:33:13 -0700 America is a rarity in its regard for the nuclear family. One of the Chinese criticisms of western (and particularly American) culture is the custom of putting the individual name first and the family second. Considering how the custom evolved it's a silly criticism, but the fact is westerners (and particularly Americans) don't have the esteem for family in the Chinese sense that most other culture consider essential. Sublimation of the individual to the family is the norm in the world and throughout history, at least in theory, and the idea of each child having his or her own profession, farm or trade is a not so much a western as a bourgeois/yeoman idea. This has been a standard critcism of the middle class for ages, and it is deserved from the targeting perspectives. In the middle ages the custom of arranging marriages for family advantage was largely an upper and lower class custom. Women in particular had very little choice in their marriages, and while a lord might find solace in the peasant girls of his demesne such an option could bring death for his lady. In the lower class girls (especially pretty girls) were in danger constantly from the upper class, especially in places where the horrific practice of prima nocte was employed. The middle class had more choice in the matter, as much because of the desired result as anything else. In the middle class a merchant might make a journey of years, and his affairs would have to be handled by his wife and children. Extended family was also important, but not so much as the partnership between husband and wife. Though the middle class did not tend so much towards the romantic drivel of Eleanor of Acquitaine's Cortes d'Amour, they also tended towards much greater happiness in marriage. That middle class lifestyle is what came to America, and we have given the middle class more power than any culture or nation in history. Despite the fact that the American ideal supposed to be the theft of the best ideas from everywhere, some rotten ideas get mixed in, and so the expectation of a nuclear family often gets bent all out of shape. The party lifestyle that is so popular now is completely at odds with raising children. Waking up someplace with no memory of the past fifteen hours and a splitting headache is a recipe for scarred childhoods. Naturally one would not expect that sort of problem in a Mormon household (he said optimistically) but there are other expectations that can cause plenty of trouble. The romantic silliness of the Troubadors of Acquitaine was designed specifically for adultery. "Noble" ladies in loveless arranged marriages toyed with younger sons and landless knights and had endless rules that governed the behavior of a lover. There are several surviving records of rules that governed all the acts allowed, and rants against the actual baby-making deed. What would now be called foreplay was the all-in-all, because that was the deeds of a lover, not a husband. Despite the fact that most of these rules are vanished, parts remain, and what is often called romantic is nothing of the sort, at least not in the English sense. When the ideas of the Romantic poets are mixed in with the currently popular concept of the soul-mate and then the Mormon ideal of equal partnership is thrown on top things can get dicey and very tiring, in addition to the weariness that naturally follows attempts to keep up with lots of little children. I believe that it is the ideal that causes more trouble than the children. My own mother had seven children, and used to make us walk behind her in the supermarket with our arms folded. Rules were strict, and she was exhausted all the time, but I know women now who are constantly exhausted by one or two children, and haven't nearly the control over them. This is not a Mormon thing--the idea that you can't discipline your children is a Marxist belief. Ideas matter, and with the way education works these days it's a wonder that worse things haven't happened. There are many forces at work attempting to destroy the family--not just the nuclear family but all family. How many times have you heard the lament about turning into one's parents? Almost every kid's show I've seen has something nasty to say about parents, usually in a roundabout way, or at least shows the parents as silly idiots while the kids roll their eyes. How many movies and stories show a kid who knows the truth and nobody will listen, especially not his parents? Despite a some salt of truth in all these ideas there is little doubt that parental authority is under constant attack and being at one's wits end to discipline a child is not conducive to peace and relaxation. I have no children of my own but I have spent what, for a bachelor, would be considered inordinate amounts of time taking care of them. I was the oldest of the seven in my family, and learned to change a diaper at the tender age of seven. As for my current bona fides I can only say that I've seen the Disney version of Tarzan more than twenty times without enjoying it once, and I know the words to all of the accursed Barney songs and am intimately familiar with Thomas, Crash Bandicoot and Pokemon. In a way its harder to be the fun uncle because I can't actually do much to discipline anyone, merely threaten them with their parents. This is not always effective. I've been exhausted myself on numerous occasions by "do it again!" but I have at least the escape route--I'm going to my quiet apartment when mom and dad get home. Life would be drear indeed without children, and the sacrifice is worth it, but so many pressures add to the burden that it gets to be unbearable. Not everybody has a brother that is able (and willing) to take care of the bairns for a few hours or days, but it would help if they did. That doesn't really wreck the ideal of the nuclear family, because nobody ever said they should be entirely self-sufficient. Gads! Self-sufficient? What about Adam Smith? There is no self-sufficiency. This is not, incidentally, an offer to babysit to anyone in the Phoenix area. Jim Wilson the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Accepting Each Other's Offerings (was: Money and Art) Date: 03 Jun 2002 17:02:02 -0600 At 10:52 PM 5/30/02, you wrote: >My own internal dissonance is driving me nuts, >and I'm trying to figure out how to stop it. Scott, when you feel the need to pick a fight, you don't need to go find a victim. You can have a tremendous row all by yourself! I recognize this trait, because I'm the same way. Would it be possible to look at things such as other people's offerings without seeing them in relation to yourself at all? To see them as being between God and those individuals, casting no light or shadow on you in any way? Could that be liberating? I've worked on that, and I pretty much don't care anymore if someone else is richer, has a better job, goes to the temple a zillion times more often, or is older than I am but whose body parts have not gone south. It doesn't matter. I just do the best I can and enjoy the life I have. Or maybe I just don't have enough energy left to generate angst. . . . Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Nuclear Family Date: 03 Jun 2002 18:17:25 -0600 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > I liked a previous example (wish I remembered who brought it up) of the > early settlers in Utah where young women would spend time with a new > mother and take over the household. Wonderful example. I think that was Amy Chamberlain from May 31. An excellent example that plays into what both you and Jonathan are saying, I think. And one that I think is instructive in how our modern culture differs so widely from that of even sixty or seventy years ago. > I think I agree. I admit that my remarks weren't informed at all by > extended family dynamics. I think it might be another example of how > economic forces have changed from implicit support of families to direct > antagonism to them. Technology, increasing workforce specialization, > and mobility are all factors that combine in ways that tear families > apart in ways that prior generations never experienced. I wonder if it > wouldn't be easier to be a pioneer--not physically, obviously (says the > flabby desk-jockey), but probably spiritually and socially. I was discussing the integration of government and culture and law and taxes with a friend last week and he raised an interesting thought that plays into this. Of course I can't tell you what he said, but I will share what I heard--probably two very different things. Much of the culture we've built around ourselves is used as an insulator, a barrier between ourselves as individuals and every other individual in the world. We pay taxes so that we can claim satisfaction of our responsibility for the public good--we pay the tax, and the tax builds the roads and schools and hospitals and soup kitchens; we no longer need to concern ourselves with those things or the issues they're designed to address. We buy ourselves free of concern for the welfare of our fellow beings. As Mormons, many of us see tithing and fast offerings as filling the same conceptual niche--buying ourselves free of actual emotional involvement in addressing real and pressing needs within the community of the Church. We often use the law in the same way. We create law to build hedges against behavior we don't like--we try to turn our individual preferences into broad rules of living for others. If we can make the law complex enough, we can absolve ourselves of responsibility for administering it and turn that over to professional policing agencies. We no longer require ourselve to take our brother aside and work it out between he and me; we just shrug, call a cop, and walk away from any further moral or social responsibility. If called to account for that issue, we shrug and say there's nothing to do about it--that's the law. Add mandatory minimum sentencing to the mix and we choose to tie our hands ever further. The same thing happens with families. Technology has made it possible for us to be physically distant from our families, and as a result build a safe emotional space between here and there without actually resolving issues or rifts. My parents live in the Chicago area and as a result I don't have to deal with the fairly deep resentments that I hold against my father. He's a voice on the phone every couple of months, and a face bearing gifts for my children once a year or so. Dinner and a couple hours of conversation separated by a hotel and other people to visit while they're here. A thank you note to be written now and again, and I've done my duty to extended familial interaction. So far, that seems to satisfy both of us. Even our vocations are no longer meaningful links between generations. Not only is there little incentive to follow in the vocation of one's parents (or aunts and uncles, or grandparents), but there's little encouragement to do so. The small family business is rapidly becoming a relic, and easy access to education on any subject and easy travel to any place have made the chance of working close to home quite small. Apprenticeship is largely a concept of the past except in a few trades, and even those are being rapidly replaced by classroom education. One less social link to the previous generation. It's enough to make one rethink (yet again) the scripture about turning the hearts of the children to the fathers and vice versa. Maybe one of the generations we need to focus on is the immediate one, not just those of the distant past--a relatively new problem that's only been fully exposed in the last fifty years. While there are a great many close families (my wife's family is one of them, and even after twelve years of marriage I'm still a little overwhelmed at how much time they spend with each other), I suspect there are fewer extended families than ever before, or at least fewer who take that family relationship as more than a line of succession for inheritance--evidenced by the increasing problem of health care for the elderly. The devotion just isn't there, by and large. This is the flip side of the opportunities that technology and travel and mass communications have made available to us. People are just commodities to be bought and sold, and families are just convenient methods for figuring out who to stick the bills with when someone fails to pay. The social community has broken down in some rather substantial ways. Or at least so it seems to me. I wonder if the Church community is breaking down in the same way and for the same reasons. So the very technology that brings me the haven of the AML-List community may well be part of the reason that I don't work harder to repair my relationship with my father; I choose to adhere to a different community. And while I feel a greater community with Mormonism in general as a result of AML-List and the opportunity to talk about certain issues, I also have to admit that I'm not particularly active in the community of my own ward. In terms of literature, this seems like a pretty substantial shift. Even twenty years ago I didn't quite understand the previous generation of stories that were so oriented around the small, nearly closed Mormon communities that so many writers were talking about. I didn't understand the idea of intense commitment to a community like that because most of my local communities were reasonably casual ones subject to change at any time. Even family was as much an institution of convenience as commitment, and the Church was at best a part-time community defined by Sunday meetings, the occasional Scout campout, and a begrudged hour spent at early morning seminary. As a Mormon growing up in Chicago I felt enough community with the Mormons to feel separate from the rest of the world, but not enough community with the Mormons to feel like I truly belonged among them. This is where moving to Utah and living along the Wasatch Front has been an interesting change for me as an individual Mormon. The intensity of Mormon community is (IMO) higher here--or at least more pervasive. One is always reminded of the presence of the Church here; a presence that was nowhere near as strong for me growing up in Chicago, Washington D.C., Denver, or San Francisco. And yet, it seems like much of Mormon literature is still focused around a vision of a strong, Utah-style Mormon community that I'm not sure is as central to peoples' perceptions outside of Utah as it is in Utah. It may well be that the Church is the strongest community most Mormons belong to, but I'm not sure that sense of belonging is as strong or central to the thoughts of young Mormons as it has been to older ones. Which is why so many of the stories of breaking into/out of Mormon culture seem so odd to me--I've never experienced that intense sense of belonging, so the idea of my relationship to the community changing isn't particularly traumatic; I've grown up in a world of rapidly changing communities. It's one of the reasons I think there's an increasing generation gap in both Mormon literature and the broader Mormon community--the issues have changed radically in the last twenty-five years, but the literature hasn't. The stories we use to instruct each other are far enough out of context for younger Mormons that they just don't seem to make all that much sense any more. Or maybe it's just me. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] LaBute Essay Date: 03 Jun 2002 18:19:07 -0600 Crude language aside, LaBute pretty much hits it on the head as far as far the appeal of theatre is concerned. There really is nothing like it. As an actor, I've done both stage and film. The rush of walking out on stage and getting an immediate reaction from the audience (and talking with them afterward if the venue permits) is nothing in comparison to the momentary thrill of seeing oneself on the screen. Also, theatre respects the playwright more than films do the screenwriter. In movies, the director is god. In plays, the director works for the playwright (well, actually he works for the producer, but the director of a stage play is more likely to suggest changes directly to the playwright than to hire script doctors as is commonly done in films). ---- Thom Duncan The Nauvoo Theatrical Society "Mormon artists exploring Mormon life through theatre" -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 03 Jun 2002 21:29:53 -0400 Thanks for the example of sanity. David, my husband, has been laid off for six months and it's been wonderful. Challenging but wonderful. It has taken the full six months for the corporate mentality to wear off. He's working on the side at Graeters (ice cream) and loving every minute of it. ----- Original Message ----- > > John spent a few years pursuing success in the corporate world--putting in > long nights at the office, travelling and such. I can't say that the damage > it did to our family is irreparable, but it came quite close. We've since > pulled back, re-examined our lives, our dreams, and our visions of the > future. [snip] > > Jana Remy -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Accepting Each Other's Offerings Date: 03 Jun 2002 21:53:33 -0400 Maybe Scott, part of it is that we often tell stories selectively, to make a point. When making a point we often look to extremes. And I'm with you in the sniveling category. I am so tired of being dead average in everything! My daughter likes listening to a radio show with teen prodigy musicians. I hate it. It's not really that I mind them being brilliant. I mind that I'm not. And everything I do, there is, of course, someone who does it better, faster, smarter, with more flair, funner............ I suppose that's part of being a human being, and maybe a part our society in particular encourages--comparing ourselves to someone else constantly. But then you can answer that question much more effectively than I could. You have a knack for writing a well put together, intelligent, thoughtful, provocative, insightful e-mail that I just don't have. :o) Tracie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] ADAMS, "Yellow China Bell" (Daily Herald) Date: 04 Jun 2002 02:23:00 +0000 [The production notes say that this play is based on the life of a woman the playwright met while she was a LDS missionary in Russia.] ERIC D. SNIDER The Daily Herald on Monday, June 03 PROVO -- In "Yellow China Bell," a 15-year-old Armenian girl is kidnapped by a Russian man who takes her back to his dirt- poor village and makes her his wife, against her will. The social and cultural factors that might cause a woman to stay in such an arrangement are examined. It is not, one hardly needs to point out, a very fun play. It is emotionally wrenching and sometimes difficult to watch, especially in the tiny Margetts Theatre, where the brief physical distance between audience and actor makes the emotional distance seem smaller, too. There is no intermission, either, which maybe is only fair: If the characters don't get a respite from the turmoil, neither should we. That said, I hope no one shies away from watching it for fear of being traumatized. It is not so much disturbing as thought-provoking, the sort of jarring experience that knocks a few things loose but doesn't knock you out cold. In that sense, it's "enjoyable," in the way that a stimulating college lecture or an educational program on PBS is enjoyable. You may exit the theater crying rather than skipping, but you will feel something. Central to the show is Diane Lynn Rane's fantastic performance as Mina, the Armenian girl whisked away to Russia. Initially -- and understandably -- Mina's outlook is dim. She tells Zara (Laura Reyna), her only friend, "I don't pray for happiness anymore. I don't think I believe in it." Life, she says, consists of "living, dying, and patience in between." By the end of the play, circumstances with her husband have forced her to reassess some of these attitudes. Rane's performance is often physical, using facial expressions and body language to express Mina's thoughts. She is much shorter than Jesse Ryan Harward, who plays her husband, and much smaller in frame than Daryl A. Ball, who plays the husband's lusty, gold-chained friend. Her fear of them is strikingly believable, as are all the other emotions she conveys over the course of the show. By my count, this is the sixth BYU mainstage play in the past 2 1/2 years in which Harward has appeared, and I believe it is his best work. Victor is not meant to be a monster and nothing but; he seems to genuinely love Mina. Harward expertly walks the line between sympathy and derision, and I love this character as much as I hate him. An early scene in which Victor has just abducted the young Mina (played by Naira Galoustian) and intends to rape her has Harward and Galoustian doing terribly difficult work. They accomplish it with astonishing professionalism and emotion. Mina's mother, seen in flashbacks, is played with tenderness by Laurel Sandberg. A sort of interpretive dance chorus that provides movement and occasional narration is acted by Shelley Burton, Amanda R. Schutz and Veronica Naimova. The director is Megan Sanborn Jones, and the playwright is BYU graduate student LeeAnne Hill Adams. Should you go? It is intense and cathartic. So, yes. IF YOU GO What: "Yellow China Bell" When: 7:30 p.m. nightly (except Sundays and Mondays) through June 15 Where: Margetts Theatre, BYU's Harris Fine Arts Center Cost: $12 general, $9 students and faculty Info: Call 422-4322, or visit www.byu.edu/hfac Running time: 1 hr., 30 min.; there is no intermission Objectionable content: BYU is advising parental discretion, due to some adult themes. Copyright 2002 by HarkTheHerald.com _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] OVIATT, "The Sixth Wife" (Deseret News) Date: 04 Jun 2002 02:26:39 +0000 Deseret News Sunday, June 2, 2002 4 plays to open this week in Utah By Ivan M. Lincoln Deseret News theater editor "THE SIXTH WIFE," an original drama written and performed by Joan Oviatt, will be presented at the Off Broadway Theatre, 272 S. Main, June 3-27. First produced at Brigham Young University and later for a 24 1/2-week run at the Edinburgh Festival of Arts, the drama is based on the life and times of Emmeline Wells (actually Emmeline Blanche Woodward Harris Whitney Wells), who was one of the most influential women in the American West. James Arrington is directing this production of Oviatt's work. (This is not being produced by the Off Broadway Theatre itself; Oviatt and Arrington are utilizing the venue for a month of weekday performances. OBT's Laughing Stock "improv" company will continue to perform on Fridays and Saturdays.) Performances of "The Sixth Wife" will be 7:30 p.m., Mondays-Thursdays. Tickets, available at the door, are $6 for adults and $4 for senior citizens and students. Seating for this show is not reserved. Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 03 Jun 2002 22:11:59 -0600 ---Original Message From: Ronn Blankenship > Just a minute, now. Who said it is the fault of the men for > thinking it is > all about themselves? > > How often is the reason the men are overworked is either (a) > to afford the > baby and all the stuff that goes with it or (b) because > someone-often the > wife-is asking them why Brother Jones down the street got a > promotion and > they didn't? Good point. Just as it is sometimes the husband putting pressure on the wife to work, it is also sometimes the wife putting the pressure on the husband to make more money. Both are wrong. Families are *important*. It is worth making *sacrifices*, having less stuff, trying to make do with less, in order to give better attention to our families. That's all I'm saying. And I'm not saying it's *all* the men's fault. I'm just saying that one additional facet of the problem of overwhelmed women is that sometimes their men are taking on too much and thus unwilling to alleviate some of the pressure. ---Original Message From: D. Michael Martindale > I'm all for it, but how are you going to get the message > across, when the very essence of men's self-image is defined > by their ability to produce? And the very essence of men's > ability to attract women is defined by the same thing? (How > many women's personals do NOT insist that the man be a > professional?) The message you want to get out will be > utterly lost in the din of messages that regularly brainwash > men that they better have an impressive career or they are > nothing. Even a prophet of God point-blank telling them that > their career successes are meaningless if their families fail > didn't get the message across. True enough. But just because people don't want to hear it doesn't mean you stop telling the truth. And telling it again if you have to. And again and again and as long as you feel the message needs to be heard. Overkill exists, of course. Care, tact, and awareness of how best to support others are important. But it's still important to hear and say and at no time more important than for our young, unmarried adults (men *and* women). Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Stresses on Men (was: Baby Exhaustion) Date: 03 Jun 2002 22:39:05 -0600 ---Original Message From: Ivan Angus Wolfe > > I don't think it is about this. Most guys I know who are > working two to three jobs and are hardly ever home are doing > it because its the only way to stay out of debt while raising > a family and going to college - and the church leaders keep > hammering on and on and on and on about how as men we are to > provide for the family and make sure thy are physically taken > care of and that we incur no debt at all. > > I;ve actually fallen into some debt because I decided it was > more worth it to be home at least some of the time and help > my wife out with the kids, but that apparently makes me a bad > father because I'm not "providing" for my family as much as > the next guy. Then they've learned the wrong lessons. You don't stay out of debt by earning more. Maybe we need to teach better financial lessons. You stay out of debt by spending less than you make--i.e. having less stuff. You do have an interesting point, though. There's a real problem if people think you aren't providing for your family as well as the next guy if you aren't providing the same stuff. That's bunk and needs to be exposed as the bunk it is. I, personally, will stand by any father who lives in a shack, drives a piece of hud, and can't afford to go to all the parties if he also spends more time with his family and knows who his kids are. And I'll back him against a successful businessman or doctor whose kids can't pick him out of a line-up. I've as much as done so in my Quorum. One man was explaining to me how he had taken a night job (in addition to his day job) and explained how they'd have the house paid off in five years. He made the mistake of asking me my opinion--so I gave it to him. I know that his wife is extremely frazzled and frustrated. I know that he didn't even tell her about taking the second job until it was a fait accompli. He looks confused when we're talking about things that I don't laud his sacrifice. Tough. In my opinion, *he* isn't making much of a sacrifice and I'm not a big fan of child sacrifice in any circumstances. > Perhaps this coudl be a literary thing - it seems that far > too often men are shown as negelecting their families to > pursue ladder climbing - are there cases where instead its > shown to be a result of a misplacede desire to follow the > church commandments of "provide" and "stay out of debt."? It had better be careful if it wants to show how damaging it is to follow the brethren. Like I said, you don't stay out of debt by earning more. People who think that you do are going to end up with mounting debts no matter how much they make--I know the truth of this from painful experience. And if you're not providing *spiritually*, then it doesn't much matter what you're providing physically. Or, in the cheesy, market-weasel way I put it yesterday in my lesson, "You can't preside in the home if you barely *reside* there." Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Upcoming Summer Movies Date: 04 Jun 2002 10:25:07 -0700 It's very interesting to see what our creative LDS brothers and sisters are up to in the highly influential entertainment industry! But why was this one in the list? Is Mark Andrus LDS? Any other LDS connection? > DIVINE SECRETS OF THE YA-YA SISTERHOOD > Comedy-drama Warner Bros. > With: Ellen Burstyn, Ashley Judd, Sandra Bullock, James > Garner, Maggie Smith. The idea: > Lifelong Southern friends stage unorthodox intervention for > a wayward daughter. > Writers: Callie Khouri, adaptation by Mark Andrus from > popular Rebecca Wells novels. > Director: Callie Khouri. > So? The women are engaging, and James Garner is > sympathetically fatherly. > [Screenplay by Mark Andrus, who was nominated for an Academy > Award for "As Good As It Gets", and also wrote the > critically acclaimed "Life as a House" and the tepidly > received "Late for Dinner."] Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 04 Jun 2002 10:15:42 -0700 (PDT) The on-line magazine _Slate_ has been running an occassional report from new dad Michael Lewis (along with some wonderful photography by his wife Tabitha Soren). His reports are frank, funny and kinda scary for someone like me who has yet to go through the experience but hopes to soon. Lewis and Soren already have a daughter so some of the best writing has to do with how their first daughter is handling the arrival of their second one (and how that affects the entire family dynamic). You can find the series at: http://slate.msn.com/?id=3944&QueryText="Dad+Again"&SearchOn=Department The latest report is titled "Infanticide to Infatuation." [How's that for a teaser?] I imagine that similar work by a mother would be even more interesting, and, as we have already discussed, necessary. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: [AML] Virus Heads-up Date: 04 Jun 2002 17:12:27 EDT [MOD: Other AML-List members have also reported infections. As a general rule, I'd advise that you not open attachments from people who you find it puzzling to be receiving attachments from. AML-List, perhaps fortunately, is not set up to send out attachments, so it's unlikely that such viruses can be sent out over the List itself.] Hey Everybody, Ben Parkinson got an email, apparently from me, that carried with it an attachment (something about a "funny website") that is probably viral. I can only imagine that they connected Ben and me through the AML list. Please take precautions. I'm not referring anyone here to any "funny" sites. If it has an attachment of any kind, it's not from me. Hope nobody gets hurt, Marvin Payne __________________ Visit marvinpayne.com! "Come unto Christ, and lay hold on every good gift..." (From the last page of the Book of Mormon) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: daryoung@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 04 Jun 2002 21:28:44 GMT Oops. I said, "But you should know that a book of the second type you describe has already been written: _A Joyful Mother of Children_, by Linda Eyre." That was wrong. The book is actually called _An Emotional First Aid Kit for Mothers_ (by Linda Eyre). There is a book by that other name, but it's not the one I was referring to, and I'm actually not sure who the author is of that one. By the way, I can't say enough how much I have appreciated this discussion. Women, or at least this woman, tend to compare themselves to other women. I'm not sure we can or should help doing this. It's a way of participating in something that is natural to women: evaluating herself and finding ways to be better. I can't help observing how other mothers parent their kids--not because I am innately critical but because I am innately thirsty for ways to do better. And there are women in AML, women whom I have met and who post regularly on this list, to whom I have compared myself many times before. In particular I am thinking of Gae Lyn, who caught my attention when I first met her because she is raising boys as I am. When I heard how many she had, I was right then pondering how many we should have. "Wow," I thought, "She has that many, and look--she has done so much else with her life! She has a career I would love, a great mind and lots of interesting thoughts. Maybe! I could (and should) have more kids." And now I hear her thoughts about how many she has had and I do a double-take. All this has made me realize that we can only benefit from being more open with each other. And also that I need to find another way of knowing how many kids to have than just by comparing myself to others. Thanks, all of you, for sharing. [Darlene Young] ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Random Thoughts Date: 04 Jun 2002 10:32:58 -0700 Of course, there's *Lost Boys* by Orson Scott Card. It doesn't 'address' the 'issue', as it were. But if you don't have a rock in your throat the size of Gibraltar during the last chapter, you're not human. I suppose that book gets out the message 'it could be anyone, anywhere' and 'as much as you try to protect your kids, it could still happen', but that's not the primary focus of the book. Someone else suggested 'from a mother's point of view'. One heck of a story could be made, say, from the point of view of a mother whose husband/father or husband/stepfather or brother/uncle or father/grandfather or older son/older brother or friend/Primary/YM/YW teacher is molesting one of her children. It'd be a trip to hell and back to write, though. Certainly nothing I'm up to.... (All I'm up to so far is three somewhat-harmless SF stories which I'm submitting as soon as I can get a hold of some US stamps for the SASE's. If any of you are really bored and want to read and/or criticise them, let me know. They're not at all LDS, though; think about some of OSC's early SF short stories.) Robert ********************************************************************** Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too 'Man is that he might have joy--not guilt trips.' (Russell M. Nelson) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Lit-crit Recommendations Date: 04 Jun 2002 11:52:57 -0600 ___ Stephen ___ | Norton has just issued a MAMMOTH anthology of western literary | criticism. It's about 2000 pages long in 8 point type. If you | just want an overview of the players, it's a place to start. ___ This is good as a nice overview of all the figures in literary criticism. It has leading critics, philosophers, and literary figures. However it tends to have such short excerpts from them that you get only a very general idea of what they are really saying. I enjoy my copy, but it tends overall to not be as helpful as I thought it might. It is great as a starting point for finding more information. Plus the biographical sketch it gives of each person really is very well written. Just don't expect to be able to really understand their positions from the anthology. It is more a "wet the appetite" sort of thing. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 04 Jun 2002 16:52:34 -0700 (PDT) --- William Morris wrote: > The on-line magazine _Slate_ has been running an occassional report from > new dad Michael Lewis (along with some wonderful photography by his wife > Tabitha Soren). His reports are frank, funny and kinda scary for someone > like me who has yet to go through the experience but hopes to soon. > Sorry about that. Here's a link that works. It's to the first installment in the series: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2064335 If you scroll down to the bottom of the piece you will find a box that lets you link to the other reports in the series including the aformentioned "Infanticide to Infatuation." ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Congrats Date: 05 Jun 2002 10:00:45 -0600 I just had an article published in the Ensign on singles in the ward family. Kathy [Grant] *** Kathy, that's great! I love hearing about fellow writers' successes. Thanks for telling us. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 05 Jun 2002 10:35:33 -0600 On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 21:28:44 GMT, daryoung@juno.com wrote: >By the way, I can't say enough how much I have appreciated this = discussion. Women, or at least this woman, tend to compare themselves to= other women. I'm not sure we can or should help doing this. It's a way= of participating in something that is natural to women: evaluating = herself and finding ways to be better. I agree with you about self-evaluation and improvement. But I don't = think that comparing ourselves to other women generally has a positive effect; = if anything, it's the opposite. I think most women, when they look at other women, tend to think "she's not doing it the way I'm doing it...I MUST BE DOING IT WRONG!" We frequently use the example of others not to build ourselves up, but to berate ourselves for our shortcomings (real or imaginary). So if that's the way we compare ourselves to others, yes, I think we should stop doing it--or figure out how to do it constructively. (I, for example, was thinking, "How can Darlene write such a good story = AND take care of her kids? I must be so lazy if *I* can't do it too." :) = Good story, by the way.)=20 But your example about Gae Lyn shows perfectly why we women get into = trouble comparing ourselves to others. We compare our intimate self-knowledge of our faults and struggles with the attractive facades of others. Of = course those other people aren't really superficial, but we tend to assume that whatever we see is, in fact, all there is. We forget that they have problems that aren't readily visible, just like we do. >All this has made me realize that we can only benefit from being more = open with each other. This sentence gave me pause. I would rather *not* be open with the women around me (my ward, basically) because, to be brutally honest, I don't = think my problems are any of their business. I know that's a nasty selfish way= of living, but most of what I'm dealing with is not something I can casually share in Relief Society. BUT. The context of the above sentence is not just about how we benefit from being open about our struggles, it's about how others benefit from learning that WE are not the pillars of = perfection we appear to be. And I guarantee you that every one of the women on this list has at some point been looked up to by someone else who was thinking "Boy, I wish I was like her; she does everything right." Sometimes it = helps to know that the people you admire struggle too. >And also that I need to find another way of knowing how many kids to = have than just by comparing myself to others. You could cast lots, like that Haman guy in the Bible...no, wait, he was = the bad guy, don't do that. :) I think it's a really personal thing--not just the decision, but how one comes to it. For us...it was mainly the knowledge that the cost to our existing children was far greater than the benefit of having another. We have four. I'm the oldest of nine. Jacob is the oldest of eleven. Four barely seems like a family, to me. But it's enough for us. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] Virus Heads-up Date: 05 Jun 2002 08:28:20 -0700 [MOD: Excellent advice!] Marvin (and Jonathan of course), You are probably talking about the KLEZ virus. It is clever and dangerous. It is able to appear to be coming from a mailing list like AML-List. It isn't. It gets the list name from someone's address book, and then spoofs itself to look like it is from a friend, a mailing list, a businesses associate, or anyone else in the infected person's address book. They're fairly easy to spot once you know what to look for. They have an attachment, around 124K in size. The attachment is the virus. If you run it, everyone in your mailbox can either get it, or can be made by the virus to appear to be sending it. It also does some destructive stuff on your computer. It is a good personal policy to never open any attachment that you don't know is coming. I ask friends to send me an advance email describing any attachment they plan to send me. If someone sends me an attachment without a head-up that it's coming, I write back and ask them to tell me what they sent and why. I don't open any attachment without this information. Rex Goode -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: HOJONEWS@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Dave SHIELDS, _The Pendulum's Path_ (Review) Date: 04 Jun 2002 14:14:35 EDT In a message dated 6/4/02 9:51:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jeff.needle@general.com writes: > . From a > dominating, hypocritical father to a submissive, and deeply > flawed, mother and family, this isn't a feel-good account of > forever families. Instead, it is a graphic description of the > effect of dysfunction and repression in a publicly-respectable > Mormon family. Father, Bishop and, later, Stake President, is a > thoroughly unappealing character. The children are easier to > like, but as Shields shows, this isn't necessarily a good > indicator of later success in life. > Jeff and AMLers: Jeff, this is a lovely review. As an author, I was especially touched by your ability to stumble over roadblocks (poor editing) without condemning the entire work. It is also a rare (maybe professional) reviewer who can write a paragraph like the one above about a subject he/she holds dear and not be put off enough to downgrade the overall rating. Thank you for that. As an aside, if Dave Shields is not part of this group, he should know about it. A greater number of fine literary minds in one place, I have not encountered. Carolyn Howard-Johnson, Author of This is the Place, an award-winning story about a young journalist who writes her way through repression into redemption For a FREE First Chapter Click Here or send to: carolynhowardjohnson@sendfree.com FREE Cooking by the Book at http://www.tlt.com/authors/carolynhowardjohnson.htm -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 04 Jun 2002 13:01:26 -0600 I have enjoyed reading this thread, as I can relate to much of it. But I have kept wondering why, even though I have experienced a very real level of baby exhaustion, I have never doubted the church, I never felt like I wasn't worth anything, I usually felt I had something to give and never had the well dry up completely. Why? I think I figured it out, and I think that any book written on the subject should probably address coping mechanisms, which somehow I blundered upon and which I believed saved my bacon. When our first child was born it was easy to end up doing it all myself, but when number two came along, I realized some of that had to change, and began reordering my expectations for myself and my husband. Now I have people constantly amazed when I tell them that my husband and I take turns putting the kids to bed--they are amazed that he ever does it, as if that's some huge thing. Had I not *asked* him to do that, he wouldn't have. But I did, so he does, and the kids love it. They have their own "daddy" rituals on Daddy nights. I also made a point of taking time for myself, be it a hot bath, a piece of chocolate or a good book (or if I was lucky, all three). Sometimes that wasn't more than once a month, but anything helps. At one point a friend (who had the same number of kids at about the same ages) and I would take turns tending each other's children. It was only once a month (one month was my turn to go out, the next was hers), but there were no rules beyond the fact that we were expected to go out for at least two hours. It wasn't a lot, but two hours every other month all to myself to do whatever I wanted was liberating. I have found the regular exercise is a must for me to remain emotionally there for the kids. I am a much happier and healthier person when I've exercised than when I don't. And finally, I write. I've mentioned on the list before how when I don't write, nothing seems to go the way it's supposed to--the house is messier, the kids more irritable, mom is a wreck, etc. I have learned the hard way that my family can't afford me to stop writing. I do have to keep a real balance--so long as I have little ones at home, my writing will never be a big chunk of my day--but that outlet keeps me sane and the family functioning. I believe everyone has their own outlet and needs to use it. For some people it is gardening, for others quilting or cooking or photography or music or painting or a dozen other things. But it needs to be something that isn't necessary to feed and clothe and otherwise care for the family and it needs to be something that takes care of the mother of the family so she can keep doing it. I look back at my hardest baby exhaustion years (kids at four years, two years, and a new born), and wonder how I did it. Only now do I recognize how hard it was (there's that exhaustion fog that hangs over you at the time), but I think the above is how I managed to get through it with a smile on my face--and with energy to really enjoy the little ones and soak up wonderful memories. What other coping strategies have you used that could be included in such abook? Does your writing play a part? For that matter, how has the baby exhaustion affected what you write about? Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kellene Adams Subject: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Book Date: 04 Jun 2002 14:19:35 -0600 [MOD: I think it's great to see how Kellene is developing this idea. At some point, it might be worthwhile to go off-List with discussion of specifics, but at this point I still think it's interesting to see all the ideas different people have...] I've actually talked to a couple of potential publishers about this baby exhaustion book idea and have seen a fair bit of interest. At this point, what I'm trying to do is come up with 10-15 different chapter subjects/topics, i.e., realistic expectations, what really matters (prioritizing), knowing when to say "no" (to your children, to those around you, to having more children. . .), mothering in the world but not of the world (recognizing that we don't need the Bach tapes, the Early Reader book series, the Fisher Price megasaucer, etc., that a spoon and aluminum pot and time spent in the yard work just as well), partnering with papa (how to work closely with Dad), doing it all alone (for single mothers), how not to be alone (sources of help, support, encouragement), etc. Once I get the chapter topics identified, I think I'm going to ask for some anecdotes (no holds barred, the publishers I've talked to have stressed that they don't want whitewashed accounts, they want a real, true, honest accounts of the struggles and challenges) to use in the chapters. I would, of course, and if people wouldn't mind, love to use some anecdotes I've read here on this line, as well as any others that are shared. (I've kept track of all the posts.) I would be in touch with anyone and everyone personally before sharing your story. I think I'd like to introduce each chapter with a true-life experience, then expound with the insight, answers, advice, etc. that might be pertinent that I can gather from everyone and anyone willing to contribute. So that's kind of the plan. I actually mentioned the idea of a collection of essays from young mothers and didn't get as enthusiastic of a response to that approach as I did to the one just outlined above. I'd love suggestions for the chapters (which I started to outline above). I'm talking to a few family counselors/therapists to get a feel for what they feel some of the most common and most challenging problems might be, but I'd like to balance that with other sources as well. So, feel free to jump in with your top-five (or top-ten) challenges as a young mother. . . I'd welcome it. Thanks, Kellene > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report May 31 2002 Date: 04 Jun 2002 15:43:35 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of May 31, 2002 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 10 The New Guy 1,415,261 1,676 24 Eliza Dushku (lead actress) 26,818,276 23 ESPN's Ultimate X 186,677 48 24 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 1,869,860 26 Murder by Numbers 121,658 217 45 Ryan Gosling (lead male actor) 31,309,821 49 The Believer 16,380 9 17 Ryan Gosling (lead actor) 110,113 59 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 13,087 5 759 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,333,699 64 The Other Side of Heaven 9,585 15 171 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,523,292 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 67 China: The Panda Adventure 7,493 6 311 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,395,910 68 The Singles Ward 7,248 6 122 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 752,069 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Will Swenson, Connie Young, Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne, Michael Birkeland, Robert Swenson, Lincoln Hoppe, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, etc. 70 Galapagos 6,444 5 948 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,353,501 96 Mark Twain's America 3D 680 1 1431 Alan Williams (composer) 2,226,352 HOT FILMMAKER FROM MEXICO CITY: Newly listed at http://www.ldsfilm.com is Jorge Ramirez, a Latter-day Saint and BYU graduate who wrote to let us know about the projects he is currently working on. While he was in Utah, Ramirez directed The Fiancee trilogy, which won at the Utah Student Film Collective film festival and the Valle Verde film festival in Mexico City. (He is currently writing a feature length screenplay based on the Fiancee characters.) Ramirez is currently the executive producer on "Hermanos", a feature length film written and directed by non-LDS director Juan Pablo Villase=f1or. (Villase=f1or's previous films include "Por si no te vuelvo a ver", 1997, and "Y yo que la quiero tanto", 1987. The director has won Mexico's Silver Ariel Award for Best Director, the DICINE Award and FIPRESCI Award at the Guadalajara Mexican Film Festival, the Patron's Award at the San Diego International Film Festival, and other awards.) The project is in pre-production, with principal photography to begin in October. Ramirez is also also in the development stage for "Blue Demon", an action adventure film to be shot in mid-January, also in Mexico City. BRIGHAM CITY FINAL NUMBERS: Excel Entertainment reports that after collecting all figures from the last few remote theaters to report... The final U.S. (or perhaps North American) box office total for Richard Dutcher's critically acclaimed "Brigham City" is: $905,073. The reported budget for the movie was $900,000. This return puts "Brigham City" 3rd among "LDS Cinema" films in terms of box office gross, coming behind Mitch Davis' "The Other Side of Heaven" ($7 million budget) and Dutcher's "God's Army." HaleStorm's "The Singles Ward" (Hale/Moyer/Hunter; approx. $325,000 budget) which is still playing in theaters, with plans to slowly role out a few states at a time, has earned $752,069, and may at some point surpass "Brigham City"'s box office performance. "Brigham City" is currently one of the top-selling video/DVDs in LDS bookstores. MORE FROM EXCEL: Excel also reports that according to AC Nielsen EDI, Excel Entertainment "ranks eighth on the list of top niche distributors, just behind Sony Classics and ahead of Fine Line. Miramax tops the list of niche film distributors with a 33.6% market share. Niche or limited-release distributors are those with films playing in less than 600 markets... The numbers are especially significant in light of the fact that Excel is a relative newcomer to the film distribution business. The company dove into film distribution in 2000 with the independent hit 'God's Army' and went on to distribute 'Brigham City.' Most recently, Excel was responsible for the national release of the film 'The Other Side of Heaven,' which has grossed over $4.4 million and is still playing in theaters around the country. "[Excel president Jeff] Simpson adds, 'What we are trying to do at Excel is show that there is a significant and under-serviced market for entertainment, especially film, that addresses real life stories and issues from a faithful perspective. We are unique among film distributors in that we've proven that we can reach audiences looking for that kind of quality entertainment.' " AC Nielsen EDI data shows Excel Entertainment with 3.3% market share, behind Miramax, U Focus, IFC, USA, Lions Gate, Fox SearchLight and Sony Classics. Since forming in 2000, Excel Entertainment has distributed three films, which have grossed more than $8 million at the U.S. box office. BATTER UP: The ball is now in Kels Goodman's court. The next feature film made by and about Latter-day Saints is "Handcart", Kels Goodman's fictional epic set against the backdrop fo the Martin Handcart Company's trek to Utah. The trailers have played online and in theaters, posters are up. Like Dutcher, Goodman has previously produced and directed a feature film prior to his theatrical feature debut. "Handcart" premiers July 24th. KelsGoodman.com reports that "during the past week rough copies of the film have been shipped every day to Germany to Eric Hanson for the final written score. Then early June, Kels Goodman himself and Eric Hanson will fly to Pheonix. Arizona to record the film score with a full piece orchestra." CHARLY POSTERS ("one-sheets") are now in movie theaters throughout the Wasatch Front, according to the producers of "Jack Weyland's Charly." DAY OF DEFENSE PREMIER: "Day of Defense" will premier September 21st at Kingsbury Hall in SLC. "Shades of Gray", which performs sounds on the soundtrack, will perform live at the premier. No word yet on whether or not the movie will have a limited theatrical release beyond that, or go straight to video. KIETH MERRILL ON CLEAN VIDEOS: Meridian Magazine has posted a new article by Kieth Merrill which features a detailed discussion of and look at the clean video-editing industry. The article is at http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/020604clean.html (If you're not familiar with the clean video movement, think of it like this: You know how in many video stores you can buy or rent Hollywood videos in Spanish -- they're basically the same, except modified for Spanish-language speakers, with a dubbed sound track or subtitles... The clean video movement is basically like that, except for the Latter-day Saint/family market. Well, read the article. Merrill explains it better than I do. POLL POSITION: The exciting polling at http://www.ldsfilm.com/polls.html continues. In answer to the question "Which upcoming film are you most looking forward to seeing?", "Handcart" is currently ahead of "Charly", but only by a few votes. In answer to the question "Which is your favorite 'LDS Cinema' movie?", the current tally is: "The Singles Ward" - 28%; "The Other Side of Heaven" - 26%; "Brigham City" - 23%; "God's Army" - 17%. If you haven't voted yet, what are you waiting for? GALACTICA DVD POSTPONED: SciFi.com reports that Universal Pictures Video Australia announced that it is postponing the planned June release of a Battlestar Galactica DVD box set until mid-2003. WINDING DOWN TO UNWOUND 2002: Tucker Dansie's "Unwound 2002" short film exhibition is just two weeks away. The short film exhibition, with free admission, will take place on June 15th at 7:00 p.m. at the Jewett Center for the Performing Arts at Westminster College below the corner of 1700 S. 1300 E. in Salt Lake City. There will be a "meet and greet" after the films are shown so that all in attendance can meet the director and many of the actors. For more information, see the official website at: http://www.tuckertdansie.com/unwound.htm MORE CARD: Orson Scott Card's novel "Lost Boys" has just been optioned by Universal for director Jonathan Mostow. Card is not writing the screenplay. In the novel, the main characters are Latter-day Saints, but per the author's request, their religion will be unspecified in the movie, so that non-LDS writers don't get the cultural details wrong. Card's novels "Treasure Box" and "Treason" are currently under producer (rather than studio) options. CORRECTION: Orson Scott Card's grandfather Lester's last name is PARK, not CARD. (Lester Park produced the first-ever feature Mormon commericial feature film, "Corianton", way back in 1931. The full story is here: http://www.ldsfilm.com/ar_aesthetic.html -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 04 Jun 2002 16:55:57 -0400 Yes, only I censor myself by not going to SS at all. I started that in Utah where I learned among other mormon tid-bits that only Mormons go to heaven, any heaven, and the Bishop is my final judge in Israel. I gave going to SS a shot here in Cleveland, but got tired of hearing from the 25 year old teacher every possible way of telling how how his mission (which was the best two years of his life!) related to the lesson and how we should worship at the feet of our pioneer ancestors. Now I either help out in the library or I bring something to read in the chapel. I'm almost sorry I missed the lesson in question as I probably couldn't have kept my mouth shut on what I have on my walls and in my bookcases. I might have mentioned how some homes look like the art department of a deseret bookstore. Mine doesn't, though there are some prints I would enjoy having. I might of also brought up the knock down drag out fight my husband and I had when I discovered that he had (these are his words) "exercised his priesthood authority and threw away the porno book that was on your bookshelf." If you're all done gasping for air, the book in question was the _The Art of Sensual Massage_ for married couples. Only boobs were really noticible and not a wing-ding in sight. As I pointed out, if I wanted porno I didn't have to buy it, I could get it for free on the net, and oh well, never mind all that. Getting myself in a lather now. So maybe it is a good thing I skip out on these lessons. Must have been the Holy Ghost whispering in my ear. Debbie Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: [AML] Book of Mormon Cameo on Public Radio Date: 04 Jun 2002 16:37:52 -0500 [MOD: Apologies for not getting this out before the time of the actual program rebroadcasts...] Two days ago, I was listening to a radio discussion between David Byrne, formerly of the Talking Heads, and Dave Eggers, author of "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius". It was part of the City Arts & Lectures series of author interviews in front of live audiences in San Francisco. Dave Eggers (at least I think it was Eggers) started humorously describing a project he'd done for an art exhibit in Europe, in which he wrote a faux religious pamphlet that he wanted the art museum to give away free on the streets of the town -- by men in conservative, dark suits -- just as though it were a real religious pamphlet. Then he started holding up his reference books for the audience to see. Since this was radio, I couldn't see exactly what he was doing, but only hear what he was saying and the reactions of the audience. EGGERS: Here's a Bible. [Audience laughter.] And a Book of Mormon. ... It's the sequel. [Audience laughter.] "Bible 2". [More laughter.] It's set in the New World. ... [More laughter.] Though the audience was laughing at the incongruity of describing religious books in terms of Hollywood movie sequels, it's really not that far off, is it? The presentation will be repeated tonight (Tuesday) at 8 p.m. Pacific time (9 p.m. Mountain time), and Wednesday at 2 a.m. Pacific time (3 a.m. Mountain time), on KQED-FM. Go to www.kqed.org/radio/index.html to access their live streaming broadcasts on Real Media and Windows Media. He apparently also described the development of his "art project" on a website, but I haven't tracked that down yet. Frank Maxwell Gilroy, California -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Random Thoughts Date: 04 Jun 2002 14:25:02 -0700 Books and stories dealing with this are probably rare because many people are extremely squeamish about it. They want to believe that pedophiles are the in-the- shadows trenchcoats types. That is hardly the case. They are often charming, friendly and make themselves generous and indespensible so that if an accusation is ever made no one can believe that Mr. X or Brother So and So would do such a thing! Same thing can also apply to certain killers. Ted Bundy was a charismatic type who did stuff like form a young republican club in Washington state. He had such a good facade that the author Ann Rule-("Small Sacrifices"), saw him at a social function of some sort and thought she'd like to introduce her daughter to him. Naturally she was horrifed to later find out who he really was. They lure and fool their victims by initally being charming before the true predator and monster comes out. Bringing it back to pedophilia, I think church-going people shy away from wanting to believe such things because it's a terrible thing to accuse someone of, they are forced to think on facts of a sexual nature and picture the violation of a child or adolescent. Not pretty thoughts. And the big question, what are they going to do about it? Oh dear, mustn't judge. They might have to face the fact that someone they like might be a monster and that there is a wolf, a predator among them. It shatters the feeling of security and safety one feels at Church. All these things cause a cognitive dissonance that would rock most people's worlds and well, why don't we wait and see what the law has to say about it before we rush to judgement? I know of a situation where a woman informed a Bishop and Stake President about an adolescent pedophile who because of age, wasn't going to do any detention time, but was put on probation. They seemed reluctant to do anything beyond counseling in the Bishop's office and whatever the state mandated. They were informed that if they did not make a concerted effort to see to it that this individual was never around kids in an unsupervised fashion the news media would be informed. The asked for supervision was then verbally guaranteed. These are issues that can and should be addressed in both novels, short stories and non-fiction. There are situations where good people have done nothing and evil has spread or gone unpunished. There have also been situations where people, including leadership, have stepped up to the plate and done the best they could, even if justice could not be fully satisfied, but offered comfort, being believed, and counseling for victims. I think Harlow has a short story where he tackles some of this. Isn't this also part of Brady Udall's "Miracle Life of Edgar Mint"? In this case the field is black and ready to harvest. Even addressing the why and how these warped individuals become who they become and how they choose their victims. I hope there are authors brave enough to go down this dark tunnel, we all might come out a little wiser because of it. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Motherhood Literature Date: 04 Jun 2002 14:14:05 -0800 >===== Original Message From Maren Allen ===== Somedays, I would love to leave them= > at a daycare and let someone else raise them while I continually nurture my= > intellect with something besides what a mouse will do if you give him a= > cookie ... I have a theory about those books (there's also one about what a pig would do with a pancake). For those who don't know them (count yourself lucky), the book says, if you do one thing for this little anthropomorphic animal, it will constantly think of other things that it needs and run you ragged the whole day. Well, I guess I gave it away. I think that those books are a metaphor for the beleagured parent. The child gets to see what he or she would have to do in order to keep a small, unpredictable, frenetic being happy. But, maybe it's exactly the opposite. Maybe those books are to help children enhance their appreciation (or gloatation) of their childhood and the unreasonable demands they are allowed to make on their parents. Yeah - they'd better enjoy it. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: RE: [AML] Stresses on Men Date: 04 Jun 2002 18:04:20 -0600 (MDT) I wrote: > > Perhaps this coudl be a literary thing - it seems that far > > too often men are shown as negelecting their families to > > pursue ladder climbing - are there cases where instead its > > shown to be a result of a misplacede desire to follow the > > church commandments of "provide" and "stay out of debt."? Then Jacob wrote: > It had better be careful if it wants to show how damaging it is to > follow the brethren. Like I said, you don't stay out of debt by earning > more. I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the brethern - they always talk about "nessecary" vs. "unnessecay" debt. What is odd to me is how this seems to get translated by the local leaders (nearly all of whom I've been noticing are doctors and lawyers) to "have no debt at all - and invest all your money." Maybe I'm the only one, but my mission president once gave a zone conference on how to become wealthy. My bishop just gave a presentation on how to invest money for maximum benefit under the guise of staying fiscally responsible - and always - it was "any debt is bad." --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] Re: Exhaustion (Baby and Otherwise) Date: 04 Jun 2002 19:41:51 -0600 Kathy Grant wrote: *What is the role of faith in Christ in all of this? More than once the Spirit has reminded me of Isaiah's words: "They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength . . ." (Isa 40:29-31.) I have felt this renewal at crucial times. How can we call upon the Lord's promises for additional strength? (A close single friend and I pray specifically and continually for each other, and we both find this helps significantly.) Jana writes: I think Kathy really hit on a point we'd been skirting. ( And, as a side note, I wholeheartedly agree that the single life is just as, or really, more exhausting. My closest friend is my Aunt who is 70 and still single. I've never dare ask her to help with children, because her own resources were so low. She occasionally did, but I think it was heroic of her to do so.) I think "getting through" the small children stage (I'm almost there! Mike goes to kindergarten, and I've purchased my first homestudy course from BYU, one that I'll actually finish this time: 5 classes left to graduate), is not much more cataclysmic than a man struggling through the job/career years, (which many wives put pressure on them to do, btw), a single member existing in the mormon culture, etc. If my mother had been closer and younger, I would eagerly have pursued my career, finished school sooner and been less exhausted. Daycare was an abhorrent thought to me.....I just assumed I'd spend more on that and guilt gifts than I'd make anyway. And I know in the end, my most joyous memories will be of those marooned years of being the stay-at-home mom. The Savior is always there if we ask and even try to meet him halfway, which ends up being more like 1/8th of the way. And this should never be minimized. Darlene Young wrote: Kellene, I would enjoy and read rabidly (and rapidly) both books. But you should know that a book of the second type you describe has already been written: _A Joyful Mother of Children_, by Linda Eyre. I have read it and enjoy it very much. But it didn't go far enough for me. I need a book that talks more specifically about baby exhaustion and its effects on the sexual relationship in a marriage as well as its other effects. So many books (and talks and RS lessons) "focus on the positive"--and by doing so, seem to deny the negative. I don't mind hearing suggestions and stories of people who have conquered--IF I know they started off feeling negative and miserable. When I know a person has reached the depths that I have, I can admire the heights they climbed too as well. I hope you write this book, and I hope you are brutally honest and open. Just a thought--I bet you could get some of the women on this list to contribute essays for you to edit and compile . . . Darlene Young Jana writes: I think you're too kind, Darlene. I know many women who do not even attend R.S. because it only leaves them feeling inadequate. I attended this past week and the lesson was on marriage and family. I think the teacher did a great job, but from all the class comments which are and should be encouraged I think some felt like they were letting their husbands down when they didn't greet him at the door every day with a smile and a kiss. (One older sister even made an analogy about men and their dogs.....how much they love them, and look how they jump up to greet them whenever they come home) And then jokes are always made, and the appearance of a more generous/liberal? attitude toward the expectations on women is bandied about. But the bottom line is usually, "we can still do it." (In my mind, even if we can, should we?) I felt bad when one mother who is anorectically skinny and an admitted perfectionist, once again bore her testimony and berated herself as a "brat". (maybe she really is, I don't know her that well, but I sense that the self-flaggelation was prompted by the tone the lesson took.) Frankly, I think when anyone (again, I'm not speaking of the teacher or the organization itself, just the overall tone many groups take on) doesn't deal with the "whole" of an issue or problem, (remember, we Can't know the sweet without the bitter.....it's not possible in this life no matter how some try to negate that law), they come off sounding more like propagandists than truth tellers. Why would we even need the Savior if we didn't reach our nadir now and then. Jana Pawlowski -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 04 Jun 2002 15:25:36 -0500 At 10:07 AM 5/28/02, you wrote: >I haven't read all of this thread, so maybe this has been covered, but I >have a question--Bobo Fett is a clone, right? Jango Fett had asked for a >clone of himself that wasn't genetically altered in any way. Wasn't that >supposed to be Bobo? Yes, that's what I got. He is the same Boba Fett who grew up and fell into the sand-worm pit off Jabba's ship in Episode 6. >As for the racial issue, maybe I'm just clueless about stuff like this and >don't notice it--but I never once thought of Jango Fett and all the clones >as being of a particular race or nationality. He was just a bounty hunter >out to make some quick cash. >Susan M I am happy to say I am no longer as clueless as I once was, and am now fairly sensitized to racial issues. Yet I didn't see Fett's nationality/race being a negative issue. I do have a problem with Jar Jar Binks. [And I have a problem with certain aspects of Shrek (except that it turned out right at the end, and I haven't heard any boo-ing from minority groups, so it must be all right). I have a problem with the Frederic Douglass (hero) hairstyle on the bad guy in _Unbreakable._ And so on.] But the fact that they cloned an apparently Polynesian/minority person, judging him to be of the *superior* quality desired to make so many, many copies of to make superior soldiers--says enough positive that I can nearly forgive the Jar Jar mistake. I would have had a SERIOUS problem with the film had Lucas made Jango Fett look at all Aryan. Wouldn't you? As for the rest of this thread--I waited to read the posts until I'd seen the movie last week! It had some wonderful eye candy, but the rest of the critiques seem dead-on to me, from either side of the arguments, and I can't add a lot to the discussion. (I am too tired. I claim baby exhaustion. It's hard to think straight and analyze anything.) I do think Padme should've been more mature. That she would have had more experience and better resistance to Anakin's overtures. She was, after all, at LEAST 26 and remembered him as a little boy. But then where's the story?? Mostly after seeing Episode II I felt sad. The final scene made me want to cry. But I didn't. (HA! So there.) I hope Episode III has everything I imagine it will have, and ties all six pieces together with the critical, vital details and answers the rest of our questions. And does anyone (bigger fan than me) remember what Darth Vader said to Luke at the end of VI? Didn't he say something about killing the Emperor to take his place at Darth's side, to rule the Empire as father and son, _as he did_? Shouldn't that dialog give us a clue about what's coming up in the last Episode? I suspect that Anakin's was hardly a virgin birth as much as it was a covered-up paternity, perhaps even an abduction/artificial implantation. That Anakin/Vader might actually be the son of Emperor Palpatine. Something like that. Something seeded to become exactly what Palpatine wanted him to be, manipulated carefully all along. IF that's so--then the redemption aspect could become more meaningful at the end than the willy-nilly deathbed repentance that it currently seems. At any rate, I sure hope Episode III makes the rest of it make sense, or I'll be very disappointed. Overall, #2 was much more well done than #1, which stunk so unfortunately and absolutely. I liked #2 well enough and it was fun to watch. And for Eric S.'s sake, (and a loose literary tie-in) the Star Wars novels--especially those by Timothy Zahn--are generally very well-written, fascinating books. They are not, repeat NOT, in the same B-class as Star Trek novels. They are also terrific, safe fun and adventure. There is no bloody gore, no explicit sex and no bad language in any of them. My husband talked me into reading one several years ago (after I laughed at him for reading that "junk"--he also reads Shatner and Star Trek novels...), and I was pleasantly surprised. I've since read nearly all of them. It was the same type of pleasant surprise I had after laughing at him for watching a show with the silly title of "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer," but was finally talked into watching it. :-) Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 04 Jun 2002 21:57:05 -0600 Gae Lyn Henderson said: > The fact is that the class does not have an unlimited tolerance for Sister > Henderson-thinks-shes-an-intellectual-tries-to-liberalize-our-thinking type > statements. If only they knew the restraint I show and the empathy I > have for their irritation at my volubility. > > Anyone else censor themselves this way? Hell no . I used to watch what I said in Church meetings. I didn't want to upset anybody. So when I disagreed with the teacher, I'd swallow it, which would make me crazy after a while because silence during a discussion implies tacit agreement. Now I make a point to say something if I disagree with an item being presented (I see this as the main problem with Sacrament Meeting, by the way--no interactivity). The Sunday School "phylactory lesson" is a good example. In our class that day, the discussion rapidly turned into a "guess how much Mormon art I have on MY walls and shelves?" bragging session. So I raised my hand and said, "In general, I hate Mormon art. Does that make me a bad Mormon?" I think that phrasing my comment as a question helped--it made me seem less defensive and more open to comments (which I was). It also generated a very interesting discussion. No one wanted me thinking I was a "bad Mormon," so they tripped over themselves thinking up reasons why I wasn't. I feel strongly that I have an obligation to speak up in class--especially when I disagree with what's being said. It's not hard to do so in a non-offensive way. If there are those who take offense anyway, even when I tried my best not to cause any, then that's summarily Not My Problem. Amy Chamberlain -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Upcoming Summer Movies Date: 04 Jun 2002 23:14:04 -0500 At 12:25 PM 6/4/02, you wrote: >It's very interesting to see what our creative LDS brothers and sisters are >up to in the highly influential entertainment industry! But why was this one >in the list? Is Mark Andrus LDS? Any other LDS connection? > > > DIVINE SECRETS OF THE YA-YA SISTERHOOD > > [Screenplay by Mark Andrus, who was nominated for an Academy > > Award for "As Good As It Gets", Something is swirling in my head from somewhere, as I read this, that I do know somebody who knew or is related to the guy who wrote As Good As It Gets, who is LDS. But somebody ELSE is going to have to back me up on that hazy idea... :-0 I have no idea why I'm thinking this. Maybe I dreamed it long ago. (baby exhaustion strikes again!!) Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Accepting Each Other's Offerings Date: 04 Jun 2002 23:04:13 -0600 Tracie Laulusa wrote: > Maybe Scott, part of it is that we often tell stories selectively, to make a > point. When making a point we often look to extremes. Still, in recognizing the value of one offering and ignoring the others are we sending a message of judgment and dismissal? Is unrecognized pain unworthy of recognition? Why don't we tell more stories of the median rather than the extreme? Are we too lazy to deal with anything but the most obvious tales? Are we really incapable of getting the point if it isn't offered in giant flaming letters a foot high? I know that's an unfair question, but part of the problem is that those who feel underprivileged often take a lack of recognition exactly that way--as a statement that their struggle has no value. If their struggle has no worth, then what does that say about them for having that struggle? Of course it's impossible to recognize each and every issue or problem or struggle that someone, somewhere may feel--and there's certainly no way to address them all in the thirty posts a day we have on this list. Nor should we try; that's well beyond the charter of this list. But I think we often do each other a fundamental disservice when we dismiss or berate each other for not feeling as passionate about a particular issue as we might feel people should. I understand that it's a hazard of the forum, but I also think a concentrated effort on our parts to try to understand the pain or struggles of others is only to our ultimate benefit. Not an argument, just a comment. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 04 Jun 2002 23:08:13 -0600 > > Anyone else censor themselves this way? > Not a Sunday goes by when I don't. There are some things I just can't stay quiet about. When somebody rips on the evils of the media, I have to speak up. I usually mention an R-rated film or two that I have seen that have drawn me closer to Christ (_Schindler's List_, for instance). When someone says that homosexuality is wrong, I have to remind them that Elder Oaks says there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, but homosexual acts are what the Lord is concerned about. And, living in Utah country, if someone starts seriously touting Republican philosophy as Gospel doctrine, I have to raise my hand and remind one and all that this is a lesson about religion not politics. Otherwise, I pretty much keep quiet. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Brigham City Believable Character? Date: 04 Jun 2002 23:14:33 -0600 > "I was asked to consult on a case where a Phoenix-Tucson area professional > person, president of his firm and head of his church's committee on helping > troubled children, was found to be a serial rapist who had violently raped a > number of women at gun- or knife-point in the Arizona area. In doing the > background study on him, I found him to come from an exemplary background > and trouble-free childhood. He was an outstanding student in high school and > college. > "His wife, children, business and church associates had not the slightest > inkling of his double life or dark side. The only significant negative > factor in his life was an adolescent addiction to pornography which, for the > most part, was kept secret from others. " > What I resent from Cline's quote is the BIG inference that pornography, and pornography alone, led this otherwise upstanding citizen to become a serial rapist. It is not clear in this example whether porn was the cause of the sexual activity or a symptom of same, despite Cline's suggestion to the contrary. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Random Thoughts Date: 05 Jun 2002 00:55:31 -0600 margaret young wrote: > > Honestly, I have no idea how a writer would broach this subject in a > way that would portray the pedophile as something less than monstrous. Pedophiles are one of the last classes of people left that it's okay to think of as monsters. And yet they are not monsters, but people. The problem with thinking of a human being as a monster is that a monster needs no explanation--it just is. This doesn't help us understand where pedophiles come from or how to help them before things get so out of hand we want to call them monsters. If there ever was a need for the pure love of Christ for one's enemy, perhaps this is it. If you can love a practicing pedophile, you're probably ready for sainthood. There have been a number of antiheroes in literature, people we come to know and understand without once sympathizing with them. The Godfather films come to mind. I believe it can be done to write a book about a pedophile and not make him a monster. It has to be possible, because they're not monsters, they're human beings who for some reason have reached the point where they're capable of doing terrible things. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 05 Jun 2002 01:54:36 -0600 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > True enough. But just because people don't want to hear it doesn't mean > you stop telling the truth. And telling it again if you have to. And > again and again and as long as you feel the message needs to be heard. > Overkill exists, of course. Care, tact, and awareness of how best to > support others are important. But it's still important to hear and say > and at no time more important than for our young, unmarried adults (men > *and* women). My point was, the message will never be heard no matter how many times it's spoken, as long as so many conflicting messages in our society exist that teach the opposite message in ways that are more deeply emotional and more effective. I saw an animated short once. The animation was ridiculous jiggling stick figures, and the plot was a series of scenes where a man comes up to a woman and tries to talk to her. The man is always polite and gives an innocuous opening line, but the women react with greater and greater violence toward him for daring to hit on her, stabbing him in the eye or ripping his skin off his body--that sort of thing. The final scene shows the man coming up to a woman and saying pointblank, "I have money." She immediately embraces him and cries, "I love you!" Recently I watched a couple reruns. One was "Whose Line Is It Anyway?", an impropmptu comedy show hosted by Drew Carry. One thing they do on that is to sing a hoedown about a spur-of-the-moment topic selected by the audience. That episode's topic was blind dates. Drew sang about how he used to have trouble with blind dates, but these days they go without a hitch, even though he knows he's not good looking, because he's "really really rich." The other was "Seinfeld," where Kramer and Elaine find out how much money Jerry actually makes--much more than they had thought. Suddenly Elaine starts acting very amorous toward Jerry. These were all funny, because we all know it's true. Even in the depths of Mormon culture, it's still true. Every man knows it deep down in his heart, and all the platitudes about how family is important and careerism is bad isn't going to change what that heart knows. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: RE: [AML] Stresses on Men Date: 05 Jun 2002 06:46:13 -0500 At 11:39 PM 6/3/02, Jacob Proffitt wrote: > >Then they've learned the wrong lessons. You don't stay out of debt by >earning more. Maybe we need to teach better financial lessons. You >stay out of debt by spending less than you make--i.e. having less stuff. With all due respect to Jacob, this is not *always* the case. >You do have an interesting point, though. There's a real problem if >people think you aren't providing for your family as well as the next >guy if you aren't providing the same stuff. That's bunk and needs to be >exposed as the bunk it is. I, personally, will stand by any father who >lives in a shack, drives a piece of hud, and can't afford to go to all >the parties if he also spends more time with his family and knows who >his kids are. And I'll back him against a successful businessman or >doctor whose kids can't pick him out of a line-up. Even the meanest shack=97even BYU-approved student housing =97generally= =20 charges a certain amount per month in rent or house payment. Then there's= =20 utilities (like electricity, heat, water, and sewer, not a T1 line and=20 premium cable TV), and repairs or emergencies. And "a piece of hud" (I've= =20 never heard it called that before, so I guess here's at least a nominal=20 literary tie-in in that I learned a new expression) still has to be paid=20 for, filled with gas, maintained regularly, and insured, and may be in the= =20 shop frequently enough that it ends up costing you every bit as much per=20 month as the payments for a relatively fancy new car (which may spend just= =20 about as much time in the shop as a "piece of hud"). And we haven't=20 mentioned food, or clothing (even DI puts a price tag on its merchandise)=20 or medical expenses, or any of the other necessities that make up even a=20 minimal cost of living for an individual or especially a family with=20 children. For some people, it's not "stuff" or "parties" that make it=20 difficult to make ends meet, but *necessities*. For a concrete example, I am going to describe the situation of someone=20 whose situation is well-known to a number of the members of this list, who= =20 will certainly know who I am talking about. However, I won't use any names= =20 or other identifying information. This person lost her husband awhile=20 back, leaving her a single mother with a number of children, most of which,= =20 to use the current politically correct term, have "special needs." She=20 does the best she can to be a good mother=97a better job than many in what= =20 would be considered more fortunate circumstances manage to do=97and provider= =20 to her children, but she has had health problems of her own and not long=20 ago was injured at work and so was unable to work for an extended period of= =20 time. She told me that during that time her mother came by and they looked= =20 at her families expenses and income, causing her mother to say "I don't see= =20 where you can cut back any more. You need more money," to which she=20 replied, "Ya think?!" And it's not just single mothers with children: young men who should be=20 building their careers or in their "peak earning years" are injured on the= =20 job or in traffic accidents or contract some illness which leaves them=20 unable to work (or at best only able to work a few hours a week at a job=20 that is not strenuous, and maybe not even that much on any kind of a=20 regular basis), so they and their families are forced to try to get by=20 perhaps on disability or workmen's comp payments, which anyone who has=20 known anyone who has had to live on such payments knows are not=20 adequate. There's no two ways about it: these people, too, need to find=20 some (legally and morally acceptable) way to _earn more money_. >I've as much as done so in my Quorum. One man was explaining to me how >he had taken a night job (in addition to his day job) and explained how >they'd have the house paid off in five years. Did you ask if he is thinking that when he has a heart attack from overwork= =20 six years from now, at least his wife and kids won't lose the house? >It had better be careful if it wants to show how damaging it is to >follow the brethren. Like I said, you don't stay out of debt by earning >more. People who think that you do are going to end up with mounting >debts no matter how much they make--I know the truth of this from >painful experience. And if you're not providing *spiritually*, then it >doesn't much matter what you're providing physically. OTOH, it's not conducive to feeding your kids spiritually if they are=20 crying because they are physically hungry . . . Note: I'm not arguing with Jacob. I realize that most of the time he is=20 correct: people get overextended by spending too much on luxuries, and=20 having more money coming in will just allow them to spend more and go=20 further in the hole. I just wanted to point out the exceptions to the rule. -- Ronald W. ("Ronn") Blankenship mailto: ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Accepting Each Other's Offerings Date: 04 Jun 2002 23:24:04 -0600 Barbara Hume wrote: > Would it be possible to look at things such as other people's offerings > without seeing them in relation to yourself at all? To see them as being > between God and those individuals, casting no light or shadow on you in any > way? Could that be liberating? I've worked on that, and I pretty much > don't care anymore if someone else is richer, has a better job, goes to the > temple a zillion times more often, or is older than I am but whose body > parts have not gone south. It doesn't matter. I just do the best I can and > enjoy the life I have. Of course it would be possible and could be liberating and should be in most ways an improvement over beating oneself up on a nearly constant basis for inadequacies and insufficiencies and outright failures. And if it were as easy as just deciding not to care about anyone else's opinion, I would have no worries. But it's not quite as easy as that, at least not for some some of us. Maybe I need to expand my definition of offerings a tad. Every service in society is an offering. A job (vocation, career, whatever) is an offering. An opinion stated on an email discussion list is an offering. A story or poem or essay written for any audience beyond one's self is an offering. A canvas painted or a figure sculpted is an offering. A door held open for another is an offering, as is making a space in traffic to allow another motorist to move in front of you. Charity given is an offering, as is charity received with grace (or even gracelessness; an offering is not necessarily a good, right, or holy thing). Religious devotions are offerings, as are social or political or environmental devotions. In other words, any time we put ourselves at risk of judgment or comparison or evaluation for any reason we make an offering of ourselves to others. And in so doing, we risk being judged inadequate, insufficient, or in some other way lacking. Sure, the vast majority of those judgments are irrelevant and have little or no bearing on whether we can successfully live our lives. But there are times when those irrelevant judgments can begin to feel like heavy weights that close doors and restrict options and limit movement. We seek some approval that what we think or believe or desire is somehow valid. If not praise, at least acceptance. Few of us seek the disapproval of others, and those that do are usually entertained by that disapproval rather than bothered by it. When a child draws a scribble on a paper and hands it to a parent, that child seeks approval that they have value and that their expression, their offering, has some value to the one external audience that the child trusts and respects--the parent. If the parent ignores the offering, the child may not feel disapproval, but they also may not feel approval. So the child seeks another outlet or venue and tries again. I don't think adults are all that different. Some of us have a stronger faith in our own ideas or hopes or vision than others and so we seek less external approval. We are at peace with what we think and find external validation to be a bonus, if not a primary goal. Others of us, though, have lost confidence in our own vision. We are no longer sure that our hopes or beliefs or goals are worthwhile--either to ourselves or to others. So we seek validation from those whose opinions matter to us; if that approval doesn't come, we take the lack of approval as a comment on the value or quality of our offering and we are forced to either invalidate the source or to modify our approach. One of the side effects of the patriarchal nature of the Church is that it creates a hierarchy of approval. At its basic level is the approval of the parent--or in a church with a heavily patriarchal bent, the father. We trace a great many of the social and emotional problems in the Church to a father who withholds approval, and thus validation, for both his children and his wife. We call the father cold or aloof or distant, and we condemn him for his lack of compassion or his judgmental nature. But some fathers are neither judgmental nor distant, they're uneducated or afraid. They've never considered their power to affect the esteem their family feels for itself, or they recognize their power and fear its misapplication. If we praise too much, the child never learns discernment and fails to progress to more difficult or more varied experiences; if we praise too little, the child never learns acceptance and fails to progress while rehashing the same issue in search of approval. In either case, the family suffers. So who does the father turn to for guidance? The ward? The bishop? Other fathers? Theoretically, the whole hierarchy of the Church is filled with fathers, not all of whom are comfortable with their role as arbiter of value, as validator of the hopes and desires and faith of others. Many of those fathers find judgment and condemnation easier than approval and compassion, and feel that a lack of condemnation is the indicator of approval. One can seek approval in any number of places, but honest judgment is rare and precious and proof of real love. To correct is to show real concern. A certain amount of this kind of judgment is not only good, but is crucial to our whole concept of progression. If we don't analyze ourselves and condemn the errors in our behavior, how can we repent? How can we ever hope to become perfect, to become as God, if we don't ruthlessly expose our flaws and seek constantly to repair them? It sometimes feels like our entire focus in the Church is in seeking and exposing flaws, in removing the blemishes in our beliefs and behaviors. But where's the approval? For fear of complacency, we withhold praise and instead bestow judgment. We dare not be found guilty of declaring that all is well in Zion. Yet the effect--for some of us at least--is that we seem to declare that nothing is well is Zion. There is no approval for a job only partially completed. Since none of us will become perfect in this life, there can be no acceptance of our incomplete offering. Of course that's a pretty substantial overstatement, but for many that's how it feels on some days and at some times. But the issue carries over into our offerings of literature or art, as well. On the one hand we want to encourage our religious community to share expressions of hope and faith by whatever means we can, and painting or drawing or telling a story is one of the most familiar expressions of that hope and faith that we have. On the other hand we want artistic expressions to be not only heart-felt, but also to be of real value when compared to the same kinds of offerings made in the larger artistic community. For many of us the expression of our inmost thoughts and the expression of our religious hopes and convictions are pretty much the same thing. Which creates yet another opportunity for judgment and being found wanting--on topics that I'm not really convinced we're all qualified to judge. So where's the line, and what responsibility to do we have to each other both to criticize in hopes of developing excellence, and to accept and approve the often clumsy but well-meaning attempts by members of our religious community to express a faith we may not always feel confident about expressing? If we respond to an offering with thundering silence what message are we sending, and what is our social reponsibility to create communities of inclusion and approval? As much as I like this forum, I admit that it confuses me at times. We range from the literary to the social to the religious with relative ease--I'm not always sure where the lines are. The result is that we seem to discuss the fact of being Mormon as much as the specific expression of that being in literature, and that blurring of the lines between my social/religious community and social/artistic community disorients me quite often. In the end, I suppose it's an unanswerable question--what is the right amount of approval to give each of us a solid foundation for believing in the validity of our own hopes and faith? Of course the converse is also there: how much criticism and condemnation is necessary to keep us moving forward and developing more and better expressions of our hopes and faith? Obviously the answer is relative to each and every one of us, so there's no meaningful answer that can be given. And if I didn't feel that my own foundations were weak at this point, I wouldn't have spent so much time asking an unanswerable question. Still, I think the idea that each of us seeks both acceptance and challenge is a fundamental element of who we are, and as Mormons the extension of our social/religious hopes into the other aspects of our lives is part of the challenge of being who we are. Because we do analyze and criticize and judge ourselves so very often, I wonder if there might not be an important social value to a literature of validation and acceptance in addition to our literature of criticism and improvement. Neither alone is enough, and each seems as important to building a whole community of inclusion as the other. But that's an old argument and I know I'm in the minority, so I'll end this and go to bed now. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 05 Jun 2002 13:20:23 -0600 Jacob Proffitt wrote: >We need to seriously take our teen >and early twenty men aside and tell them to pull their head out. It >*isn't* all about them. Their life isn't going to be forever marred if >they fail to attain that *next* level of professional recognition. Most >of us figure it out in our thirties or forties, but by then, we've >missed the most interesting part of our kids' lives and added a lot to >the burden of our poor wives. Why aren't we telling people about these >things? The baby exhaustion, sure. But we need to tell the men that >their career isn't the most important thing that will ever happen to >them and these family-killing obsessions aren't justified. All of which I agree with . . . up to a point. In my case, there really = was no choice. I wanted to be an academic, not because it was some = selfish goal of mine, but because it's absolutely the only thing in the = world I had a chance of being good enough at to support a family at = anything beyond subsistence level. As it was, I didn't finish my = dissertation until I was 33, and I worked HARD. That meant some very = tough, very lean years, for me and for my wife, and I still feel tremendous= guilt over the sacrifices she made for me. But I'd do the same today, = knowing what I know today. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] Re: Virus Heads-up Date: 05 Jun 2002 13:45:23 -0600 FYI, I've received at almost 3 viruses daily just since joining the AML list again. Luckily my networld server has something built in that catches them and reports them to me, along with the Norton Anti-virus. Jana Pawlowski -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 05 Jun 2002 11:50:54 -0800 >===== Original Message From "Gae Lyn Henderson" ===== I had already exceeded my self-imposed comment limit. >The fact is that the class does not have an unlimited tolerance for Sister >Henderson-thinks-shes-an-intellectual-tries-to-liberalize-our-thinking type >statements. If only they knew the restraint I show and the empathy I >have for their irritation at my volubility. > >Anyone else censor themselves this way? Censoring myself is the rule rather than exception. I'm under the impression that I have a good sense of what a group will accept and what it will reject outright, and it seems that the priesthood group I go to (the Sunday school class is far too large for any kind of substantive commentary to go on) has no use for inquiry. This was all speculation until a few weeks ago when I was asked by the EQ president to teach a fairly innocuous lesson on "How to Teach Your Children the Plan of Salvation." My EQ pres knows me pretty well, and probably thought I couldn't go too far astray on that topic. Well, I tried to. But they wouldn't let me. My main teaching tool is to bring up a counterpoint whenever a point is made (Joseph Smith and I get along really well when he talks about seeking truth by proving contraries) and then ruminate on it for a little while. So when one guy said that understanding the plan of salvation led to a bettering of life and a happier person, I brought up Job, who, in my reading, was a deeply conflicted man. But they refused me my observation (the missionaries especially, who also know me). No, Job was happy on the inside because he understood the plan of salvation. We almost got somewhere when one fellow said the scriptures promise that children will always return to the true principles taught to them (interestingly, a woman during sacrament meeting bore her testimony quite sincerely along the same lines), so, being the brat I am, I brought up Lamen and Lemuel (and there are plenty of similar types in the OT). The class explained L and L to me by saying that free agency is always at play. I tried to inquire about what they thought the relationship was between free agency and the promise they were talking about, but they, as a group, avoided the question with amazing verbal dexterity. I don't think I was on the way to break testimonies. In fact, I think it would have been very fruitful to explore the mystery of agency, especially as it regards children. But they didn't want to go there. What I think I figured out is that when the people in my particular ward come to church, they are coming to enter an affirmative atmosphere. They don't want to inquire, they want the optimistic parts of the gospel affirmed over and over again. I can certainly see the value of that. But it doesn't help me much. I get bored and start writing Sugar Beet articles in my head. That's why I value the AML list so much. Its my church away from church. The other funny thing about that lesson was that four people fell asleep, and four others got up and left. I'm not sure what that meant. So I guess I want church meetings to perform a different function than most of my ward members want. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Virus Heads-up Date: 05 Jun 2002 14:00:11 -0600 > It is a good personal policy to never open any attachment that you don't > know is coming. I ask friends to send me an advance email describing any > attachment they plan to send me. If someone sends me an attachment without a > head-up that it's coming, I write back and ask them to tell me what they > sent and why. I don't open any attachment without this information. > > Rex Goode Okay, here's my question. I got the dreaded KLEZ virus, and I'm still trying to figure out how. I NEVER open attachments unless I know they're coming. So, I didn't catch the KLEZ by opening an attachment. I do remember, however, clicking on an e-mail to delete it and having a window pop up showing a file being downloaded. How exactly does this work? Anyone? And how do I prevent it from happening again? Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kathy Fowkes" Subject: Re: [AML] Virus Heads-up Date: 05 Jun 2002 14:37:53 -0700 I received an email from you, Marvin, on June 3rd, but it had no attachments. It was just completely blank and went to my Juno address that I almost never used. I knew you hadn't sent it, and that likely there was probably a virus you must have picked up and which can use your address list to send itself out without you knowing about it. Hopefully my antivirus program caught it and that's why there was no attachment when I got to it, but I don't really know how these things work, so..... I opened it this morning, and intended to at least let you know about it. What motivates a person to write a virus anyway? And then take it the next step and send it out. I can't fathom the mental and emotional processes that go into virus authorship. Is it power? Hate? Or just plain past feeling, and looking for a thrill? It's like graffiti on a downtown city wall, only worse, because the damage is exponential. "I was here" to the nth degree. What a waste, to use one's gift not to create oneness, wholeness, and healing, but to create destruction, despair, and pain. The emptiness of the heart that creates to destroy -- I can't imagine making that choice. I tried it once in a conversation when I was a teenager, and it was so painful and frightening, because I really had a talent for it with all the venom of my childhood I could spew around, (and guilelessness is *not* a word the Lord would use to describe me, I'm afraid) that I vowed never to do it again. I didn't want to live with that much darkness in me, or the guilt of the hurt I'd inflicted. I comfort myself with the fact that at least I was baptized after that one, not before, so my guilt and accountability weren't as great as they would have been. I know I still screw up and hurt people accidently far too often for my liking, and that feels bad enough. It's the deliberateness of a virus that has me shaking my head. You know, though, that could be a really interesting way of showing a particular emptiness in a character's life, if he (or she!) wrote and sent out more and more complex and destructive viruses in the wee hours of the night, while living a "normal" life by day. That's way too appealing to let slide, someone most have already done it before. Anyone know of a twist of this kind? Was it done well? There are so many scenarios that this could be used for. Wish I could write decent fiction..... Kathy Fowkes -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Accepting Each Other's Offerings Date: 05 Jun 2002 19:07:17 -0600 [MOD: As Gae Lyn suggests, there's part of her forwarded message from an acquaintance that raises issues inappropriate for broad discussion on AML-List. However, I think that contextualized as Gae Lyn has done, it's appropriate as one person's reaction--perspective. If anyone wants to pursue that dimension of the discussion further, however, it will require some care to avoid getting further off-topic or otherwise violating List guidelines...] Echoing Tracie, Scott is thoughtful, honest, and careful in this post. Part of his conclusion: > > So how does one tell such stories without snivelling? Without > sounding like > we're just trying to jerk tears? Where's the line between sharing > difficult > experience or questions or doubts, and throwing ourselves a pity party? > > I hate the fact that I cringe when people speak eloquently about the > difficulties of baby exhaustion and the stress of being a Mormon mother. I > know that stress, and I know that I've contributed to it in my own > family--and I feel terrible about it and want to do what I can to > alleviate > it. At the same time, my whole role as a Mormon father is based around my > ability to provide a good home for my family, yet I hear very little about > the stresses on Mormon men--and I know that men tend to cut each > other less > slack than women do; we can be pretty hard on each other, just as > we're hard > on women, so there's not much of a community of support for those > of us who > feel overwhelmed but are men. The thing that amazes me about your post Scott is how analytical you are about your reactions. I'm fascinated to see that mental process reproduced in writing. Most of my family members would say, "give it up and go watch TV or something." But I'm truly glad to find this kind of careful self-examination presented. I value it. Why? I'm not sure I can analyze why. I reach my limits of understanding sometimes. And I agree with you throughout your post. Even I thought my post on baby exhaustion was one-sided, negative. Yes, a steady diet of such thoughts might indeed be a simple pity party. But I guess the point for me was that I believe cultural expectations have forced many of my life decisions. I believe this holds true for many Mormons, both male and female. I'm not sure whether I think that making decisions because of expectations is always such a good idea. I think some of us are more compliant, more idealistic, more literal in our acceptance of what is preached, but also more vulnerable to social pressure from other idealistic souls. The reason I want to share some of my life story is because I wish I had been more self-determining in my decisions. Whether it is good for anyone else to know about that is not something I am sure about. It feels important for me now, at my rather advanced age, to assert my voice, to be honest, to say what I really think. That feels good and I don't want or need any pity. On the contrary, I'm happy. I know there are list guidelines about not saying anything that is critical of church doctrine or of leadership. I recognize that sometimes this kind of thinking is pushing the limits. But somehow I believe that for the healthy growth of LDS people, we definitely need this kind of forum. I have an example here that may or may not pass Jonathan's inspection. It is a story from a friend of mine, F. Nelson Henderson. He was active in the church, served a mission, married in the temple, and after 17 years was divorced. At that time he also started seperating himself from the church. So if that takes away his credibility as a storyteller from anyone on the list, stop reading now. But I feel he is honest in telling how he sees it. He asked me to post this on the list. I told him I didn't think it would get on. But here it is: "I remember the anger I see in my wife's face in an otherwise neutral family photograph. Now years later, I still see that silent anger despite her denial at the time. I believe she repressed her forbidden (unchristian) feelings. After the divorce, she was free at last to let that anger rise. I've heard she did some serious work getting over the anger. How could I have been a part of it? Such was never my intention, but surely I contributed significantly. Not to escape my responsibility, I've thought a lot about how it happened. I believe we are setup for it, similar to how you were "setup" for all those pregnancies. I think the Mormon culture (and theology) promotes an unhealthy male-female dynamic. I think one root cause of anger in Mormon women is the destruction of her autonomy. Mormon women learn to interact deferentially, as if powerless, in their relationship to both the church and to their husband. However, powerlessness is a fundamentally harmful posture. The example of no family planning (resultant 15 years of pregnancies and nursing) illustrates the extreme extent to which female autonomy is destroyed. Imagine in hind-sight, not owning the decision to conceive and to raise a child. By this I do not mean the teaching against birth control by the church. But rather I mean the broad public silence by most Mormon women in failing to publicly organize and oppose this outrageous teaching. Fundamentally, how could Mormon women be told by ANYONE what her family planning decisions should be. Hence, this unhealthy dynamic (taught as vital to her religious devotion) then enters into a marriage. What else could be expected other than the anger naturally resulting from the repression of her own self-interest and self-love. She is understandably confounded by the dominant Mormon teachings of sacrifice and obedience." Take it for what you wish. Gae Lyn -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] ADAMS, "Yellow China Bell" (Deseret News) Date: 06 Jun 2002 01:06:11 +0000 Deseret News Wednesday, June 5, 2002 'China Bell' rings powerfully Passionate play is not for the timid or children By Genelle Pugmire Deseret News staff writer YELLOW CHINA BELL, by LeeAnne Hill Adams, directed by Megan Sanborn Jones, produced by the Brigham Young University Department of Theatre and Media Arts, through June 15 (excluding Sunday and Mondays) in the Margetts Theatre, Harris Fine Arts Center, tickets $12. Running time: 1 1/2 hours (no intermission). Deep in the catacombs of Brigham Young University's Harris Fine Arts Center, behind the black doors of the Margetts Theatre, you will find perhaps one of the most provocative and passionate plays ever to hit a BYU stage. It is intense, powerful, shocking and revealing. It is not meant to entertain and amuse. It is meant to teach, expose and cause emotion and thought. It is called "Yellow China Bell." This play is not for the timid and is not for children. There is a rape scene and violence that will make people uncomfortable, as it should. However, it is done as carefully and as tastefully as a rape scene can be done. It does not bring embarrassment to the University or its standards. "Yellow China Bell" (based on a real-life experience) is the story of a young woman, 15 year-old Mina, who is kidnapped from her family in Armenia and taken to Volgograd, Russia, where she is forced to marry her abductor. Her only joy comes from conversations with an Armenian woman, Zara; from her prayer book; and from a song about a yellow China bell =97 clear, free and resonant. The scenes are vignettes of past, present and future events connected with present-day dialogue. It is of one woman's journey to find ownership of herself, her body and of her ability to choose. Diane Lynn Rane gives an outstanding performance as Mina. Her facial expressions and body language fill the void of script. Her "husband" Victor is played forcefully by Jesse Ryan Harward.=20 Zara, the modern, in-control Armenian student is played by Laura Reyna. The chemistry between these three actors brings bold intensity to the script. In fact, the story is told more by the action and reactions in body language than any words could. Daryl A. Ball plays Arture, the "friend" and business partner to Victor. Ball's character is to be hated, and he does a great job in making the audience do just that. Other cast members include Laurel Sandberg as Mama, Naira Galoustian as Akchik/young Mina, and Shelley Burton, Amanda R. Schutz and Veronica Naimova as the women. Kudos to director Megan Sanborn Jones. As she says in the audience's= =20 program notes, "This play has been a difficult, yet moving experience for all of us involved in the production. We have learned more about ourselves and about the universe outside our worlds." Congratulations also go to the BYU theater department for allowing such a production. Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Re: Scott Card's Talk Date: 06 Jun 2002 11:20:04 -0600 At 02:43 PM 6/4/02, you wrote: >CORRECTION: Orson Scott Card's grandfather Lester's last >name is PARK, not CARD. (Lester Park produced the first-ever >feature Mormon commericial feature film, "Corianton", way >back in 1931. The full story is here: >http://www.ldsfilm.com/ar_aesthetic.html Thanks for including this link! I enjoyed these comments on Mormon art. Almost all of Card's books have something in them I dislike in between the passages I like a lot -- but I thoroughly enjoy his discussions about being a Mormon and a writer (even when he points out the foolishness in some of the things I might have done myself). One of my favorite books is his A Storyteller in Zion. He addresses several of the issues we've dealt with on this link, and he doesn't waffle about his opinions. Spot on! Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "kumiko" Subject: [AML] Historical Mormon Film Tidbits Date: 05 Jun 2002 22:41:33 -0500 Okay, I usually don't interrupt you with all the little historical research we do, preferring to update the list with current stuff. But this one was so interesting I thought I'd pass it along. When screenwriter Elliott J. Clawson's father died, George Albert Smith, then member of the Council of Twelve Apostles was one of the speakers at the funeral. Another speaker was President Rudger Clawson of the Council of the Twelve, Elliot's uncle. Not familiar with Elliot J. Clawson? He wrote "The Phantom of the Opera", which starred Lon Chaney, in the 1925. IMDb lists four Academy Award nominations for him, for "The Leatherneck", "Sal of Singapore", "The Cop" and "Skyscraper". Over 70 of his stories or screenplays were produced by Hollywood, including important films like "The Kaiser, the Beast of Berlin" (1918). Elliot's brother was cinematographer Dal Clawson, who photographed over 50 Hollywood films -- about twice as many as Frank Young (Brigham Young's grandson). This makes Dal Clawson one of the most prolific Latter-day Saint cinematographers in history. Reed Smoot (still very much alive) could catch up to him with just a few films. Yet more things to make you go Hmmmm.... You may have occasionally heard references to the "Nine Old Men". They were the people who started with Walt Disney when things were in an embryonic stage, and they stayed with him through the good times and the bad. They are: Les Clark Ward Kimball Ollie Johnston Frank Thomas Marc Davis Milt Kahl Woolie Reitherman Eric Larson John Lounsbury Eric Larson and Les Clark were both born in Utah. Eric Larson and Les Clark were animators (one of the two was usually the animation director or supervising animator) on a number of movies you may remember: Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi, The Three Caballerosm, Make Mine Music, Casey at the Bat, Peter and the Wolf, Melody Time, Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, Lady and the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty, One Hundred and One Dalmatians, Mary Poppins, Song of the South, Steamboat Willie, Fun and Fancy Free. Another young man from Utah was Jack Kinney, legendary Disney director famous for his Goofy cartoons. His more than 70 films include: Mickey Mouse Disco (1979); 1001 Arabian Nights (1959); Chips Ahoy (1956); Casey Bats Again (1954); The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949); Goofy Gymnastics (1949); Melody Time (1948); Make Mine Music (1946). Many of these were written by his brother Dick Kinney. - Preston Hunter -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Exhaustion (Baby and Otherwise) Date: 06 Jun 2002 14:04:57 -0600 ___ Jana ___ | I wholeheartedly agree that the single life is just as, or | really, more exhausting. ___ Hmm. It is exhausting, although for quite different reasons. If I stay up until 5 in the morning having fun, then yeah, I'm just as tired as if I stayed up until 5 watching a fussy baby. But it isn't quite the same thing. I think there are numerous stresses on singles, especially those of us over 25. However those primarily relate to unique religious issues that I'm not sure non-Mormons face. i.e. in an LDS context, where do you go to be social? Given the emphasis on having a family, guilt and the stress of finding such is a constant preoccupation for singles. etc. In terms of regular stress and exhaustion though, I don't think we have it anywhere near the same. I mean just think of all the money that I'd be spending on extra food, children's clothes, medical care, diapers, etc. Now I get to spend it on books, video games, and travel. I'd imagine that this comes back to haunt one once they reach retirement age, however. Then you have no "safety net" and I suspect there is a lot of loneliness as well. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eileen Stringer" Subject: Re: [AML] Stresses on Men Date: 06 Jun 2002 14:59:55 -0600 Ivan Angus Wolfe wrote: > What is odd to me is how this seems to get translated by the local leaders > (nearly all of whom I've been noticing are doctors and lawyers) to "have no debt > at all - and invest all your money." I have never had any of my local leaders (and both my grandfathers, my father and an uncle were my bishops at various times in my life and all had debt at the time they were bishops) tell me that all debt was evil. I have been encouraged to get out of debt and avoid debt if possible. I have had a couple of my bishops use President Tanner's "Constancy Amid Change" pamphlet as a guideline in a classes about wise money management and planning a budget, but never once did the pound the pulpit and tell us to never ever go into debt. We were encourage to avoid it if possible and not go into debt unnecessarily. > Maybe I'm the only one, but my mission president once gave a zone conference on > how to become wealthy. Neither of my mission presidents gave any conferences, zone or otherwise on how to become wealthy, none of my 5 siblings mission president's did this, neither did my grandparent's mission president, my parent's mission president or my close friends who went on missions had their mission presidents divulge any get wealthy techniques. My sister who was just married this past weekend noted that in their pre-marital counseling sessions their bishop encouraged them to budget wisely and try to avoid debt, but stated that some debt was unavoidable in today's society and sometimes the best they could do was learn to manage their debt wisely so that it did not become a millstone. He gave them President Tanner's pamphlet as well along with a couple of others I don't recall right now and wished them well. Eileen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Money Matters (was: Stresses on Men) Date: 06 Jun 2002 15:43:56 -0600 ---Original Message From: Ivan Angus Wolfe > Then Jacob wrote: > > It had better be careful if it wants to show how damaging it is to > > follow the brethren. Like I said, you don't stay out of debt by > > earning more. > > I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the brethern - they always > talk about "nessecary" vs. "unnessecay" debt. Well, by itself, that's an ambiguous statement. But in context, you'll find that pretty much all debt *is* labeled as unnecessary. The only exception I heard growing up was a house and it is only lately that I've heard allowance made for a family car. The trouble is, even that can be reinterpreted ambiguously (what size house, what kind of car, etc.). President Kimball said it best--those who understand interest earn it and those who don't pay it. Debt is a form of voluntary slavery that doesn't ever sleep and is best avoided. > What is odd to me is how this seems to get translated by the > local leaders (nearly all of whom I've been noticing are > doctors and lawyers) to "have no debt at all - and invest all > your money." Well, not an entirely inappropriate message. Whether you're a doctor, lawyer, brick layer, convenience store clerk, computer programmer, whatever, it's by far best to have no debt at all and invest as much as you can. And I have to admit that I'm concerned about the too inclusive "invest all your money." I've never heard anybody advocate such an unwieldy extreme. What I usually hear is, at its most extreme, "invest all you can." > Maybe I'm the only one, but my mission president once gave a > zone conference on how to become wealthy. My bishop just > gave a presentation on how to invest money for maximum > benefit under the guise of staying fiscally responsible - and > always - it was "any debt is bad." Any debt *is* bad. Even debt on a house isn't a happy thing and is best avoided. Sure, all things in measure, but with debt, there just isn't much to recommend it. Debt, like alcohol and cigarettes, is a way of making short-term, seemingly beneficial decisions that bind you to long-term detrimental effects. But when it comes right down to it, I think that the important point (and the reason we have these lessons in church) is that we should learn how money works. Not that we should be obsessed by it. But we *should* recognize that money is a prominent and important part of our society. There are certain laws and rules that money follows and we are significantly better off if we understand those rules and learn to implement them. Anyone will benefit by knowing how money functions and how to make wise financial decisions. But even if you *don't* learn all the ins and outs, the simple rules of "avoid all debt" and "invest all you can" will keep you out of 98% of the financial problems Americans tend to face--even if you don't understand why. I mean, how much freer are you to tell the boss that, no, you *won't* work late every night this week (or on Sunday, or whatever) if you are substantially out of debt and able to take a pay-cut if you need to get a new job? The one (person, company, entity etc.) who earns the interest has the power/freedom. You can use that freedom/power any way you want. Many people use any power/freedom they have to pursue more money. What I'm trying to say is that we should use our power/freedom to bolster our families and it is worth sacrifice (of power, money, stuff, or prestige) to be able to do so. And just to reassure that I'm not attempting to be holier than thou, here, I'm not by any means a paragon of fiscal virtue. I've only recently taken steps to eliminate my debt and it's bad timing because my newfound resolve accompanies a substantial decrease in my earnings (25%-30% decrease). I wish I had earlier applied the measures then that I am applying now and I wish I understood earlier what I do now. Debt = *bad* is a rule I've learned with some intense personal discomfort. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: [AML] RE: Money Matters (was: Stresses on Men) Date: 06 Jun 2002 17:50:04 -0400 >I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the brethern - they always talk about >"nessecary" vs. "unnessecay" debt. . My bishop just gave a presentation on how to invest >money for maximum benefit under the guise of staying fiscally responsible - and >always - it was "any debt is bad." > >--ivan wolfe You don't get much poorer than I was for a long time. Supporting two, then three, then four kids on graduate assistantships and fellowships introduces one to federal surplus commodities handouts (wonderful, it was the only time my kids ever ate butter and drank real milk that wasn't mixed in the blender the day before) etc.,etc. but frankly if the bishop really knows what he is talking about a presentation on how to invest money for maximum benefit would be a terrifically valuable presentation in most wards. I have four sons. The youngest started investing when he and his wife didn't have the proverbial "pot nor a window" (if you haven't heard this saying contact me off list for the whole thing). He also has become really seriously committed to food storage and preparedness. As a result, when he was out of work (with house payments, two kids, a stay at home wife and army reserve monthly drill income his only reliable income). When he was out of work the bishop kept asking him if he needed help- - he didn't. Now he is back at work (in a good paying job,)he is still in good shape and still investing. He will always have what he and his family need. The investment bug came as a result of what his bishop taught him when he and his wife were still undergraduates at BYU. My other three sons do all right. One is a college librarian, one is a carpenter (with a summa cum laude degree in sociology and computer information systems) and one is a free spirit, fencing coach, occasional high school teacher and, in his own words a guard bum (Applies for full time training or other stuff in the National Guard whenever all else fails), but non of them, in spite of being single and really _able_ to afford it have ever invested and though they could cope with being unemployed for a time it is mostly because they don't have dependents. In other words one shouldn't knock good advise even if it comes from the bishop. One never knows how good it might be. (Actually, doing a little investing before I retired sure makes a handy supplement to the pension I get) As for debt. None of the "Brethen" I've listened to said "don't go into debt at all" They just say except for a house or _maybe_ a car be very hesitant to go into debt. Anyone who has been in the position of giving out welfare knows how frequently the dire straits that families get into are the result of stupid debt. That guise of being fiscally responsible is a pretty good guise. Richard B. Johnson, (djdick@PuppenRich.com) Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kimheuston@aol.com Subject: [AML] Single Parenting Date: 06 Jun 2002 18:26:13 -0400 Another book moms might want to look at is my _Single Parenting_ book, published a while ago by Deseret Book but still generally available. I've been a married full-time mom, a married part-time working mom, and a single, full-time working mom, and all have had both their special challenges and their special beauties. I've always felt stress and beauty in the proportion that seems emblematic to me of all situations of rapid growth, even now that I'm only left with two practically self-sufficient teenage boys at home (and a daughter away at college and a son on a mission in Asia.) It's always too much without Christ, and always eventually powerfully beautiful with him. Kimberley Heuston -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 06 Jun 2002 17:21:30 -0600 At 09:57 PM 6/4/02, you wrote: >Now I make a point to say something if I disagree with an >item being presented (I see this as the main problem with Sacrament Meeting, >by the way--no interactivity). Once a brother in my ward gave a talk about how his wife always gave birth without the benefit of painkillers, because that was The Natural and Right Way That God Intended. He boasted of the fact that his wife produced all their children in a state of agony. As far as interactivity goes, if the glares the sisters in the congregation gave him could slice, the man would have been gelded where he stood. He was fortunate he did not make his speech in Sunday School, where he could have been lynched from the basketball standard. There would not have been enough husbands in the crowd to save him. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Book Date: 06 Jun 2002 10:23:52 -0600 At 02:19 PM 6/4/02, you wrote: >. So, feel free to >jump in with your top-five (or top-ten) challenges as a young mother. . . >I'd welcome it. I do think you need to address the issue of the attitude of the community the young mother lives in. In some parts of the Mormon subculture, a young woman is looked down on if she wants to pursue her own interests rather than pop out a baby every year. In some parts of the country, a young woman is considered weird if she prefers staying at home with a good-sized number of kids rather than building a career. People are affected by the waves of disapproval that come their way unless they have a good deal of self-confidence, and let's face it -- most young women in our culture don't have that. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Book Date: 05 Jun 2002 21:21:52 -0500 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 3:19 PM > I'd love suggestions for the chapters (which I started to outline above). > I'm talking to a few family counselors/therapists to get a feel for what > they feel some of the most common and most challenging problems might be, > but I'd like to balance that with other sources as well. So, feel free to > jump in with your top-five (or top-ten) challenges as a young mother. . . > I'd welcome it. > > Thanks, Kellene Kellene, this seems like such a great idea. It's wonderful that you already have some interest. You mentioned a lot of important topics to explore in your chapters already, but here are a few things I would touch on: 1. Don't get caught up in comparing your children to other people's children. The more children I've had (three now) and the older they get, the more I look at the mother I was almost six years ago when my first son was born and want to laugh at how tied-up-in-knots I got over milestones, growth charts, signs of a supergenius I.Q., worry that because he didn't walk until he was 14 months old that he would be picked last for baseball teams the rest of his life, etc., etc. After talking to my mom about this, she tells me that her generation was a lot less hung up on the whole milestone thing (possibly because there were fewer "What to Expect" books and parenting internet sites?). Although it's important to be aware if your child seems to really need some help catching up in one area or another, many young mothers--especially of first babies--are just tense, tense, tense about what their babies do and when. I guess my overall point would be to let your kid be whomever he or she is; relax and enjoy your child even if he isn't a supergenius or has issues with biting the other kids in nursery or is afraid to go down the slide at the park when everybody else's kids seem to love it. Don't feel like early childhood is some giant test that your baby must pass with flying colors or else she is doomed to a mediocre life. 2. Don't be afraid to do what works, for yourself or for your baby. That goes to letting them cry it out at night or bringing them into your bed, feeding them formula or breast milk (I formula fed my first two and breast fed my last one. All three are healthy and happy and wonderful.), putting them to bed at night at 7:30 or 11:00, giving them a pacifier or not, when to take away the bottle, and on and on. Mothers are their own best judge. Make a decision and feel okay that you know what's best for you and your child. 3. I don't know how much beyond babyhood your book intends to go, but the whole idea of baby "classes" and early childhood gymnastics and basketball and music and everything else can be a little overwhelming. I still struggle with it. My oldest son is going to be six and has taken swimming, karate, t-ball and basketball, but (I am not kidding you) I feel somehow guilty that I have yet to sign him up for soccer, like I have let him down on the soccer front and he is already dangerously behind other kids his age. All three of my kids are under six, and still I feel a little frazzled about the "necessity" of signing my kids up for things, and the pressure starts as early as two years old. So there are a few ideas. I know that there are tons more, but these are the ones off of the top of my head. Good luck with the book. I would love to see it in print. Angela -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 06 Jun 2002 16:42:35 -0700 > So I guess I want church meetings to perform a different function than most of > my ward members want. > > Stephen Carter You know, almost every time I see someone on this list describe their ward or a particular church experience, I end up thinking, "What world do *they* live in?" And then I realize--oh yeah, Utah! Seriously, a lot of what's been described on this list is really foreign to me. But maybe that's just because I live pretty much completely outside of the Mormon culture. Susan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Random Thoughts Date: 06 Jun 2002 18:04:05 -0600 D. Michael Martindale: >There have been a number of antiheroes in literature, people we come to >know and understand without once sympathizing with them. The Godfather >films come to mind. I believe it can be done to write a book about a >pedophile and not make him a monster. It has to be possible, because >they're not monsters, they're human beings who for some reason have >reached the point where they're capable of doing terrible things. The Todd Solondz film "Happiness" does this very thing. Its protagonist (one of them) is a pedophile. He is also a regular person who feels guilty about his urges and actions. That's one of the reasons that film was so controversial: This guy's a pedophile, but he's not a demon. Like D. Mike said, they're one of the few remaining groups that are OK to classify as nothing but monsters. Eric D. Snider -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: [AML] AML-List Review Selections Date: 07 Jun 2002 10:22:43 -0700 Hi folks: Here is the latest batch of selected reviewers. If you are on this list, = please email me your snail mail address so I can send = your requested title. If you weren't selected for a book this time = around, but would still like to review something, please contact me-I've = got several books still available. Thank you, Jana Remy ------------------- One Side by Himself: The Life and Times of Lewis Barney Harlow Clark Red Water Boyd Petersen The Ten Lost Tribes: A People of Destiny William Morris Happiness Pursued: Time-tested tools to turn anxiety into happiness Jerry Tyner Molly Mormon? Kathy Tyner Waltzing to a Different Strummer Laraine Wilkins The Nauvoo Temple Stone Melissa Proffitt Nauvoo: the City Beautiful Jeff Needle Saints at War Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Random Thoughts Date: 06 Jun 2002 18:33:09 -0600 At 12:55 AM 6/5/02, you wrote: >. I believe it can be done to write a book about a >pedophile and not make him a monster. It has to be possible, because >they're not monsters, they're human beings who for some reason have >reached the point where they're capable of doing terrible things. Mary Jo Putney's The Spiral Path is a novel that does just that. The book itself is marketed as a contemporary romance, but it's far more than that. The pedophile character had both negative and positive effects on the hero as a boy. I'd never seen a writer deal with the subject as she did. As a writer, she deals with the theme of redemption in very moving ways. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Dave SHIELDS, _The Pendulum's Path_ (Review) Date: 05 Jun 2002 14:25:48 -0700 Thank you for this lovely note. It is much appreciated, and very encouraging. I'm not sure I know about your book, mentioned in your tagline. Has it been reviewed here? Thanks again for the good thoughts. HOJONEWS@aol.com wrote: > > Jeff and AMLers: > Jeff, this is a lovely review. As an author, I was especially touched by > your ability to stumble over roadblocks (poor editing) without condemning the > entire work. It is also a rare (maybe professional) reviewer who can write a > paragraph like the one above about a subject he/she holds dear and not be put > off enough to downgrade the overall rating. Thank you for that. > As an aside, if Dave Shields is not part of this group, he should know > about it. A greater number of fine literary minds in one place, I have not > encountered. > Carolyn Howard-Johnson, Author of This is the Place, > an award-winning story about a young journalist who writes her way > through repression into redemption --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com or jeffneedle@nethere.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Brigham City Believable Character? Date: 06 Jun 2002 21:24:34 -0400 What I resent from Cline's quote is the BIG inference that pornography, and >pornography alone, led this otherwise upstanding citizen to become a serial >rapist. It is not clear in this example whether porn was the cause of the >sexual activity or a symptom of same, despite Cline's suggestion to the >contrary. > >Thom I can't really identify the experience (s) because You-all decided that one shouldn't refer back to church jobs because it is competing, but My experience has indicated that it is _very_ possible even likely, that porn was the cause, not necessarily of a specific act, but of a general swing into a depraved mental state, and that eliminating the porn (not an easy task at all) frequently brings individuals back into a sense of communion with the Lord. Richard B. Johnson, (djdick@PuppenRich.com) Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Accepting Each Other's Offerings Date: 06 Jun 2002 20:23:45 -0600 On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 23:24:04 -0600, Scott Parkin wrote: >In the end, I suppose it's an unanswerable question--what is the right >amount of approval to give each of us a solid foundation for believing = in >the validity of our own hopes and faith? Of course the converse is also >there: how much criticism and condemnation is necessary to keep us = moving >forward and developing more and better expressions of our hopes and = faith? >Obviously the answer is relative to each and every one of us, so there's= no >meaningful answer that can be given. And if I didn't feel that my own >foundations were weak at this point, I wouldn't have spent so much time >asking an unanswerable question. > >Still, I think the idea that each of us seeks both acceptance and = challenge >is a fundamental element of who we are, and as Mormons the extension of = our >social/religious hopes into the other aspects of our lives is part of = the >challenge of being who we are. Because we do analyze and criticize and = judge >ourselves so very often, I wonder if there might not be an important = social >value to a literature of validation and acceptance in addition to our >literature of criticism and improvement. Neither alone is enough, and = each >seems as important to building a whole community of inclusion as the = other. > >But that's an old argument and I know I'm in the minority, so I'll end = this >and go to bed now. I don't know if you're in the minority, but I'm also not entirely sure = what you're asking for here. This started out asking the question Why do we always tell stories about the extremes, rather than the median? Which I think morphed into, We tell them because they're striking, but what = effect does a constant diet of extremes have on our listeners? I agree with you that it's frustrating to always and only hear about the really far-out stuff, especially when it's tied in to a moral of "and that's how I know = God exists." Well, what if your story isn't quite so extraordinary? Does = that mean you're not worth God's notice? (It doesn't, but if all you had to = go on were tales of life-threatening disaster and miraculous saves, you = might start to think otherwise.) But it's the idea of a "literature of validation and acceptance" that I'm not quite sure I understand, probably because I'm not certain what you = mean by "literature of criticism and improvement" as well. I know I seek out stories that seem to reflect my own experience, but I don't think of them= as specifically written for that purpose. In fact, I tend to think of = wanting approval as a bad thing--not that I think people should be trained by whippings alone, or that it's bad to enjoy praise. It just gets paired = in my mind with a sort of pitying back-pat that I wouldn't have gotten if I hadn't been so darned needy. So I think it's a conflicting situation: on the one hand, people need = praise for the good things they do; on the other, it should be genuine praise. = And that's probably not what you were talking about anyway. But you've = piqued my curiosity. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Virus Heads-up (Comp 1) Date: 07 Jun 2002 14:17:37 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From adamszoo@sprintmail.com Thu Jun 06 20:11:43 2002 Original from Sharlee Glenn: I got the dreaded KLEZ virus, and I'm still trying to figure out how. I NEVER open attachments unless I know they're coming. So, I didn't catch the KLEZ by opening an attachment. _______________ I use McAffee antivirus software. I've been receiving this one DAILY for about a week or more. It also comes with a second, buried virus, Exploit-MIME. My software catches it and I delete it; no harm done, but it's annoying. I believe anyone may go out to the www.mcaffee.com website (or Norton) and look up information on all the current viruses. If you own antivirus software it is *also* important to download new upgrades very frequently. The KLEZ virus is relatively new. My software wasn't catching it until I did this--it had been six weeks since my previous upgrade. Many of these new viruses prey on a loophole found in Outlook/Outlook Express. If that's the program you use for your mail, there is a default setting somewhere that you have to turn off, to prevent it from opening these things automatically. Outlook is the only program where you *can* get the virus just by "opening" the email, because of this loophole. I don't know more than this how it works. I stay safe by using Eudora. :) I think there are directions for this on the McAffee website though. Best of luck! Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com >From lajackson@juno.com Thu Jun 06 21:55:34 2002 Sharlee, you didn't do it, but your mail program did it for you. Your computer tells me that you use Microsoft Outlook Express, version 6.0, which has a setting that allows you to preview messages before you actually open them. It is also one of the most common programs targeted by viruses (because it is so widely used). Yes, unfortunately in today's world, if you are using the right program with the default (or wrong) settings, an email message can now get you without any effort on your part. A more knowledgeable computer specialist could fill in the details, but I believe there is a way to set your mail program so it won't do anything with a message until you have a chance to delete it. If there isn't, I would begin using a different mail program. The malicious programmers can stay ahead of the programs we routinely use becaue they don't get updated and fixed as they should. Books have been written on the subject. ( <-- Poor literary tie-in.) A good virus checker would also catch KLEZ, unless you got it when it was a new virus. Larry Jackson >From Jacob@proffitt.com Fri Jun 07 00:56:00 2002 ---Original Message From: Ronn Blankenship > >Then they've learned the wrong lessons. You don't stay out > of debt by > >earning more. Maybe we need to teach better financial lessons. You > >stay out of debt by spending less than you make--i.e. having less > >stuff. > > With all due respect to Jacob, this is not *always* the case. Um. How not? How is it possible to get out of debt if you don't ever spend less than you make? It isn't possible. > Even the meanest shack-even BYU-approved student housing > -generally > charges a certain amount per month in rent or house payment. > Then there's > utilities (like electricity, heat, water, and sewer, not a T1 > line and > premium cable TV), and repairs or emergencies. And "a piece > of hud" (I've > never heard it called that before, so I guess here's at least > a nominal > literary tie-in in that I learned a new expression) still has > to be paid > for, filled with gas, maintained regularly, and insured, and > may be in the > shop frequently enough that it ends up costing you every bit > as much per > month as the payments for a relatively fancy new car (which > may spend just > about as much time in the shop as a "piece of hud"). And we haven't > mentioned food, or clothing (even DI puts a price tag on its > merchandise) > or medical expenses, or any of the other necessities that > make up even a > minimal cost of living for an individual or especially a family with > children. For some people, it's not "stuff" or "parties" > that make it > difficult to make ends meet, but *necessities*. I'm not sure I understand your scenario. Are you saying that people have to eat and so-on? I don't believe I ever said otherwise. You *should* provide for your family in any (legal and moral) way that you can. But if you are so destitute that you can't provide even housing and food, then it is time to talk with the bishop. It is the *point* of Fast Offerings to help people in such dire straits. A member of the church should never have to turn to debt for such necessities. Now, I can see, from your example, how your main concern might be education. Personally (and I *think* "officially") education is one of those things that justify debt. I think that's implicit in the "Perpetual Education Fund"--which is set up and *sponsored* by the church. But even then, it's important to care for the family, and do everything in your power to provide for them. As to working yourself to death in order to get an education, I think that a lot of people take this *way* too far. Often, it'd be worth it (and a good idea) to save first. If you have children, then they are more important than your education or career. Most people can make enough to support their families in other ways. > For a concrete example, I am going to describe the situation > of someone > whose situation is well-known to a number of the members of > this list, who > will certainly know who I am talking about. However, I won't > use any names > or other identifying information. This person lost her > husband awhile > back, leaving her a single mother with a number of children, > most of which, > to use the current politically correct term, have "special > needs." She > does the best she can to be a good mother-a better job than > many in what > would be considered more fortunate circumstances manage to > do-and provider > to her children, but she has had health problems of her own > and not long > ago was injured at work and so was unable to work for an > extended period of > time. She told me that during that time her mother came by > and they looked > at her families expenses and income, causing her mother to > say "I don't see > where you can cut back any more. You need more money," to which she > replied, "Ya think?!" All principles have exceptions--mainly because principles conflict with each other and different principles have differing priorities based on differing circumstances. But in this case, your friend is another example of why we have Fast Offerings. Sure she should do what she can to provide for the children herself, but she needs help and should probably (I'm not her bishop, so who knows really?) receive it. There's a scripture in the D&C that tells the church to get off their can and support the families of those on missions. Nothing wrong with that. If she's cut her budget to the bone and working as much as she can, then others should step in to make sure she can spend time with her kids. But I know a number of people who have "cut to the bone" who nevertheless have large-screen TVs, DVD players, premium cable channels, and an ever-expanding library of books and videos. There's a disconnect there. Stuff is nice, but we don't need anywhere near as much as we tend to have--and if we have enough and are still working insane hours, then we are showing what our true priorities are. > And it's not just single mothers with children: young men > who should be > building their careers or in their "peak earning years" are > injured on the > job or in traffic accidents or contract some illness which > leaves them > unable to work (or at best only able to work a few hours a > week at a job > that is not strenuous, and maybe not even that much on any kind of a > regular basis), so they and their families are forced to try > to get by > perhaps on disability or workmen's comp payments, which > anyone who has > known anyone who has had to live on such payments knows are not > adequate. There's no two ways about it: these people, too, > need to find > some (legally and morally acceptable) way to _earn more money_. Right again. But again, that's what Fast Offerings are *for*. > >I've as much as done so in my Quorum. One man was > explaining to me how > >he had taken a night job (in addition to his day job) and > explained how > >they'd have the house paid off in five years. > > Did you ask if he is thinking that when he has a heart attack > from overwork > six years from now, at least his wife and kids won't lose the house? Now you're just making excuses. Who knows what the future will bring? What ifs are nice, but they are hardly a way to illustrate (or invalidate) a principle. What if the second coming arrives in three years and he's wasted all the time he had with his kids? And what are the consequences going to be after five years of hard work when his kids are now teenagers and they don't know who he is? And if he dies in six years, how much bigger a tragedy is it if his kids don't know him at all? And as long as we're tossing out what ifs, what if he sold his house and bought a much cheaper one, saved his money, and/or bought life insurance? i.e. What if he had less *stuff* instead of working himself to death and never being home? > >It had better be careful if it wants to show how damaging it is to > >follow the brethren. Like I said, you don't stay out of debt by > >earning more. People who think that you do are going to end up with > >mounting debts no matter how much they make--I know the > truth of this > >from painful experience. And if you're not providing *spiritually*, > >then it doesn't much matter what you're providing physically. > > OTOH, it's not conducive to feeding your kids spiritually if they are > crying because they are physically hungry . . . Sure. If they're hungry, then you do what it takes to provide the sustenance they need. But if they have food and shelter then the physical part is taken care of and it's time to make sure the spiritual needs are met. And since we live in the U.S. the vast majority of people have all that they need to survive physically--at the same time they're suffering spiritually. All just to have more stuff. > Note: I'm not arguing with Jacob. I realize that most of > the time he is > correct: people get overextended by spending too much on > luxuries, and > having more money coming in will just allow them to spend more and go > further in the hole. I just wanted to point out the > exceptions to the rule. I don't mind exceptions, but often enough exceptions are just excuses. We can't say what the spiritual state of any particular person actually is, so it's hard to make righteous judgments about whether they're justified in ignoring their families. I'm only talking about principles here, and as a principle, families come ahead of career. Providing a bunch of caveats or manipulated circumstances doesn't counter that core principle. I often wonder why it is that we seem so compelled to counter tough gospel principles when we learn them--as if we can avoid having to do it if we come up with enough excuses. You get this when you talk about how women should be primary caretakers, how men should be an integral part of their families, how we should have children if we can, whether or not to go into debt--in short, anything that asks us to do something hard. I'm not the arbiter here and I hope I haven't set myself up as such. God gave us the principle that families are more important than career and we choose whether or not we follow. Balance is hard and a true struggle and I'm relatively certain that few of us get it exactly right. We shouldn't guilt-trip each other and we should be loathe to make accusations, but anyone who has pangs of guilt upon hearing a principle needs to honestly find the source of that discomfort-and frankly, it is their duty to do so, not mine. Now, I can see how examining exceptions is a useful way to explore and establish boundaries. But I don't think that's really why we are so quick to say "yeah, but . . ." when we hear a difficult principle. Too often, we're trying to point out that exceptions exist so that nobody will be tempted to tell us that we're doing something wrong. In the end, what it comes down to is that we who are fortunate enough to live in the industrialized west have no business sacrificing our families to further our careers--particularly when starvation and exposure aren't even in the equation. If you feel your individual circumstances counter a principle, go for it. If I'm responsible in some way for your spiritual welfare, I might (depending on circumstances) ask you to rethink. Otherwise, I'm just talking principles that are applied in different ways for different people and circumstances. Jacob Proffitt >From dmichael@wwno.com Fri Jun 07 01:18:11 2002 Sharlee Glenn wrote: > How exactly does this work? > Anyone? And how do I prevent it from happening again? Quit using Microsoft products, for starters. D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com >From rexgoode@msn.com Fri Jun 07 06:00:27 2002 Sharlee, I am not certain I should take list bandwidth to answer this. My prior message about the virus was sent to the list to assure subscribers that the chances of AML-List actually sending out this virus is fairly small. It's entirely possible for it to look like it came from the list. The virus can spoof an email to look like it came from any valid address it finds in someone's address book. Briefly, some people set their email client software to open and run attachments without asking the user for permission. You might want to look your mail software over to see if there is an option to turn it off. I'm not an expert on every email client, but if you would like to write me directly so as not to take up list bandwidth, I'll see if I can help you. I just want to reiterate, because I saw another message that looked like someone might think AML-List could send them a virus. The chances are very low. A fellow subscriber's infected computer could send you a virus and the virus would make it look like it came from the list, but the list is not likely to send it to you. Rex Goode >From dale@farnsworth.org Fri Jun 07 08:17:54 2002 With some e-mail programs, such as MS Outlook, that interpret programs embedded in e-mail, you can catch a virus by opening the e-mail itself. If you have you e-mail program configured to preview e-mail when you click on it, you can get the virus just by clicking. -Dale Farnsworth -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Accepting Each Other's Offerings Date: 06 Jun 2002 21:29:44 -0600 Gae Lyn Henderson wrote: > Yes, a steady diet of such thoughts > might indeed be a simple pity party. But I guess the point for me was that > I believe cultural expectations have forced many of my life decisions. Just a quick backpedal here--I in no way intended to suggest that the discussion on baby exhaustion or the stress on Mormon mothers was a snivel, because I don't think it was. It's an important issue that we all need to be educated to and that we all need to consider when trying to understand how and why people interact as they do. The question about pity parties, etc. was actually intended to reference my own snivel, not your discussion of an important social issue. I'm very, very sorry if I miscommunicated my intent--the only shot I intended to take was at myself. > I think one root cause of anger in Mormon women is the destruction of her > autonomy. Mormon women learn to interact deferentially, as if powerless, in > their relationship to both the church and to their husband. [SNIP] > "Hence, this unhealthy dynamic (taught as vital to her religious > devotion) then enters into a marriage. What else could be expected other > than the anger naturally resulting from the repression of her own > self-interest and self-love. She is understandably confounded by the > dominant Mormon teachings of sacrifice and obedience." (trying to be careful so as to stay within List guidelines...) This is an area that fascinates me in general. My wife and I carefully planned our family, including waiting several years after marriage (four years, as it turned out) to have children because we wanted to ensure that we had a mature relationship among ourselves before we added the stress of children to it. Of course we also wanted to give Marny her chance to graduate and decide whether to pursue a teaching career. We never felt institutional pressure to have children immediately (we live in Utah, and lived in Provo/Orem at the time), and were counselled on many occasions to be thoughtful and to plan how and when our family would be formed. Our first three children came exactly on schedule and as a result of a specific plan. The fourth was off schedule, but in the plan for six months later so no harm done. My point is that we felt none of the social/institutional pressure that you seem to have been subjected to, and I'm curious to understand why. Sure, a lot of people shared their opinions on what the right thing to do was, but we took those opinions as carrying no more weight than any other opinion and made our decisions on our own in by our own methods--and never felt in any way that we were violating policy or being anything less than careful and as godly as we knew how to be. I would love to claim special enlightenment or social innovation, but in the end we did what we thought was right (as did most of our friends) while feeling full fellowship with the Saints. We just didn't experience the same social and cultural pressures that you did (or at least I don't think we did; I'll have to discuss that with Marny tonight...). I believe we go through generations in the Church where certain issues so dominate the cultural dialog that they become key inflection points for entire generations of Mormons. I know that when I read John Bennion's book _Falling Toward Heaven_ I was a bit confused by his presentation of a Mormon cultural belief in an angry, vengeful god because I have no such belief and don't recall it ever being preached to me in church (the fads when I was growing up were the tail-end of the fence-sitter era, the tole-painting explosion, and the "personal relationship with Christ" thing that got a little out of hand for some). I don't claim that John's observation of Mormon culture is wrong, I only claim that the issue he is still trying to resolve is one that I was never required to deal with; the culture had changed and new key issues had taken over. I don't know how much of that is regional, how much of it is time-dependent, and how much of it is a matter of one person's observations of a scene differing from another's observation of the same scene. I admit to being clueless pretty much all the time, so it's possible that I just didn't notice that I was violating cultural expectation on so many things. I guess I'm now making up for lost time. (I mean that seriously, btw. I simply don't see things that other people see and have to derive most of the meaning of things in deconstruction and analysis after the fact. A result is that I miss a lot of jokes, and irony is almost completely lost on me. So I admit freely that the social expectation may well have existed in my ward and I was just blissfully and clueless unaware of it.) Which raises a question for me on how we deal with social/cultural issues in fiction. I know, for example, that the angry vengeful god is something my father did struggle with (and not always successfully). Perhaps I'm the benefactor of his struggle because while I always perceived my father as harshly critical and prone to rapid and condemning judgment, he always taught me of a caring intimate God that was individually concerned for each of us. My father's private stories within our home created a different conceptual world for me than that which others may have been experiencing. So what does that mean in terms of telling our stories, and in terms of identifying and establishing markets for those stories? I know that my father was very impatient with the Mormon lit he tried to read in the mid-1980s because it dealt with issues that he had already resolved in his own mind and that he considered irrelevant. I know that I have had a similar reaction with much of the fiction I've read in the Mormon market over the past few years. We discuss issues on this list that I would love to see in fiction, but that I don't recall seeing much of...yet. That seems to suggest that LDS publishers' current tendency to focus on specific types of stories (teen morality tales, light historical romance, murder thrillers) results in a nice (if limited) bottom line, but also results in a narrow cultural literature that ignores entire generations of would-be Mormon readers. It's part of why I evangelize that we all tell our stories and that we demand that the market provide more variety to us (and we reciprocate by actually buying those varied titles)--if we want to develop a Mormon cultural literature we need to tell the stories of all generations and races and genders, all social and economic and religious viewpoints. Which (believe it or not) ties back to the idea of viewing each others' offerings with a bit more charity than I think we often do. We rush to declare a story or a form or genre irrelevant because it doesn't reach us as individual readers. But readers are varied (even Mormon readers ), and in many cases irrelevance is in the eye of the beholder. And we've already noticed some of the single members or this list as they've raised their hands and said "I get exhausted, too; stress is not the sole province of mothers/fathers/married people/young people/old people etc." But the larger cultural dialog seems to focus on one group at a time. I suspect we often withhold our stories exactly because we suspect that they're irrelevant to everyone but ourselves, and I think we're almost universally wrong in that assumption. So how do we encourage a wider variety of stories on a wider variety of issues? I really want to know, because I really want to see those stories on bookstore shelves. Scott Parkin (Who apologizes profusely for the snivels of the last week or so; I've been feeling very sorry for myself recently and have let that self-pity dominate my posts. While this list has indulged my tendency to snivel, it's not fair or right for me to take up space in this forum as I try to work out personal issues. Repenting now...) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] RE: Money Matters (Comp 1) Date: 07 Jun 2002 16:40:47 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] [MOD: I sense that we're getting off-topic with this discussion. I'm going to send out the current set of comments, but would encourage anyone wanting to take further comments to bring in a stronger literary connection--e.g., how the different financial outlooks/experiences of individuals can be featured in Mormon literature--and less of the discussion of how, whether, and to what degree debt is or is not acceptable.] >From barbara@techvoice.com Thu Jun 06 18:12:51 2002 While I was making really good money not too long ago, I paid off all my debts except for the mortgage, which I paid down as quickly as I could. When the computer industry tanked and my clients stopped hiring contractors for big jobs, my income decreased quite a bit -- but I never felt it. I had gotten rid of those monthly envelopes with the windows in them. I still had plenty of disposable income, because it wasn't all eaten up with stupid debt. I'm still saving, and still investing. Now things are starting to look up again, but I'm not going to whip out the old credit card. No way. Economic slavery has to be a tool of the Satan because it's so destructive to the human spirit. It's a lot worse than not having an SUV or whatever ridiculous trendy object people put themselves into bondage for. barbara hume >From tlaulusa@core.com Thu Jun 06 19:15:15 2002 The best advice we've heard on debt recently was that paying off debt may be your best form of saving. The leader was talking about prioritizing where your money is going. Obviously, if you have high interest debt, it may be better to forgo putting the highest possible amount in your 401K at the expense of paying off old debt or not incurring new debt. And, in this class dealing with finances, nothing was ever stated as a hard and fast, you must do this, rule--except tithing, first thing off the top. My knowledge about finances and debt sounds like it was accumulated in much the same way and time frame as yours, Jacob. Not as early as I would have liked now with hindsight. But a great benefit even if we are spending some time overcoming some years of bad decisions. I don't think much has changed in what we've been taught about finances over the last 50 or so decades--I mean in official publications of the church. Isn't it interesting how one person's experiences can differ so much from anothers. I *do* think that incurring debt has become much easier and accepted, and that marketing is the number one business in America. Tracie Laulusa >From Jacob@proffitt.com Fri Jun 07 00:56:00 2002 ---Original Message From: Ronn Blankenship > >Then they've learned the wrong lessons. You don't stay out > of debt by > >earning more. Maybe we need to teach better financial lessons. You > >stay out of debt by spending less than you make--i.e. having less > >stuff. > > With all due respect to Jacob, this is not *always* the case. Um. How not? How is it possible to get out of debt if you don't ever spend less than you make? It isn't possible. > Even the meanest shack-even BYU-approved student housing > -generally > charges a certain amount per month in rent or house payment. > Then there's > utilities (like electricity, heat, water, and sewer, not a T1 > line and > premium cable TV), and repairs or emergencies. And "a piece > of hud" (I've > never heard it called that before, so I guess here's at least > a nominal > literary tie-in in that I learned a new expression) still has > to be paid > for, filled with gas, maintained regularly, and insured, and > may be in the > shop frequently enough that it ends up costing you every bit > as much per > month as the payments for a relatively fancy new car (which > may spend just > about as much time in the shop as a "piece of hud"). And we haven't > mentioned food, or clothing (even DI puts a price tag on its > merchandise) > or medical expenses, or any of the other necessities that > make up even a > minimal cost of living for an individual or especially a family with > children. For some people, it's not "stuff" or "parties" > that make it > difficult to make ends meet, but *necessities*. I'm not sure I understand your scenario. Are you saying that people have to eat and so-on? I don't believe I ever said otherwise. You *should* provide for your family in any (legal and moral) way that you can. But if you are so destitute that you can't provide even housing and food, then it is time to talk with the bishop. It is the *point* of Fast Offerings to help people in such dire straits. A member of the church should never have to turn to debt for such necessities. Now, I can see, from your example, how your main concern might be education. Personally (and I *think* "officially") education is one of those things that justify debt. I think that's implicit in the "Perpetual Education Fund"--which is set up and *sponsored* by the church. But even then, it's important to care for the family, and do everything in your power to provide for them. As to working yourself to death in order to get an education, I think that a lot of people take this *way* too far. Often, it'd be worth it (and a good idea) to save first. If you have children, then they are more important than your education or career. Most people can make enough to support their families in other ways. > For a concrete example, I am going to describe the situation > of someone > whose situation is well-known to a number of the members of > this list, who > will certainly know who I am talking about. However, I won't > use any names > or other identifying information. This person lost her > husband awhile > back, leaving her a single mother with a number of children, > most of which, > to use the current politically correct term, have "special > needs." She > does the best she can to be a good mother-a better job than > many in what > would be considered more fortunate circumstances manage to > do-and provider > to her children, but she has had health problems of her own > and not long > ago was injured at work and so was unable to work for an > extended period of > time. She told me that during that time her mother came by > and they looked > at her families expenses and income, causing her mother to > say "I don't see > where you can cut back any more. You need more money," to which she > replied, "Ya think?!" All principles have exceptions--mainly because principles conflict with each other and different principles have differing priorities based on differing circumstances. But in this case, your friend is another example of why we have Fast Offerings. Sure she should do what she can to provide for the children herself, but she needs help and should probably (I'm not her bishop, so who knows really?) receive it. There's a scripture in the D&C that tells the church to get off their can and support the families of those on missions. Nothing wrong with that. If she's cut her budget to the bone and working as much as she can, then others should step in to make sure she can spend time with her kids. But I know a number of people who have "cut to the bone" who nevertheless have large-screen TVs, DVD players, premium cable channels, and an ever-expanding library of books and videos. There's a disconnect there. Stuff is nice, but we don't need anywhere near as much as we tend to have--and if we have enough and are still working insane hours, then we are showing what our true priorities are. > And it's not just single mothers with children: young men > who should be > building their careers or in their "peak earning years" are > injured on the > job or in traffic accidents or contract some illness which > leaves them > unable to work (or at best only able to work a few hours a > week at a job > that is not strenuous, and maybe not even that much on any kind of a > regular basis), so they and their families are forced to try > to get by > perhaps on disability or workmen's comp payments, which > anyone who has > known anyone who has had to live on such payments knows are not > adequate. There's no two ways about it: these people, too, > need to find > some (legally and morally acceptable) way to _earn more money_. Right again. But again, that's what Fast Offerings are *for*. > >I've as much as done so in my Quorum. One man was > explaining to me how > >he had taken a night job (in addition to his day job) and > explained how > >they'd have the house paid off in five years. > > Did you ask if he is thinking that when he has a heart attack > from overwork > six years from now, at least his wife and kids won't lose the house? Who knows what the future will bring? What ifs are nice, but they are hardly a way to illustrate (or invalidate) a principle. What if the second coming arrives in three years and he's wasted all the time he had with his kids? And what are the consequences going to be after five years of hard work when his kids are now teenagers and they don't know who he is? And if he dies in six years, how much bigger a tragedy is it if his kids don't know him at all? And as long as we're tossing out what ifs, what if he sold his house and bought a much cheaper one, saved his money, and/or bought life insurance? i.e. What if he had less *stuff* instead of working himself to death and never being home? > >It had better be careful if it wants to show how damaging it is to > >follow the brethren. Like I said, you don't stay out of debt by > >earning more. People who think that you do are going to end up with > >mounting debts no matter how much they make--I know the > truth of this > >from painful experience. And if you're not providing *spiritually*, > >then it doesn't much matter what you're providing physically. > > OTOH, it's not conducive to feeding your kids spiritually if they are > crying because they are physically hungry . . . Sure. If they're hungry, then you do what it takes to provide the sustenance they need. But if they have food and shelter then the physical part is taken care of and it's time to make sure the spiritual needs are met. And since we live in the U.S. the vast majority of people have all that they need to survive physically--at the same time they're suffering spiritually. All just to have more stuff. > Note: I'm not arguing with Jacob. I realize that most of > the time he is > correct: people get overextended by spending too much on > luxuries, and > having more money coming in will just allow them to spend more and go > further in the hole. I just wanted to point out the > exceptions to the rule. I don't mind exceptions, but often enough exceptions are just excuses. We can't say what the spiritual state of any particular person actually is, so it's hard to make righteous judgments about whether they're justified in ignoring their families. I'm only talking about principles here, and as a principle, families come ahead of career. Providing a bunch of caveats or manipulated circumstances doesn't counter that core principle. I often wonder why it is that we seem so compelled to counter tough gospel principles when we learn them--as if we can avoid having to do it if we come up with enough excuses. You get this when you talk about how women should be primary caretakers, how men should be an integral part of their families, how we should have children if we can, whether or not to go into debt--in short, anything that asks us to do something hard. I'm not the arbiter here and I hope I haven't set myself up as such. God gave us the principle that families are more important than career and we choose whether or not we follow. Balance is hard and a true struggle and I'm relatively certain that few of us get it exactly right. We shouldn't guilt-trip each other and we should be loathe to make accusations, but anyone who has pangs of guilt upon hearing a principle needs to honestly find the source of that discomfort-and frankly, it is their duty to do so, not mine. Now, I can see how examining exceptions is a useful way to explore and establish boundaries. But I don't think that's really why we are so quick to say "yeah, but . . ." when we hear a difficult principle. Too often, we're trying to point out that exceptions exist so that nobody will be tempted to tell us that we're doing something wrong. In the end, what it comes down to is that we who are fortunate enough to live in the industrialized west have no business sacrificing our families to further our careers--particularly when starvation and exposure aren't even in the equation. If you feel your individual circumstances counter a principle, go for it. If I'm responsible in some way for your spiritual welfare, I might (depending on circumstances) ask you to rethink. Otherwise, I'm just talking principles that are applied in different ways for different people and circumstances. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 06 Jun 2002 19:52:45 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:08 PM > > > > Anyone else censor themselves this way? > > > Since I don't attend, I have to find other outlets for my censorship . The Ensign is at the top of my list. Every issue seems to have one article that is interesting, but the rest is pretty boring stuff. I suppose the articles are interesting to some, but not to me. The Church News is another example. So why do I read them? Because they act as something of a barometer of the state of the Church, and I feel that I need to keep up with that. [Jeff Needle] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 06 Jun 2002 20:53:24 -0600 I used to worry about censoring myself at Church. Now, I just don't talk at Church. I go to sacrament meeting and sit in the back row. The rest of the time I sit in the foyer. It's not that I am offended or anything. I just feel that I'm not playing the same game and I can't relate to people. I don't have to worry about censoring myself on this list. Our Illustrious Moderator does that for me. God bless O. I. M. Paris Anderson [MOD: I can but do My Humble Best...] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 06 Jun 2002 17:27:22 -0700 Oh yes, I've censored myself on many an occasion. But, sometimes I just can't keep my big mouth shut. In the recent Sunday School lesson several people have mentioned, out teacher took the same tactic of pointing out how many "church type" pictures they have in their house and how special that makes them feel. Everyone had something to say about that to the affect of a "yea verily" endorsement. I couldn't hold back any longer. I raised my hand and said that although I had many of the same things in my house and enjoyed them, the way the people in the house live and love each other and the Lord is what makes the difference in the atmosphere of the home. In "The Other Side of Heaven" I saw only two pictures-One of Jesus and one of Pres. Mackay in their make-shift chapel. People couldn't afford such things in their homes, yet they were wonderful, spiritual, people. The Gospel Doctrine teacher said he agreed with my comments and thanks a lot for turning his whole lesson on it's head. (He was grinning, we get along well, honest!) But still mentioned it was nice to have those things, but hey I made my point. :-) Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] LDS Parenting Books (was: Single Parenting) Date: 06 Jun 2002 19:55:46 -0700 Somewhat related to this thread: My visits to Deseret Industries always yields a large number of "family-oriented" books. A few of them look read. Most look like they've never been opened. A few are still shrink-wrapped. My question: how widely are these books really read, as opposed to how widely they are published? The doctrinal books generally look read, but the family stuff is different. [Jeff Needle] ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:26 PM > Another book moms might want to look at is my _Single Parenting_ book, published a while ago by Deseret Book but still generally available. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 07 Jun 2002 13:12:22 -0400 I used to sit and either fume or whisper asides to my wife whenever inane platitudes were being substituted for the gospel, or when writing primary-level lists of basic principles on the board was substituted for teaching and learning. No more. I talk and express myself and take the contrary view and try to get good discussions started. I'm a teacher, I do it for a living am pretty darn good at it. Some time ago I decided that I was abdicating my gifts by being a passive and frustrated Saint during these abominable Sunday lessons so I quit being passive and now we have good and engaging and meaningful discussions in both Sunday School and Priesthood. Last Sunday was particularly good. The EQ president wanted to talk about setting goals and was floundering in platitudes. He was lost and the class was lost. I'm his 1st counselor, so at the appropriate time, I blurt out that I thought setting goals was contrary to what Christ taught. I quoted "Consider the lilies..." and "...take no thought for tomorrow," and "...all these things will be added unto you," and "Christ is the potter and we are the clay..." and launched into how this was not only the essence of Christ's philosophy, but it has its corollaries in Zen (be an empty vessel free of desires) and Star Wars (feel the force, go with the flow). Then I asked where could I find some chapter and verse on setting goals so I could see where I was wrong and the manual was right. And we had a very good discussion. No contention, lots of Spirit. This is pretty typical. And oddly, whenever visitors from on high (the stake) visit our tiny branch in the middle of nowhere, they invariably comment on how good the lessons are. This massive change of mindset came one Sunday when the SS teacher asked the question (pertaining to resurrected and/or translated beings) "How do we know the apostle Paul is really dead? Total silence. He called on me: "Tony?" I said, "Same as with McConkie, because they both finally shut up." And it was fine. I wasn't alienated or struck by lightning or called in. In fact, it led to a good discussion. I have come to believe that we who can think and have some ability to apply reason and intelligence to our church doctrine have a gift and we ought not to sit on it. To you self-censorers out there, quit hiding your light under a bushel. Speak up and don't let the disapproving old biddies get you down. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eileen Stringer" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 07 Jun 2002 13:30:45 -0600 > > So I guess I want church meetings to perform a different function than > most of > > my ward members want. > > > > Stephen Carter > > You know, almost every time I see someone on this list describe their ward > or a particular church experience, I end up thinking, "What world do *they* > live in?" > > And then I realize--oh yeah, Utah! > > Seriously, a lot of what's been described on this list is really foreign to > me. But maybe that's just because I live pretty much completely outside of > the Mormon culture. > > Susan I have to agree with Susan on all points except one, I live in Utah, in Salt Lake even and I must say that much of what is described on this list is outside my experience as well. I find few people in my Relief Society and Sunday School classes censoring themselves and I have never been taken to task for the way I teach Relief Society or Sunday School and my methods are far outside the "Mormon Cultural Orthodoxy." Our ward consists of several elderly widows whose sons or daughters are on the different general boards of the Church, in the Presiding Bishopric, seventies and even an apostle. These people from "downtown" have come off and on and we regulars have never felt the need to censor our comments. During one of my lessons there were three GA's wives in the room and one of the references I was using was the Book of Common prayer, none of them batted an eye and one asked where she could find the book I was reading from. We also have one old gentleman takes certain delight in seeing how far over the line he can go each Sunday and especially when these downtown visitors show up. Maybe I have the luck to be in the few wards in Salt Lake that are like this, but I have been in 5 in the past 13 years since moving here and have not had the excruciating experiences that others on this list have had. Nobody has ever questioned what is on my walls, in my bookcase or my video shelf, very little of it from Deseret Book. Maybe I have found a way to be "in the culture, but not of the culture." Eileen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Lynching the Speaker (was: Censoring Comments) (Comp 1) Date: 07 Jun 2002 16:55:36 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post. Several responses on this one...] >From lajackson@juno.com Thu Jun 06 21:55:13 2002 Barbara Hume: Once a brother in my ward gave a talk about how his wife always gave birth without the benefit of painkillers, ... He was fortunate he did not make his speech in Sunday School, where he could have been lynched from the basketball standard. There would not have been enough husbands in the crowd to save him. _______________ Some husbands around here, myself included, would have helped with the lynching. Larry Jackson >From amyc@xmission.com Thu Jun 06 22:11:19 2002 If you hear an utter and complete piece of garbage like this in Sunday School or RS, you can at least raise your hand and say: "Although that has worked out well for Brother Whoever and his family, I just want to point out to the rest of you that this concept is not a gospel teaching." It's direct, it's friendly, and it doesn't start a huge fight. Hopefully. If you use the right tone. BUT if it happens in Sacrament Meeting, that's another problem. What do we do when we hear such tripe coming over the pulpit? How do we voice our disagreement, or should we at all? Personally, I consider the above comment a form of blasphemy--perhaps not evil-intentioned, but still. I have gotten up and left in the middle of Sac Mtg talks before (only a few times) because I've been so put off by hearing personal opinion preached as gospel. Is that the best way to react? Probably not. All I know is I sure feel a lot better in the foyer. Amy Chamberlain >From Jacob@proffitt.com Thu Jun 06 23:03:44 2002 What husband in his right mind would have *wanted* to help him? I'd have been one of the first to throttle him. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ Asplund Subject: [AML] Dealing with Consequences (was: Money Matters) Date: 07 Jun 2002 11:35:52 -0600 [MOD: I think Russell raises a fascinating question with regard to our literature: Do we do a good job of writing literature that shows people dealing successfully with consequences? And an accompanying social question, which nevertheless I think goes well with some of the other questions we've been considering on this list: i.e., what is our attitude as church members toward helping people deal with consequences, as opposed to prevention? I'd like to focus the discussion in these directions, if we could, rather than talking about specifics of how people can/should get out of financial and other situations once they're in them, which really is beyond the scope of AML-List...] > ---------- > From: Richard Johnson > > As for debt. None of the "Brethen" I've listened to said "don't go > into debt at all" They just say except for a house or _maybe_ a car be > very hesitant to go into debt. Anyone who has been in the position of > giving out welfare knows how frequently the dire straits that families get > into are the result of stupid debt. > > And some of us know because we _are_ stupid. Reading this and the other threads on stresses, be it baby or financial or social, reminds me of the book I always wished someone would put out. It would be title something like, "So You've Screwed* Up, Now What?" Because it seems like we always get advice on what to avoid, be it sin or debt or running faster than we have strength--but I'm never quite smart enough to listen. And their never seems to be much advice about what to do once your up to your armpits in consequences. My favorite character in the Book of Mormon is Zeezrom, because he is one of the few bad guys in the scriptures you ever get to see repent. Not with some huge experience, like Saul or Alma, that set him up to be a prophet. But just by realizing he screwed up and feeling bad about it. You here about him later, doing work as a missionary, but he never becomes a prophet. I just hope he toughed it out and made it. I can envision myself as Zeezrom far easier that I can seeing myself as Moroni. I'm just not the type. Russell Asplund ps. I'd write the book myself, but I still haven't figured out what to do. Maybe when I'm older and wiser, assuming I become either. *In my more bitter moments, I use other wording. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 07 Jun 2002 13:26:27 -0600 [MOD: I'm allowing Marianne's reply, but let's not get into another what-is/what's-not discussion of Church doctrine here, unless we can give it a clear literary tie-in...] >When someone says that homosexuality is >wrong, I have to remind them that Elder Oaks says there's nothing wrong >with >homosexuality, but homosexual acts are what the Lord is concerned about. Thom, my friend, I'm not sure Elder Oaks would quite agree with your paraphrasing ("there's nothing wrong with homosexuality"). The distinction that has been made is that homosexual acts are sins, not homosexual feelings. If there was indeed "nothing wrong" with the concept of homosexuality then the act would most likely not be a sin. Saying "there's nothing wrong with homosexuality but homosexual acts are a sin" is like saying "there's nothing wrong with premarital sex except for when you actually do it." Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 07 Jun 2002 16:09:47 -0600 Eric Samuelson has a MARVELOUS story on cliche over gospel. I hope he shares it. I was laughing out loud as I read it. Tony Markham wrote: > I used to sit and either fume or whisper asides to my wife whenever inane > platitudes were being substituted for the gospel, or when writing primary-level > lists of basic principles on the board was substituted for teaching and learning. [snip] [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: HOJONEWS@aol.com Subject: [AML] Carolyn HOWARD-JOHNSON, _This Is the Place_ Date: 07 Jun 2002 18:51:37 EDT In a message dated 6/7/02 11:49:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jeff.needle@general.com writes: > Thank you for this lovely note. It is much appreciated, and > very encouraging. > > I'm not sure I know about your book, mentioned in your > tagline. Has it been reviewed here? > > Thanks again for the good thoughts. > Dear Jeff and All: I did send my book to someone on this list who handles reviews but I joined after my book was published so I don't know if it has ever been reviewed here. This is the Place has had wonderful press in general, though, primarily, I think, because the interest in Salt Lake City was so high before and during the Olympics. The SLC airport sold hundreds of copies. That, of course, made me smile. Carolyn Howard-Johnson, Author of This is the Place, an award-winning story about a young journalist who writes her way through repression into redemption For a FREE First Chapter Click Here or send to: carolynhowardjohnson@sendfree.com FREE Cooking by the Book at http://www.tlt.com/authors/carolynhowardjohnson.htm -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Lynching the Speaker Date: 07 Jun 2002 20:18:09 -0600 ---Original Message From: From Amy Chamberlain > > If you hear an utter and complete piece of garbage like this > in Sunday School or RS, you can at least raise your hand and > say: "Although that has worked out well for Brother Whoever > and his family, I just want to point out to the rest of you > that this concept is not a gospel teaching." It's direct, > it's friendly, and it doesn't start a huge fight. Hopefully. > If you use the right tone. > > BUT if it happens in Sacrament Meeting, that's another > problem. What do we do when we hear such tripe coming over > the pulpit? How do we voice our disagreement, or should we at > all? Personally, I consider the above comment a form of > blasphemy--perhaps not evil-intentioned, but still. I have > gotten up and left in the middle of Sac Mtg talks before > (only a few times) because I've been so put off by hearing > personal opinion preached as gospel. Is that the best way to > react? Probably not. All I know is I sure feel a lot better > in the foyer. That's what bishops are for. If the bishop blows it, let him know in private afterwards that false doctrine was preached over the pulpit and it is his stewardship to correct such. Recently in our ward, they've (not sure if this came from the stake or the church) asked that the bishop speak last in every Sacrament meeting, including Fast and Testimony Meeting. This gives him the opportunity to correct or emphasize things said during the meeting. The Elders' Quorum President does the same in Priesthood Meeting. It's probably a good idea--if you're going to be up there anyway, you're likely to think of corrections or extensions. I suppose that if the bishop or EQ President is the one spreading false doctrine that you should probably bring it up the chain-of-command--that's one of the benefits of *having* a chain-of-command (aka hierarchy). In my experience, it's rarely necessary, but not entirely unheard of. We had an example of corrective doctrine delivered from above recently when the Stake President asked us to make sure our ward understands Priesthood Keys because some misunderstandings were becoming common. Not Earth-shattering, but illustrative of the process to, um, enforce dogma :). Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Dealing with Consequences Date: 08 Jun 2002 00:41:26 -0600 Russ Asplund wrote: > > From: Richard Johnson > > > > As for debt. None of the "Brethen" I've listened to said "don't go > > into debt at all" They just say except for a house or _maybe_ a car be > > very hesitant to go into debt. Anyone who has been in the position of > > giving out welfare knows how frequently the dire straits that families get > > into are the result of stupid debt. > > > And some of us know because we _are_ stupid. Reading this and the other > threads on stresses, be it baby or financial or social, reminds me of the > book I always wished someone would put out. It would be title something > like, "So You've Screwed* Up, Now What?" Yeah...what Russ said. I wish I could learn to pack so much concept density into so small a space, but that's one of my areas of rather extreme stupidity (though I am working on it, believe it or not). For a church that so thoroughly preaches the doctrine of repentence and the reality and importance of wisdom obtained through failure (which may not be as good as wisdom obtained without failure, but is surely better than wisdom not obtained), we seem to have a hard time extending aid to those in need without an accompanying sigh and shaken head (often with a free "I told you so" and a lecture on "correct principles" thrown in as a bonus). We seem anxious to condemn not once or twice, but as often as we can. I believe we mean it with good intent. We want to teach correct principles so people can govern themselves, but we treat them as both stupid and incapable, unwilling to understand correct principles and unable to govern themselves. Often I think our delivery of charity reveals as much of our own sinful pride as anything else. We don't trust that the experience itself is enough to hammer the message in, so we give it a couple of extra whacks while rendering aid. An example. In Utah nearly two years ago a man went hunting and left his two year old child alone in the truck while he went off to scout for game. In the forty-five minutes the father was gone, his child woke from a nap and wandered away from the truck without a coat, wearing only his pajamas. Eventually the child got lost in the woods and froze to death before the father could find him. I was personally incensed by the situation. Though I live in an area where it seems that everyone hunts, I've always been repelled by the idea of killing animals for sport. So my righteous indignation against what I see as a cruel bloodsport piled onto my father's indignation against a man who could leave his child unattended in such an obviously dangerous situation. I wanted to get that guy--and good. I wanted him to suffer nigh unto death for the unspeakable selfishness that put his desire to kill an animal above the ordinary safety of his own child. That evening, the father made an impassioned statement about how he deserved to be imprisoned and even shot for his irresponsibility. In the weeks that followed he seemed to fall silent, the passion of the moment gone, the remorse for his actions lost. My anger against this man increased as the district attorney failed to file charges, then finally ended up charging him with only misdemeanor negligence. After pleading no contest the father was finally sentenced to only thirty days in prison for causing the death of his child. I was incensed. Thirty days for the life of a child? Thirty days for the complete abrogation of parental responsibility? Then Paul Wayment committed suicide and it finally occured to me that he had lived in his own private hell since the day his child wandered away and froze to death. It finally occured to me that if my two year old had wandered away from me and was lost (as mine once did in a shopping mall while I was supervising him and his brother and sister at a playground), I would condemn myself with greater vigor than any court could. When my own son wandered away (and was recovered without incident) I did condemn myself with great vigor. This man who made a mistake--and who had been taught by experience just how critical that mistake was--had been completely isolated by the Mormon community that should have found some small compassion for him, that should have comforted him in his time of comfort. Instead, we rushed to condemn him because it was by his own error that those terrible consequences occurred. We didn't trust that he had gotten the message. He deserved no compassion because he had brought it on himself. Theoretically we should be offering our charity with an eye only to serving those in need, not to determining whether they deserve the consequences they're facing. If I understood my King Benjamin properly, none of us is right in withholding our alms because "they brought it on themselves." (Tying back to the issues of generations past, I think this is an area where broad Mormon culture has softened a bit in the last decade or so. After two decades of relentless preaching of self-sufficiency and food storage, many Mormons still find themselves being affected by a declining economy and are forced to conclude that their inability to obtain self-sufficiency is proof of their moral inadequacy. Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. Yet we still tend to judge those with need harshly, especially if the father is healthy but unemployed.) We seem very willing to give of materials--and even of time. But we seem much less willing to give of compassion and trust and respect, which are often the things that those in need crave as much as the more material offerings, and which they can't ask for. How disgusting is that--to ask for respect and trust after failing so miserably to solve your own problems? I think we are in need of repentence on that issue. (And yes, I can't help but cringe a little at how my own logic traps me--I condemn us for being too condemning. But the fact that I stand condemned by own condemnation doesn't alter the reality of the need; in some ways it illustrates my point.) > My favorite character in the Book of Mormon is Zeezrom, because he is one of > the few bad guys in the scriptures you ever get to see repent. Not with some > huge experience, like Saul or Alma, that set him up to be a prophet. But > just by realizing he screwed up and feeling bad about it. You here about him > later, doing work as a missionary, but he never becomes a prophet. I just > hope he toughed it out and made it. I can envision myself as Zeezrom far > easier that I can seeing myself as Moroni. I'm just not the type. Which is exactly what I articulated so poorly in another post. If we always tell our stories of Moroni and Nephi and Alma and all other the exceptional people--prophets all--do we set the bar for success so high that we actually alienate and disenfranchise the vast majority of us who are reaching for that ideal but from much farther away? Do we really demand that all people be prophets or be irrelevant? That's the message I seem to hear as often as not--whether that's the message we intend to send or not. No, we should not settle for less. But we should also accept progress a step at a time and tell the stories of that stepwise progress, that line upon line development from being weak in the gospel to being less weak, if not yet strong. Not always the big transformations, but sometimes the small recognitions or even the trembling survival of hope in times of adversity; sometimes less a great leap forward than a failing to be blown backward. Because our lives are not a series of momentous happenings, but most often are a series of small steps, of living an ideal hour by hour or day by day and looking up to find a year gone by and a quiet change of heart and mind. The stories of faith are a great deal wider in scope than we have allowed them to be. I think at least part of the problem lies with writers rather than readers. And there is certainly some responsibility left over to lay at the feet of the publishers. What we currently publish is good; there can be more and varied. In my opinion. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Alien Mormons? (was: Censoring Comments) Date: 08 Jun 2002 02:09:07 -0600 Susan Malmrose wrote: > You know, almost every time I see someone on this list describe their ward > or a particular church experience, I end up thinking, "What world do *they* > live in?" > > And then I realize--oh yeah, Utah! I've lived in Utah for over a quarter century now, and I also wonder what world some people live in. I've heard all sorts of stories about the weirdness of Utah Mormons, but I've never seen any of it personally in any of the wards I've lived in. (And I've lived in quite a few.) Oh, I hear some odd things now and then, but I heard them in Minnesota too. I'm not doubting these weird Utah things happen, but why don't I ever see it? Am I just too unsociable to be around to see it, or am I oblivious to it because I just don't worry about what other people think so much? Where are the alien Mormons I hear tell about? -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 08 Jun 2002 02:55:05 -0600 Tony Markham wrote: > > I used to sit and either fume or whisper asides to my wife whenever inane > platitudes were being substituted for the gospel, or when writing primary-level > lists of basic principles on the board was substituted for teaching and learning. > > No more. I talk and express myself and take the contrary view and try to get good > discussions started. > And oddly, whenever visitors from on high (the stake) > visit our tiny branch in the middle of nowhere, they invariably comment on how > good the lessons are. I've had similar experiences, both when commenting during other people's lessons and when I go nutws giving one of my own. I don't always speak up because sometimes I calculate that what's on my mind would be too disruptive to the lesson and not worth the price. But if it seems relevant, I speak up. I've never had a negative experience as a result. In fact, I got made elders quorum secretary because of it, because my comments drew the attention of the president. Often I'll make comments afterward to various authorities, like "I'll bet you regret asking me to do the lesson now," or "I guess I don't have to worry about being elders quorum secretary anymore." Always they reject my self-effacement and say they thought it was good. I even contradicted my bishop in Gospel Doctrine once. I'm not entirely sure he liked it, but I survived without a stern talking to or probation or a court--oops, disciplinary action, police action, final solution--whatever it's called these days. > I have come to believe that we who can think and have some ability to apply reason > and intelligence to our church doctrine have a gift and we ought not to sit on > it. To you self-censorers out there, quit hiding your light under a bushel. > Speak up and don't let the disapproving old biddies get you down. I agree. And I have to ask again, where are these alien Mormons who react so negatively? -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathy Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Money Matters Date: 09 Jun 2002 17:22:16 -0600 In the discussion on money matters, somebody wrote, about the difficulties of a widowed mother: "But in this case, your friend is another example of why we have Fast Offerings." Someday, when I've achieved enough distance, I will write about what it was like to be a divorced single mom in the Church. No matter how everyone tried to be nice, it was very hard. I remember once when my son took my van out one day and overheated the engine, blew it up, and it ended up costing over $1000 to fix. It was my only vehicle, and I had refinanced my house to get money for it since I didn't get much child support and I wasn't earning enough to add a car payment. Desperate, I asked the bishop for help. The bishopric came over and wrote me a check for the repair, with a lecture about how you need to put money away for just this sort of emergency. Truly, I had so little. I don't know how I could have put away $1000 for an emergency. During the time of my my marriage, my husband had a belief (common among fundamentalist types--and somebody needs to put THIS stuff in a story or novel, because I've since learned that it is a common character trait among the far right and among polygamists) that he didn't have to work but had a higher, loftier life to live, writing about godly things, and lesser beings would support him financially. So he did not work, and we were poor, having child after child (God's will, as discussed in the thread on Baby Exhaustion), and had very little in consumables, which little I mostly took with me when I got my divorce. And to talk to you about welfare food services. . . .it is a difficult thing. To make up a food order and go down to the warehouse to pick it up was so difficult for me. I saw everyone going easily to the grocery store, to McDonalds, and paying money, and I toodled down to the bishop's storehouse with this food order. It made me into this weird noncitizen. I remember hating it so much that I finally just stopped doing it. One morning, I got a call from my Relief Society president. "I couldn't sleep last night, thinking about you. I finally got up and wrote your name in lipstick on my bathroom mirror so I could sleep. What's going on?" "Oh, nothing." "Cathy, do you have enough food for your family?" "Well, no, not really, but. . . " "I'm coming over to fill out an order for you." "Terri, I just can't do this anymore. It's so hard. I'm sorry. . . ." "Then I'll do it for you." She did. For several weeks, she did. Fortunately my business picked up a little and I was able to pay for food again. Believe me, if you haven't gone through this for an extended period, it may be hard for you to know how it is. A few years ago I edited a book for an LDS author about finances. It was his main theme that you should put a certain percentage away for savings, a percentage for kids' college educations, a percentage for missions, both the kids' and your future mission, and so on. I told him that many people of my acquaintance barely made their payments and commitments each month, and that putting away these percentages was impractical. He responded that these people could cut back by budgeting carefully, buying second-hand, reusing things, and of course, that's all good advice. But again, I'd lived that way throughout my life and still couldn't consider putting away these percentages. I think he didn't like my responses, though he was very gracious. Look at it another way. Our son-in-law has been a public school teacher for almost five years in a posh Utah valley district. Without revealing his salary, I will assure you that after their modest rent, utilities, and very modest way of living, they have NOTHING left over at the end of the month. They are happy together and raising their sweet children well, but financially, life is hard. I believe that many people are in exactly the same boat. I had no idea of course that my financial situation would someday improve, as I added my earnings to my husband's when I would remarry. It is so much easier, though still not a piece of cake. I think it must be hard for EVERYone on a typical salary, and for single parents, it is just plain hard. This can segue nicely into the discussion on honoring each others' gifts. As an example, we know a man who is a superb accompanist--the absolute best you've ever heard. He's got a gift! Yet in our society, accompanying jobs are almost always part-time and on-and-off as well. Due to a variety of circumstances, their family is struggling hard financially because he hasn't found other work that is suitable, although he works very hard. But what a gift he has! In Zion, I imagine, there'd be work WITH a proper financial standing for such a person. Cathy Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 06 Jun 2002 18:28:21 -0700 Secret Combinations long held a fascination for me. I was first introduced to the concept by the Book of Mormon, and became an avid reader of conspiracy theories and secret societies. When I was eighteen years old I was in desktop publishing and a fellow who was a member of about six different Masonic groups brought in a bunch of their rituals for me to type up and swore me to secrecy--he accepted my word because I was an Eagle Scout. I was quite disappointed by the content of the ritual, since there was nothing majestic or awesome or even interesting. I have never divulged them for my word's sake, but have often said how amazingly innocuous it all was. Since that time I have read numerous books about the Masons, the Illuminati, the Rosicrucians, etc, and dozens of other secret societies real and unreal. As far as which conspiracy really exists and controls what part of the world I am completely agnostic--I don't believe any of them, but any of them could be partially true. The best of conspiracy theories is the Jupiter ignited by Galileo spacecraft/Jason 13 theory--I ought to say the funniest. Anybody who wants to hear it contact me off the list and I'll sent it you. Naturally this interest has found its way into my own writing, but there are a number of pitfalls I wish to discuss. There are several forms of secret combination, and not all exist to murder and get gain. The Mafia would be the closest modern analogue to the Gadianton Robbers, but they don't really go for political power the way Gadiantion (and Akish) did in the Book of Mormon. The John Birch Society, Socialist International, and Green Party all believe in different Master Conspiracy theories. Birchers say that the communists are behind everything that's gone on in the past few years, the Socialists say it is the imperialists and the Greens say it is corporations. There are many others besides. In my own literature I've combined them and given them a supernatural master that forces them to work together, which is why I don't believe any of the aforementioned theories. What worries me are several problems that come up when creating even a false secret brotherhood dedicated to evil. First there are their acts. Evil is not pleasant to write about, but to make the good guys good the bad guys have to be bad, especially when the society is quasi-medieval and the heroes are all warrior-types. Creating characters that are steeped in evil is no fun, and making them believable is even less fun. There is a fine line between making a character too human or two inhuman. Right at the border he may become sympathetic, and since he's going to lose and possibly die that isn't necessarily the best idea. Making him too inhuman makes him overdrawn and outside the experience of most people. The fact is even Nazi camp executioners were human and once had human motivations, no matter inhuman they became. How villainous can a villain be and yet exist in literature that Mormons would not object to? What would be the point of writing a book that my own people wouldn't read? Especially because it wasn't uplifting. A second problem is the oaths. In the Book of Mormon there are several places where the writers were forbidden to list the oaths of the Gadianton Robbers or the earlier followers of Akish. In Moses it mentions a little about how the Old Scratch swore Cain and his followers but the oaths are very short and certainly incomplete. One would expect that the oaths would be similar to the covenants had in the temple, or may have rituals that mirror baptism and confirmation because who would the devil emulate except God? The problems comes in when making up fake oaths as a literary device--what happens if one hits too close to the truth? I've shied away from detailing the oaths a number of times in the four books that deal with my own fake conspiracy but the sequel to one of the completed ones is going to expose the secret works of these bad guys and I've been hesitating over it for a couple of years. It's one thing to shout the secret works of darkness from the rooftops and its another to create false ones that are plausible and then expose them. Which brings me to plausibility. Naturally real conspiracy theories don't need plausibility--some people will believe anything. As literature many of the extant conspiracy theories would be too goofy to be readable. Some of the UFO theories aren't half as plausible as good SF, and some of the "scientific" conspiracies are downright insane. The question becomes more difficult when not happening in our earth. First a plausible backdrop and history, then a plausible religion, then a plausible counter-religion and conspiracy, and then plausible villains who operate in the secret combination. In a Mormon worldview it has to be both sinister and pragmatic. The trouble is with the sinister end of the equation. Most people don't really desire freedom, but to Mormons it is above price. Many Americans feel the same, but the story of modern society is the attempt to escape responsibility, which is the same thing as freedom. If the bad guys exist to destroy freedom, how can what they replace it with be portrayed as both desireable and undesireable at the same time? While remaining plausible. In _The Screwtape Letters_ CS Lewis mentions how little he enjoyed writing the book, thinking like a devil and trying to second-guess the methods by which a devil would attempt to seduce a soul to Hell. The same problem exists when writing about secret combinations. To the unititiated they sound exciting and fascinating, but once the "mysteries" are penetrated the societies behind are really squalid, sordid things, nasty and wicked without grandeur or even terror. I have four chronologically separate storylines that deal with the secret combination I designed, but only one of them has to really deal with these issues. The other three books (and eventually their sequels) deal with specific plots that are thwarted and the fighting that ensues because of those even unsuccessful plots. The fourth series is about essentially a new prophet for my fantasy world, and he has to learn more. The first book, _The Inquisitor_ is complete and he learns much about the secret societies, and especially that he was raised among them and took some of their oaths without realizing what they were. In rebelling he is violating his oaths to the combination but he does it successfully and escapes to the second book, which has been languishing since 1998. In writing this post I am looking both for some discussion on the specific questions above and also trying to grease the skids and get over the block that's been there for so long. The good news is that in the meantime the world backdrop has grown into the most detailed I've ever seen, so that as this character accomplishes the end of history he has a history to end. I have had 20,000 words of _The Heretic_ sitting there waiting for me for nearly five years. That seems long enough. Many Thanks, Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Book Signings (Daily Herald) Date: 10 Jun 2002 03:28:59 +0000 [MOD: It's not clear to me whether the main events described below have already happened or not... Writers speaking at Read Leaf The Daily Herald on Friday, June 07 SPRINGVILLE -- The Read Leaf Bookstore will welcome seven authors who write books for middle readers and young adults in the national market. The event will be from 7-9 p.m. Thursday at The Read Leaf, 164 S. Main St., Springville. The authors will speak about their latest books, and a reception will follow. The authors will be happy to sign copies of their books, either purchased at The Read Leaf at a special event discount or brought from home. The line-up: * Laurel Brady, a Mapleton resident, is the author of "Say You Are My Sister" (ages 10 and up). When disaster strikes, 12-year-old Mony and her two sisters are left to fend for themselves in their small Georgia town. Mony must fight the one secret she fears will destroy the family. * Chris Crowe, who teaches at BYU, has just had his first novel published. "Mississippi Trial, 1955" (ages 12 and up) gives a fictionalized account of the racist murder of black teenager Emmett Till. Crowe stays true to the horrifying facts reported in newspapers during the trial, and gives readers a chance to think about how easy it is to be a bystander to bigotry. * Dean Hughes, well known for his "Children of the Promise" series for the LDS audience, has also been writing books for children for years. In his latest novel, "Soldier Boys" (ages 12 and up), two boys are eager to get into the action as the United States enters WWII. Spencer, 16, leaps into Army paratrooper training, needing to prove some things to his father and to himself. Half a world away, Dieter, 15, succeeds as a model member of the Hitler Youth, rising through the ranks to defend the Fatherland. Spencer and Dieter are destined to meet on the battlefield. * John H. Ritter, who will be visiting from California, has written popular books for children ages 9-12. In "Choosing Up Sides," a talented pitcher has to decide whether to follow his dreams or obey his father, a preacher who believes that playing baseball is a sin. In "Over the Wall," a baseball player has to control his temper or he'll blow his chances of making the all- star team. Help arrives in the form of his coach, a Vietnam vet who knows a thing or two about anger. * Michael O. Tunnell teaches at BYU and has written a variety of books for children and teens. His most recent book, "Brothers in Valor" (ages 9 to 12), is a fictionalized account of German resistance to Hitler. Three young boys, who are all LDS, join the Hitler Youth, but secretly hate the Nazis and ultimately work to undermine their efforts. Tunnell is also the author of "Mailing May," "Children of Topaz" and "Halloween Pie." * Carol Lynch Williams, who lives in Springville, writes engaging books for girls in fifth grade and up. Her latest book, "A Mother to Embarrass Me," which is set in Mapleton, Utah, is a humorous story about a girl who is mortified that her mother is going to have a baby. Williams is also the author of "My Angelica," "Carolina Autumn" and "The True Colors of Caitlynne Jackson." * Ron Woods, who teaches at BYU, is a first-time novelist. His book "The Hero" (ages 12 and up) is about three boys, including one boy who is the town outcast, and how their lives are drastically altered after a deadly river accident. For more information on the event, call The Read Leaf at 489- 1390. Copyright 2002 by HarkTheHerald.com [Here are some more signings happening this week] At ZCMI Center: ZCMI Center Deseret Book, 36 S. State St., Salt Lake City, will host several book signings this week, all at noon unless noted. * Glen Leonard, author of Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, a People of Promise, will sign his book on Monday. * Timothy Robinson, author ofNauvoo Temple Stone; Three Days Without Light, A Fountain of Pure Water and A Night Without Darkness, will sign his books at the store on Tuesday. * At the same time, Margaret Blair Young and Darius Aidan Gray, co-authors of the Standing on the Promise series, will be at the store signing their books. * Kathleen H. Barnes and Virginia H. Pearce, authors of Prayer Time and Sacrament Time, will be at the store Thursday. * And photographer John Telford will sign his book Nauvoo: The City Beautiful, Saturday at 3 p.m. JERRY JOHNSTON, author of "Dear Hearts, Gentle People," and a Deseret News columnist, will sign copies of his book Friday, June 14, 12-2 p.m., Deseret Book, ZCMI Center. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jennifer Vaughn Subject: RE: [AML] Accepting Each Other's Offerings Date: 10 Jun 2002 11:28:36 -0600 [MOD: One of the things, I may say, that makes Jennifer's response AML List-appropriate is that rather than focusing just on positions, she gives her experience--in terms that, I think, are very useful for a discussion of how to portray Mormon culture (in all its variations) in literature. Thanks, Jennifer.] >I think one root cause of anger in Mormon women is the destruction of >her autonomy. Mormon women learn to interact deferentially, as if >powerless, in their relationship to both the church and to their >husband. However,powerlessness is a fundamentally harmful posture. The >example of no family planning (resultant 15 years of pregnancies and >nursing) illustrates the extreme extent to which female autonomy is >destroyed. Imagine in hind-sight, not owning the decision to conceive >and to raise a child. I don't know if my response is list-okay or not, but here goes: I cannot imagine anything more hellish (and I mean that) than not owning one's reproductive rights (the decision when and if to have a child). I was 34 when I had my son (my first, and so far only). We'd been married 6 years before we felt ready to begin, and it took us nearly 2 years to have our baby. Did the LDS *culture* give us grief? Oh yes, in the *looks* and awkward silences that I got in Relief Society when I introduced myself (and hence, my childlessness) to a new ward, in my great-aunt "humorously" instructing my husband & I on how to make a baby at my predominately LDS family reunion, and so on. Did the LDS *doctrine* give us grief? Not at all--it was by heeding the SPIRIT that we decided we needed time to prepare ourselves (and isn't the doctrine about heeding the Spirit--what was Joseph Smith, anyway?). And re: powerlessness (as in the quote above)--you'd better believe I felt and feel a sense of power and self-esteem, because *I* made my choice, and because I knew it was a spiritual choice. I have seriously toyed with the idea of writing something that explores the tension between living the LDS doctrine and the LDS culture. I think that theme would make for a great book, especially regarding women (in additon to my own stories, I personally know of many women who have walked this tightrope). But frankly, I do not know if very many people want to read about the culture not being as true as the gospel (with apologies to Eugene England). --Jennifer Breinholt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Lynching the Speaker Date: 10 Jun 2002 11:49:12 -0600 (MDT) > >From lajackson@juno.com Thu Jun 06 21:55:13 2002 > > Barbara Hume: > > Once a brother in my ward gave a talk about how his > wife always gave birth without the benefit of painkillers, ... > > He was fortunate he did not make his speech in Sunday > School, where he could have been lynched from the > basketball standard. There would not have been enough > husbands in the crowd to save him. > > _______________ > > Some husbands around here, myself included, would > have helped with the lynching. > > Larry Jackson > I'm not sure I understand this one - My wife gave birth without painkillers at home - and it was her choice. And it was an amazing experience. (Although my wife said, in response to some women talking about how spirtual birth is - "The closest I got to a siritual experience was when i started to pray it would be over soon.") Why lynch the guy? Was he making an offhand comment, or was he preaching it as doctrine? The first may have been inappropriate, but hardly cause for lynching. The second - well, that's up to the ward. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Christine Atkinson" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 10 Jun 2002 12:16:48 -0600 Eileen Stringer said: > Maybe I have the luck to be in the few wards in Salt Lake that are like > this, but I have been in 5 in the past 13 years since moving here and have > not had the excruciating experiences that others on this list have had. > Nobody has ever questioned what is on my walls, in my bookcase or my video > shelf, very little of it from Deseret Book. Maybe I have found a way to be > "in the culture, but not of the culture." I think Eileen HAS been lucky. I haven't. Besides being single in a family ward (which creates a funky, tentative, be-friendly-but-don't-scare-her-away attitude and which throws people for a real loop - I actually had a visiting teacher struggle through a lesson on the joys of having children in our lives!), I have the added challenge of being in an old, established ward in Spanish Fork, Utah. Multi-generational, non-confrontational, and very comfortable with how it's always been said and done. I'm not much of a challenger, mostly because I've only recently started going to church regularly after a long period of sporadic attendance and I don't feel that I know enough to challenge anyone. I'm honestly there to learn. But I'm struggling in this ward because I am not learning *anything*. The Gospel Doctrine teacher does what Tony Markham said in his post - he flounders in platitudes. He asks the wrong questions and the class is so complacent that no one even bothers to answer. For example, he once asked, "Who is our savior?" There was silence until I answered out of frustration. It wasn't a trick question. Relief Society is worse. More platitudes, less information. I occasionally go to Orem to my mom's ward, where the Gospel Doctrine class is energetic and loud and well educated. I actually learn in that class. I don't feel like I'm just there to get my name on the roll and mark my time. (I'm also struggling with the language barrier. Spanish Forkian is difficult for me to listen to. If you say "crikk" instead of "creek," I'm probably going to cringe, if only internally.) So anyone who is censoring himself, KNOCK IT OFF! Some of us quiet, non-challenging types need you to say something. Seriously! -Christine Atkinson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 10 Jun 2002 13:35:45 -0600 Tony Markham, my long lost semi-cousin wrote, with bracing vigor: >I have come to believe that we who can think and have some ability to = >apply reason >and intelligence to our church doctrine have a gift and we ought not to = >sit on it. To you self-censorers out there, quit hiding your light under a = bushel. >Speak up and don't let the disapproving old biddies get you down. First of all, I think that most of our brothers and sisters can think and = have some ability to apply reason and intelligence to our church doctrine. = Once we get past that most dreaded affliction, manualitis, and are in a = setting where folks are comfortable speaking up, I believe or hope that = you'll end up with some very interesting discussions. =20 But for me at least, it ain't that simple. I just flat out can't speak up = as freely as Tony describes doing. My hands are tied, my lips are sealed. = I'm BYU faculty, and I absolutely cannot take a chance on saying = something sufficiently unorthodox that my bishop might refuse me a temple = recommend. Does this mean that I have reason to not trust my bishop? Not particularly= ; he seems like a nice enough fellow. Early in my time in my ward, I was = in a setting with him where I let slip a minor unorthodoxy, and from the = expression on his face, I haven't let it happen again. (I said I didn't = think it was the end of the world if a young woman dated, or even married, = outside the Church.) I'm the gospel doctrine teacher, and I have to teach = the most careful, politically correct lessons imaginable. I can't bear to = use the manual, so I have a tightrope walk every week. How can I teach = the Old Testament responsibly and truthfully, while still keeping it = within boundaries that won't get me in trouble? It ain't easy, and it's = not much fun, but my livelihood's at stake. I also can't turn down a = church calling. =20 The life of a BYU professor gets kinda interesting at times. I pay = tithing, for example, and always have. I have never, in my life, not been = a full tithe payer. But tithing has a very different feel when it's a = mandatory condition of employment. =20 Do I see R rated movies? Of course I do; y'all know that. Does anyone in = my ward know that? Certainly not, because I know people who have lost = temple recommends over that issue, and I can't risk it. So if I let drop = that Annette and I went to a movie, and a ward member asks 'what'd you = see?,' I lie. What other choice do I have? In my ward, the priesthood lessons are the unbearable ones. I would love = to play hooky from priesthood occasionally. Can't. That's not a choice = for me. Here's where it really gets fun. I have asked a number of colleagues this = question over the past ten years. If you were involved in a situation = where you might have to face a Church disciplinary council, a situation = where you knew that confession was an essential part of repentance, but = which might cause you to lose your temple recommend, would you confess, = knowing it might, and probably would, cost you your job? (I have not, I = should quickly add, done anything like that personally). I've probably = asked fifty colleagues that over the years. The unanimous answer, from = every one of them, was no. They wouldn't 'fess up. They would rather = risk facing the Lord with unrepented sins on their conscience than risk = losing their jobs. That's where we are right now. So anyway, I applaud Tony and the rest of you who do speak up when = necessary. Wish I could join you. For me, the stakes are too high. My = ward simply does not know me at all, and I hope they never do. Far as my = ward is concerned, I'm a completely orthodox, conservative Republicans, = without strong opinions on pretty much anything, who abhors pop culture = and only reads 'classics' and church publications. That sound like me to = any of y'all? Just gotta hope nobody in my ward joins the List. And do = you folks have any idea what a lifeline you are to me? =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 07 Jun 2002 17:38:03 -0400 at least you read the Church News. I have a subscription and all I do is take it out of the mailbox and toss it right into the trash. I just ordered it to have web access to the website. I'm starting to think it isn't worth it. Will I renew? Nope. I can't give the things away and I have tried. As for the Ensign, I read Latter-Day Voices, Comments, and News of the Church, the VT Message. Oh, and if the distribution catalog is in the middle, I read that too. So that I will renew. The New Era will never darken my mailbox again. I for one liked the fiction, but its not worth $8 a year just to read the cartoons and look at the MormonAd. I can do that on-line. Debbie Brown ----- Original Message ----- > > Since I don't attend, I have to find other outlets for my censorship . > > The Ensign is at the top of my list. Every issue seems to have one article > that is interesting, but the rest is pretty boring stuff. I suppose the > articles are interesting to some, but not to me. > > The Church News is another example. > > So why do I read them? Because they act as something of a barometer of the > state of the Church, and I feel that I need to keep up with that. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: [AML] Setting Goals Date: 08 Jun 2002 08:32:46 EDT [MOD: Again, an appeal: let's not get into a discussion of whether setting goals is or is not the "right" thing to do, or the doctrinal implications thereof. But I think a sharing of different ways that people view goals is appropriate to AML-List, particularly if couched in such a way as to give insights that can be applied to writing, especially writing by, for, or about Mormons.] Personally, I disagree about setting goals not being a part of the gospel. I believe the Lord fully intends for us to set goals, and one of them is to be part of the celestial kingdom. Note in the scriptures that the Lord tells us a lot about that kingdom and how to get there. Less is said about the terrestrial & telestial kingdoms, and about outer darkness and the requirements to be defaulted into one of those places. That's because that's not where the Lord wants us. Setting a goal is a form of spiritual creation. If you reread Genesis, there are two creation stories there. The Lord creates things spiritually, then physically makes them a reality. Goal setting for us humans is practise in spiritual creation. Now some of us may not set very good goals, or perhaps some of simply set worldly goals. But I found that I achieve much more when I set goals: whether it's to write, or change a bad habit, or start a new good one, to make it through nursing school, or whatever. When I don't set goals, I drift and accomplish much less. Goals help one focus on a specific. The wards that I have been in that have a theme or a ward goal have been stronger, more spiritual, better attended, more missionary minded, more temple minded, more focused on helping each other than those who did not. I think a lot of people talk about goals, but not everyone understands why they can be very important--hence the discussion in the EQ.--possibly led by non-goal setters who understand that it might possibly be important or helpful, but since they don't set them for themselves--don't quite know how to go about teaching someone else about it. It's worth taking time to do some goals--and to make well rounded goals: physical, spiritual, social, emotional, financial. And not to get so caught up in the setting there of that one doesn't do anything to the achieving thereof. As to how this relates to writing and Latter-Day Saint literature: I suggest that most of us would find we are much more productive if we were to set some goals. But not to neglect one area of our lives for another area--balance is important. Set the goals, review them regularly, be excited and do some visualization of ourselves in the achieved goal. Infuse them with some emotion. Make them positive statements rather than negatives (I do, rather than I do not). Know that it is much like programing a computer. Once we have put things into our mind, eventually those things will come out and we will find ways to achieve our goals. How long eventually might be could be determined by how often we short circuit our own progress by believing that we can't really do this. But I know it works because I know where I was, and I know where I am. I know where I'm going--and as that commercial says, "I've come a long way baby," and I've got a long way to go, as we all do. As children of our Heavenly Father, should not one of our goals be to succeed at being the best "US" we can be, with all the creative potential that might entail? Karen Tippets -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Date: 08 Jun 2002 11:02:35 -0700 Review ====== Title: Blood of the Prophets Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre Author: Will Bagley Publisher: University of Oklahoma Press Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 458, including notes and bibliography Binding: Hardback ISBN: 0-8061-3426-7 Price: $39.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle (Note, please, that the edition I reviewed is a pre-publication galley proof. It is already known that the final product will have several additional pages due to typographical improvements, so page numbers in this review may not correspond to the final product.) (Additional note: this is a tough review of a very tough book. Some may be offended by the content of the book, but my job is to present its subject matter, without attempting to judge its accuracy or bias, something I'm not equipped to do.) "Blood of the Prophets" is the latest, and an impressive, addition to the literature covering a pivotal episode in Mormon history, the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The blurb on the back cover of the book says it well: The massacre at Mountain Meadows in southwestern Utah on September 11, 1857 was the single most violent act to occur on the overland trails, yet it has been all but forgotten. "Blood of the Prophets" is the most extensive investigation of the events surrounding the mass killings since Juanita Brooks' ground-breaking study, "The Mountain Meadows Massacre," in 1950. Has it really been half a century since anyone studied this episode in any depth? I can't bring to mind any major work. And given the magnitude of the tragedy, this is somewhat surprising. Bagley's intense and detailed work attempts to separate the myth from the history, stepping outside the role of loyal member to curious historian. Bagley doesn't disagree that he is "disengaged" from active participation in Church life, and thus has no problem observing a loyal Mormon view of the episode as ahistorical and untrustworthy. Typical of this view is a citation from Preston Nibley: It is an old and apparently a true saying that troubles never come singly, for in those dark days of the fall of 1857, particularly during the month of September, while President Brigham Young's mind was wrestling with perhaps the greatest problem that ever confronted him, that of coping with an armed force of the United States government, a messenger, James Haslam, rode into Salt Lake City, post haste from Cedar City, with word to President Young, that a group of Arkansas emigrants had been surrounded by Indians at the Mountain Meadows, about forty miles southwest of Cedar. What was the President's order? Should the emigrants be allowed to pass? Hurriedly writing a letter to Isaac Haight, who was presiding at Cedar City, he said: "In regard to the emigration passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them, until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please, but you should try to preserve good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know of. If those who are there will leave, let them go in peace." Haslam rested only four hours in Salt Lake City, after his strenuous ride from Cedar, and then took off again on his return trip of two hundred sixty-seven miles on horseback, which he completed in three days. As President Young handed him the letter to Haight, he said: "Go with all speed, spare no horse flesh. The emigrants must not be meddled with, if it takes all Iron county to prevent it. They must go free and unmolested." It was while Haslam was riding with this message, on the eleventh of September, that the horrible Mountain Meadows affair took place. Its history is well known, and I shall not attempt to relate any of it here, but I do deny any implication that President Brigham Young was ever concerned in it, except to order that the emigrants were to be allowed to go free and unmolested. Repeated attempts have been made by critics of "Mormonism," for the past seventy years to connect President Young with the perpetration of this atrocious crime, but they have all proved unavailing. (Preston Nibley, Brigham Young: The Man and His Work, 4th ed.[Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1960], 294.) Even moderated criticisms, such as the following from Brooks' "The Mountain Meadows Massacre" falls short of Bagley's views of Brigham Young's responsibility: 1. While Brigham Young and George A. Smith, the church authorities chiefly responsible, did not specifically order the massacre, they did preach sermons and set up social conditions which made it possible. and... 3. While he did not order the massacre, and would have prevented it if he could, Brigham Young was accessory after the fact, in that he knew what had happened, and how and wy it happened. Evidence of this is abundant and unmistakable, and from the most impeccable Mormon sources. ("The Mountain Meadows Massacre," p. 219) Drawing on a wide array of historical sources, Bagley presents a stronger, more indicting view of leadership and responsibility. Bagley begins with a strong historical survey of the American condition in the mid-19th century, giving a good summary of the emigration of the Saints from their eastern cities to an arid, bleak Western territory. Opposition from both government and society at large created a hostile atmosphere in which Mormonism could not thrive. Emigration was inevitable. Settlement of Great Salt Lake City was, of course, not without its challenges. Brigham Young's leadership was not unanimously accepted, and apostates often became bitter enemies. Opposition to his aggressive leadership style, and practices such as polygamy and blood atonement, considered odious to the world, created an atmosphere of suspicion and mutual distrust. The assassination of Parley P. Pratt while on a mission call in the east became, in Bagley's view, the perfect occasion for violent reprisal on the part of the Saints. Pratt, who had "stolen" the wife of another man (I suppose "stolen" is in the eye of the beholder), was pursued by the aggrieved husband and slain. Non-Mormons found it difficult to work up any sympathy for the murdered Mormon leader. The link between the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the assassination of Parley P. Pratt was obvious to the anti-Mormons: Years later an anti-Mormon pamphlet charged that a few weeks after the [Mountain Meadows] massacre, Young spoke in the old tabernacle before thousands of people, some of whom were still living in Salt Lake in 1884. These witnesses claimed Young said, "The blood of those emigrants and of the whole of the people of Arkansas would not atone for the blood of Apostle P.P. Pratt." Allegedly, the prophet repeated the statement the next spring in the Seventies Hall. (p. 179) The Mountain Meadows Massacre was seen as an act of revenge for the assassination of Pratt. But central to the discussion is the question, What was Brigham Young's role in the Massacre? Did he order it? Was he aware of it? How did he react after the fact? Here is Bagley's take on this question: Federal investigators were later convinced Brigham Young sent letters south "authorizing, if not commanding," the destruction of the Fancher train, but it is unlikely Young would commit such an order to writing. [John D.] Lee's tale of his ambiguous conversations with [George A.] Smith on the Santa Clara may best reflect what actually happened. If Smith gave orders to kill the emigrants, they may have been no more explicit than to "use them up" or "give them a good drubbing." Mormon leaders often spoke in code words whose meaning was clear only to insiders. One of Young's favorite phrases, "A word to the wise is sufficient," meant, "Don't make me spell it out." This ambiguity had many advantages: it sheltered Mormon leaders from accountability and shifted responsibility from top leaders to local authorities. But orders couched in such enigmatic terms were easily misinterpreted, a serious problem given the volatile atmosphere and the slow place of communications in Utah Territory. (p. 85) If this is true, then how can one really determine what really happened? How does one assign blame, responsibility, accountability? To a degree, one must infer facts from the documentary evidence, a task fraught with problems. And here is where Bagley parts company with Juanita Brooks -- I don't think Bagley believes that Brigham Young would have stopped it if he had the chance. I may be wrong, but this is how I read Bagley's work. Bagley takes us through a minute-by-minute account of the slaughter, accumulated from hundreds of documents, many not available to Brooks when she wrote her important book. His chapter headings bring on a gloom strongly supported by the text. "The Work of Death," "The Scene of Blood and Carnage." Page after page of bloody death. This is not light reading; neither is it happy reading. Equally unpleasant are the events following the Massacre. It became one of most important events in Mormon history, insofar as Mormonism's place in American society is concerned. Reaction to the Massacre was swift and violent, bringing the Church into a state of crisis. His chapter, "All Hell is in Commotion," details the evacuation of San Bernardino as news of the Massacre traveled west. The Mormons were in the midst of a public relations catastrophe. Ultimately, the furor would die down, and the Church would succeed in its quest for statehood for Utah. How could this happen? Bagley sees the hand of Brigham Young in this: At a critical moment, Brigham Young diverted the attention of the beleaguered Buchanan administration from a question of mass murder to one of legal technicalities. His obstruction of justice in Utah delayed the prosecution of the Mountain Meadows criminals until the outbreak of the Civil War absorbed the nation. The public lost interest in the affairs of a remote and inconsequential territory, and for fourteen years Young's power stopped any federal prosecution of the crime. (p. 237) Bagley rounds out his discussion with a glimpse of the tortured lives of those who survived Brigham Young, and finally a brief summary of Juanita Brooks' writing of "The Mountain Meadows Massacre." Now, in case you haven't been paying attention, Bagley lays the blame for the Massacre squarely at the feet of Brigham Young. The subsequent trial, and conviction, of John D. Lee is told in excruciating detail, a picture of a bitter, betrayed former leader of the Saints. In the interest of brevity, I won't cite the text at length here, trusting the interested reader to pursue this section. In the end, Bagley summarizes his thesis with a closing statement that will no doubt anger many: As a religion claiming direct divine inspiration, the LDS church is caught on the horns of an insoluble dilemma. Its leaders cannot admit that the Lord's anointed inspired, executed, and covered up a mass murder, and as long as modern prophets deny that the LDS church had "any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day," they can never come to terms with the truth. The church's doctrine of repentance dictates that without acknowledging sin, there can be no forgiveness. There is, ultimately, no easy way for the Latter-day Saints to resolve the problems posed by this awful tale until they admit their historic responsibility for a terrible crime. The faith must accept its role, open all of its records on the subject, acknowledge its accountability, and repent -- or learn to live with the guilt. Church leaders might wish until the end of time that the matter could be forgotten, but history bears witness that only the truth will lay to rest the ghosts of Mountain Meadows. (p. 371) Tough, tough words. Words that will not be welcomed by true believing Mormons. But Bagley's passion is unmistakable. As a historian, he is compelled to push to the side any feelings of loyalty to an organization, and lay out the facts as he sees them. And that last phrase, "as he sees them," will be the point where his detractors will likely attack. Is his telling of the story selective and prejudicial? I'm not a historian; I know of these events only from the accounts I've read, so I have no apparatus sufficient to deal with this situation. And this raises the same, old questions we've asked over the years: how is history, in particular sacred history, to be told? Should the story be told at all? And if so, how much of the story is enough? And should the parts support, or question, official accounts? Stylistically, the book is difficult in that it enhances the story with a plethora of information surrounding the theme. At times I thought he told us a bit too much -- too many names, too many details. But I suppose this is what a historian does. On several occasions I found myself distracted from the central story, and early gave up remembering names and places. Such detail is helpful to the historian, but the casual reader will find it distracting. Now, the book is not without its comic elements. In describing George A. Smith: George A. "was surprisingly vain, and bad taste led him to acquire outlandish clothes and ill-fitting red wigs. According to legend, after watching him insert his false teeth, adjust his toupee, and put on his glasses, the Indians dubbed him 'Man Who Comes Apart.'" (p. 31) And later: [Jedediah] Grant created a catechism to quantify the sinfulness of the Saints. Distributed in spring 1856, it asked some eighteen questions, for example: "Have you ever committed murder [or] shed innocent blood?" "Have you betrayed your brethren?" "Have you ever committed adultery?" It reflected Grant's obsessions, asking, "Do you wash your bodies once a week?" Even Brigham Young had trouble with the last requirement. When asked if he washed once a week, Young said, "that he did not [but] he had tried it. He was well aware that this was not for everybody." (p. 49) The occasional comic relief was most welcome. I found "Blood of the Prophets" to be an exhausting read. My emotions were stretched to their limit as I absorbed account after account of murder, duplicity, etc. At times I simply put the book down, took a breath, and returned to it after a cool drink. Is this the sign of a good book? It depends on where your interests lie. Bagley is a compelling writer. Whether he is an *unbiased* compelling writer is a matter of taste and perspective. I suspect you won't find this volume at Deseret Book. But if you have a passion for history, and can sustain a strong challenge not only to the Church's version of the account, but to the veracity of the Church itself, then this will be a helpful volume. I have long viewed the Church as something of a football field, a large arena with goalposts at either end. Perhaps Preston Nibley stands at one goalpost, Will Bagley stands at another. And, perhaps, the truth lies somewhere in between. My congratulations to Will Bagley for his tireless research and the courage to speak his convictions. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com or jeffneedle@nethere.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tait Family" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 08 Jun 2002 15:40:53 -0700 > > > Anyone else censor themselves this way? > > > > > I call it "skid marks on my tongue." I used to come home from church and my husband and I would have long discussions about who said what and can you believe it. (And I'm sure no one EVER did the same thing after one of my Relief Society lessons in all 12 years I taught.) Then a couple of things happened. First, they called me into the primary. Me, who had never served a single day in primary, and now I'm the president. I guess they figured that I'd have less opportunity to be radical, and when I just can't resist, it pretty much goes over the kids' heads anyway. And you know what? I love it. I thought I would miss Relief Society and Sunday School, but I don't. At all. Second, they called my husband into the bishopric. This means a couple of things. He is not home after church for me to rant and rave with. And when he finally does come home, he has such good stories that it puts all my old ones to shame. (Not that he tells me anything he shouldn't, I hasten to add.) I love the line from Pride and Prejudice where Mr. Bennett tells Elizabeth: (paraphrasing because I can't put my finger on it) "What do we exist for but to laugh at our neighbors and provide sport for them in turn?" Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 10 Jun 2002 14:50:54 -0800 Just in case you haven't read it yet, may I suggest _People of the Lie_ by M.Scott Peck. He analyzes evil from a Christian psychologist's viewpoint. I'm not a psychologist, so I can't critique his observations very well. But his observations are very interesting if you want to create an evil character. In a nutshell, he says an evil person is one who refuses to suffer for his or her sins. The evil person creates a gigantic psychological device that helps him or her never have to stare into the pit of his or her own soul. The object of every action is to steer away from self-reflection. The best guise for this kind of person is piety and orthodoxy. >A second problem is the oaths. In the Book of Mormon there are several >places where the writers were forbidden to list the oaths of the Gadianton >Robbers or the earlier followers of Akish. In Moses it mentions a little >about how the Old Scratch swore Cain and his followers but the oaths are >very short and certainly incomplete. One would expect that the oaths would >be similar to the covenants had in the temple, or may have rituals that >mirror baptism and confirmation because who would the devil emulate except >God? Joris-Karl Huysmans wrote an interesting book called _La-bas_ (Down There) where some upper class men with nothing to do play around with black magic. Apparently Huysmans did a lot of research for this book. At first I thought the book would be fascinating, but it turned out (as you say) that all these people were doing was turning Catholic ordinances on their heads. If the Catholics did it one way, these people would find a way to vulgarize and invert it. That was pretty much all there was to it. So I think, in order to make story about evil really interesting, the story that leads through all the layers that evil puts up to hide its true self needs to be the interesting part. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Date: 10 Jun 2002 16:56:22 -0600 the single most violent act to occur > on the overland trails, yet it has been all but forgotten. The same can be said of The Bear River Massacre which also happened in Utah Territory. 250 were killed there. But the ringleader of this one wasn't exicuted. He became a General. Funny the advantages of wearing a uniform while killing children. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 10 Jun 2002 17:40:48 -0600 The more interesting conspiracy type systems were more in the Renaissance. If you've read the scholarly, historic, history of masonry then you'll note that there were very pragmatic reasons for "secret signs." If, for instance, you were a stone mason you had to know who else was really a stone mason. This was a big deal with the building spree on Cathedrals in the 16th century. The more "speculative" works entered in via Rosicrucianism and the general hermetic views at the end of the 16th century. Where things get more interesting is that the "magic" of the time (basically neoPlatonism, hermeticism, and Stoicism ) also included the birth of cryptography. I believe that several governments used this for their spy networks. Often tales that sounded like they were about angels and mystic ascents to heaven were actually secret "languages" akin to our modern PGP. Some of these texts have only been cracked recently with modern computing power. Now in the mileu of the times, there were many conspiracies. You had the basic papists versus the anti-papists. Often the conspiracies there were rather "overt." Those who were against Catholicism often used their secrets to stay secret. Further even in Protestant Europe those who ascribed to unconventional beliefs were thought to be tied to witch craft. Much of the proto-science and also "mystic" philosophy was viewed as such by common folk. So even there secrets were used to both convey knowledge but more importantly distinguish who was or wasn't a "believer." I guess the point is that the conspiracies went both directions. The more Book of Mormon conspiracy of evil doers using secret signs could be seen in several places. Those of an anti-Monarchial bent would see the upper crust of London's wholesale adoption of masonry as tied to this. These Masonic connections often allowed behind the scenes conspiracies. (Although typically no where near as "nefarious" as presented in the Book of Mormon) And of course spies were as much a part of pre-20th century European history as they were in the cold war. There was British led guerilla war in Spain during the war with Napolean. Geo-politics were at the forefront then as now. (And to be fair, to most eyes, America was still on the fringes) The superpowers of the time attempted to destabilize each other and often religion was part and parcel of the "identity" of nations. (I remember reading an old 19th century British history book which said they won the wars they did with France and Spain because those nations were Papists) So if you want conspiracy theories, there are more than enough in Europe. While I'm not at all familiar with that part of history, Nibley liked to joke that the best conspiracies were in Constantinople prior to the conquest by the Turks. There (according to Nibley anyway) small cabals controlled the effective government. He painted a picture that was remarkably similar to the best cold-war thriller of events in Panama, Chile, the Phillipines, or so forth. And of course through it all, spies had their secret passwords, false identities, signs, tokens of identification, and so forth. Learning the secrets of the enemy was as big throughout history as it is today. Now we just use computers and like to pretend how sophisticated we are. I often wonder at the Book of Mormon, not because of how prescient it was, but because of how out of keeping with Joseph's milieu it seems. Yes there were the many, many anti-Masonic books out along with anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish literature. Heaven knows there were at least as many conspiracy theories then as now. Yet the description of basically rival government movements based on radically different ideology, the way in which governments were destabilized, and the basic attention to guerilla warfare is quite detailed and accurate. What is most interesting in the Book of Mormon is how un-masonic the text is. We simply *don't* hear of the typical features that both masons and anti-masons saw in masonry. And heaven knows Joseph was exposed to both. We don't have, for instance, Gadianton robbers arising out of no where and coming to each others defense. (As in Masonry with the cry of "is there no hope for the widow's son" - a cry purportedly given by Joseph at his death) We don't have a "mystic" or "magic" movement. The closest we have is the tradition of burying treasure with seals that prevents others from digging it up (as well as those who buried it). Yet that isn't tied to the conspiracies, per se. Instead we have a movement much closer to what you'd read of in Mao or the British activities in Spain during the Napoleonic wars. We have standard, human geopolitics. It is a conspiracy, yes. But a conspiracy of the sort most believable and not the sort typically described of in conspiracy theories. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Remy Subject: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 10 Jun 2002 16:57:17 -0700 I am doing a comparative study of ghostly appearances (primarily in folklore) and rituals for ancestors in Japan and in Mormonism in the United States. Most of my sources of Mormon spirit encounters (in dreams and waking visions) come from folk tales, journals, and official church sources. I'm curious about how ghosts have appeared to Mormons in their literature over the years--how and when they reveal themselves and what their messages or purposes are. Are any of you aware of any literary sources written by Mormons in which ancestral (or other ghostly) apparitions play a prominent role? One of my favorites is a Trail of Dreams--from John Brown's perspective, the play is full of the spirits of those who have passed on before him. My study has been fascinating so far--in spite of wide cultural gaps between American Mormons and the Japanese, they both have cultures which venerate ancestors and tie the spiritual fates of both the living and the dead together. Each culture posesses a strong belief in the existence of spirits and in their ability to appear to the living, and each has a rich body of official and popular ghost tales to support their respective worldviews. Ghosts in both cultures appear to request rites (Mormon spirits request temple ordinances, and Japanese spirits ask for Buddhist memorial rites). There are some fundamental differences, however. Japanese ancestral spirits can turn malevolent if not placated with the proper rites, and may curse their descendants (and others) with all sorts of nastiness: illness, sterility, poor grades, and economic failure, to name a few. Mormonism has its malevolent spirits as well, but they are not ghosts in the classic sense (having never been alive) and their havoc seems to be much more spiritual in nature (although early Mormonism has its limited share of spirit possession and spirits capable of causing physical harm). Hopefully I'm not the only person who finds this stuff interesting. Thanks! John D. Remy UC Irvine -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 10 Jun 2002 18:00:18 -0600 ___ Jim ___ | What worries me are several problems that come up when | creating even a false secret brotherhood dedicated to | evil. | | First there are their acts. Evil is not pleasant to write | about, but to make the good guys good the bad guys have | to be bad, especially when the society is quasi-medieval | and the heroes are all warrior-types. Creating characters | that are steeped in evil is no fun, and making them | believable is even less fun. There is a fine line between | making a character too human or two inhuman. ___ One last thought I wanted to break out from my main thoughts. Why is it so hard to write characters like this? Even a superficial reading of history from the 12th century through the 15th century provide numerous examples of this sort of think. Yes the "evil" is usually simply brutish disregard for other human beings as really being human or worthy of consideration. Yet that "evil" is probably what "evil" really is. I fear an evil that devalues the pain of others as being worthy of concern far more than some conscious effort to go out and hurt. Consider the archetypal bad guys of the 20th century - the Nazis. What made them so scary to me isn't a focus on hurting others, but the fact that those they hurt they had dehumanized. Yet this dehumanizing evil wasn't some "new" evil of the 20th century. It was instead the (hopefully) last gasp of an evil that was always with us. (And yes it lived on in the Khmer Rogue and even Stalinist Russia - but that was its last gasp within mainstream Europe) Most interesting to me was how tied up in conspiracy theories the Nazis were. They needed the conspiracies of the Jew to lead to their own conspiracies. Further they way in which they promoting their own efforts is quite interesting. The Soviets had their own conspiracies, typically even more fanciful than the John Birch Society. Further they had a strong anti-Semitic set of conspiracies that was nearly as bad as Germany. I think an interesting collection of fiction that has dealt with this sort of issue are the Father Cadfael novels by Ellis Peters. Some of you may have seen some of the BBC adaptations of the novels. (All uniformly great) It takes place after the crusades where a crusader has gone into retirement as a Monk. This monk goes about solving mysteries. While most of the mysteries are of a fairly benign sort (murders over passion) the intrigue of the time often sets them up in a most entertaining way. For a more involved book, I found Umberto Eco's _The Name of the Rose_ a masterful telling of conspiracy in the same time period. There the overt battle is a series of murders in a monastery that purportedly are done by the devil himself. Yet the subtext is philosophy and the battle between what was called nominalism and realism (Platonism). The final conspiracy involves a copy of a book by Aristotle on humor. Once again it gets into the conspiracies of the time as they relate to sex, politics, philosophy and religion. There isn't an "evil" in the book per se. More dogma and misunderstanding. The legends of the Templars, were of course the grand daddy of European conspiracy theories. But of course the history was far more boring. (France didn't like the corner on the financial market the Templars had and so invented a conspiracy of devil worship so as to destroy them) But here, as in Germany, the conspirators making their enemy to be the real conspiracy is interesting. Who was the evil? Now if want a good old villain like James Bond's SPECTRE were, there are bigger problems. SPECTRE consisted of a bunch of bored, rich Europeans who played terrorism more or less for the fun of it. Perhaps if they had a philosophy it was a European brand of anarchy. But it never appears that they had much by way of ideology. Even the blackmail can't be attributed to evil since their schemes often seem to cost more than they take it. It was more just to tear down whatever power there was. Yet here the evil wasn't evil for evil's sake. It was more evil for boredom's sake with that typical aristocratic disregard for people as being real humans. Thus it is more in keeping with old medieval, "let's have a war for the hell of it." A re-manifestation of the crusades as something to do. Which gets me back to nearly what my other post was about. If you want to write of these sorts, but in a nice Masonic-like conspiracy theory, look to the Hellfire Club in London. There you had Masonry combined with a brothel, combined with rich, bored aristocrats more than willing to flex their will-to-power on Europe or the local "peasant." There's intrigue, spies, and more than enough evil to go around. You even have a connection to the American Revolution if you look. (Ben Franklin was a member) -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: Re: [AML] Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Date: 10 Jun 2002 21:12:08 -0700 Thanks to Jeff Needle for his enlightening review of Bagley's book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Jeff, could you comment further on Bagley's evidence for the assertion that Brigham Young authorized if not ordered the massacre in reprisal for the assassination of Parley P. Pratt. Juanita Brooks couldn't answer some of the most intriguing questions about the massacre precisely because eye witness accounts were lacking. You say that "Bagley takes us through a minute-by-minute account of the slaughter, accumulated from hundreds of documents, many not available to Brooks when she wrote her important book." Are any of these said to be eye witness accounts? Bagley asserts that Brigham Young would have used oral code if he had authorized the massacre. Isn't Bagley essentially asking us to believe his contention without evidence? Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Virus Heads-up (Comp 2) Date: 11 Jun 2002 13:14:26 -0500 [MOD: This is another compilation post on this topic.] >From clark@lextek.com Fri Jun 07 13:38:51 2002 If you use outlook, first read all messages with the preview pane which I believe keeps any scripts from running. Then if you think it safe double click the message to read it (if necessary) Outlook is a security nightmare, but a few safety tips like that actually prevent most problems. If you are using Outlook, set the preview pane by going to View and select Preview Pane. This will show you the content of the selected message. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- >From glennsj@inet-1.com Fri Jun 07 16:37:51 2002 Thanks to all of you for your suggestions. I was able to change my e-mail program options quite easily once I knew what I needed to do. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Starling" Subject: [AML] Miscellaneous Responses Date: 07 Jun 2002 14:53:49 -0600 I mostly lurk on this list, but after reading today's digest I just want to= = make a couple of comments: re: the quote from F. Nelson Henderson by Gae Lyn: " Imagine in hind-sight, not owning the decision to conceive and to raise a= = child. By this I do not mean the teaching against birth control by the church. But rather I mean the broad public silence by most Mormon women in failing to publicly organize and oppose this outrageous teaching. Fundamentally, how could Mormon women be told by ANYONE what her family planning decisions should be." What church do these folks belong (or used to belong) to? My wife and I = have never been told by anyone when we should conceive and raise a child. = We've been taught "correct principles" -namely that we shouldn't limit our = =66amily for selfish reasons- which I personally don't consider an = "outrageous teaching". I would like to have had more than our four = children, but my wife's health situation led US to DECIDE when we had had = enough babies. No one told us to have more, or less. If local Church = leaders have taught false doctrine, they'll ultimately pay for it. Don't = lay it at the foot of the Church. Same thing with debt, etc. - - - - - (new subject) =AF and thanks to Preston Hunter for the Historical Mormon Film Tidbits. = =46ascinating! Robert Starling --- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for= = the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] SILLITO, STAKER _Mormon Mavericks_ (SL Tribune) Date: 10 Jun 2002 03:17:21 +0000 Heroes and Oddballs Mix In 'Mormon Mavericks' Sunday, June 9, 2002 BY MARTIN NAPARSTECK Mormon Mavericks Edited by John Sillito and Susan Staker; Signature Books, $21.95 Mavericks, the human kind, can be heroes or oddballs. At least four in Mormon Mavericks qualify as heroes. Most of the rest are oddballs (who can be lovable eccentrics or just plain kooks), although at least a few are just plain curiosities. John Sillito and Susan Staker, editors of Mavericks, have selected 13 people who have found themselves at odds with the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They date back to men born in the early 19th century; one, historian D. Michael Quinn, is still alive. The 13 entries are written by 13 writers, and the quality of the writing and insight in the personalities and issues involved vary greatly. Novelist Levi Peterson provides a gentle, loving, credible portrait of historian Juanita Brooks, author of Mountain Meadows Massacre. Like most of the authors in the volume, he clearly admires his subject for her courage in resisting church pressure to not publish the truth. By contrast, Edward Leo Lyman, a professor at a small California college, provides a view of Moses Thatcher, who, among other sins, displeased the Republican church leadership in the early 20th century by running for the U.S. Senate as a Democrat. Lyman's essay could have been written by that same church leadership: "It is indeed a tragedy for a man with the seeds of real greatness in his chosen field not to develop the humility and cooperation with colleagues and submissiveness to higher authority that are necessary for retaining a position appropriate to his talents." Peterson, far more so than Lyman, is an admirer of the courage truth-telling often requires, and seems appropriately in near-awe of Brooks' courage in exposing the details of Mormon involvement in the 1857 massacre at Mountain Meadows, even in the face of intense pressure from church officials. Elder LeGrand Richards tried to dissuade her: "Even if her interpretation of the massacre were correct, he asserted, it was not in the interest of the church 'to bring it up at this late date.' " Similarly, Newell Bringhurst writes with admiration of Fawn Brodie, who portrayed church founder Joseph Smith in No Man Knows My History as "having primarily non-religious motives," including lust, in shaping the early church. Late in her life, she wrote in 1979 that Smith's "frantic search for wives in the last four years of his life betrayed a libertine nature that was to me quite shocking." Quinn's portrait is written by his friend Lavina Fielding Anderson, who makes no attempt to hide the friendship or her admiration. Quinn, like Brodie and Brooks, is a historian who wrote books about early Mormon history that displeased church leaders. He lost his teaching position at BYU (which he later would call "an Auschwitz of the mind"). These three historians all qualify as heroes because all were willing to resist intense pressure from high church officials in order to write historical truth. But there is an important difference among the three, and one problem with an anthology of 13 authors is that the editors didn't seem to notice it. Brodie was excommunicated and really didn't care; Brooks was not excommunicated but feared she might be; Quinn was excommunicated and didn't want to be. Those differences probably would have been noticed if the three essays had been written by one person. A study of the differing psychologies of the three historians might have revealed something about the nature of dissent. The fourth hero in the book is Sarah Pratt, one of the wives of key 19th-century church leader Orson Pratt who resisted amorous and obnoxious advances from Joseph Smith. She later played a key role in exposing Smith and other church leaders, reporting their polygamist activities even as they publicly denied it. Their lies not withstanding, Sarah Pratt had the courage to tell the truth. Other "mavericks" in the book seem less admirable than these four. William Smith, younger brother of Joseph, had a bad temper and sometimes displeased his older sibling. Thomas Stuart Ferguson spent years trying to dig up archaeological proof that the Book of Mormon was genuine only to conclude it was a fraud. King James Strang thought he should succeed the murdered Joseph Smith as head of the church but was beat out by Brigham Young. The 13 biographical essays are followed by a definitional one by Esther Peterson, who was assistant secretary of Labor in the Kennedy administration, in which she searches for a way of explaining Mormonism so it can include the obedient and dissenter alike. She writes of "close friends and relatives" who "resented being considered less than good Mormons for being less than good Republicans and for questioning authority." Most of Mormon Mavericks is a tribute to everyone who feels that same resentment. ----- Martin Naparsteck reviews books from and about the West for The Salt Lake Tribune. Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] AML at RMMLA Date: 10 Jun 2002 09:24:56 -0600 Call for Papers - AML at RMMLA The Association for Mormon Letters is sponsoring a session at the October 10-12 meeting of the Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association in Scottsdale, Arizona (See details about the convention at http://rmmla.wsu.edu/callForPapers/call02.asp) Please send proposals to read a paper of 15-20 minutes length to Gideon Burton, who is chairing the session, as soon as possible. All topics relating to Mormon literature will be considered. This is a great opportunity to have Mormon writing discussed in an academic literary forum. Email Gideon directly with your proposal: Gideon_Burton@byu.edu [Forwarded by Chris Bigelow] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Kirk Subject: [AML] Models for Mormon Art Date: 10 Jun 2002 10:26:25 -0700 [MOD: Julie's original subject line read "Mormon flyers and Nazi propoganda posters." I often will trim lengthy subject lines, on the grounds that they won't show up well in the in-box, and to make the tie-in with Mormon lit clearer. In this case, though I think that what I chose perhaps indicates a central direction, there's clearly something lost in the change... Read on, dear AML-List member, and you'll see what I mean.] I had an interesting comment on my work in a painting critique class that I wanted to share... I've been working on a series of paintings that relate to the idea of foreordination in a kind of broad sense. I've been using kids as my models (mostly my own kids), and the paintings are kind of a take on religious individuals commonly represented in art and a reflection on the sort of monumental choices they made. They're done as a "prelude" to the event, so the kind of prophetic feel or idea of foreordination. So, I've done some paintings on Peter, the Savior, Mary, Eve, Judas, etc. Well, I just finished a painting on the Raising of Lazarus and called it "Lazarus' Fort", and it shows two boys, one in a type of foxhole they made, the other squatting behind him, shovel in hand. I'm really happy with the paintings, and have gotten great response to them - and I think they work in the sense of not just being religious paintings, but also about larger issues, so hence, not just aimed at a specific market (i.e. LDS, Catholic, etc) So, to get to the Critique - the people in there do not know me very well and so were not aware that I was Mormon. But one of the guys said that the painting (which he seemed to like, but this was what it related to for him) reminded him of those Mormon flyers the missionaries would hand out and Nazi propoganda posters - very Aryan, and that type of "we are strong and intelligent and meant to conquer the world"..(his words, not mine). I didn't quite know how to take that at first. On the one hand, I thought it was pretty extraordinary that I was subconciously relating back to something that was an integral part of my growing up years (Mormon flyers, NOT Nazi propoganda!). But then it brought up a few other concerns...like, hey, my kids are white and blue eyed, a couple of them blonde - was I not supposed to paint them? And how do I take the fact that he relates Mormon literature handouts to Nazi propoganda? and do I have an obligation to try and change that image through my work? and what if I do find that image a bit too much based on a reality for my tastes - the issue of the priesthood being available to all worthy members is one of my issues that I try to accept on faith, but I'll admit that I have a hard time with it. This actually happened a couple weeks ago but I've been rolling it around in my head trying to figure out how to handle it. And I still don't know how! I think ultimately I need to paint what I feel inspired to paint... and I need to use the models that fit the best for me. I know we have broached these kinds of topics on the list before, but this was just a little bit different take on it and I'd really appreciate some feedback. It was kind of a coincidence that this last weekend I had this type of issue come up again - I was doing a street painting at a big festival in the bay area, and someone commented that my Christ figure was rather light skinned. Well, I was just copying a painting by an Italian master, Guercino, so it wasn't like it was my choice, and it WAS a person who was dead, as it was a variation on a descent from the cross - so his skin would have naturally been lighter than it was when he was alive. But of course we got into the whole discussion of just what Christ might have looked like. I know these are issues that we all deal with on some level, writers, musicians, sculptors, painters. I think this specific issue is a key one with the visual artists who portray religious works though, just as musicians and writers have issues in related areas that might not affect my work very much. I'm rambling on though - so to wrap it up, any feedback would be great. I'm having to rethink all my work now and the direction I'm taking with models, etc. Julie -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Lynching the Speaker Date: 10 Jun 2002 14:12:49 -0600 At 11:49 AM 6/10/02, you wrote: >Why lynch the guy? Was he making an offhand comment, or was he preaching >it as >doctrine? His point was that God wants women to suffer in childbirth because we deserve it for our evil natures, and it's wrong for us to seek relief from the pain. After all, everything has been our fault from the beginning. Of course the women in the ward took exception to this viewpoint -- I mean, it's obvious who actually. . . . No, no. Strike that. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ Asplund Subject: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture (was: Accepting Each Other's Offerings) Date: 10 Jun 2002 14:29:57 -0600 I think this will only become a more and more pertinant theme--as Mormonism moves from a western US religion onto the world stage. I already think what we imagine as Mormon culture probably relates to only a small minority of the actuall church members. I was talking to Scott Parkin the other day, and imagining what it would be like to have a non-native english speaker as the Prophet. Sure, we expect hispanic and japanese people to accept prophecy in English--but could we, as a (US) culture, be humble enough to except the reverse? Russell Asplund -----Original Message----- I have seriously toyed with the idea of writing something that explores the tension between living the LDS doctrine and the LDS culture. I think that theme would make for a great book, especially regarding women (in additon to my own stories, I personally know of many women who have walked this tightrope). But frankly, I do not know if very many people want to read about the culture not being as true as the gospel (with apologies to Eugene England). --Jennifer Breinholt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Alien Mormons? Date: 10 Jun 2002 13:38:49 -0700 > I'm not doubting these weird Utah things happen, but why don't I ever > see it? Am I just too unsociable to be around to see it, or am I > oblivious to it because I just don't worry about what other people think > so much? > > Where are the alien Mormons I hear tell about? > > -- > D. Michael Martindale I was talking it over with my husband, and it occurred to me that maybe I am just oblivious. I don't really care what other people think, particularly people who are closeminded or easily offended. (But my husband's in the same boat--he's never noticed anything, either.) The only experience I can think of that comes close was once in RS the teacher asked something like, "What does it mean to be immodest?" and the Bishop's wife ended up making a comment about people with tattoos. I spoke up and said I'd just attended my old ward in a more rural area, and there was a man there in jeans and a t-shirt with tattoos all up and down his arms--and it made me so happy to see him at church. That we need to be careful in becoming judgemental about appearances. The teacher agreed and said something about having a different standard for someone who has not had the benefit of the gospel in their lives. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 10 Jun 2002 14:48:13 -0600 The Laird Jim wrote: "There is a fine line between making a character too human or two inhuman. Right at the border he may become sympathetic, and since he's going to lose and possibly die that isn't necessarily the best idea. Making him too inhuman makes him overdrawn and outside the experience of most people."=20 In my reading and writing experience, making the bad guy sympathetic is, almost always, a good thing. As long as he is in opposition to the Good guy and the audience isn't forced to switch allegiance to the loser in the end (because the author made the "good" guy worse than the bad guy), the bad guy being sympathetic is a good thing. It heightens the tension and adds poignancy. As I mentioned, the only time a bad guy becomes too sympathetic is when he exceeds the good guy in that capacity, forcing the audience to change their allegiance. Not only is that change of allegiance easy to avoid, it's hard to do, in my experience. Make your bad guy as human as you want, plop him right on that line, maybe even on the good side of it. Forcing your audience to re-examine just why they think of him as the bad guy will only add depth to the story. Obviously there are genres and story types where having a very clear delineation between the good and the bad is desirable, but it sounds like you're going for a deeper, more subtle approach than that. -Ethan Skarstedt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Money Matters Date: 10 Jun 2002 15:55:34 -0600 At 05:22 PM 6/9/02, you wrote: >And to talk to you about welfare food services. . . .it is a difficult >thing. To make up a food order and go down to the warehouse to pick it up >was so difficult for me. I saw everyone going easily to the grocery store, >to McDonalds, and paying money, and I toodled down to the bishop's >storehouse with this food >order. It made me into this weird noncitizen. I remember hating it so much >that I finally just stopped doing it. I've been there. When I first showed up in Utah with two kids and no home or furniture or money, I went on Church welfare. It didn't give me the hateful feeling it did you, because I was able to work at the bishop's storehouse to earn the food, so it wasn't a dole. Then when I began making money, I was happy to be able to pay tithing to help someone else out. It's so much better than goverment welfare -- I've known people were on it, and they say they are treated like the scum of the earth. I looked at it as a way of getting over the hump until I had some income. But I know what you mean about people taking for granted doing the things you can't do. And now I sometimes wonder if people are watching me pop into a fast-food place to pick up yet more unnecessary poundage when they can barely eat. To me, that's a great theme for a story, but my attempts at that sort of thing always wind up too didactic. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Telling Our Stories Date: 10 Jun 2002 16:49:09 -0700 Kathy, I was cleaning out some of my old e-mails and came across this post. I = can relate on many levels to this . My Father was not into alcohol when I was old enough to listen to and = remember his stories but compared to life he lived on the farms in Utah = and his time here in Southern California during World War II while his = family worked in the ship yards and plane factories. My mother didn't tell a lot of stories and consequently we don't know a = great deal about her life except for the few pictures we have. I guess = she felt she would never be able to hold our interest like my father's = stories could so she didn't want to be embarrassed. My life in many ways = duplicates my mothers. My brother, on the other hand, was the rascal (although never bad enough = to get in big trouble). He could weave a tale like you would not = believe. He was the "Babe Magnet" in the family. Girls would come over = at all kinds of hours just to talk with him.=20 I longed for recognition but for some strange reason never felt I was = worthy of it or something may have happened to shut me down in the = "children should be seen and not heard" culture of the late 50's, 60's, = and 70's. Maybe that was why I was so sick as a child and in my early = teens. I guess that is another reason to go on a mission - it gives you = at least a few good stories to tell. The real hard part is overcoming = shyness or social anxiety to be able to tell the stories. I guess that = is why I am working on my book about the life long fight I have had to = even be able to open my mouth and tell a story of any kind. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA -----Original Message----- I am always telling my = story or pieces of it to someone, whether it be stranger or friend. It's, = well, like watching a little 3 year old jumping around an adult's legs and = saying, "look at me, pay attention to me, know me!" It's that last that is the strongest. Know me. And in that need to be known is a desire to be loved unconditionally. Why am I like this? Is it a weakness? Is it a strength? = Did I come pre-pregrammed this way or did my environment provide the programming? I did everything and anything to obtain the unconditional love of my = father, a man almost completely wrapped up in his own demons and trying to anesthetize the pain with copious amounts of alcohol. [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 10 Jun 2002 16:20:18 -0600 >I've probably asked fifty colleagues that over the years. The unanimous >answer, from every one of them, was no. They wouldn't 'fess up. They >would rather risk facing the Lord with unrepented sins on their conscience >than risk losing their jobs. That's where we are right now. > I so could not live like that. I think I'd rather go work for Satan's school in SLC (all you UofU grads can take some gentle ribbing, right?). As a BYU grad I am both surprised and not surprised at this post. I know it's a tough climate as far as orthodoxy is concerned, but it strikes such a discordant tone to me to think of my dear professors chosing employment over being right with God. Yowsa. That's a pretty serious situation and one that, were I BYU's prez, I'd want addressed in a big way. Was it always this tough? Was I in an undergrad fog and missed it? Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Date: 10 Jun 2002 16:30:03 -0600 Any word of when the other book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre is coming out? Supposedly they had access to a lot of sources Bagley didn't. On the other hand they'll certainly have a different bias than Bagley. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maren Allen Subject: [AML] Re: Baby Exhaustion Book Date: 10 Jun 2002 16:59:28 -0700 (PDT) Kellene, As a frustrated young mother of 2 little angels who often wonders if I really knew what I was getting myself (and my poor little girls, and husband, who have to live with me) into. OKay, I know I didn't really know, but would I send them back? NEVER. Anyway, I think a combination of options A and B would be ideal. I would love to read what the experts have to say. However, at the same time, I would very much enjoy reading about some experiences that others are going through. It would help me realize I'm not alone in my journey. Maren Allen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Lynching the Speaker Date: 10 Jun 2002 19:21:57 -0700 > > That's what bishops are for. If the bishop blows it, let him know in > private afterwards that false doctrine was preached over the pulpit and > it is his stewardship to correct such. In the ward where I grew up (in Central California), there was a brother who had some type of mental illness. Each Fast Sunday he would get up and bear testimony about his special secret mission from the prophet, about the the signs he'd received (from aliens or something like that) that Christ's coming was near. Though it was great fun for us teenagers, it did pose a problem for my dad who was the bishop. Dad just got up each time at the end of the meeting and gave a disclaimer about the testimonies being born not necessarily being doctrinally correct. My most interesting Fast and Testimony meeting happened last Sunday when the bishopbric counselor who was conducting started off his testimony by describing his favorite Far Side cartoon and how this related to the gospel. The next speaker did the same, and so on, till after about 4 people, the person bearing testimony started out by saying that he was at the pulpit to "bear his Far Side". Except for one person (a computer guy) who told of his favorite Dilbert, everyone who bore testimony had a Far Side to talk about. A member of the Stake Presidency closed the meeting (and BTW, shared his FS, too). It was a fun meeting, everyone stayed awake, and lots of folks got up to bear testimony that don't usually make the trek up to the stand. Jana Remy Irvine, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BJ Rowley Subject: [AML] Pres. Monson Endorses _Other Side of Heaven_ Date: 10 Jun 2002 22:10:58 -0600 We attended a Regional Conference on June 1st and 2nd for 10 Stakes of Orem, Utah (which, incredibly, is only 1/3 of our city). The Sunday session was held in the Marriott Center at BYU, and we had three GAs in attendance: Pres. Monson, Elder Wirthlin, and Elder Groberg. As you know, Elder Groberg is the author of the book, "The Eye of the Storm," which was the basis for the recent movie "Other Side of Heaven." Elder Groberg never mentioned the movie or his mission to Tonga, in either the Priesthood Leadership Meeting on Saturday or in the General Session on Sunday. But Pres. Monson took a unique opportunity to blow Elder Groberg's horn for him. As the closing speaker Sunday, Pres. Monson mentioned "Heaven" as he began his talk, applauding it as a wonderful film, and encouraging us all to see it, if we hadn't already. He said that his favorite part of the movie was at the very end when the young actor and actress playing the newly-married Grobergs are departing for their honeymoon and waving good-bye. And there in the crowd, making a cameo appearance as extras on the set, are the real Elder and Sister Groberg, waving back. Pres. Monson said (paraphrasing), "It was worth the price of admission, just to see the Grobergs standing there waving at themselves." -BJ Rowley -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 10 Jun 2002 22:39:50 -0600 (I said I didn't think it was the end of the world if a young woman dated, or even married, outside the Church.) You have my permission to use my personal story the next time you feel inclined. As a youth, I dated a non-Mormon because, frankly, I looked around my ward and couldn't find a girl who lived the Mormon standards I had been taught. She was Episcopalian. I set her up with the missionaries. While I was on my mission, she joined. Her parents joined. Her two sisters and their husbands joined. When their kids were old enough to go on missions, they did. Two of my five went on missions. At last, all the people who have been brought in to the Church because I "dared" to date a non-member number around 150 since 1968. I use this story whenever I hear this nonsense that you shouldn't date non-members. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 10 Jun 2002 22:15:46 -0700 > From: Tony Markham > > I used to sit and either fume or whisper asides to my wife whenever inane > platitudes were being substituted for the gospel, or when writing primary-level > lists of basic principles on the board was substituted for teaching and learning. > > No more. I talk and express myself and take the contrary view and try to get good > discussions started. There have been a lot of great comments on this thread, but the above is the highlight. Thanks, Tony. I'm a weird combination. I have one heck of an intellectual testimony, although my emotional testimony is almost non-existent. (This is probably the opposite of >50% of active LDS out there.) I'm a very fast reader and quick learner. So I seem to always keep getting called to teach, whether Sunday School, priesthood, or (very occasionally) Primary. (In fact, since I would have been baptised but for my parent's consent at 17, and therefore had a whole year of 'active but not wet' status, and since I lived most of my life in the Yellowknife Twig, I was even teaching lessons before I was baptised....) I'm now living in Prince George BC; moved here last August. And I never shut up in Sunday School or Priesthood. If no-one answered a teacher's question -- whether from shyness or not knowing the answer or not having read the lesson -- I'd pipe in just before the silence grew too long. If I thought the teacher or someone else in the class said something, uhhhh, unhelpful (I hesitate to use the word 'stupid' %-), I'd jump in with my opinion. Always orthodox, in the sense that I wasn't being a heretic; but certainly not conventional. Result? For probably the 4th or 5th time over more than two decades in the church, I'm a Gospel Doctrine teacher again. And my lessons are, to be nice, weird. Yes, I follow the manual; yes, I use the scriptures extensively. But I'm not above doing things like: * Paraphrasing the scriptures, since no-one seems to know how to read 16th c. English anymore. Example: Moses on the mountain talking with the Lord while Aaron and the bunch are whooping it up around the golden calf. My paraphrase: "Moses, get outta the way. I'm gonna reach down and zap all those fools right out of existence. We'll start all over again with your seed." "Uhhh, Lord, there's a problem with that; all the other people who know You helped us out of Egypt would laugh at You if You took all Your 'chosen people' out of bondage just to fry 'em all." " Yeah, I guess you're right, Moses. C'mon, go on down there and straighten 'em out for me, willya?" * Not shying away from sensitive topics. Yesterday's lesson we were talking about Eli and his sons and Samuel. We talked about how Israel wanting a king was putting the world's approval ahead of the Lord's. (Paraphrase: "Mom, why can't we have a king? Everyone else on the block has one!") From there, a discussion on the world's standards vs. the Lord's standards, e.g. as discussed in 'For the Strength of Youth'. (So far, all in the manual.) From there, a discussion about how Elder Cook came to our stake conference recently and told a leadership session "You've got to be more open and frank with your youth; some of them are coming out on missions and confessing past misdeeds because they didn't know they were sins until they clued in on the mission. Don't get explicit and don't put ideas into their heads, but don't be afraid to get into some detail; we'd rather you found out about things here before we find out in the mission field." From there, a discussion about how, thanks to Bill Clinton, parents all over North America have had to 'step up to the plate' and talk to their kids about certain sex acts and how, even though 'the world' says they're OK (no danger of pregnancy, don'tcha know, and besides, it's "not really sex"), and how we as parents have to overcome our distaste or shyness or whatever and teach the truth to our kids before the world teaches them untruths. And one mother of grown kids saying she wishes she'd done that, and urging all the rest of us to do so. There are some who might have had a heart attack at that last lesson, but important messages were learned, the Spirit was there, and people definitely went away with something to think about. So continue to speak up; politely, respectfully, but don't turtle. And who knows, some day maybe you'll be the teacher, too! %-) > I have come to believe that we who can think and have some ability to apply reason > and intelligence to our church doctrine have a gift and we ought not to sit on > it. To you self-censorers out there, quit hiding your light under a bushel. > Speak up and don't let the disapproving old biddies get you down. > Hear hear! Well spoken, Bruce! (uh, Tony, that is) ObPeeve: 'Especially for Mormons'. May green jello haunt the dreams forevermore of whoever put that awful bunch of very-often-not-even-very-compatible-with-Gospel-teachings tripe. I can't wait until I get a lesson or a talk assignment on 'perfection' so I can deconstruct -- slowly, carefully, and painfully -- the 'mowing the lawn for the old lady story'. Grrrrrrrrr. Robert ********************************************************************** Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too 'Man is that he might have joy--not guilt trips.' (Russell M. Nelson) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 10 Jun 2002 22:39:52 -0700 > From: The Laird Jim > Secret Combinations long held a fascination for me. I was first introduced > to the concept by the Book of Mormon, and became an avid reader of > conspiracy theories and secret societies. When I was eighteen years old I > why I don't believe any of the aforementioned theories. What worries me are > several problems that come up when creating even a false secret brotherhood > dedicated to evil. > > First there are their acts. Evil is not pleasant to write about, but to > make the good guys good the bad guys have to be bad, especially when the > society is quasi-medieval and the heroes are all warrior-types. Creating > characters that are steeped in evil is no fun, and making them believable is > even less fun. There is a fine line between making a character too human or Let me tell you something. When I think of 'secret combinations', I think of two possibilities: * Any organised crime (even two bozos planning a stickup); * Corporate greed. Now, even though I think the above are the biggest concerns re: 'secret combinations' (terrorists fall under #1, and Communism's basically had it; China almost falls under #2 now), I don't think they consist of people actively planning evil for evil's sake. They are doing it because they think it's the right thing to do (or at least an OK thing to do). Terrorists really think that God's on their side. Ordinary criminals are usually in a state of arrested development, like 3-year-olds; if I want it, it's mine, and if it's in your hands, I'm gonna take it from you if I can. And corporate moguls really think that profit is the most important thing in life, more so than jobs for families, the environment, or consumer safety. > A second problem is the oaths. In the Book of Mormon there are several I think the 'oath' or 'secret' given to Cain was this: You can get gain from killing someone (or having the power to kill someone and threatening to use it). Without Satan's influence, this idea would probably not have occurred to humans, given that we have such a strong aversion to death (both our own or others'; ask yourself how you'd feel if you found a dead human body anywhere). When you 'cross the line' into thinking that it's OK to kill someone or threaten to kill them for gain, you've 'taken the oath', IMHO. > God? The problems comes in when making up fake oaths as a literary > device--what happens if one hits too close to the truth? I've shied away > from detailing the oaths a number of times in the four books that deal with > my own fake conspiracy but the sequel to one of the completed ones is going > to expose the secret works of these bad guys and I've been hesitating over > it for a couple of years. It's one thing to shout the secret works of > darkness from the rooftops and its another to create false ones that are > plausible and then expose them. I agree, that's a very tricky problem. Leave it out? Make it almost mundane? (From what I've heard of the Hell's Angels' initiation ceremonies, they're foul and disgusting, but not particularly high-falutin'. A little research should give you something to work with that might be both plausible and yet relatively harmless.) > > Which brings me to plausibility. Naturally real conspiracy theories don't > pragmatic. The trouble is with the sinister end of the equation. Most > people don't really desire freedom, but to Mormons it is above price. Many > Americans feel the same, but the story of modern society is the attempt to > escape responsibility, which is the same thing as freedom. If the bad guys > exist to destroy freedom, how can what they replace it with be portrayed as > both desireable and undesireable at the same time? While remaining > plausible. Maybe 'many' Americans (or Canadians, or Europeans, or...) feel that freedom is above price, but 'most', IMHO, couldn't care less about freedom. As an American Internet acquaintance of mine on another forum once said, "I'm of the opinion that the majority of people in this country would happily ignore Jews being herded into gas chambers as long as the TV cable wasn't interrupted." Another such said in the same forum, "We are *not* a noble people. Get over it. We are a despicable, selfish, yammering horde of fatuous apes who would sell our birthrights to the highest bidder to afford a few extra lounge chairs for the patio. We are worse than the decadent Romans. Even our decadence is submerged under a tidal wave of hypocritical psuedo-Puritan pablum." I think that in most cases (at least at present; can't speak for the past), bad guys don't so much 'exist to destroy freedom', as much as they 'exist to take advantage of the way people ignore their freedom'. Consider how many break-ins, petty thefts, etc. are never solved -- or, for that matter, are never seriously investigated because the police know they won't find the crooks and therefore can't be bothered. If we cared enough about our freedom, wouldn't we all be more vigilant in our neighbourhoods, work harder with our kids, etc? > sound exciting and fascinating, but once the "mysteries" are penetrated the > societies behind are really squalid, sordid things, nasty and wicked without > grandeur or even terror. I have four chronologically separate storylines Yes. I despise how 'The Godfather', and stories about Dillinger, Jesse James, and even Robin Hood glamourise and give glory to crime. Criminals aren't mythical beings; they're generally sordid, nasty, wicked, and often very, very stupid people. I'd actually like to write some stories in this vein; showing criminals for the fools they usually are. (My dad was a judge for over 13 years, logging about half a million air miles doing circuit courts in the NWT and what is now Nunavut; and I could tell you some stories....) > escapes to the second book, which has been languishing since 1998. In > writing this post I am looking both for some discussion on the specific > questions above and also trying to grease the skids and get over the block > that's been there for so long. The good news is that in the meantime the Well, I hope all my babbling above has helped. Heck, a lot of what you wrote is giving me ideas to pursue for stories. (Nothing direct enough to be called 'stealing', but certainly some which could be called 'inspiration'.... %-) Robert ********************************************************************** Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too 'Man is that he might have joy--not guilt trips.' (Russell M. Nelson) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Money Matters Date: 11 Jun 2002 02:25:58 -0600 ---Original Message From: Cathy Wilson > > In the discussion on money matters, somebody wrote, about the > difficulties of a widowed mother: "But in this case, your > friend is another example of why we have Fast Offerings." That would be me. > Someday, when I've achieved enough distance, I will write > about what it was like to be a divorced single mom in the > Church. No matter how everyone tried to be nice, it was very > hard. I remember once when my son took my van out one day and > overheated the engine, blew it up, and it ended up costing > over $1000 to fix. It was my only vehicle, and I had > refinanced my house to get money for it since I didn't get > much child support and I wasn't earning enough to add a car > payment. Desperate, I asked the bishop for help. The > bishopric came over and wrote me a check for the repair, with > a lecture about how you need to put money away for just this > sort of emergency. I've been there. I've experienced this. It is humiliating. Personally, I think it is wrong of him to do that. The bishop has the responsibility to know you. He *should* ask you for details. He needs to have the information and it is a good thing that people have to go through someone 'close' to them (i.e. who knows who they are and their surrounding circumstances). It can (should) be intrusive and uncomfortable. After all, he is responsible for the wise use of a part of God's resources. He is *supposed* to exercise judgement and he *is* a judge in Israel--one of the few called to pass judgement on the affairs of others. In my opinion, though, too many bishops are quick to reach the judge part and a bit short on the actual getting to know you bit. That's likely a side-effect of our lay-priesthood. Still. In order to justify lecturing you about putting money away for this kind of emergency, he should have intimate knowledge about what your budget actually looks like. Unfortunately, as a supplicant, you are in a bad position to feel comfortable tossing back a "show me *where* I could cut back, you blithering idiot". I think bishops need that kind of feedback, though. We had a similar experience to the one you relate. After the crisis passed, during a temple recommend interview, I told my bishop about my reaction. I was careful not to be accusatory. But I was very frank about what it felt like. I told him that it is the closest I've ever been to walking out of the church and not coming back. I told him that he *knows* me and that his suggestion was fundamentally inappropriate--designed to address a problem that we don't have and that he knows we don't. He was following a script without thought. I have a lot of respect for him. He told me that it was obvious to him that he had deeply offended us. He was glad I'd told him what was going on from our perspective. He didn't apologize, but I wasn't asking him to. I laid out at the start that I wasn't going to accuse, that I don't have the authority to do so and that I wasn't going to leave the church or anything. I offered suggestions, we discussed it. It's his responsibility from there, and I'm content with that. I'm fortunate that I have the bishop I have. Others might not have taken me so well. It's something I was willing to risk, though. People need to hear the effect they are having--know the damage they are doing. You can't expect them to change if they don't even know what they're doing. They might not change. Your/my perception might be wrong. But that doesn't mean the communication isn't needed. > Truly, I had so little. I don't know how I > could have put away $1000 for an emergency. During the time > of my my marriage, my husband had a belief (common among > fundamentalist types--and somebody needs to put THIS stuff in > a story or novel, because I've since learned that it is a > common character trait among the far right and among > polygamists) that he didn't have to work but had a higher, > loftier life to live, writing about godly things, and lesser > beings would support him financially. So he did not work, and > we were poor, having child after child (God's will, as > discussed in the thread on Baby Exhaustion), and had very > little in consumables, which little I mostly took with me > when I got my divorce. I'm sorry you went through that. People like that are, IMO, evil. They are taking on themselves the authority of God. It's the worst kind of blasphemy. > And to talk to you about welfare food > services. . . .it is a difficult thing. To make up a food > order and go down to the warehouse to pick it up was so > difficult for me. I saw everyone going easily to the grocery > store, to McDonalds, and paying money, and I toodled down to > the bishop's storehouse with this food order. It made me into > this weird noncitizen. Yeah. It is weird. And you start noticing how many conversations revolve around movies you won't ever see and TV Cable programs you can't get and that you can't participate in the planned activity because you can't ante up the $5 everyone else thinks is negligible and that your friends think that "I have no money" means we should all go to Taco Bell instead of Wingers. And then, when you go to the storehouse, you feel so out of place because you see people who are not in need--and, personally, I know people who abuse the system and I don't want to be associated with them. But I like the butter and I wish you could get the potato pearls commercially. Actually, Melissa tells me that she recently saw them on sale somewhere. > I remember hating it so much that I > finally just stopped doing it. One morning, I got a call from > my Relief Society president. > > "I couldn't sleep last night, thinking about you. I finally > got up and wrote your name in lipstick on my bathroom mirror > so I could sleep. What's going on?" "Oh, nothing." "Cathy, do > you have enough food for your family?" "Well, no, not really, > but. . . " "I'm coming over to fill out an order for you." > "Terri, I just can't do this anymore. It's so hard. I'm > sorry. . . ." "Then I'll do it for you." > > She did. For several weeks, she did. Fortunately my business > picked up a little and I was able to pay for food again. > Believe me, if you haven't gone through this for an extended > period, it may be hard for you to know how it is. I'm glad you had such a neat RS President and I'm glad things got better. They did for us, too. One of the things I told my bishop in our talk was how much the hesitation burns when you are honestly struggling. You know, the short mental pause people have when they know you need church welfare--the one where they're wondering what you are doing wrong and what sin you must need to repent of. To their great credit, those in my ward who knew handled it exceptionally well--they're great people. It always stopped at the one brief hesitation. For that I am extremely grateful. But it still stabbed like a knife when it happened. And I couldn't put it off on anybody else--I wasn't paying the consequences of someone else's transgression. We were in the situation we were in despite my willingness to work and obvious health and talents. The *only* thing that kept me sane was the spiritual reassurance, any time I needed it, that I hadn't done anything wrong and that I didn't need to repent of anything. I didn't know that *I* had that deep-seated assumption that people who needed church welfare had sinned somehow. I *always* took pains to make sure I didn't pass judgement on people who needed help and that I was as generous as I could be, even mentally. So it was a great surprise to find that I was examining *myself* to find what I had done wrong--because I don't have to be generous with me, you see. Despite *knowing* explicitly that I hadn't done anything wrong. It was sobering how deep that assumption lies. I trace that to the mislabeled self-sufficiency lessons. It's a problem. And then (this may just be me) there's the temptation to make equations in my head about how much Fast Offering I'm using vs. how much I've paid. Like I said, we have always tried to be generous. But how can you make that kind of equation? As if you are okay as long as you don't take out more than you've "put in". What a debilitating impulse that is. Prideful. I always managed to stop before reaching the totals, which is good (I'm not *that* big a math wiz). Still, not a month later, I'm in a Priesthood Training meeting and here's the Stake Second Councilor telling a story about a brother who struggled financially all his life, but he paid a full tithe and generous offerings and *never*had*to*take*church*welfare*. Ah. Glad to have that cleared up. I doubt he knew my situation and it was still fresh enough that I was timid--imagine that, me timid, I know that's hard to conceive--so I didn't say anything. I probably should have a talk with him, even though that was months ago. I might. > A few years ago I edited a book for an LDS author about > finances. It was his main theme that you should put a certain > percentage away for savings, a percentage for kids' college > educations, a percentage for missions, both the kids' and > your future mission, and so on. I told him that many people > of my acquaintance barely made their payments and commitments > each month, and that putting away these percentages was > impractical. He responded that these people could cut back by > budgeting carefully, buying second-hand, reusing things, and > of course, that's all good advice. But again, I'd lived that > way throughout my life and still couldn't consider putting > away these percentages. I think he didn't like my responses, > though he was very gracious. I'm glad you made them. > Look at it another way. Our son-in-law has been a public > school teacher for almost five years in a posh Utah valley > district. Without revealing his salary, I will assure you > that after their modest rent, utilities, and very modest way > of living, they have NOTHING left over at the end of the > month. They are happy together and raising their sweet > children well, but financially, life is hard. I believe that > many people are in exactly the same boat. See, but to me, if he's raising a happy family and sweet children, then he's doing *great*--better than most and I'd happily salute him for it. I know it's *hard*, but at least it's accomplishing the important things. I heard a story recently about the respect a man had for his father. His father loved being a police officer and worked for the Highway Patrol. But since that job didn't pay very well, he had to take on other, and sometimes two and three, jobs to support his family. Now, I didn't say anything because the venue was inappropriate, but I wanted to say that this man was sacrificing his family for the sake of a job he loved. I mean, sure, it's a lot of hard work to take on extra jobs to support your family. But he *chose* his career and his choice adversely affected his family by taking him out of the home so much. There are jobs, even unskilled ones, that pay enough to support a family *enough*. Maybe not to live in a big house and have two cars and be free of all of life's harsh blows, but they're enough. They aren't glamorous, and they're hard, but at least they leave you with time for the family. As has been brought up, you can't always achieve financial self-determination, but you *do* always make choices. And you should evaluate those choices. Sometimes, things happen that leave you gasping in their wake. And sometimes, the consequences of our choices are *much* worse than we could ever have anticipated. I can accept that, and that's why I say "that's what Fast Offerings are *for*" oh so glibly. But *some* consequences aren't a surprise--like the pay scale of Highway Patrol officers--and when the predictable consequences mean that the father spends no time at home and is a stranger to his kids, then that is a bad choice. Dr. Laura sometimes tells her callers that "men didn't want to go into coal mines, either" by which she means that people supported their families even in the face of miserable conditions and hard work. "Do what you love" is fine advice if you can achieve it, but in the end "support your family" (and I add spiritually as well as materially) is much more important than a career you love. "Do what you love" is a luxury and should be recognized as such. > I had no idea of course that my financial situation would > someday improve, as I added my earnings to my husband's when > I would remarry. It is so much easier, though still not a > piece of cake. I think it must be hard for EVERYone on a > typical salary, and for single parents, it is just plain hard. It is undoubtedly. I think that people who commit to raising a family in the U.S. today are very brave. I don't mean those who have kids--that's not brave, that's just biology. I mean those who are committed to making the sacrifices necessary to raise a family--caring for children, caring about them, being involved in their lives. And single parents have the hardest time of it because they have half the resources with which to make that commitment. That's why I'm such a big fan of adoption and am disturbed that the current "teen mom" debate seems to be caught between the extremes of abortion or single motherhood--choosing between two evils and ignoring entirely a good (um, from the perspective of the child). (Please note that the preceding comment is an acknowledged tangent and by no means an assumption that all single parents are the result of teen pregnancy and/or sin. That's why I hate the term single parent. I'd rather have more categories: divorced-parent, widowed parent, sinner--but that's not likely to happen :) > This can segue nicely into the discussion on honoring each > others' gifts. As an example, we know a man who is a superb > accompanist--the absolute best you've ever heard. He's got a > gift! Yet in our society, accompanying jobs are almost always > part-time and on-and-off as well. Due to a variety of > circumstances, their family is struggling hard financially > because he hasn't found other work that is suitable, although > he works very hard. But what a gift he has! In Zion, I > imagine, there'd be work WITH a proper financial standing for > such a person. Maybe. Maybe not. The reason it doesn't pay well is because people don't want it. That's a pretty brutal analysis, I know, but it's the reality nonetheless. What makes us think that people will want it more in the Millennium? I'm not sure we will. What if we need his labor more as a janitor, teacher, or nuclear physicist? Gifts are nice, but this is an area where I can speak from experience. I have an ability to keep and manipulate complex systems in my head. I am also able to understand and duplicate complicated movement with an innate sense of balance and coordination. In High School, I had the singular good fortune to live a block away from an acknowledged Martial Arts master. I could give his credentials and you'd be impressed. He became a good friend. He didn't have a school (he was a waste management and safety engineer by trade) but he allowed me to study with him for years--a rare opportunity, particularly with class sizes of a half-dozen or less (I had no idea my good fortune). I was good. I advanced far faster than he expected. He stated, categorically, that nobody advanced in their first year (at all). I did. It was a gift. But which gift pays more, understanding complex systems or physical prowess? I'd have liked to be a martial artist. But I went to college instead. And after earning my degree in English, I immediately became a computer programmer. My interests went one way, but what people actually want and need lies in another. In the end, I've gone with the money because my family needs me to. I'm not well suited to working without love, but I'd do it if I had to (fortunately, I enjoy programming and I'm coming to enjoy business management). I don't like ignoring gifts and talents, but priorities and the inexorable restraints of time require that I make choices. And one choice made long ago means that I'm a slightly over-weight computer programmer who works from home making less than I could, but more than I want. Jacob Proffitt (in my most personally revealing post to date--hope I live it down) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 11 Jun 2002 12:50:23 -0400 "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > Tony Markham, my long lost semi-cousin wrote, with bracing vigor: Which reminds me to invite anyone visiting the Catskills or Cooperstown this summer to feel free to contact me for a visit. One of my high points last summer was getting to meet Terry Jeffress for a pancake breakfast in a remote corner of Catskill country. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 07 Jun 2002 17:17:18 -0500 At 12:12 PM 6/7/02, you wrote: >Speak up and don't let the disapproving old biddies get you down. > >Tony Markham I play Primary piano right now and can't attend any classes, but, when I CAN attend SS, the 'disapproving old biddies' have learned not to sit next to me. I can't resist the one-liners that come to mind. But they tend to pop out the side of my mouth rather than become voiced to the whole class. Usually this results in me and whoever I'm sitting by (most often my husband) teaching ourselves a whole different lesson. And giggling too much. I'm really a terrible student. Back row, talking in class, passing notes. If I could fit into a cool black leather jacket with zippers I'd wear one. (Chewing gum drives me nuts though. I can't do it that often.) Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 11 Jun 2002 13:07:46 -0500 At 02:35 PM 6/10/02, you wrote: >Just gotta hope nobody in my ward joins the List. And do you folks have >any idea what a lifeline you are to me? > >Eric Samuelsen I have an idea, because I experience the same "lifeline" myself, though for different reasons. The List has prevented my brain from turning to complete mush during these baby-exhaustion years. I believe there may be members of my ward lurking here already. But I do find myself reluctant to freely share subscription info with ward members who might enjoy it. Maybe I want to feel free to speak my mind without wondering how so & so will react. Maybe I just don't want to share. :-) But that brings up yet another point. How comfortable would everyone be, if you knew exactly who *is* on the List? I understand it is kept confidential for exactly the reason of protecting that comfort level we enjoy here (as well as allowing any "VIP"s their anonymity). Linda (And on a completely unrelated point, people have actually had recommends -pulled- or -refused- over watching R-rated movies?? This is unreal. THAT is NOT in the interview.) Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "gtaggart" Subject: RE: [AML] Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Date: 11 Jun 2002 12:48:35 -0700 the single most violent act to occur > on the overland trails, yet it has been all but forgotten. You're kidding, right? Forgotten? By whom? Just this year we've had Sally Denton's piece of yellow journalism in American Heritage; we've had the John Lee lead scroll hoax; we've had advance notices of Bagley's tome for months (Denton even referred to it and quoted Bagley). And it wasn't too long ago that we had the descendents of Lee and the Franchers holding hands on the Meadow itself. Forgotten? No, this piece of dirty laundry gets more attention than the sexiest unmentionable in the Victoria's Secret display window in the Provo Towncenter Mall. Greg Taggart -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike South Subject: [AML] Potok Speech Available Online Date: 11 Jun 2002 12:05:18 -0600 Hello everyone, A few years ago, I posted a link to a speech given by Chiam Potok at Seattle Pacific University. Subsequently it disappeared from SPU's site. I contacted SPU and they have kindly made it available again. It's a wonderful speech about writing and about the meeting of the writer's own culture (orthodox Judaism in his case) and the culture of the larger world. The speech is available to listen to on-line (in RealPlayer format) at: http://www.spu.edu/special/Potok_Chaim_10-29-97.ram There is also a brief interview with Potok available at: http://www.spu.edu/depts/uc/response/Aut97/features/potok.html#1 Enjoy! --Mike South -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Date: 11 Jun 2002 12:10:14 -0600 ___ | ...the single most violent act to occur on the overland | trails, yet it has been all but forgotten. | ___ Paris ___ | The same can be said of The Bear River Massacre which also | happened in Utah Territory. 250 were killed there. ___ The Bear River Massacre is one that still makes little sense to me. Mormon / Indian relations were certainly far more complex than modern literature typically makes out. For instance there were battles between the Mormons and Indians here in Provo. Yet at other times they had good relations. Yet at Bear River you had Indian missionaries aiding federal troops who we were at an unofficial war with. Further the leader of the massacre was supposed to also being dealing with the Mormon issue. (Often the Mormon issue was cast in terms similar to the Indian issue) The weirdest part of the whole thing was that Porter Rockwell was the main scout for the Federal troops even though he was the main "general" of the Mormon guerilla forces against federal troops. Rockwell was sort of doing here in Utah what our Navy Seals are doing in Afghanistan today. I note that while we lambast a lot of attacks done by Rockwell and his cohorts in Utah we don't make the same attacks on Seals, Delta Force, SAS or the like. Yet the techniques were very similar. Anyway, I can't for the life of me understand what Brigham Young was thinking of in this. Bagley's "Kingdom of the West" series dealt with this, but not satisfactorily in my opinion. While Bagley in that was only the editor, I do note a certain theme in his writings. He really doesn't like the theocratic history of Mormonism nor does he paint the conflict in terms of an overall guerilla war. (Which it was, and was in many ways a continuation of the earlier war in Illinois/Missouri) While I'm always against the killing of innocents, and thus find both Bear Rive and Mountain Meadows reprehensible, I do note a certain double standard. Mormons are evil for doing what all of America was doing at the same time. There is a certain reverse racism which somehow understands Indian attacks in the spirit of the times but sees identical attacks on white settlers differently. Given the different world view of the Mormons (especially with respect to their complex notion of gentile) I wonder how fair this is. Why can Americans of the era be excused for the treatment of Indians, the treatment of Texas, and so forth yet Mormons are held to a different standard? (And for that matter, so are the Indians since they in many ways held to the same standard of guerilla war of the time - a standard in some ways set up by the British during the French/English wars of the previous century) I'm digressing into history more than literature now. But I point this out less as a critique of history than how these events are *written* about. In all literature we have these constructed divisions that are never examined. Even as we attack a certain view as racist we tend to adopt standards that seem nearly as racist themselves. Implicitly we distinguish American and British war efforts from the war efforts of Mormons, Indians, Mexicans and others. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report June 7 02 Date: 11 Jun 2002 13:21:43 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of June 7, 2002 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 2 The Divine Secrets of the 16,167,412 2,507 3 Ya-Ya Sisterhood (NEW) 16,167,412 14 The New Guy 606,077 684 31 Eliza Dushku (lead actress) 28,150,227 25 ESPN's Ultimate X 163,130 47 31 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,145,985 26 Murder by Numbers 157,259 251 52 Ryan Gosling (lead male actor) 31,527,119 53 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 12,778 5 766 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,357,443 56 The Other Side of Heaven 12,194 14 178 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,547,227 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 66 The Singles Ward 9,559 7 129 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 769,083 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Will Swenson, Connie Young, Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne, Michael Birkeland, Robert Swenson, Lincoln Hoppe, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, etc. 68 China: The Panda Adventure 8,478 5 318 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,421,357 70 Galapagos 7,569 5 955 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,383,880 71 The Believer 7,517 6 24 Ryan Gosling (lead actor) 129,101 107 Mark Twain's America 3D 766 1 1438 Alan Williams (composer) 2,227,944 Tom: "The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood" opened this week at number 2. My wife wants to see this film, but doesn't want me to come along, so now I'm really wondering about those secrets. Welcome to summer. A bevy of new films will be released this month. The next film to be released of interest to us is "Minority Report" (Producer: Gerald Molen), which - considering all of the Hollywood heavyweights involved and huge advertising budget - should hit the top spot its first weekend. Of course, the next major LDS-themed film to be released is Kels Goodman's "Handcart", which very appropriately is scheduled to arrive at theaters on July 24th. To follow this fall are the screen adaptation of Jack Weyland's "Charly" and a very welcome theatrical re-release of "Out of Step" - as lots of people who wanted to didn't get to see it on its very abbreviated first go-around. MTV MOVIE AWARDS: The MTV Awards were held last week, and will now be shown almost daily on MTV for a few weeks. Latter-day Saint actor Paul Walker was nominated for Breakthrough Male Performance for his lead role in "The Fast and the Furious", but he lost to some elf dude (Orlando Bloom) from "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring." Happily, Walker DID win for "Best On-Screen Team", along with co-star Vin Diesel. If you haven't seen his acceptance speech, you've really missed a wonderful television moment. Walker was gracious and sweet and appropriately dressed and incredibly handsome. He thanked his family and friends for keeping him in line. Interestingly enough, Walker's win for "Best On-Screen Team" meant that he and his co-star beat out the "Ocean's Eleven" team, which was also nominated in the "Best On-Screen Team" category. Two of the "Ocean's Eleven" team are the "Mormon twins" from Provo, Utah (the characters are Mormon, that is -- not the actors Casey Affleck and Scott Caan). The other nominees for "Best On-Screen Team" were: Rush Hour 2 (Jackie Chan, Chris Tucker), Shrek (Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz), Zoolander (Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson). "The Fast and the Furious" was also nominated for Best Movie, but lost out to Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings." Also nominated were "Legally Blonde" (starring Utah native Matthew Davis), "Shrek" (whose original producer was Latter-day Saint producer John Garbett) and "Blackhawk Down." Also worth noting: Denzel Washington won the "Best Villain" award for "Training Day," Mandy Moore won the award for Breakthrough Performance (Female) for "A Walk to Remember." The critical response to "Ya-Ya" has been sharply divided, with some critics praising it and others left rather luke warm. RottenTomatoes.com lists a 44% rating for the movie, with 39 positive and less enthusiastic 50 reviews, yet the rating is 56% when only the top critics are tallied. ("As Good As It Gets" has an 89% rating and "Life As A House" has a 48% rating on RottenTomatoes.com.) NEW CHARLY WEBSITE IS NOW ONLINE: The long awaited new official website for the "Charly" movie is online, in the form of a brief Flash intro and a Flash-based information hub. There are detailed biographies of the lead actors Heather Beers and Jeremy Elliott, the director Adam Anderegg, the book author Jack Weyland, and the three main producers Lance Williams, Micah Merrill and Tip Boxell. There is also a good description of differences between the movie and book, comments by Jack Weyland about the film adaptation, and a plot synopsis. The website is at http://www.jackweylandscharly.com. Commentary about the site can be found at http://www.ldsfilm.com/Charly2.html Fun fact: Jeremy Elliott is the lead actor in both "Charly" and "Out of Step." In "Out of Step" he plays a New Yorker dating a girl from Salt Lake City. In "Charly" he plays a Salt Laker dating a girl from New York City. Fortunately, neither role is likely to be confused with his lead role in "Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd," in which he plays a Mesoamerican sculptor who is dating a Nephite from his own city. Other fun fact: Jeremy Elliott is married to professional actress Wendy Gardiner, one of the stars of "Brigham City" (2001). Wendy played "April" (the wife of Matthew Brown's deputy character). Jeremy has a small part in "Brigham City" as well. TALENTED 10-YEAR-OLD ACTRESS Caitlin E.J. Meyer has a newly updated website online at: http://geocities.com/caitlinej/ . Meyer was an extra in Kels Goodman's upcoming pioneer epic "Handcart" (opening July 24th, 2002), and some photos of the production are on the site. Caitlin had a featured role in the movie "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" (2001) and has a featured role in "Little Secrets," the feature film directed by BYU graduate Blair Treu, in theaters August 2002. Caitlin has also acted in LDS videos and filmed a Homefront commercial on June 6th. MEET ONE OF THE MOST ORIGINAL UTAH FILMMAKERS OF THE 21st CENTURY: Tucker Dansie's "Unwound 2002" short film exhibition is just days away. The short film exhibition, with free admission, will take place on June 15th at 7:00 p.m. at the Jewett Center for the Performing Arts at Westminster College below the corner of 1700 S. 1300 E. in Salt Lake City. All of the finished films are comedies, except "The Lesson," which is a drama about an unusual piano student. There will be a "meet and greet" after the films are shown so that all in attendance can meet the director and many of the actors. For more information, see the official website at: http://www.tuckertdansie.com/unwound.htm LATTER-DAY SAINT AND/OR UTAH FILMMAKER/ACTOR BIOGRAPHIES ONLINE: The new capsule biography section on LDSFilm.com is online, at: http://www.ldsfilm.com/bio/ There is a separate page for each letter of the alphabet. We've started with IMDb-listed Utah film personalities who were NOT already listed on the LDSFilm.com filmography pages. These are all complete. But as most IMDb-listed Utah film personalities ALREADY had filmographies listed on LDSFilm.com, this means that there is not yet a capsule biography for most Latter-day Saint actors and filmmakers -- just filmographies. Or, in other words, for most people there is one or the other: a filmography or a capsule biography. Well add other capsule biographies eventually. For example, we've finished the major "G"-named filmmakers: John Garbett (The Other Side of Heaven); Ken Garff; Ted Gibbons (I Witnessed the Carthage Massacre) Janine Whetten Gilbert (Jack Weyland's Charly); John Gilbert (The Big Parade); Mikal Gilmore (Shot in the Heart) Ron Goetz (13 Seconds: The Kent State Shootings); Ray Goldrup (Windwalker); Kels Goodman (Handcart); Sona Partayan Gourgouris (Galaxy Quest); Paul Green (Handcart); Lee B. Groberg (American Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith); Michael M. Grilikhes (Duel at Diablo); Carl Gundestrup; Mike Gwilliam. If you have a favorite Utah and/or Latter-day Saint filmmaker or actor, feel free to send us a capsule biography! -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Ghostly Query Date: 11 Jun 2002 13:29:46 -0500 I suppose you could check out L.E. Modesitt's novel _Of Tangible Ghosts_, which takes place almost entirely in alternative Earth Utah. This is a sequel to another novel also about ghosts. _Of Tangible Ghosts_ is heavily about Mormonism, but the author is not LDS (although he is a Utah resident). Ghosts here, however, are handled in essentially a science fictional way, so it might not be exactly what you're looking for. Much Mormon culture and history, but it only touches upon ghosts in Mormon folklore. There's a bit more info at http://www.adherents.com/lit/sf_lds.html, and some quotes are archived in the index at http://www.adherents.com/lit/ Preston Hunter www.adherents.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 11 Jun 2002 14:27:34 EDT If you're interested in more Japanese/Mormon connections, read the books of Wesley Jarvis. He's done substantial research that links the Japanese people to the Nephites through the Book of Mormon's Hagoth, the explorer. A wild theory, but...you never know. Wesley lives in Utah County. I'm sure he'd love to share his sources with you. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 11 Jun 2002 12:26:36 -0600 ___ John ___ | Mormonism has its malevolent spirits as well, but they are | not ghosts in the classic sense (having never been alive) | and their havoc seems to be much more spiritual in nature | (although early Mormonism has its limited share of spirit | possession and spirits capable of causing physical harm). ___ While their theological position is kind of up in the air and controversial, I believe that Mormons have a more traditional notion of ghosts as well. The typical ghosts are departed family members or the like helping out with genealogy or offering comfort. However the genealogy work stories suggests that the dead aren't dead who have the priesthood. (If they had the priesthood, why need temple work?) Thus there is a basis in folk tradition for the dead to interact with the regular world. This provides a basis in theory for the "evil" dead to also interact. Further even the more benign dead might get upset and cause a bit of hassle to "egg on" people to do something good. There's a great missionary folk story that relates to this. It's a common urban legend so many of you have probably heard it. Basically the missionaries move into a haunted house that has had semi-malevolent spirits. (Mainly just "spook" stuff - nothing terribly bad in most versions of the story) One of the missionaries who is more spiritual than the rest starts teaching the discussions as a kind of "practice." (i.e. memorizing them or role playing) After doing this every night gets this feeling that he should investigate the history of the house. When he does this he finds out some people had died in the house so he gets the names and has his parents submit the names to the temple. After the temple work is done for them they haunting ceases. Obviously that is one of those mission stories that likely has no basis in fact. And even if there was one, it probably was pretty different from the story that gets passed around. But it does illustrate a common point. There are lots of other stories that sound more like your Japanese ghost stories. For instance Mormonism has a long history of including Near Death Experiences into our folk doctrine. Often this is done even when the doctrinal basis for the story doesn't fit Mormonism. One popular one I remember is the idea that people addicted to drugs or alcohol or other addictive substances try to recapture the feeling by "jumping" into people in bars or the like. Sometimes this gets put in the more LDS context of sons of perdition who never had a body. But there is this folk doctrine about addiction and bad habits continuing into the spirit world where they can't be acted upon. This then supposedly causes all sorts of stresses for the dead. For a more traditional "malevolent" ghost story Nibley has an oft quoted one from when he was in the war. There was supposedly a haunted field over near Greece. I forget which battle it was tied to, but I think it was one of the Spartan battles. The locals knew the place was haunted and Nibley heard and decided to try and spend a night out on the field. Every time he'd nearly get to sleep he'd hear voices. Finally he gets up and wanders around and comes upon some (I think) sheep farmers. (I seem to recall it being told as bendoin - but there aren't any of those in Greece! - so I may have the details of the story wrong) Anyway they laugh at him when he says where he was trying to sleep because it was haunted. In class one day, back at BYU, he also told of a place down in Canyonlands that was supposedly haunted. Supposedly it was this one canyon that at night you'd hear screams. That story made the rounds. I heard one retelling of it that even said there was once a public campground there that was closed because of the haunting. Sounds more like people hearing a cougar to me. (They sound like a woman screaming) But that's just my inherently skeptical nature coming out. Anyway if you are interested in this you might want to go to BYU. They have an extensive collection of Mormon urband legend and folk tales recorded there. I suspect they have lots of ghost stories. I'm sure an analysis of the "doctrines" such folk tales entail would be interesting - especially to the degree that they might contradict more official doctrines. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Date: 11 Jun 2002 11:34:44 -0700 (PDT) --- Paris Anderson wrote: > the single most violent act to occur > > on the overland trails, yet it has been all but forgotten. > > The same can be said of The Bear River Massacre which also happened in > Utah > Territory. 250 were killed there. But the ringleader of this one > wasn't > exicuted. He became a General. Funny the advantages of wearing a > uniform > while killing children. > One of my first experiences with anything that could be called Mormon literature was reading the book _The White Indian Boy_ by Elijah Nicholas Wilson: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1589635833/cyberhaven00/103-6088725-6244629 Wilson was a Mormon boy who ran off to live with the Shoshone. He later was a trapper, a pony express rider, and an Indian reservation agent. It's a captivating story. One of the most climatic, wrenching moments in the book was when he acted as a scout for the U.S. army only to find out that the army was going to massacre the village he led them (I believe he thought that they were just going to spy on and possibly contain a 'rogue' tribe--not kill all the men, women and children). If I remember correctly, it may have been the Bear River Massacre that he witnessed. One of the things that impressed me about the book was how his insider/outsider position led him to realize that there were bad and good people, and positives and negatives in the Mormon and the American Indian communities. I believe this book was quite popular at one time in Utah. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? What is/was your impression of the work? ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 11 Jun 2002 13:26:34 -0700 I'd recommend Duane Crowther's excellent treatise entitled, _Life Everlasting_. Be sure to get the most recent edition. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Mary Jane Jones" Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 11 Jun 2002 13:43:56 -0600 >For a more involved book, I found Umberto Eco's _The Name of the Rose_ a >masterful telling of conspiracy in the same time period. There the overt >battle is a series of murders in a monastery that purportedly are done by >the devil himself. Yet the subtext is philosophy and the battle between >what was called nominalism and realism (Platonism). The final conspiracy >involves a copy of a book by Aristotle on humor. Once again it gets into >the conspiracies of the time as they relate to sex, politics, philosophy = and >religion. There isn't an "evil" in the book per se. More dogma and >misunderstanding. "The Name of the Rose" was made into a film in 1986 starring Sean Connery, = F. Murray Abraham and Christian Slater. I enjoyed it as a teenager--the = film was exciting, creepy in a uniquely medieval way and just philosophical= enough to make a teenager feel intellectual but not lost or bored....I = saw it on video, but I think it's rated R for intense thematic material = and a scene with partial female nudity. My friend's dad who was watching = it with us made us fast-forward that scene.... Mary Jane (Jones) Ungrangsee -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 11 Jun 2002 12:48:26 -0700 John, I have a story which is not published but I know it to be true since it = happened to a member of my father's extended family. I was directly = involved in this as well. Let me know if you want this for your study. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Janelle Higbee" Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 11 Jun 2002 13:59:48 -0600 -----Original Message----- For a more involved book, I found Umberto Eco's _The Name of the Rose_ a masterful telling of conspiracy.... Eco's masterpiece of conspiracy and secret combinations is _Foucault's Pend= ulum_. It's mind-bending. When I was reading it, I had to stop every fe= w chapters to put the book down, shake myself, and go for a brisk walk ar= ound the block to get re-grounded in reality. >From the back cover blurb: "Three clever editors (who have spent altogether too mcuh time reviewing cr= ackpot manuscripts on the occult by fanatics and dilettantes) decide to h= ave a little fun....On a lark, the editors begin randomly feeding esoteri= c bits of knowledge into an incredible computer capable of inventing conn= ections between all their entries. What they believe they are creating is= a long, lazy game--until the game starts taking over..." >From _Publishers Weekly_ review: "An intellectual blockbuster...Dense, packed with meaning, often startlingl= y provocative, the novel is a mixture of metaphysical meditation, detecti= ve story, computer handbook, introduction to physics and philosophy, hist= orical survey, mathematical puzzle, compendium of religious and cultural = mythology, guide to the Torah, reference manual to the occult, the hermet= ic mysteries, the Rosicrucians, the Jesuits, the Freemasons--ad infinitum= ." I also seem to recall that packed somewhere in the book is an obscure refer= ence to Mormonism...but as I can't find my copy of the book at the moment= (hmmmm...a conspiracy of subversive Eco-maniacals absconding with paperb= acks??), I have no proof. Maybe I'm just imagining the mention of Mormon= ism. Eco is triumphant at turning your own brain against you. -Janelle Higbee -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Setting Goals Date: 11 Jun 2002 14:33:04 -0600 ---Original Message From: Karen Tippets > > Personally, I disagree about setting goals not being a part > of the gospel. I > believe the Lord fully intends for us to set goals, and one > of them is to be > part of the celestial kingdom. This assertion depends very much on your definition of goals. What do you consider a goal? I want to be part of the Celestial Kingdom. No argument there. But is it really my goal? According to most current definitions it isn't. I haven't written it down. I haven't calculated a path. I don't have a list of sub-goals. I don't track my progress. And frankly, I defy anyone to track their true progress there. It seems to me an invitation to pride to state with any kind of firmness how close you are right now to the big CK. I can say with some degree of certainty that I'm closer now than I was five years ago. I would have a tough time, though, telling you how close I might actually be or how much further I have to go. > Setting a goal is a form of spiritual creation. If you > reread Genesis, there > are two creation stories there. The Lord creates things > spiritually, then physically makes them a reality. > Goal setting for us humans is practise in > spiritual creation. Are you saying that spiritual creation is merely an act of setting goals? I disagree. For one, spirits are real and physical, just not discernable in our present state. When we die, our spirit will still exist--not as a goal, as a real, physical entity. Setting goals my be an act of creation, but on the same order that creating a building blueprint is an act of creation. It *isn't* inherently spiritual. > Now some of us may not set very good > goals, or perhaps > some of simply set worldly goals. But I found that I achieve > much more when > I set goals: whether it's to write, or change a bad habit, or > start a new > good one, to make it through nursing school, or whatever. > When I don't set > goals, I drift and accomplish much less. Goals help one > focus on a specific. I think you are on dangerous grounds when you generalize from your own experience to universal experience. For one, I'll counter by my experience that setting goals is a dismal, dreary experience for me. Goals hinder me--they hold me back. You can tell me that I must not be very good at setting goals, but that's a judgment that is unearned. I've studied all the Franklin/Covey stuff and I *wanted* things to work like they say they do but for me, they do *not*. I made a choice--I could continue wearing myself out trying to form my life into an alien mold and wonder why I am such a failure, or I could reject their mold and try to figure out what works for me. For another, some people have been *commanded* not to have goals. Take Christ telling the apostles to take no thought for the morrow. The same admonition was given to early church missionaries. One of the more interesting people I've ever studied, Matthew Cowley (an apostle in the 50s) was told by the prophet not to make goals and to never prepare his conference talks before hand. > The wards that I have been in that have a theme or a ward > goal have been > stronger, more spiritual, better attended, more missionary > minded, more > temple minded, more focused on helping each other than those > who did not. Again, that's a personal experience. In my experience, wards I've been in with a strong theme and explicit goals tend to lose sight of individuals, to over generalize, to ostracize resistance, and to misread or ignore events that fall outside of the 'goal'. Goals may be a way to focus energies, but wards are messy things full of life. If goals become rigid, wards will ossify and harden in ways that resemble spiritual arthritis. Don't get me wrong, I like focus. In our ward, we have specific things we focus on and we follow-up on them constantly. But we have expressed that focus in ways that have no deadline and in ways that aren't able to ever actually be said to be completed. We monitor progress, but not in any way that can be given a number. > I think a lot of people talk about goals, but not everyone > understands why > they can be very important--hence the discussion in the > EQ.--possibly led by > non-goal setters who understand that it might possibly be > important or > helpful, but since they don't set them for themselves--don't > quite know how > to go about teaching someone else about it. I am mystified by this reference. I haven't heard an EQ lesson on setting goals in years. Goal Setting isn't in the curriculum and I don't see any reason to insert it there. > It's worth taking time to do some goals--and to make well > rounded goals: > physical, spiritual, social, emotional, financial. And not > to get so caught > up in the setting there of that one doesn't do anything to > the achieving > thereof. Maybe for you. Not for me. Frankly, I've always been mystified how you can actually make spiritual, emotional, and/or social goals. How do you quantify spiritual progress? Are you *really* more spiritual if you go to more church meetings? Probably, but not necessarily. For me, if I'm doing more supposedly 'spiritual' things just because I set the goal to do so, it works against the actual purpose of that activity. In other words, if I'm reading my scriptures just to fulfill a goal then as I'm reading, I am so busy congratulating myself on achieving my goal, or grumbling about setting such a stupid goal, or undermining the reasons for setting the goal, or calculating my progress on the goal, or figuring how many times I can still fail and still consider myself 'progressing' that I might as well be reading the phone book for all I'm getting out of my activity. I know other people function on a different basis from me and derive great value out of goal setting, but I don't persecute them for their goal-obsessions and I'm a little tired of them persecuting me for my lack of goal-orientation. > As to how this relates to writing and Latter-Day Saint > literature: I suggest > that most of us would find we are much more productive if we > were to set some > goals. But not to neglect one area of our lives for another > area--balance is > important. Set the goals, review them regularly, be excited > and do some > visualization of ourselves in the achieved goal. Infuse them > with some > emotion. Make them positive statements rather than negatives > (I do, rather > than I do not). Suggest away. You might be right. But don't be too shocked if you aren't. My capabilities vary from one day to the next. Some days, I can achieve a lot. Other days, I'm lucky to get out of bed. Some of that is due to ADD, but I'd be willing to bet that most people are that way. We all have cycles of productivity and capability--frankly, I think that God invested so much into cycles in our world that I'm betting there's a deeper meaning to them--and thinking that we can act at peek efficiency every day is asking for trouble. At the heart of goal setting is an underlying fallacy that we can improve ourselves incrementally forever. I read a story when I was a boy about a young man who got up every day and lifted his new-born horse. Since he lifted that horse *every day*, he was able, in the end, to lift a full-grown horse. Nice idea, but it just isn't true--for one, muscle-mass doesn't build that fast in a man, for another, where do you hold on? There are human limits on our capabilities and pushing for that next level of perfection is eventually going to cost more than we can give in a life-time. I stand in awe of those who can get by on less than four hours of sleep a night--I don't kid myself that I could be just like them if only I tried hard enough bit by bit, though. > Know that it is much like programing a > computer. Once we > have put things into our mind, eventually those things will > come out and we > will find ways to achieve our goals. That isn't at all like programming a computer. That is a false comparison. Once you get the right algorithm, a computer does the same thing *every* time. People will *never* be like this. People are not programmable. People function on a complicated series of event and counter event and people always, in the end, have free will. A person doesn't have anything at *all* forcing them to act the same way in the same situation. You can set habits, but setting habits is a function of continuous time and effort, not figuring out the right algorithm. Just knowing what is right isn't at all the same as doing what is right--*very* unlike computers. People *always* function at less than they know they should do. There is *always* a gap between what people *know* and what people *do*. At least, I've never met or even heard of anyone who is content to say that they are perfect and that they always do what they know is right. > How long eventually might be could be determined by how often > we short > circuit our own progress by believing that we can't really do > this. But I > know it works because I know where I was, and I know where I > am. I know > where I'm going--and as that commercial says, "I've come a > long way baby," > and I've got a long way to go, as we all do. And I can say the exact same thing without having achieved a discernable goal in my life. Just because something works for you doesn't mean it works for everybody and it doesn't mean that it is the only way for things to work. I understand the evangelism of wanting to share something that has made profound changes in your life. But you should be aware that others do not function in the same way that you do and you must stand ready to acknowledge those differences even if you don't understand them. > As children of > our Heavenly > Father, should not one of our goals be to succeed at being > the best "US" we > can be, with all the creative potential that might entail? Sure. I have a "goal" to be the best me I can be. But it isn't written down and it isn't plotted or sub-divided much more than that. I have issues that I'm working on, but they, too, are general in nature and not written down or plotted and sub-divided. You may be convinced that your way is better, and it might be for you. It might even be for me. But in my experience, it is not. And my experience is what I choose to go by. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 11 Jun 2002 15:17:32 -0700 My wife already weighed in on this topic and as many men as have posted = I'm going to give it a go as well. Personally I loved Gae Lyn and = Sharlee's posts on this. Being in my mid-twenties when we were married there was the extreme = pressure to have a family as large as you could. I do not remember until = the late 80's the caveat of "no more than the mother's health could = handle". Unfortunately back then they didn't teach about mental health = which should be a major part of the dogma now.=20 When Kathy and I were dating she asked me how many children I wanted. I = told her a full wrestling team and a couple of cheerleaders thrown in. I = remember her jaw hitting the floor when I told her how many that was = (for those non-combatants a wrestling team in those days was 13 + 2 = girls for cheerleaders). She asked me if I would settle for half and I = told her yes. I actually settled for 2 - one boy and one girl seven = years apart. I personally think we had our son too soon since we were = only married about 6 months when Kathy became pregnant with our son. = However, hind sight is 20/20 in all cases. I kid her that she was = celebrating the end of the first wrestling season of coaching (around = Valentine's Day). It probably would have been sooner if she had not had = what appeared in the blood tests as German Measles. The doctor told us = she could not, under any circumstances, get pregnant until the virus was = gone. She told me he was my birthday present (he was born 2 days before = my 26th birthday and we brought him home on my birthday). He was = technically 3 weeks premature. The really bad part was right after he was born I started my second = season of coaching Wrestling at my high school alma mater. I was also = working as a technician at a local company which made disk drives and = tape drives for main frame computers. Every day when I got home from = practice I was handed a crying baby. Lucky for me (bad news for my wife = - she wanted me to suffer a little bit with him) I was in really good = shape and when I put him on my chest he would go to sleep and that would = put me to sleep as well. There was a little bit of silent resentment = there (sometimes not so silent - post-partum depression?). What Kathy did not talk to me about was there were several times she = knew she had a miscarriage but never told me until many years later. = This happened after our son and after our daughter were born. I do not = know if I was emotionally mature enough to have gone through the = grieving process with her. They were all early on in the pregnancy so I = could not tell visually. As with many men I had tunnel vision and was = over focused on what I was trying to get done in life and on the job. We had our financial struggles through the year. I do not know anyone = who doesn't. That is part of the marriage process we were not warned = about. I wish I could have been making enough to support my wife in = those years without her working. About five years ago miracles happened = in our life to allow her to retire and not work again. I'm sure the = stresses would have been different with her at home but the rewards may = have been greater as well. Now I know and am committed to never allowing = her to work if she doesn't want to. I think from a man's point of view is the feeling of rejection from your = wife and not knowing what to do to correct it. Had I been more wise back = then I would have pitched in more around home. The lousy hours I was = working when the first child came left me exhausted during the week and = during wrestling season just plane gone. When the second child was born = we were living 60 miles from where I worked and over a very congested = freeway. My weekends were spent recovering physically and mentally from = my commute. I usually fell asleep Friday night and only woke up = periodically (for Church, etc.) and did not wake up until Monday when I = had to do it all over again. Now in my mid-forties I sit and wish I could go back and fix what I = screwed up. I try to repent every day and am at this point trying to = correct years of neglect. Luckily my health is improving as is my wife. = Allergies are a terrible thing especially when you live in the land of = pollen like Southern California. Maybe one day I will be worthy of my = wife's forgiveness for the way I acted in the early years of our = marriage while our children were small. I missed a lot. Hopefully at = this point I will be able to teach my children better than I was taught = so they correct the mistakes I made in this generation of our family. Maybe that should be a thread? What mistakes have we corrected that our = parents made and what mistakes did we make that our children will need = to correct in their generation of marriage and child rearing? BTW - for those who do not know the years of our kids birth we had a = running joke in our family. Every time Kathy became pregnant the Dodgers = would win the World Series (1981 and 1988). She never did write to Tommy = Lasorda to tell him if he would pay her to get pregnant she could almost = guarantee the Dodgers would win the Pennant....fun to think about = anyway. In fact when our son was born on October 29th in 1981 we were = watch the parade on TV in the hospital as she was going through labor = (okay, I was watching...she was breaking my thumb off at the knuckle = with each contraction). Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Date: 11 Jun 2002 20:41:53 -0700 At 09:12 PM 6/10/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Thanks to Jeff Needle for his enlightening review of Bagley's book on the >Mountain Meadows Massacre. > >Jeff, could you comment further on Bagley's evidence for the assertion that >Brigham Young authorized if not ordered the massacre in reprisal for the >assassination of Parley P. Pratt. > This is a difficult question, as Bagley makes clear in one of the cites I give in the review. Any direct link would not have been committed to writing. Other clues must factor in. Page 239 has an interesting narrative: "On a cold May morning in 1861, the Mormon prophet and his entourage of some sixty men, women and children, stopped at Mountain Meadows. They viewed Carleton's monument at the site of the wagon battle, 'put up at the burial place of 120 persons killed by Indians in 1857.' The monument was beginning to tumble down, but the wooden cross and its inscription, 'Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord," still stood above the rock cairn. "Brigham Young read the verse aloud, altering the text to fit his mood. "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, I *have* repaid.'" We would look in vain for any clear verbal, or written, order or authorization from BY. Bagley makes it clear that this won't exist. Instead, we find an atmosphere that made the massacre possible, where folks would believe that this is what BY favored. I feel a bit uncomfortable defending Bagley's thesis here. An outsider treads lightly. I suspect Will himself could answer this question better. > Juanita Brooks couldn't answer some of the most intriguing questions about >the massacre precisely because eye witness accounts were lacking. You say >that "Bagley takes us through a minute-by-minute account of the slaughter, >accumulated from hundreds of documents, many not available to Brooks when >she wrote her important book." Are any of these said to be eye witness >accounts? > Yes, there are said to be accounts written by some who were able to escape the massacre. Some of the children who escaped fled to the home of Rachel Hamblin, who learned of the massacre from them. >Bagley asserts that Brigham Young would have used oral code if he had >authorized the massacre. Isn't Bagley essentially asking us to believe his >contention without evidence? > In the paragraph preceding the one cited, John D. Lee's own account is cited, where Lee, and others, understood BY's "oral code" to indicate that wagon trains passing through should not be permitted to pass unmolested; that if he intended them to pass peacefully, he (BY) would say it explicitly. This seems to be the general understanding, and BY did not seem to say or do anything to dispel this attitude. Sorry I can't do any better than this. ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Censoring Comments Date: 12 Jun 2002 09:36:37 -0500 Marianne Hales Harding: I think I'd rather go work for Satan's school in SLC (all you UofU grads can take some gentle ribbing, right?). ... I know [BYU]'s a tough climate as far as orthodoxy is concerned, but it strikes such a discordant tone to me to think of my dear professors chosing employment over being right with God. Yowsa. _______________ I prefer to call it "that pagan school to the north, from which the First Presidency and five of the Twelve graduated." (A sixth attended UofU, two of the Twelve are Y graduates, three were graduated from Utah State.) There may be many things I wouldn't say, but I don't think I would lie to keep my job. I've been placed in that position in the past and, so far, not succumbed and have survived with the truth. On the other hand, I can't think of a single reason why a person should lose a temple recommend simply for attending an R-rated movie. I would strongly advise against it. I recognize the differences of opinion on this list, but I personally believe there is no R-rated film worth the price I would have to pay to see it. I believe that the risks of viewing and the resultant thoughts and actions far outweigh the benefits. As a personal decision made over 20 years ago after seeing two of them, I have not attended them since. As a priesthood leader, I would counsel accordingly, including what prophets have said on the matter. But in and of itself, I do not see any reason a person should lose a recommend simply for attending one. And if those are the present circumstances, I can see where there would be a great concern for survival. I am stunned at the informal survey results Eric presented. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 11 Jun 2002 17:20:52 -0700 "Hi! 8-)" he said as he stepped out of the shadows he had been lurking in. Clark Goble wrote: I often wonder at the Book of Mormon, not because of how prescient it was, but because of how out of keeping with Joseph's milieu it seems. Yes there were the many, many anti-Masonic books out along with anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish literature. Heaven knows there were at least as many conspiracy theories then as now. Speaking of conspiracies then and now, I have often wondered if any of our Latter-Day Writers have addressed the issues raised about the church in *The God Makers.* Have the enlightened LDS writers chosen to ignore this trash or have they written anything to expose and or refute its false claims? Just curious. Regards, Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Literature of Validation (was: Accepting Each Other's Offerings) Date: 11 Jun 2002 22:14:13 -0600 Melissa Proffitt wrote: >>> But it's the idea of a "literature of validation and acceptance" that I'm not quite sure I understand, probably because I'm not certain what you mean by "literature of criticism and improvement" as well. I know I seek out stories that seem to reflect my own experience, but I don't think of them as specifically written for that purpose. <<< What, you want me to be clear? Such expectations... At its grotesque extremes I mean literature that says it's okay to be Mormon and to believe as Mormons believe (validation) versus literature that says it's silly to be Mormon or to believe as Mormons believe (criticism to exclusion). In between are the thousands of grades that explore to greater or lesser degrees why we should believe versus why we shouldn't, as well as what we should believe and what we shouldn't. It seems to me that the vast majority of stories intended for Mormon audiences take a pretty critical look at either our belief or our behaviors. Stories that explore what it means to be Mormon have at their core one (or more) of several purposes--to celebrate righteousness, to expose error, to expose folly, to criticize policy or behavior, to illustrate method, or to explicate belief. In other words, most of our literature is a literature of criticism with an aim toward either improvement or rejection. We expose the errors, follies, or other ways that we need to improve--or as proofs of why we need to condemn and walk away. One could argue that such literature is a study of failure, whether it be personal or institutional. How POV recovers from that failure is what puts the story on either the faithful or rejecting end of the spectrum. But where are our stories whose primary message is that it's okay to believe as a Mormon believes and that show how such belief can lead to hope or peace or even success in our lives--not just in recovering from sin, but it dealing with the ordinary pain and struggle of daily life? Where are our Utopias? With the exception of Nephi Anderson's _Added Upon_ I can't think of any off the top of my head. We examine the failure points of our faith quite often. I don't see us examining the points of success nearly as often. We criticize a lot; we validate only rarely and sparingly. Or so it seems to me. You comment later about pitying back-pats, but that's not what I'm talking about when I speak of a literature of validation. Is it pity to congratulate the winner of an Olympic event? I don't think so; it's recognition of excellence and bestowal of earned praise. Is it pity for the AML to award novels and plays and short stories? Again, I don't think so; it's recognition of excellent work as an encouragement to do more and better work. So while I don't dispute that many people bestow pity in the form of approval for weak efforts, that's not precisely what I mean. I think there's a fairly substantial difference between the rather arrogant bestowal of pity on the undeserving and the honest recognition of fruitful effort. No, I will never be mistaken for Shakespeare or any other good writer, but the fact is that sometimes my writing has merit and is worthy of honest praise. When my seven year old writes a story for her second grade class, I will never mistake her work for a grand literary opus; at the same time, I can and do honestly marvel at her ability to tell a story and praise her for the rather substantial improvements she has made over time. My goal is to encourage her to do more and better by letting her know that what she's done is worthy of recognition. Perhaps that's just a means of creating codependence--my daughter wants my praise so she does the things that will earn recognition from me. I want to see her feel good about her efforts and feel some sense of self-worth, so I look for excuses to praise her and encourage her to do more. I also take many opportunities to show her how much more there is to learn so that she doesn't stop working toward improvement, and will show her examples of superior work so she can learn to produce such work herself. I think literature can do the same kind of work in recognizing the successes of our beliefs and the good results that faith brings--not just in overcoming failure, but in simply handling the affairs of living. Recognizing good effort is not the same thing as declaring the need for improvement to be ended. >>>In fact, I tend to think of wanting approval as a bad thing--not that I think people should be trained by whippings alone, or that it's bad to enjoy praise. It just gets paired in my mind with a sort of pitying back-pat that I wouldn't have gotten if I hadn't been so darned needy. <<< This is an area that I think is so individual as to defy clean definition. But here's my perspective... Why should seeking approval be thought of as a weak or pitiful condition? What's wrong with wanting to do what's right and to be recognized for doing it? Isn't that the whole basis of The Judgment--the hope that at some point Christ will reach out to us and proclaim "Well done thou good and faithful servant" as we're taken into his presence? I suppose there's an element of pity in that since Christ grants us redemption by his grace and not one of us has the power to redeem ourselves. The end result is that without his pity we're out of luck. I guess that means that any attempt to please God is really just an attempt to extract pity from him, which essentially invalidates any effort to do good as a rather cynical manipulation designed to extract approval from deity and get something we haven't really earned. And while I can't argue that there are many who play the game that way, I also believe that some people want to do good not in order to extract pity, but to earn legitimate recognition. Even the prophets have been known to remind the Lord of their righteousness in following his commandments, thus entitling them to a promised reward. The line between humble recognition of progress and demanding entitlements we haven't earned is pretty broad in my mind. I admit quite freely that sometime we become so frantic for approval that we become willing to accept unearned praise. I know that I experience that on a pretty much daily basis, and that frantic desire to feel like the things I'm doing are somehow worthwhile if very strong with me right now. I'm in the middle of a fairly substantial crisis of confidence right now both as a writer and as a breadwinner. I desperately want praise and acceptance of my own offerings in both areas right now--and am failing in both cases. But I defend myself on that basis that I have no interest in false praise or meaningless pity. I want a job that pays me for being good at what I do. I want publication in quality venues as recognition that my work is worthy of appearance there. I want earned praise, not unearned pity. Where's the pride of accomplishment is publishing your own words? To me acceptance by an editor is a minimum requirement for validation of my skill as a writer. In the absence of praise I have to ask myself why, and the only answer I can come up with is that I have no value, either as a writer or as a breadwinner. My skills are not valued, therefore I have no value. Since I have no idea what to do to become valuable I find myself at a point of despair--insufficient skill to win, and no way to find out what skills are needed or how to get them. I just want to know how to win. Praise tells me I'm moving in the right direction. In terms of literature, there are a whole series of stories we can tell that focus not on how we overcome our failures, but how our strong foundations help us overcome challenges that have nothing to do with our moral perfection or lack thereof. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 11 Jun 2002 01:25:41 -0600 The Laird Jim wrote: > What worries me are > several problems that come up when creating even a false secret brotherhood > dedicated to evil. > > First there are their acts. Evil is not pleasant to write about > Creating > characters that are steeped in evil is no fun, and making them believable is > even less fun. Well, you've got two choices. Do it, no matter how unpleasant, or write some other story. What other possibility is there? > How villainous can a > villain be and yet exist in literature that Mormons would not object to? > What would be the point of writing a book that my own people wouldn't read? > Especially because it wasn't uplifting. A villain should be a villanous as that character should be; no more, no less. Whatever the story demands. If your fellow Mormons won't read it--so what? If that bothers you, write some other story. What other possibility is there? > A second problem is the oaths. In the Book of Mormon there are several > places where the writers were forbidden to list the oaths of the Gadianton > Robbers or the earlier followers of Akish. > The problems comes in when making up fake oaths as a literary > device--what happens if one hits too close to the truth? I've shied away > from detailing the oaths a number of times in the four books that deal with > my own fake conspiracy but the sequel to one of the completed ones is going > to expose the secret works of these bad guys and I've been hesitating over > it for a couple of years. It's one thing to shout the secret works of > darkness from the rooftops and its another to create false ones that are > plausible and then expose them. Yes, they are different things. The latter is fiction, and everyone knows it's fiction, so it's harmless. You make the oaths as plausible as you can because that's your job. You had better hit as close to the truth as you can. What is it you're worrying about? That someone might take your fake oaths and start a secret combination? Secret combinations have been popping up long before you came along. They don't need your help. > Which brings me to plausibility. > If the bad guys > exist to destroy freedom, how can what they replace it with be portrayed as > both desireable and undesireable at the same time? While remaining > plausible. That's easy. Just check out the United States of today. A great many people desire the security of less freedom, of being told what to do so they don't have to worry about it. A great many Mormons do too, in fact. One-third of the hosts of heavens preferred the security of Satan's plan to the risky responsibility of the Father's. Choosing security over freedom is a very easy thing to make plausible--happens all the time. > In _The Screwtape Letters_ CS Lewis mentions how little he enjoyed writing > the book, thinking like a devil and trying to second-guess the methods by > which a devil would attempt to seduce a soul to Hell. But he still wrote it, didn't he? And we're all the better for it. That book has its own backdoor sort of inspiration. Not all stories should be Charlie's-Monument-inspiring. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Accepting Each Other's Offerings Date: 11 Jun 2002 02:48:51 -0600 Jennifer Vaughn wrote: > But frankly, I do not know if very many people want to read > about the culture not being as true as the gospel (with apologies to Eugene > England). Actually, Gene England said the _church_ was as true as the gospel, not the culture. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: [AML] Book Club Worries Date: 12 Jun 2002 06:41:09 -0700 I wonder often how much tolerance LDS readers have for the grit of real life. I suspect most people on this list have the same concern. I'm on another list populated entirely by LDS women, and the discussion recently turned to the subject of forming book clubs. One sister said that her relief society had decided to form a mid-week book club, and expected to discuss the following books: >Exodus, Cold Mountain, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, The Remains >of the Day, Killer Angels, Snow Falling on Cedars, Into Thin Air, Cold Sassy >Tree, The Brothers K, Peace Like a River, Expecting Adam. Another list member replied to the note as follows: > Just an FYI...many of the books you mentioned have very questionable > material in them from reviews I've read.... > We've been instructed over and over again to only read books that are > uplifting and don't contain degrading content. > (snip comments about the inappropriateness of having group discussions > of impure books, which discussions would appear to condone the impurities.) The writer then goes on to ask for the names of books that are "really clean" and don't contain "even one" impure scene or any swearing. The note generated quite a few follow-up comments, each of which were in complete agreement about the dangers of unholy and impure reading material. What concerns me about this discussion is that it's taking place amongst women who are -- by virtue of being on the Internet and participating in email lists -- a little cutting edge, literate, and financially secure. *Truly* conservative women -- those who stand up in Relief Society and testify loudly to the evils of the Internet -- don't even *participate* in e-mail lists. --lmg, reporting from the literate Mormon electronic heartland. Oh, and offering the hand of fellowship to new listtalker Robert Slaven, who, most of you probably don't know, is the Jeopardy king. Not Jeopardy, the home version. The REAL Jeopardy. On telefission. He won like half a gazillion dollars. Mebbe he'll tell you about it if you ask politely, eh? --------- OUR NEWEST WRITING PROJECT: Homeschooling Step by Step, Prima Publishing, Spring 2002. --------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Web site: E-mail reply: --------- . -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 12 Jun 2002 08:40:05 -0700 on 6/10/02 10:39 PM, Robert Slaven at robertslaven@shaw.ca wrote: > > Let me tell you something. When I think of 'secret combinations', I think of > two possibilities: > > * Any organised crime (even two bozos planning a stickup); > * Corporate greed. > [snip] Thanks a lot for your comments. The part about the Old Scratch selling the murder idea to Cain is particularly good--never thought of that before. The built in aversion to killing has to be overcome by anybody who tries to do it, but I never considered it as something that might've come from outside. Interesting thought. Unfortunately there are two things you mention that I have to strenuously disagree with. I would like to let them float by but I'm not going to. First about corporate greed. Corporations aren't conspiracies. They are the most cowardly organizations ever created. They are horribly conservative (in the worst sense) not because their greedy but because they're afraid to lose money. I used to live near a very rich family who were terrified all the time that their children would be kidnapped for ransom. Their kids couldn't go anywhere! It's the same with corporations. They have something worth having, and losing it is what they fear. Those that try new things fail more often than small businesses, so they spend time, effort and money to keep anything from changing so that they have to adjust. This is not conspiracy, it's just the way it falls. Even though I am a hard-core Federalist I don't believe that the lefty media is a conspiracy. I think that in the main they're just two things--bigoted and stupid. Perhaps that's redundant but that's how it goes. They suffer the same weakness as corporations do--abject terror. They run in a herd to everything and don't dare be different for fear that they'll miss out on something. This is common to all bureaucracies, and everything has a bureaucracy since the dang Germans invented them. The second is with regard to the grotesque opinion your web buddies have of people and particularly of Americans. I used to be in sales, and talked to hundreds of people every day, and they were strangely enough every one unique. The attempt to categorize people into neat little (disdainful) pigeonholes is nothing but the attempt of self-loathing to appear instead as arrogance. I used to listen when the windbag old fellas would start talking,and heard some amazing war stories and learned a lot of interesting facts. A half hour of blather might contain only a nugget or two of wisdom but it was worth the wait. One time I sold a computer to a fella who looked like he weighed about 80 pounds and would float away if anybody breathed too hard, but when I was loading his computer I noticed that he had a purple heart license plate with a Medal of Honor sticker on it. His wife noticed me noticing, and told me that he was one of the guys who jumped on a grenade on Iwo Jima to save his buddies. I had read of three who survived that sacrifice, and about a dozen other who didn't. Here was one of them talking to me and who could've known that he had done such a noble thing. "Better love hath no man..." and all that. People are marvelous. Every individual has something to teach and the fact that so many people don't desire freedom is because of the lies that float through the world with such regularity. People don't want freedom not because they don't want to be free--they do want to be free, of their responsibilities. Freedom is responsibility. If they can blame somebody else then they can get away with m ore. It's the same reason people shy away from God even while they believe in him. Really KNOWING He exists means that He KNOWS!!! EVERYTHING!!! This is not a comfortable thing. In fact learning that God really does exist is probably the most terrifying experience there is. People who don't understand why the Bible says to fear God have faith but not knowledge. People twist and turn and connive to avoid both the knowledge and the responsibility but they're free anyway, and God knows anyway. That is why there is no real power in the world and there is no form of government except democracy. In capitalist countries the people are freest, because they're mostly responsible for themselves. As you get closer to totalitarian government people are just as free, they just think they aren't and pretend that the goverment controls them. What controls them is fear, fear based on lies. Power is a lie, and the Devil is the father of lies. His power over the world exists through lies and nothing else. Hitler or Stalin or Lenin or Mao or Pol Pot or Fidel Castro hold their power through lies. The Big Lie to be precise. They're celebrating their Eternal Ruler's birthday over in North Korea just now. Kim Jeong Il is a smart cookie--he's deified his father instead of himself so that he can keep the lie going. Without that power of lies the world would be fifty times better. Which brings us to the point. People are wonderful marvels, children of God with spirits brighter than the Sun, who have been misled and waylaid by lies and deceipts. Never ever disdain them, because for all you know they may end up with a higher degree of glory than you--if you spend too much time looking down on them. I realize that the comments made were not yours, and I don't mean to attribute them to you particularly--I mean to attack the idea. In high school I remember wondering just who "the masses" were. We kept talking about the masses like it was some conglomerate of mindless people who all thought and spoke and were the same. I realized then that there are no masses. People are every one individuals and more precious than rubies. Thanks again, Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 12 Jun 2002 11:13:22 -0600 The CIA, FBI, the Mafia, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral = Commission, the KGB and Castro all conspired together to have President = Kennedy shot. The Trilateral Commission is currently running things in = the US, part of a major international plot, funded by Jewish bankers, to = bring about a New World Order, which will effectively destroy the = Constitution. UN operatives are flying around in black helicopters trying = to take away the guns of law abiding citizens. President Clinton, while = in the White House, ordered Vincent Foster murdered, because he was having = an affair with Hilary. Clinton was also responsible for hits on over 200 = political enemies in Arkansas and Washington. Bin Laden was and is an = agent of the UN. All gun control legislation is communist inspired, as is = sex education in public schools, the teaching of organic evolution in = science classes and the flouridation of public water. Flouride, in fact, = is a mind altering agent leading to a more tractable public, leading us = open to communist ideologies. Hollywood is conspiring to corrupt our = youth, turning many into homosexuals and the rest into drug addicted porn = junkies. =20 A bizarre mix of nutty conspiracy theories? Not at all. Every opinion = I've listed above has been advanced by someone in my ward in a Sunday = School or Priesthood lesson over the last year. =20 The Book of Mormon talks about 'secret combinations' destroying Nephite = society, and also was obviously intended for our day. What this seems to = have led to, for at least some folks in LDS culture, is an attraction to = conspiracy theories. Now, first of all, I should say that I think all the things I listed above = are nutty. If you agree with any of them, I'm sorry for calling you = nutty. Write me privately and let's talk. I just think it's interesting = that this one area of Book of Mormon emphasis has had such a weird effect = on some aspects at least of current LDS culture. We are, at the very = least, inclined to see phenomena of which we disapprove as linked to some = sort of secret combination.=20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 12 Jun 2002 11:56:09 -0600 >I am doing a comparative study of ghostly appearances (primarily in >folklore) and rituals for ancestors in Japan and in Mormonism in the United >States. Most of my sources of Mormon spirit encounters (in dreams and >waking visions) come from folk tales, journals, and official church >sources. I'm curious about how ghosts have appeared to Mormons in their >literature over the years--how and when they reveal themselves and what >their messages or purposes are. Are any of you aware of any literary >sources written by Mormons in which ancestral (or other ghostly) >apparitions play a prominent role? One of my favorites is a Trail of >Dreams--from John Brown's perspective, the play is full of the spirits of >those who have passed on before him. I know of a few: Kemp, Kenny. _I Hated Heaven: A Novel of Love after Death_. Salt Lake City: Alta Films Press, 1998. Morgan, K. L. _Pioneer Ghost_. Orem, Utah: TriQuest Publishing, 2001. Otte, Marc. _Hide and Seek: On the Trail with Orrin Porter Rockwell_. Anchorage: Publication Consultants, 1999. Otte, Marc. _Pray for Justice: On the Trail with Orrin Porter Rockwell_. Anchorage: Publication Consultants, 1998. Ritchey, Micheal. _Disoriented_. Salt Lake City: Cornerstone Publishing, 1999. Yates, Dan. _An Angel in the Family_. American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 1998. Yates, Dan. _An Angel in Time_. American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 2000. Yates, Dan. _Angel on Vacation_. American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 2000. Yates, Dan. _An Angel's Christmas_. American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 1999. Yates, Dan. _Angels Don't Knock!_ American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 1994. Yates, Dan. _Angels to the Rescue_. American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 1997. Yates, Dan. _It Takes an Angel_. American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 1999. Yates, Dan. _Just Call Me an Angel_. American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 1996 I hope these help. Marny Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 12 Jun 2002 14:07:15 -0400 At 12:50 PM 6/11/02 -0400, you wrote: > > >"Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > >> Tony Markham, my long lost semi-cousin wrote, with bracing vigor: > >Which reminds me to invite anyone visiting the Catskills or Cooperstown this summer to feel free to contact me for a visit. One of my high points last summer was getting to meet Terry Jeffress for a pancake breakfast in a remote corner of Catskill countr >y. > >Tony Markham I tried for three times not to send this to the list, but for some reason Eudora is not giving me personal addresses today. I love Georgia, but I truly miss that part of the country. I taught for a couple of years at SUNY Oneonta, and though they weren't two of the peak years of my profession,they were two of the peak years of my life. One of my children was born (and spent a lot of his first year) in the hospital at Cooperstown. Richard B. Johnson, (djdick@PuppenRich.com) Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 12 Jun 2002 14:10:03 -0400 At 01:07 PM 6/11/02 -0500, you wrote: >At 02:35 PM 6/10/02, you wrote: >>Just gotta hope nobody in my ward joins the List. And do you folks have >>any idea what a lifeline you are to me? >> >>Eric Samuelsen [snip Linda's similar comment] What is embarrassing is to have one of your kids on the list when you say something about the family and have that kid forward it to all his siblings. (fortunately not always to his mother). Richard B. Johnson, (djdick@PuppenRich.com) Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Money Matters Date: 12 Jun 2002 12:23:42 -0600 ___ Jacob ___ | In my opinion, though, too many bishops are quick to reach | the judge part and a bit short on the actual getting to know | you bit. That's likely a side-effect of our lay-priesthood. ___ Probably an other part is the 300+ members they have to deal with. I've noticed that if you make an effort to get to know the bishop that then he'll be aware of you. Otherwise he only knows you as more than a face if you happen to be in a calling he interacts with a lot. The problem is that most wards have a few families that are always meeting with the bishop. All that on top of the other things he has to do. Whenever I'd hear the general things he was dealing with my own problems seemed pretty insignificant. (Not that they weren't important to me, mind you - but I got to the point of cutting the guy a lot of slack) OF course I can think of times when I've gotten rather angry at a bishop too. I remember one telling me that it was better to be in a dysfunctional relationship or even marry someone you don't like that much and perhaps divorce than just be single. (Since it was a temple recommend interview I just grinned and said nothing, but I admit I never trusted that particular bishop again) -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: RE: [AML] Money Matters Date: 12 Jun 2002 12:56:49 -0500 At 03:25 AM 6/11/02, you wrote: >And then, when you go to the storehouse, you feel >so out of place because you see people who are not in need--and, >personally, I know people who abuse the system and I don't want to be >associated with them. But I like the butter and I wish you could get >the potato pearls commercially. Actually, Melissa tells me that she >recently saw them on sale somewhere. This may not need to go through the list, so I'm CC'ing to Jacob--but... Out here in KC, Missouri, we have a Bishop's storehouse and Food Storage Center (formerly called the dry-pack cannery). Members and nonmembers are allowed to go up there and dry-pack can (or mylar-bag) their desired food storage items for a reasonable low price. That stuff, plus the storehouse stuff, shares the same warehouse. My point is, I can buy potato pearls there. I don't have to be using Church welfare to get them. I can buy them by the bag/can or by the case, if I wish. There should be similar facilities in Utah? And you're right, if you're going to eat dried potatoes, they're the best! Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Models for Mormon Art Date: 12 Jun 2002 11:45:57 -0700 > From: Julie Kirk > So, to get to the Critique - the people in there do not know me very well > and so were not aware that I was Mormon. But one of the guys said that the > painting (which he seemed to like, but this was what it related to for him) > reminded him of those Mormon flyers the missionaries would hand out and > Nazi propoganda posters - very Aryan, and that type of "we are strong and > intelligent and meant to conquer the world"..(his words, not mine). I > didn't quite know how to take that at first. On the one hand, I thought it > was pretty extraordinary that I was subconciously relating back to > something that was an integral part of my growing up years (Mormon flyers, > NOT Nazi propoganda!). But then it brought up a few other concerns...like, > hey, my kids are white and blue eyed, a couple of them blonde - was I not > supposed to paint them? And how do I take the fact that he relates Mormon > literature handouts to Nazi propoganda? and do I have an obligation to try > and change that image through my work? and what if I do find that image a > bit too much based on a reality for my tastes - the issue of the priesthood > being available to all worthy members is one of my issues that I try to > accept on faith, but I'll admit that I have a hard time with it. Depending on exactly how he meant it, I wouldn't necessarily take a comparison of one's art to Nazi propaganda to be a putdown. The Nazis, and especially Hitler (verbally, with his oratory) and Goebbels (with just about everything else) were masters at the art of 'conversion', for lack of a better word. Look at how many Germans were entranced into buying into the Nazi package simply by listening to (or better yet, watching!) one of Hitler's speeches. And then the rest of it -- movies, posters, you name it -- was even more overwhelming. Look around in one of your town's more obscure video stores for 'Triumph of the Will' by Leni Riefenstahl, a very powerful film documentary about one of the pre-war Nazi rallies at Nuremburg. I actually have a 'coffee table' book called _Persuasive Images: Posters of War and Revolution_, which includes a number of stunning propaganda posters from throughout the 20th century, almost entirely from Herbert Hoover's archives. And many of the most striking ones are indeed the German WWII posters. So, did he mean your boys looked too Aryan? Or did he mean that your painting got a message across very strongly? Does he think LDS flyers are as false and propagandistic (is that a word?) as Nazi propaganda? Or does he think they're equally effective in getting their message across? Just some things to think about, anyhow. > It was kind of a coincidence that this last weekend I had this type of > issue come up again - I was doing a street painting at a big festival in > the bay area, and someone commented that my Christ figure was rather light > skinned. Well, I was just copying a painting by an Italian master, > Guercino, so it wasn't like it was my choice, and it WAS a person who was > dead, as it was a variation on a descent from the cross - so his skin would > have naturally been lighter than it was when he was alive. But of course > we got into the whole discussion of just what Christ might have looked > like. I find that in art, what works best is what you can relate to. Jane Austen's novels 'worked' precisely because she *knew* the world she was writing about. Often, I've read crappy novels, which were crappy because the author obviously didn't really 'know' the world they were writing about. We have to paint/write/sculpt/whatever about what we know. Otherwise it will likely come off as false, both to us and to the reader. Even such an 'imaginary-seeming' book as _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ has many, many, many bases in the facts of Orwell's life. That's why that book worked so well; it rang true to so many people. So if your boys are blond/blue-eyed/fair-skinned, go ahead and paint them that way! Don't turn them into Africans or Asians or whatever, because that wouldn't be true to you. If you're copying a painting of a dead and bloodless Christ, then of course paint his skin light. If you're painting Christ outdoors talking to his apostles, then perhaps he'd be darker skinned, between tanning and the 'typical swarthy Mediterranean' complexion. And I've seen paintings of Christ by black artists where he's depicted as black. Maybe that's not historically accurate, but who cares? If that's how the artist can relate to Christ, then so be it. If it rings true, it works. > would be great. I'm having to rethink all my work now and the direction > I'm taking with models, etc. > I hope that all helps. Paint what's true to you. If you have black or Asian or whatever friends, go ahead and incorporate them into your work if you feel inspired to do so. If you feel that you don't know enough about others, and feel you could learn more and broaden your horizons by using models other than your 'Aryan' boys, go for it. But be true to yourself and your vision. Hope that helps. Robert ********************************************************************** Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too 'Man is that he might have joy--not guilt trips.' (Russell M. Nelson) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: [AML] The Far Side & the Gospel [was Lynching the Speaker] Date: 12 Jun 2002 13:35:47 -0600 On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:21:57 -0700 "jana remy" writes: > My most interesting Fast and Testimony meeting happened last Sunday > when the bishopbric counselor who was conducting started off his > testimony by describing his favorite Far Side cartoon and how this > related to the gospel. Taped to my desk right here in front of me is a Far Side cartoon. I love it precisely because it represents the entire plan of salvation (if not explicitly, then implicitly) with a simple drawing and one sentence. The drawing shows a charbroiled kid standing behind a workbench that has broken beakers on it and smoke curling up into the air as feathers drift down all around. The caption reads: "God as a kid tries to make a chicken in his room." In recent months I have had occasion to mention to some folks that I am pleased to see Gospel principles creeping into our pop culture; happening as it were simply because the stuff in in the air. How many times have you been watching something, or reading something and thought, Man, this must have Mormons involved somewhere down the line? J. Scott Bronson -- The Nauvoo Theatrical Society *********************************************************** "If I were placed on a cannibal island and given the task of civilizing its people, I would straightway build a theatre for the purpose." Brigham Young -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Change Names or Not? Date: 12 Jun 2002 15:29:01 -0600 I'd like the advice of the writers and publishers on this list. I'm helping a woman write the story of her experiences when her husband, who had seemed a regular LDS guy, came under pressure from the polygamists in his family. He decided that their way was right and told his wife that he wanted her to follow him into polygamy. She had no intention of leaving the LDS church, and she wanted no part of the lifestyle of this polygamist group (which was, basically, men are gods, not to be questioned, and women are servants, to be part of the background). He wound up taking four of their eight children into polygamy with him. Those kids have gotten pretty messed up -- they're all adults now, but imagine, being torn between their parents as they were. My client eventually remarried, to a really decent guy, and her life is good now. But she wants to tell her story -- many women have encouraged her to do so, saying that what she learned could help many people. Here's my question. Should she tell the story as straightforward nonfiction, with real names and everything? That seems the most truthful and useful way to do it. But what kind of liability is she setting herself up for if she does that? On the other hand, how much of her credibility does she lose if she decides to fictionalize the story? It's fascinating how it happened -- the ex-husband telling the kids their mother would go to hell because she wouldn't accept the truth of polygamy, his putting his fashion-conscious teenage daughter into long, dark dresses, his throwing the kids out whenever they displeased him or got sick, then taking them back after she cared for them -- you can see the mistakes he made, and the mistakes she made, throughout the whole bizarre thing. She kept a detailed journal throughout her life, and you can see her trying not to understand what was happening for the longest time. Anyway, does anyone feel strongly that such a story should be told as it happened (from her viewpoint, of course)? Or should names be changed to keep from enriching a lot of lawyers? Oh and should it be geared to the national market? I like the idea of showing that these fundamentalist groups are not Mormons. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Umberto Eco (was: Secret Combinations in Literature) Date: 12 Jun 2002 15:36:53 -0600 ___ Janelle ___ | Eco's masterpiece of conspiracy and secret combinations | is _Foucault's Pendulum_. It's mind-bending. When I | was reading it, I had to stop every few chapters to put | the book down, shake myself, and go for a brisk walk | around the block to get re-grounded in reality. ___ Good call. How could I have forgotten that one. And that is my all time favorite book. It's one of those novels that was amazing when I first read it back in college and just keeps getting better. It is also one that the more you know of the history (Rensaissance "magic," gnosticism, hermeticism, masonry) and the philosophy (postmodern critiques of an "open text", semiotics) the more you enjoy it. Eco is making some pretty important points about both literature and a semiotic critique of conspiracies in general. If you liked _Foucault's Pendulum_ you should check out the collection of a debate between Eco and Richard Rorty for one of the O.C. Tanner lecture series. It is called _Interpretation and Overinterpretation_. Rorty is infamous as the main practitioner of neoPragmatism. That's basically the idea that limits and problems in philosophy only exist because we make them exist. Eco takes a more middle of the road position that while any text is open to an infinite number of possible readings, there are limits to what is an acceptable reading. The debate is interesting as it focuses in on what Eco intended in _Foucalt's Pendulum_. So not only does it deal with the themes of the novel, but it uses those themes to critique how we read the novel. Since it was a public debate it is very readable and is oriented towards a more mainstream market. It's especially interesting as Eco goes through a discussion of hermeticism and relates it to some modern literary themes. An other book by Eco on similar topics is _The Search for the Perfect Language_. A lot of the figures spoken of in _Foucault's Pendulum_ are given a historic context. (Albeit one focused on their linguistic efforst) It goes through, for example, Rene Descartes' public statement that he was a Rosicrucian to prove that he really wasn't one. (Unless it was all just a clever ploy by a Rosicrucian to make people think he wasn't by claiming to be one) The book is of interest to Mormons as we have a strong history of there being a "perfect language." Some of the early Mormon views on Adamaic or the Book of Enoch arise for the very trends Eco discusses. Further he critiques the two views of what "perfect" would mean with respect to language. i.e. perfectly close - every word means exactly one thing - or perfectly open - every word could carry all connotations. ___ Janelle ___ | I also seem to recall that packed somewhere in the book | is an obscure reference to Mormonism...but as I can't | find my copy of the book at the moment (hmmmm...a | conspiracy of subversive Eco-maniacals absconding with | paperbacks??), I have no proof. ___ He mentions an aside when listing various secret societies that break off from masonry. (He has one the characters say something like, "Mormons? Are they still around?") There is an other reference too, but I can't recall it off the top of my head. It was written back when Mormons weren't quite as mainstream in southern Europe. If you liked _Foucalt's Pendulum_ you might want to check out _The Club Dumas_. It relates to a lot of themes from Eco. The main idea is how "textual contamination" (reading one text in terms of an other) occurs in real life. It was made into a horrible movie called _The Ninth Gate_ by Roman Polanski. The thing about the movie is that the entire Dumas (author of _The Three Muskateers_) connection is expunged. But that's the whole theme of the book. The book is about a rare book "detective" who is hired to track down an old Renaissance occult book. Along the way he discovers a conspiracy about an original page of the manuscript for _The Three Muskateers_. As the story continues the Dumas conspiracy and the occult conspiracy overlap and re-interpret each other. So Dumas takes on mystic and occult meanings and the occult takes on the adventure of a Dumas serial. It is a fantastic novel. But avoid the movie like the plague. ___ Janelle ___ | Eco is triumphant at turning your own brain against you. ___ Although his point is that we shouldn't let this happen. I don't want to ruin the climax of the story, but it turns out that he really pulls the rug out from everything. He pushes us back into a common regular world view. Eco's view is highly influenced by the classic science fiction novel _A Canticle for Leibowitz_. (As is his novel _Name of the Rose_) ___ Mary Jane __ | "The Name of the Rose" was made into a film in 1986 | starring Sean Connery, F. Murray Abraham and Christian | Slater. I enjoyed it as a teenager--the film was exciting, | creepy in a uniquely medieval way and just philosophical | enough to make a teenager feel intellectual but not lost | or bored....I saw it on video, but I think it's rated R | for intense thematic material and a scene with partial | female nudity. My friend's dad who was watching it with | us made us fast-forward that scene.... ___ That actually was a fairly good adaptation. BTW - the sex scene is fairly graphic although as I remember there really isn't very much nudity. However it goes on a long time and definitely would be offensive to many. (A young peasant girl from the town outside the monastery is getting food to survive by sleeping with Monks. This actually ends up relating to the themes in the story) The book does drag a little bit in places. But you can skip through some of those parts. The climax in the book is a vision by the main character akin to the Apocalypse of John. The whole theme of the book is "what gives meaning?" The problem is that if the these we speak of are ultimately only names, life loses meaning. This was the problem with medieval nominalism and a lot of the critique of the scientific world view is that it de-humanizes the things around us. (How can we speak meaningfully of things in a mechanistic world view?) The book is an investigation of this notion. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laraine Wilkins Subject: [AML] Introduction: Laraine Wilkins Date: 12 Jun 2002 17:52:38 -0600 I've posted a few times before, even included a short introduction in one of the posts, but I think it got lost in the trailing end of a thread. So I want to officially introduce myself to the list in the hope that I'll get a little more engaged in discussions this summer... I live in the Boston area, but I consider Salt Lake City more home (I still own a house downtown, which is being taken care of by wonderful tenants). I've been a graduate student at the oldest university in the country for three years now, working on a PhD in German literature. I just passed my general exams last week, after much trial and tribulation and constant thoughts of quitting for most of the three years I've been here. Now I get to start work on a dissertation tentatively titled 'Cartographic Subjects: Modernity, Self, and Space in Germany 1900-1950.' It's a daring thesis, I think, so I might have a little trouble getting it approved. But I'll get to look at all the things that are interesting to me, especially film, technology, and material culture. I'm a single mom, and my daughter just turned 13 yesterday. This marks an interesting phase for me as a mother, since I often still feel like a teenager myself. I will have been divorced for 10 years come November, and I think I'm just getting to the point of being OK with being single. Before I moved to Boston, I worked for a software company (a place I'm somewhat nostalgic for); I taught high school and middle school (Ogden and Champaign, IL, respectively); I taught at BYU as a grad student; worked as a library staff member at Indiana University (in Bloomington); worked at the library at BYU as an undergrad; and worked at the Bonneville County Elections Office in Idaho Falls (my original hometown) during high school; I was also a high-demand babysitter as a teenager. My favorite calling in the church was teaching Primary, and I have been an organist for almost every ward I've lived in since 1986. Someday I want to make a film. But right now I sometimes write poetry and think about writing creative non-fiction. I love the discussions that develop on the list. I look forward to jumping in on more of them. I hope I'll hear from some of you... --Laraine Wilkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Date: 12 Jun 2002 18:42:16 -0600 ___ Jeff ___ | I feel a bit uncomfortable defending Bagley's thesis here. | An outsider treads lightly. I suspect Will himself could | answer this question better. ___ We're all friends here. So let lose with your thoughts. The basic reasoning seems the same as his _Kingdom of the West_ volume "Forgotten Kingdom." As I mentioned, he was the editor, but it seems to have a lot of his involvement. Further this book seems to follow the same thinking. The basic argument for responsibility goes as follows. 1. Brigham Young had leaders preaching militaristic and inflammatory speeches. (so called "hellfire and damnation" sermons) A lot of this parallels Sidney Rigdom's infamous "salt has lost its savor" speech back in the Missouri war. 2. Young had been encouraging northern Indians to attack the gentile settlers heading west. 3. Young had many people involved in guerilla warfare It seems like Young's strategy was more akin to our strategy in Afghanastan. We wouldn't dirty our hands with actual attacks but would use a proxy army (the Indians) to carry out the raids. This could be theologically justified via the BoM passages about the Lamanites uprising against the gentiles "like a lion among sheep." The Indians in this case didn't do what they were supposed to, so the Mormons of the area did it for them. There is also the case of the man heading west with gamblers and prostitutes who were killed (I think by Porter Rockwell) Admittedly that guy had the misfortune of showing up during the height of the Utah war when outright warfare was about to erupt. The claim that he was a spy may some connection to the killing, but it does match what happened in MMM. So basically Young set the environment for the massacre, even if he didn't direct the particulars. Further it fit in with the overall strategy. I should add that I'm not sure I agree with this line of reasoning. By that reasoning we ought to say FDR is worse than Young because of the far more atrocious massacre at Dresden during WWII. As I said, I understand Bagley's perspective, but I think it applies a strong double standard. I'll be interested in how he deals with the war-time situation. Further I wonder if he'll make mention of the guerilla wars in Missouri and Illinois. It's hard to understand the Utah War without being aware of the warfare and style of warfare in those earlier conflicts. For those interested in the Missouri war LaSeuer has an excellent book called _The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri_. Regarding the Bigler book (that Bagley edited), I rather liked it overall. Yeah it has a double standard. Further I don't think it really provides the contextual framework for understanding why the Mormons acted the way they did. However it really is the best history of politics and war in early Utah that is around. It is a must read for Mormon history buffs. _Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West 1847-1896_. It is volume 2 of _Kingdom in the West_ but has just come out in a paperback edition. It covers the Mountain Meadows Massacre as well, and I suspect that section was largely the work of Bagley. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BroHam000@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Models for Mormon Art Date: 12 Jun 2002 22:12:42 EDT Julie, I'm curious; did you ask the man who critiqued your painting why he had that reaction, why he equated Mormon and Nazi propaganda? You say he seemed to like it. I don't believe people in general would have that reaction. However, I think there is not harm in "generalizing" one's subjects. Linda Hyde -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "b5dorsai" Subject: Re: [AML] Lynching the Speaker Date: 12 Jun 2002 21:25:08 -0500 I always have enjoyed the definition that Orson Scott Card gave in his book "The Saint's Dictionary" on Adam. He said (I am paraphrasing here because I do not have the book in front of me) that "Adam was the first man to blame a woman for his own actions." Rick Thomas San Antonio -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "b5dorsai" Subject: [AML] Re: Umberto Eco Date: 12 Jun 2002 21:39:07 -0500 Actually, I felt that Umberto Eco's book "Foucault's Pendulum" gave a wonderful look at conspiracies and the people who follow them. When I read it, I enjoyed it because of the many times that it caused me to go back and reread a passage or chapter because what I later read made me see the scene in a different manner. Rick Thomas San Antonio -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: RE: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 13 Jun 2002 02:36:47 -0500 For those who have been participating in or reading this thread, and are wondering if anything could be worse than the extreme tiredness some mothers here have been describing, I recently received a message about a survey () directed toward women who have the debilitating conditions known as "chronic fatigue syndrome" (also called, primarily outside the US, "myalgic encephalomyelitis") or fibromyalgia. For those who may be unfamiliar with it, CFS/ME itself causes the type of crushing fatigue that surprised many of the mothers who have posted here (and it doesn't come with any built-in guarantee of eventual relief, such as when the kid finally gets older), so I cannot imagine how a woman already suffering from CFS/ME who becomes pregnant can cope. (In the cases of most of the women I know who have CFS/ME and children, the children were already at least of school age when their mothers became ill, and even then the women found it almost impossible to cope with the demands of everyday life.) (I realize this is pretty far afield, but thought some here might find this information of interest or perhaps useful.) --Ronn! :) "Life is one long process of getting tired." --Samuel Butler, 1912 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Re: Umberto Eco Date: 12 Jun 2002 02:15:08 -0600 Mary Jane Jones wrote: > "The Name of the Rose" was made into a film in 1986 starring Sean Connery, F. Murray Abraham and Christian Slater. I enjoyed it as a teenager--the film was exciting, creepy in a uniquely medieval way and just philosophical enough to make a teenager feel intellectual but not lost or bored....I saw it on video, but I think it's rated R for intense thematic material and a scene with partial female nudity. My friend's dad who was watching it with us made us fast-forward that scene.... Not especially partial. And it was a sex scene, a peasant girl having sex with a young monk. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 12 Jun 2002 02:33:48 -0600 lajackson@juno.com wrote: > I prefer to call it "that pagan school to the north, from > which the First Presidency and five of the Twelve > graduated." I just like to point out that the school color is the same as the godless Communists. > There may be many things I wouldn't say, but I don't > think I would lie to keep my job. Heck, I've lied to _get_ the job. (If I used smiley faces, I'd put one here.) > I recognize the differences of opinion on > this list, but I personally believe there is no R-rated > film worth the price I would have to pay to see it. I > believe that the risks of viewing and the resultant > thoughts and actions far outweigh the benefits. Risks? Actions? Have I missed something? Generally my actions after seeing a movie, even an R-rated one, is saying, "What did you think of that one, honey?" as I walk to the car, driving home, and having a snack as I turn on the TV. > As a personal decision made over 20 years ago after > seeing two of them, I have not attended them since. Now that would depend a great deal on _which_ two you saw. > As a priesthood leader, I would counsel accordingly, > including what prophets have said on the matter. Ooh, ooh! Is it time to resurrect that thread again? What prophets have said about R-rated movies? [MOD: If we must go here, I suppose we must. But I'd really rather put it off another half-year or so...] -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maren Allen (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] re: Baby Exhaustion Date: 13 Jun 2002 15:17:50 -0500 >I used to wonder the same thing, and worry about being critized for doing so, but... finally came to the following conclusion: I will be about 40 when my oldest daughter graduates from high school. Say I spread my children out over 10 years(not saying I will, but for easy figuring), I'll still only be 50 when my youngest graduates from high school. I could easily have many, many years left to travel (when I will be more much more financially secure), build a career (I don't have to wait until they are all out of school to start this), serve several missions with my husband, the list could go on and on. > >AND, (as if that wasn't enough), there has been some recent research that has shown womens fertility can start rapidly decreasing as young as 27... > > > >--------------------------------- >Do You Yahoo!? >Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup [Maren Allen] ---------- Do You Yahoo!? <Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Burton Subject: [AML] Understanding Others (was: Money Matters) Date: 13 Jun 2002 10:19:18 -0600 To Jacob and Cathy: I have read many things written by or about people who do not feel "accepted or acceptable" in "the church" (and not just the LDS church). In all of that reading, there are few things that have been to me as poignant as these posts. I am and have been in priesthood leadership positions and worry greatly that I might have created some of the pain that you describe. I have never experienced these things first hand myself and it is very difficult to imagine how you must feel/have felt. I can, from my experience, tell you that there are a great many (perhaps 20 families in our ward alone) who have at one time or another felt similarly, although not always because of financial reasons. Some of them no longer wish to be associated with "people who don't understand, won't understand, or don't/won't care". It is crucial that the leaders know how people feel, know the people they serve. It is also very clear that pride in leaders blinds them and makes them unapproachable sometimes. And even at that some may think I am being generous. It does seem a far cry from Zion, doesn't it? Thank you for opening your hearts to share. Mine was touched ... [Ken Burton] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kristi Bell Subject: RE: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 13 Jun 2002 10:54:12 -0600 The William A. Wilson Folklore Archives at BYU has an abundance of accounts of supernatural experiences. I am also aware of a LDS folklorist who has done some work with the Japanese/Mormon connection. Feel free to contact me at 422-6041. Kristi Bell Curator, Folklore Archives -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rachel Ann Nunes" Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 13 Jun 2002 11:14:15 -0600 > I was talking to Scott Parkin the other day, and imagining what it would be > like to have a non-native english speaker as the Prophet. Sure, we expect > hispanic and japanese people to accept prophecy in English--but could we, as > a (US) culture, be humble enough to except the reverse? I say no. Or rather, NO! Being married to a foreigner, I have noticed a distinct difference in the way he is treated in Utah because he has an accent. This has influenced the development of my ethnic theory, which basically states that people who speak with an accent are called to supportive roles, usually secretary or teachers, but not to positions of authority. Not in Utah anyway, though there are a few exceptions. (I've noticed my ethnic theory doesn't hold true in some wards in California and perhaps in a few other states.) My husband, a genius in the world of computers and a excellent provider for our family, is often frustrated because the counselors and presidents he works under are out of town a lot and can't do their calling, simply don't show up, or they come but haven't done what they've promised or been assigned. My dependable husband usually takes up the slack. He never complains, mind you, except that one time a few years ago when he showed up at a elder quorum presidency meeting and the president had canceled it (for the sixth time) without informing him. My husband doesn't believe in my ethnic theory. He understands that some leaders do not seek out advice of the Lord as well as they should when extending callings, and that mortal men are prone to mistakes and preconceived ideas, but believes that the Lord's will prevails ultimately. Okay, I can go with that--because as long as there are dependable people (foreign-speaking or not) like my husband to step in and do the work, it really doesn't matter who is called to what. My husband tells me that in the off-chance my theory is correct, I ought to be grateful he'll never be called to anything that will take him away from our family for longer than he already is. And I am, VERY GRATEFUL and RELIEVED. I love having him around when we need him. But I wouldn't be honest if I didn't admit that I also feel guilty and selfish at my relief. If he had stayed in his native Portugal instead of immigrating so that I could be here to write, he would have had many more opportunities to grow spiritually. His leadership ability, his compassion for others, perhaps even his understanding of the gospel would have increased. I know these traits in myself always increase when I am put into such positions. So by insisting we stay here in this basically egocentric culture (the Church is the only true Church; Americans are the smartest most capable people in the world), I sometimes feel I've cheated him. But if we lived in Portugal, I would have had also been given time-consuming callings. (The Portuguese are very accepting of accents--especially American ones--and never doubt my intelligence because of a few language blunders.) I wouldn't have had so much time to write my novels. Is that selfish or what? I'm glad foreign-speaking leaders are being called to be General Authorities. I can't help but notice that under their accents most--like my husband--speak English very well. Certainly better grammatically than many of my neighbors. But will this lead to acceptance of a foreign-speaking prophet? I seriously doubt such a prophet would be accepted in Utah or in most wards in any state that are predominantly made up of white Americans. Not in our lifetimes anyway. Things would have to change dramatically for that to happen. To be fair, I don't believe that most people who practice this exclusionism even understand how much they doubt the intelligence and abilities of those who speak English with an accent. But it doesn't change the fact that it happens every single day. Rachel _______________________ Rachel Ann Nunes (noon-esh) Best-selling author of the Ariana series and A Greater Love Web page: http://www.rachelannnunes.com E-mail: rachel@rachelannnunes.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kimheuston@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Umberto Eco Date: 13 Jun 2002 16:08:20 EDT I'm not a great fan of Umberto Eco's myself, but if you enjoy the thickness of his historical description, you might enjoy Ross Dunn's novel _Ex-Libris_. (He's the guy who wrote _Brunelleschi's Dome_.) It ties together a rare book dealer in Restoration London and an adventurer who bridged Elizabethan England and the beginnings of the 30 Years War in Prague. Kimberley Heuston -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eileen Stringer" Subject: [AML] R-Rated Movie Resurrection? (was: Censoring Comments) Date: 13 Jun 2002 14:11:46 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- > Ooh, ooh! Is it time to resurrect that thread again? What prophets have > said about R-rated movies? > > [MOD: If we must go here, I suppose we must. But I'd really rather put it > off another half-year or so...] Personally I would like to see that particular thread entombed another couple of years at least before it sees resurrection morn........ Eileen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Change Names or Not? Date: 13 Jun 2002 14:51:01 -0600 >From: Barbara Hume >Reply-To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >Subject: [AML] Change Names or Not? >Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:29:01 -0600 > >I'd like the advice of the writers and publishers on this list. I'm I vote for nonfiction. Personally, I would find that fictionalizing it would weaken the story because anything that was too far out I would think of as fictionalized. The nonfiction sounds much more interesting to me as it is a first-hand account of something we are more likely to hear about third, fourth, or 25th-hand. The fiction version I would likely pass on. The non-fiction version I would read eagerly. Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Attacking the Family Date: 13 Jun 2002 14:53:53 -0600 In Mormon culture, there are a lot of phrases, cliches perhaps, things we = say that are widely believed and accepted but that we don't really think = about much. I'm very interested in those sorts of ideas, because I think = they can become good material to write about. Anyway, someone on the List = said something like this: "There are a lot of forces out there in the = world, in popular culture especially, which are trying to destroy the = family and which we need to watch out for." And so I started thinking = about this notion, asking if it's in fact true. Are there forces trying = to destroy The Family? What do we mean by The Family? What are we = talking about? First of all, it interests me that we talk about The Family, instead of = our own personal families. It's as though the institution of The Family = is what's under attack, that the very idea that we should organize = ourselves into families is regarded in some circles as a questionable one, = that we have to vigilantly defend not just our own circles of kinship, but = the very notion of kinship itself. If this is what is meant by attacks on = The Family, then I have to say that it's a very questionable notion, that = Families are under attack. I suppose it's possible, if pressed, to find = some small body of academic literature proposing that families be done = away with, that children be raised by some other means than by their = parents, or to find some similar anti family agenda by some body or = another. But to suggest that such ideas are in any way mainstream is = simply nonsensical. =20 So what do we mean by the idea that "families are under attack?" I'd like = to round up a few of the usual suspects. DIVORCE: Divorce rates are usually cited in this regard, thought of as unacceptably = high and possibly rising. Metaphors involving 'tides' are usually = employed. Well, a divorce can often be devastating to any individual = family, and so a rising incidence of divorce might be regarded as evidence = that families are in trouble. Except I'm not sure this is the case. How many married couples do you know = who have gotten divorced? Laying in bed last night, I could name, off the = cuff, a hundred or so, and I suspect most of you could too. Obviously = some of these couples I know better than others, but when I've known the = circumstances of these divorces, I have to say in most cases, the divorce = was a very good thing, a positive development, not just for the divorcing = couple, but also for their children. Two of my sisters-in-law were = divorced, one following a long pattern of psychological abuse by her = husband, and the other following a long patter of serial adultery, also by = the guy. (I don't mean to imply that divorce is always the guy's fault. = It just was in these two cases.) A hundred years ago, it was very = difficult for people to obtain a divorce. A hundred and fifty years ago, = it was well nigh impossible. The fact that people who are utterly = miserable with each other can now legally put an end to a marriage that is = torture for both strikes me as a positive thing. The fact that people who = are in horribly abusive relationships are not forced to live with their = abusers seems to me a wonderful advance. =20 So in what way is divorce a bad thing? In what way is divorce either a = cause or a result of current culture's 'attack on families?' Well, when = have I known of divorces when I didn't think it was a good idea? The = answer: when a guy dumped his wife so could get him one of them there = trophy wives. =20 It seems to me that pop culture attacks families primarily by objectifying = and sexualizing young women. By promoting an absurd and impossible = standard for female attractiveness, pop culture creates a generalized = dissatisfaction with the actual facts of actual sexuality. The concept of = 'family' is weakened when the commitment to marriage is weak, when society = seems to be in the business of hedging bets and checking out the grass in = other pastures. =20 POP CULTURE Most pop music consists of love songs; this has been true ever since = people started writing songs. Most drama has at its roots a conflict = between men and women; this has been true since Attic Greece. What role = does pop culture play in attacking families? What specifically is = happening in current pop culture now that might be construed as such an = attack.=20 On the surface, this charge is ludicrous. Nearly all sitcoms are about = families. It is exceedingly rare for married people on television to = cheat; when they do cheat, it almost never works out, and usually they're = punished. Single characters in most movies do sleep around, and usually = romantic attraction is a key plot element, but when movie characters are = married, they either are faithful to their spouse, or if unfaithful, it = almost always ends badly. Romantic movies involving single characters are = actually about the creation of a new family, and so it's difficult to see = how they might be seen as constituting attacks on existing families. =20 I know this assessment flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but it's = true; adultery is very very very seldom treated as a positive thing in = either movies or TV. The film industry generally is very conservative in = this regard; most studios won't greenlight a script that promotes sexual = immorality. Of course, studios define sexual morality differently than we = do; if consenting adults have 'strong feelings' for each other, conventiona= l Hollywood morality suggests that they can and should act on those = feelings. But since the goal of acting on those 'strong feelings' is = ultimately to form a new family, it's hard to see how romantic comedies, = as a genre, are anti-family. =20 Pop culture, however, is almost always about fantasy, not reality. = Conventional Hollywood morality is not anti-family directly, but it's also = not true; the picture it paints of sexuality is a false and misleading = one. Families are essentially never attacked directly in films or on TV. = But when images of impossibly gorgeous people engaging in impossibly = rapturous sex (and by this I include the gorgeously backlit clinch that is = the staple of all films with love story subplots, which means basically = all movies) absolutely inundate our culture, again what is promoted is a = generalized dissatisfaction with actual sex within the context of actual = marriage. And in moments of emotional vulnerability to which we all are = prone, is it possible that that dissatisfaction could heighten temptation?= =20 Of course pop culture also promotes the notion that couples should prove = sexual compatibility before marriage, and that notion is also destructive = of families, for lots of reasons that I'm sure we all agree with. Among = all those reasons, let me add that the 'lets prove our love, let's make = sure we're compatible' is just endlessly manipulable, right up there, as a = line, with 'of course I can get you that screen test.' Anyway, to build a = relationship on the foundation of 'let's try this out and see if it works, = 'cause we can always back out later,' feels so . . . pat and shallow and = rationalized. =20 HOMOSEXUALITY It's hard for me to see how gay marriage threatens The Family. It seems = to me that proponents of gay marriage are in fact very much pro Family, in = that they see families as something inherently positive, so much so that = they want the definition of Family to expand, so that it can include all = committed monogamous relationships. So on what basis is it legitimate to = oppose such a definitional expansion? Children? Those children who are reared in same-sex households have no = particular tendency towards same-sex attraction, no more so than children = raised in heterosexual families. Gay men have no greater tendency towards = pedophilia than straight men. Children taught by gay teachers do not = become gay as a result. =20 No, it seems to me that the Church, by opposing gay marriage, is trying to = accomplish one specific and limited objective: to give support and = encouragment to LDS people who suffer from same sex attraction and who are = trying to fight it. At a time when everything in our culture is saying = 'give up, give in," the Church continues institutionally to insist that = there is another alternative, a very difficult and painful one, but also a = possible one. =20 Well, in conclusion . . . I don't have any conclusions really. Just = thinking out loud. It's an interesting issue, though. I think of my = family being under siege, and what worries me is the sexualization of = society, the unreality of so much pop culture. Fantasies are great, in = their place. As long as they're clearly labeled as such, and tempered = with some hard edged realism. Eric Samuelsen =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 13 Jun 2002 15:01:39 -0600 I'm looking for information both on official statements by the Church (if there were any) regarding the Japanese internment camps of WWII, and on the thoughts and opinions of individual Mormons on that issue--particularly those with direct experience, be it when friends were sent to an internment camp, when one was set up near their home, or any other direct connection. I know it's an odd question, but it ties back to a number of discussions we've had on this list recently, including issues of racial trust among Mormons and an arguable tie to secret combinations, as well as a tangential link to the Japanese/Mormon ghost lore thread and our intentional double-standard on the ugly things "we" do versus what "they" do. In the end, I would very much like to learn the different facets of the Mormon mind on that issue, and to compare it with what I can learn of both the broad American and Japanese mindset. I've already run into quite a few mistrustful glances and questions about why I want to dredge up ancient history; I find that reaction as fascinating as any other. I happen to live about 100 miles northeast of the Topaz internment camp here in central Utah, and on a lark I drove down to visit it yesterday (after a misdirected attempt last week that put me atop Topaz Mountain--about 20 miles northwest of the internment camp site). I was able to interview some local residents and did an extensive walking tour of the camp itself (guided by the director of the Topaz Museum). I was quite disappointed to note the hundreds of bullet holes in the official marker at the Topaz site; entire sections of the metal plaque had been obliterated. Perhaps my perspective is warped, but I couldn't help but note some striking parallels between the experience of Japanese Americans being forced to relocate to Topaz (and Manzanar and Tule Lake and many other camps) as a result of government mistrust and persecution based on fear and misunderstanding of their motives, and similar experiences by early Mormons as they were forced to relocate time and time again. Of course the contexts were entirely different, as were the social assumptions of the times. Still, from my perspective there seem to be rather substantial resonances between the two events and I'm curious to know whether Mormons of the time noted that. I'm planning several novels that would use this research, one intended for a Mormon audience and one for a national audience, and I am quite interested in understanding the authentic mindsets of people on all sides of that issue. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 13 Jun 2002 15:10:16 -0600 >From: Maren Allen (by way of Jonathan Langford > >AND, (as if that wasn't enough), there has been some recent research >that >has shown womens fertility can start rapidly decreasing as young >as 27... Tell me about it! My eggs are currently degrading! Add to that the Newsweek fertility issue of a few months ago and it's a wonder that I'm not deaf for the ticking of my biological clock. Aaaah, the pressure. And this thread isn't helping, my friends. Because I know I want to have kids and y'all are scaring the heck out of me. Man, alive! Sometimes I think we have way too much childbirth/child rearing full disclosure. The pendulum has swung with a vengeance. I am a writer/editor on a parenting resource website that has very active message boards. Often women share their "birth story" and I have recently come to the conclusion that it is just not healthy for me to read them anymore. Every time I read one I learn something new about childbirth that freaks me out. (ie "mucus plug" I will say no more so that those who don't know what I'm talking about can live on in blessed ignorance.) Oh I am so freaked out, ladies. And yet at the same time....tick tick tick....my eggs are degrading....every year that passes decreases my ability to become pregnant by 10%....tick tick tick... Down with full disclosure! Maybe that book should be marketed in brown wrapping so as not to scare off those of us in the pre-conception stage of life.... Only partly in jest-- Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: Re: [AML] Change Names or Not? Date: 13 Jun 2002 15:10:49 -0600 Barbara Hume wrote: > > Here's my question. Should she tell the story as straightforward > nonfiction, with real names and everything? That seems the most > truthful and useful way to do it. But what kind of liability is she > setting herself up for if she does that? On the other hand, how much > of her credibility does she lose if she decides to fictionalize the > story? LOTS of legal liability here, unless ALL of the "real names" folks sign waivers and agreements beforehand. My suggestion: Change all the names, and after that only fictionalize what's necessary to avoid liability and slander charges. She might even consider using a pen name. Then put BASED ON A TRUE STORY right on the cover. Sell it nationally. Sounds like a winner. BJ Rowley -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 13 Jun 2002 15:15:41 -0600 ___ Bill ___ | Speaking of conspiracies then and now, I have often wondered | if any of our Latter-Day Writers have addressed the issues | raised about the church in *The God Makers.* ___ There is a book called _The Truth About the Godmakers_. I believe the author consented to put up an online version. There are dozens of online apologetic websites that deal with the charges. FAIR is probably the best known of these sites and tends to be a little more thought out than most amateur apologetic papers. (Many of which give about as much creative "doctrine" as the stereotype of a High Priest's lesson) http://www.fair-lds.org/apol/ I don't always agree with apologetics. I think that some times they go for the best light on any historical site, using imprecision of knowledge as a way of saying that things didn't happen. However they often do provide a much needed check. And on the egregious anti-Mormon stuff they do quite well. I don't know of any that deal with conspiracy theories per se. I must admit that back on my mission though I always got a kick out of _The Godmakers_. I especially love the conspiracy that we're taking over the Pentagon. The ending is especially "nefarious." I half wonder if Decker didn't just borrow wholesale from _The Protocols of Zion_, an infamous anti-semitic track. Back when I worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory there was a great conspiracy along the Decker lines. Basically a very disproportionate number of leadership positions were held by Mormons. In fact of the top three positions at the lab back then (early 90's) two were Mormon. It was joked that if you attended one of the two wards you could get to know most of the various group leaders and the like. Well some guy got fired and blamed in on a Mormon conspiracy. He said we were running DOE. He'd paint graffiti all over the state that was anti-Mormon and claimed this vast conspiracy. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brian Utley" Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 13 Jun 2002 15:35:28 -0600 (Mountain Daylight Time) [Of course the native language of Jesus of Nazareth was not English, and = He is the prophets' prophet]=0D =0D I couldn't help being offended the other day when I opened the new Ensign= =2E=20 (This, because admittedly I have a raging love for the the native peoples= of Central American and Mexico, which sometimes causes me to react to excess when I think they are being slighted.) =0D =0D In the illustration (painting) opposing President Monson's lead article, = the Savior is shown blessing the little children, presumably in or near the unnamed city in the Land Bountiful where He appeared to the Nephites, et = al, a year or so following His resurrection. In the background, hovering in = the air above the group are unseen angels. White, blonde-haired, nordic ange= ls. As if the artist, the Ensign editors, and the official organ of the Chur= ch is telling us that this is what angels look like. Seeing this, I uttered= a resouding "balderdash!" Rather, I would suspect that the angels there present, and who would have been most interested in these moments, likely were the ancestors of the children, certainly persons from among their ra= ce who had passed on and who were close to them and to these marvelous, anticipated circumstances, and who likely now were recently resurrected beings. Not young missionary-type lads from Scandanavia-angel-land or th= e Angelic-Germanic-North. =0D =0D We seem to fall very easily into these kinds of ethnic traps, equating righteousness and celestial franchisement with membership in a white-skin= ned master clique. Even our artists, illustrators ,and storytellers, who should be compelling themselves to see with a more clear eye before they commit themselves to paint and paper, and pen and ink, seem to fall into such traps, perhaps to the unfortunate misleading of us all. In any case= , I believe that it is time for more thoughtful consideration in how we regar= d, and how we publicly present and represent, racial distinctions and differences within the Church. Also, it's time for us simply to tell the truth in our most powerful images. In our art and in our stories. Don't you think?=0D =0D Brian Utley=0D Keystone Project=0D -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Change Names or Not? Date: 13 Jun 2002 15:35:51 -0700 Barbara R. Hume wrote: > Here's my question. Should she tell the story as straightforward > nonfiction, with real names and everything? That seems the most truthful > and useful way to do it. But what kind of liability is she setting herself > up for if she does that? On the other hand, how much of her credibility > does she lose if she decides to fictionalize the story? > IMHO It may be the most truthful, but it won't be the most useful. Most people are already well aware that polygamists are out there and thriving. Heaven only knows they get enough publicity. So identifying the culprits in this particular story will do nothing to inform the audience about anything they need to know. On the other hand it will bring lawsuits and revenge onto the author and her new family. She probably should use a pseudonym to hide behind. I strongly believe that well researched fictionalized truth that is painful to tell, is a far better way to get the truth out to the public than a documentary which may hurt innocent people. The fictionalization of the facts will not weaken the story, as long as the story stays close to the real facts and doesn't stretch the truth or distort it. > Anyway, does anyone feel strongly that such a story should be told as it > happened (from her viewpoint, of course)? Or should names be changed to > keep from enriching a lot of lawyers? > I feel strongly that the story needs to be told, but the names and places as well as the exact details of the situation should be altered so as to protect innocent people, and also protect the author. We have enough rich lawyers lying in wait to ensnare the unwary without giving them such a rich treasure to fight over. >Oh and should it be geared to the > national market? I like the idea of showing that these fundamentalist > groups are not Mormons. Yes!!! Mainstream it by all means and use every truthful means at your disposal to show the world that these pretenders are not recognized as members in good standing in the church. Regards, Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Change Names or Not? Date: 13 Jun 2002 17:45:49 EDT Just knowing that some of the fundamentalists can also become very violent, I believe I would change the names, but otherwise leave the story as it happened. Put a notice in the front of the book explaining why the names were changed. It sounds like an interesting book. If & when it gets published, be sure to let us know. I'd be interested in reading it. Karen [Tippets] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: RE: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 13 Jun 2002 16:16:29 -0600 (MDT) > Now, first of all, I should say that I think all the things I listed above = > are nutty. If you agree with any of them, I'm sorry for calling you = > nutty. Write me privately and let's talk. I just think it's interesting = > that this one area of Book of Mormon emphasis has had such a weird effect = > on some aspects at least of current LDS culture. We are, at the very = > least, inclined to see phenomena of which we disapprove as linked to some = > sort of secret combination.=20 > > Eric Samuelsen What I find interesting about Eric's list is that it is composed of strictly conspiracy theories propounded by ultra-conservative thinkers. Absent were conspiracies held by those on the far left. I saw a Mallard Fillmore cartoon once that said something like "Ever notice how many intellectuals easily dismiss right wing conspiracy theories, but openly advocate left wing ones. This list is fairly general, so it isn't pointed at anyone in particular (I probably actually hold some of these views myself to one degree or another). (and these are all extremes - most of us fall in the middle somewhere). Right wingers tend to believe communists are behind it all Left wingers tend to believe it's capitalists Right - Jewish overlords Left - White Male overlords (may be Jewish) Right - Feminists, Homosexuals Left - Chauvanists, Heterosexuals Right - The Media and Hollywood! Left - Hollywood is fine, except for George Lucas and his awful Star Wars movies. Right - Bans books about sex, violence and satanism. Left - Bans books like the Bible, the Giving Tree and anything by a dead white male. Right - Bill Clinton ordered the murder of lots of people. Left - George W. Bush allowed 9/11 to happen to solidify his power The question for literature is - what do you base the theories on. I find it interesting that the discussion so far has been on theories that originate from the far right. The far left conspiracy theories are just as fun. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Change Names or Not? Date: 13 Jun 2002 16:24:00 -0600 My inclination is to say use real names. Since she kept a journal all that time, it'd be pretty hard to try to sue her. Contemporary records tend to trump anything except contradicting contemporary records. Jacob Proffitt <-- not a lawyer. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Money Matters Date: 13 Jun 2002 16:32:56 -0600 ---Original Message From: Clark Goble > ___ Jacob ___ > | In my opinion, though, too many bishops are quick to reach > | the judge part and a bit short on the actual getting to know > | you bit. That's likely a side-effect of our lay-priesthood. > ___ > > Probably an other part is the 300+ members they have to deal > with. I've noticed that if you make an effort to get to know > the bishop that then he'll be aware of you. Otherwise he > only knows you as more than a face if you happen to be in a > calling he interacts with a lot. Ah. But that's my point. If a bishop is going to make a comment that simultaneously assigns blame, he needs to make sure he has the requisite information. It doesn't matter if he's never met me before in his life, if he is going to say that I should budget better, then he had better have previously asked me what my budget is. Passing judgement without a clear spiritual impression or detailed knowledge is an abdication of responsibility. In my opinion, of course. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Date: 13 Jun 2002 16:23:03 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:42 PM > ___ Jeff ___ > | I feel a bit uncomfortable defending Bagley's thesis here. > | An outsider treads lightly. I suspect Will himself could > | answer this question better. > ___ > > We're all friends here. So let lose with your thoughts. Ha! The surest way to LOSE friends is to "let loose with my thoughts" . I knew going in to the book that Will would not hold BY blameless, to say the least. I knew he had that bias, and made some provision for that in reading the book. My main concern was, did he have history to support his thesis? This is a tough question. And I continue to feel some discomfort about *defending* any person's bias. I'd rather just report the findings, and let others engage in the argument. [Jeff Needle] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 13 Jun 2002 20:53:22 -0500 Bill Willson: Speaking of conspiracies then and now, I have often wondered if any of our Latter-Day Writers have addressed the issues raised about the church in "The God Makers." Have the enlightened LDS writers chosen to ignore this trash or have they written anything to expose and or refute its false claims? _______________ Gilbert W. Scharffs wrote _The Truth About "The God Makers"_ in 1986 (Publisher's Press, 408 pp, hardcover). At the time the book was published, he had taught in the Church Education System for 27 years, had earned his Ph.D. and was on the religious faculty at BYU. If I remember correctly, he addressed the book page by page and did a pretty good job of documenting his findings. I have the book and skimmed it. I didn't spend a lot of time on it because I thought "The God Makers" was so ridiculous in the first place. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 13 Jun 2002 23:02:02 -0600 ___ Richard ___ | I'd recommend Duane Crowther's excellent treatise entitled, | _Life Everlasting_. Be sure to get the most recent edition. ___ Just out of curiosity, but is that the Crowther book that goes through a lot of "non-official" GA comments on spirits from the 19th century? There is a quote I've been looking for about how some GAs said that if you cut a hole in the body the spirit could "see" through it. I'm looking for the quote for a paper I'm writing on Orson Pratt's theology of spirits and Stoicism. I argue that they are pretty much the same, minus the old geocentric view of the "spheres" in the heavens and Pratt's denial of interpenetration. (i.e. two bodies in the same place) If anyone knows a good collection of quotes on spirits from more obscure sources (i.e. not _The Seer_ or related texts) I'd appreciate it. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 13 Jun 2002 23:11:05 -0600 Gilbert W. Scharffs wrote _The Truth About "The God Makers"_: A response to an inaccurate portrayal of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was published by Publishers Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. I read the 5th printing in 1988. There was a disclaimer saying that the views and interpretation of LDS doctrine and history in this book reflect the understanding of the author and are not necessarily the official views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I thought the book was interesting, since we were living in Texas at the time and our local Protestant churches were giving _The God Makers_ firesides and preaching anti-Mormon stuff from the pulpit. My Baptist friends took up a collection to send Bibles to Utah. I am not sure that the book was completely doctrinally correct. It has been a long time since I read it. My husband was the bishop in Huntsville, Texas for 11 years. The Saints in that area either worked at the prison or taught at Sam Houston State University. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 14 Jun 2002 03:07:05 -0600 Bill Willson wrote: > Speaking of conspiracies then and now, I have often wondered if any of our > Latter-Day Writers have addressed the issues raised about the church in *The > God Makers.* Have the enlightened LDS writers chosen to ignore this trash > or have they written anything to expose and or refute its false claims? An entire book has been written refuting _The God Makers_. It's called _The Truth About the God Makers_ and was written by Gilbert Scharffs, published by Bookcraft. There is also a _God Makers II_ book which I've never seen, except listed on Amazon.com. Both _God Makers II_ and _Truth_ are listed out of print, but _God Makers_ itself is still in print. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Lynching the Speaker Date: 14 Jun 2002 03:44:22 -0600 b5dorsai wrote: > > I always have enjoyed the definition that Orson Scott Card gave in his book > "The Saint's Dictionary" on Adam. He said (I am paraphrasing here because I > do not have the book in front of me) that "Adam was the first man to blame a > woman for his own actions." The book is _Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary_, and the entry reads: "Adam: The first man to insist he was not responsible for what a woman enticed him to do." -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] re: Ghostly Query Date: 14 Jun 2002 10:00:40 -0500 A few days ago, answering a query about LDS-related fiction about ghosts, I mentioned L.E. Modesitt, Jr.'s novel OF TANGIBLE GHOSTS. The novel I was actually thinking of -- the one that is set in Utah and is largely about Latter-day Saints -- is titled GHOST OF THE REVELATOR. In GHOST OF THE REVELATOR the "Revelator" is Joseph Smith, and the novel involves an extremist faction intent on using new ghost-related technology to conjure up the ghost of Joseph Smith. OF TANGIBLE GHOSTS is the first novel, and REVELATOR is its sequel. Although Latter-day Saints are mentioned in passing in the first novel, they are not the focus. Both novels are by Modesitt, a rather prolific and successful science fiction writer who lives in southern Utah, but is not a native of the state and has never been a Latter-day Saint. Interestingly enough, a character who is essentially supposed to be Orson Scott Card (but is named "Carson Orr") plays a key role in Modesitt's other LDS-centric novel THE PARAFAITH WAR. Both novels present a very fresh, very knowledgable perspective on Utah and Latter-day Saints, and there is clearly admiration and respect for the culture, although by the end of each Modesitt's more agnostic/environmentalist pespectives emerge victorious. [Preston Hunter] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] re: Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Date: 14 Jun 2002 09:27:49 -0700 Well, I must say that my review of Bagley's book has raised more discussion, and heated comment, on-list and off-list, than anything I've ever done. It was even forwarded to one of the hotshots at FARMS (who is also a personal friend), and I've just finished a response to him. I thought I'd better clarify something that may not have been clear. When I wrote the review, I decided to cite the most controversial, and interesting, parts of Bagley's view of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Some have taken this as my agreement with his conclusions. If I agreed with the conclusions of every book I review, I'd be a true schizoid. Thanks to all for your support. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com or jeffneedle@nethere.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 14 Jun 2002 10:41:23 -0600 At 11:14 AM 6/13/02, you wrote: >I seriously doubt such a prophet would be accepted in Utah or in >most wards in any state that are predominantly made up of white Americans. >Not in our lifetimes anyway. Things would have to change dramatically for >that to happen. Now, that could make an interesting LDS book. The Lord calls a man from, say, Portugal to be the prophet, and the Caucasian American contingent of the church says, "No! We won't have it! He's not One of Us!" Then what happens? Does the Lord accept their dismissal of His choice, or does he say to the Causcasian American bigots, "You're out.We'll just go along without you." There are some interesting precedents in the Old Testament to this sort of thing. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 14 Jun 2002 11:23:08 -0600 Responding to the Laird Jim: > What worries me are > several problems that come up when creating even a false secret = brotherhood > dedicated to evil. >=20 > First there are their acts. Evil is not pleasant to write about > Creating > characters that are steeped in evil is no fun, and making them believable= is > even less fun. You're kidding, right? There's nothing more fun in the world than writing = villains. The hard part is reigning yourself in. Certainly as an actor, = there's nothing more fun than playing a villain, and writing them has it's = own pleasures. It's good guys who are hard to write. Most of the = pleasure of writing is creating characters who do awful things I wouldn't = ever do on my own account > How villainous can a > villain be and yet exist in literature that Mormons would not object to? > What would be the point of writing a book that my own people wouldn't = read? > Especially because it wasn't uplifting. Well, Mormons flock to see Shakespeare, and my subjective impression is = that the plays of his that do best with Mormon audiences are Macbeth and = Richard III. And the Book of Mormon has generally been a popular = favorite, aside from the Isaiah passages, which folks just skip. Coupla = nasty bad guys in that work. =20 As for 'uplifting', I don't have the faintest idea what that word means. = Anyone? My favorite movie of the last ten years, Amores Perros, provided = me an intensely moving spiritual experience, and was also extremely = violent, with quite graphic sexual content. That's 'uplifting' to me, in = ways that manipulative schlock like 'Testaments' never could be. =20 As for creating fiction with secret combinations in it, I think that's a = wonderful challenge. Just make it plausible. Can we declare space aliens, = the UN and the Kennedy assassination off-limits? Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] New Sugar Beet Date: 14 Jun 2002 12:02:02 -0600 We never said it would be worth it; we just said it would be funny. http://www.thesugarbeet.com Stake Presidency Warns of Heightened Need for Food Storage President Monson Mows Lawn Seattle Man Has More in Common with Relief Society Sisters New PDA Plug-In Broadcasts Scripture-Study Habits Sunstone Dramatically Expands Programs Institute Director Bans "Grease" Relief Society Develops "Powder-Puff Self-Defense" Class Local Eagle Forum President Promoted Shirley MacLaine Once Married to Brigham Young New Mother Unable to Remember Spelling of Daughter's Name Review of Attack of the Clones Plus our usual departments ----- Coming July 24: The Sugar Beet Pioneer Issue A preview of headlines: Latter-day Saints Help Reverse America's Position on the Ignorant Heathen Red Man, by H.E. White The Blessings of Being a Daughter in Zion, by Bishop Ezekiel K. Fillmore Unmarried 20-Year-Old Men Are A Menace To Society, by Jedediah C. Woolley, Stake Patriarch Ask a Gleaner Girl Mormons Almost Not Valley's First White Settlers Catching Up with Emma Smith ----- Want to try your hand at Sugar Beet reporting? Send your story to chris@thesugarbeet.com. Do you draw superhero comics? Are you a sinister code jockey? The Sugar Beet needs a few new helpers. Click here for more info: http://www.xmission.com/~thebeet/business/jobs.html OPT OUT: To stop receiving Sugar Beet updates, reply to this message with REMOVE in the subject header. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 13 Jun 2002 17:12:19 -0700 on 6/13/02 10:14 AM, Rachel Ann Nunes at Rachel@rachelannnunes.com wrote: > Being married to a foreigner, I have noticed a > distinct difference in the way he is treated in Utah because he has an > accent. This has influenced the development of my ethnic theory, which > basically states that people who speak with an accent are called to > supportive roles, usually secretary or teachers, but not to positions of > authority. Not in Utah anyway, though there are a few exceptions. (I've > noticed my ethnic theory doesn't hold true in some wards in California and > perhaps in a few other states.) [snip] I think your husband is right. I am no fan of the Utah culture, but God knows what he's doing. I used to think on my mission that naturally those with the best leadership abilities would always be called to leadership positions and was rather astonished at some of the half-wits that were in charge of things. Bumbling, foolish, and sometimes outright rule-flouters. One of the Assistants used to wander off by himself every morning to play racketball! Eventually I learned that leadership positions often go to those who need growth in that area, not those who can do the best job. As far as a foreign born and accented Prophet it's just a matter of time. If there's a revolution in Utah so what? Backwoods provincialism is what we're dealing with here not egocentrism. But then I always try to find any reason other than the psychological because I don't believe in psychology or psychiatry and particularly in pscychiatrists. I'm a Occam's Razor kinda guy. It is a fact, however, that America is the best country in history with only a few exceptions, like the Nephites from 33-230+/- AD and the city of Enoch. If we weren't so perfectionistic we'd have no poor among us already. Poor here ain't poor there! If it weren't so hot you might like AZ. The Mormon culture down here is much better than in UT. There are still a few Utahrdish things that go on down here on occasion, but mostly being only 8-10% of the population is a good mix. Of course I live where I'm the only Mormon in 5 square miles except for my roommate. Give the poor yokels a chance. Have pity on them and demonstrate your superior knowledge by your tolerance for their backwardness. They'll come around eventually. If not, so what? Putting up with foolishness ain't exactly being marched off to a concentration camp. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Sugar Beet Needs Help Date: 14 Jun 2002 12:34:03 -0600 The Sugar Beet (www.thesugarbeet.com) has been making headway in the world of Mormon humor and satire, but we are looking to expand in a few areas that we don't have the personnel and/or expertise to handle. If you're interested in helping us, peruse the following descriptions of two volunteer positions. If you have any questions, feel free to e-mail the Sugar Beet editor at editor@thesugarbeet.com. [Note: Please forward this message to any groups or individuals who may be interested.] Comic Artist The Sugar Beet is currently developing a comic strip called HIGH COUNCIL MAN. High Council Man is a superhero with super strength and endurance. He can fly, has the ability to see and hear things at great distances, etc. Standard Superman-type stuff. He has a rotating sidekick called The Boy Elder. In each adventure this character will be completely different (fat, skinny, bald, and so forth), though he'll wear the same simple costume: a suit and tied-on cape. We have not settled on a costume for High Council Man. We're looking for an artist to draw the strip, which will be written by one of our current writers. The strips themselves will be standard panel cartoons rather than gag strips, and they'll be longer than the 3-5 panels strips that appear in the daily newspaper-more like your average Sunday strip, though we may consider longer formats at some time. We're looking for sophisticated comic art, not your standard Marvel or DC fare. You'll be more successful if you're in the "Jimmy Corrigan," "Krazy Kat," "Red Meat," "Calvin and Hobbes" or Dark Horse comics zone. We're not looking for "X-men," "Heavy Metal," or other main stream approaches, though we'd be interested if you demonstrated a retro style like that of Steve Dittko or Jack Kirby. In addition to your drawing ability, you'll need to be able to make pretty strict deadlines and submit your work electronically in LZW-compressed TIFF format with an IBM Byte order (PDFs are also okay). You will also need to be able to layout, ink, letter, and color, while working from a script or story board. We would prefer images created the old-fashioned way and then scanned or run through Streamline, rather than computer-generated images-but if you work that way, convince us. If you're interested, send a brief letter of interest and no more than three sample pages of your work (be sure to show your range) to the following address. We will accept submissions until July 31st. Those who did not make the first cut will be informed by August 7th. Also make sure to send photocopies (BW or color) of your work as well as an e-mail address, as the Sugar Beet will not return submissions. Submissions to: ATTN: High Council Man Todd Robert Petersen PO Box 982 Cedar City, UT 84721 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= Code Jockey The Sugar Beet is looking to add some interactivity to our site. We already have a web designer, so we don't need that kind of help. What we're looking for is someone with a pretty swift knowledge of any (or all?) of the following: ASP, XML, DMHTL, PERL, JAVA. Our most immediate need is for some help with passwording, e-mail handling, and forms, but our needs will change and develop. If you're interested, send an e-mail of interest to petersent@suu.edu. In this message give us some background on yourself, your qualifications, and some links to on-line work that you've done, so we can see your chops in action. Also make sure to have the words "stunt coder" somewhere in the subject line, or we might not catch your message. We'll accept letters until July 5th. Those who don't make the first cut will be notified by July 12th. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: PinkDiva@aol.com Subject: [AML] Introduction: Lisa Turner Date: 14 Jun 2002 16:46:17 EDT I've been lurking on this list for a few weeks and thought I'd introduce myself. My name is Lisa Turner. I live in Littleton, Colorado. I am a writer and a writing teacher. I have had three books published in the LDS market -- two humorous novels (PRAY AWAY POUNDS and TWELVE DISASTERS OF CHRISTMAS) and a book of essays. I've also written a lot for magazines and have written a series of easy readers for high school foreign language students (they are translated into Spanish, so I can't read my own novels once they're out of my hands.) I am currently finishing up another novel. The main characters are Mormons and faith is a theme of the novel, but I''m not sure if it's publishable in the Mormon market. Besides writing, I am married and have three sons (ages 17, 15, and 12). Yes, that's a lot of testoterone in this household. I am the ward choir director (eternally) and currently, my ward is allowing me to also teach Relief Society even though I told them I would "supplement" my lessons from sources outside the manual. I've found the discussions on this list very interesting and I'm looking forward to reading more! Lisa Turner -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Understanding Others Date: 13 Jun 2002 20:21:54 -0600 Some of them no longer wish to be associated with "people who don't understand, won't understand, or don't/won't care". > Ken Burton said that. That's about where I am right now. Maybe I should thank him for saying that. But to be honest it infuriates me--makes me want to . . . it'll pass . . . it always does . . . then I;ll get tearful and feel so sorry and ashamed of myself. Maybe I should add to his list of won'ts and don'ts a "can't understand." I don't think people at Church can understand what my problem is and how they could help me. And I really don't expect them to, because I don't. I know I change quickly. But the problem stems from a head injury and post tramatic stress and something else that I forgot. Last time I saw the bishop I was standing on the poarch of a friend's house talkking. The bishop was walking by and he came up and shook Barry's hand and talked to us. He didn't shake my hand or look me in the eye. He talked to me, but he was careful about his eyes. I was grateful about that. I really didn't want to fight for no reason. So I'm thinking maybe he can't understand, but maybe God does and maybe God told him what to do and what not to do cuz I'm having a hard time with church right now and I don't need athority people making threats. Maybe God will figure out what to do with me someday and then He'll tell the bishop. I think maybe if he tells the bishopp not to shake my hand or look at me maybe he know other things that would help. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Models for Mormon Art Date: 13 Jun 2002 23:11:31 -0600 ___ Robert ___ | Depending on exactly how he meant it, I wouldn't necessarily | take a comparison of one's art to Nazi propaganda to be a | putdown. ___ On the other hand it illustrates the danger of persuasion using "sophist" tricks versus persuasion because you've illustrated truth. For instance I remember one critique of the videos of the last 10 years by the church. It basically pointed out that to try and communicate the characters in the films as having a spiritual experience the directors used manipulative methods. i.e. sentimentality. As I recall we had a big discussion about this here a year or so ago. I admit I've not watched the church's recent efforts so I can speak to them. I do think that in _Together Forever_ there was a lot of manipulation of emotions to "fake" a spiritual experience. I think that ideally our literature and art, especially our missionary works, should be oriented as a catalyst to having a spiritual experience. They shouldn't try to "represent" or "fake" a spiritual experience. I think that the Nazi ferver that was a "triumph of the will" was a very deceptive use of charismatic techniques to fake spirituality. Indeed it was a counterfeit of spirituality that was extremely Satanic. Having made all those criticisms though, I should add that I still love the old pictures in the missionary Book of Mormons. There all the Nephites are very Aryan looking "supermen" and "superwomen" who look like they have Neitzsche's "will to power" down pat. The waters of Mormon painting is one of my favorites. I mean the woman with Teutonic braids in her hair is a classic. And she looks like she could kick anyone's butt. Even Abinadi who is the ratty old man looks like he could lay down some serious stuff and that he hits the gym in between calling wicked priests to repentence. While I must admit a guilty pleasure in the Arnold Friberg paintings, I'd prefer the church to replace them with some work more in keeping with a middle eastern and new world view of the Book of Mormon. I think John Sorenson's critiques here are quite good. Further showing the Nephites to themselves be fairly dark skinned (from the sun if not only their near eastern ancestry) would really help on some racial issues. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: [AML] Mormon Fiction: What About Atlatl Bob? Date: 13 Jun 2002 20:26:06 -0700 Just ran across this story in an online magazine, and thought y'all might find it interesting. I suppose it qualifies as Mormon fiction. Or non-fiction. I'm not sure which, but it's pretty good. --lauramaery --------- OUR NEWEST WRITING PROJECT: Homeschooling Step by Step, Prima Publishing, Spring 2002. --------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Web site: E-mail reply: --------- . -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Attacking the Family Date: 14 Jun 2002 11:48:57 -0700 > So in what way is divorce a bad thing? In what way is divorce either > a cause or a result of current culture's 'attack on families?' Well, when > have I known of divorces when I didn't think it was a good idea? The > answer: when a guy dumped his wife so could get him one of them > there trophy wives. I've known quite a few young people (teenagers and late 20's/30's singles--non-LDS) who have grown up in divorced households. Most will tell you the same thing: they're glad their parents got divorced, they'd rather deal with that than having to live with the fighting. When my niece was 15, she got pregnant. That same year, six of her 15 yo friends got pregnant. For one of them, it was her third pregnancy--she'd already had two abortions. She was worried that another would permanently damage her uterus and she'd be unable to have kids, so she had the baby. What did these girls all have in common? They all were being raised by single mothers who had various boyfriends over to spend the night. Their moms slept around, why shouldn't they? The late 20's/early 30's singles I know who were raised in divorced homes all tend to have the same attitude towards marriage. They don't think it's necessary, or even viable, in today's society. And for those who aren't averse to it, they don't really expect it to be able to last. These are the attitudes I see in our culture that are breaking down the family. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kellene Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 14 Jun 2002 13:15:32 -0600 Marianne Hales Harding wrote: My eggs are currently degrading! Add to > that the Newsweek fertility issue of a few months ago and it's a wonder that > I'm not deaf for the ticking of my biological clock. Aaaah, the pressure. > And this thread isn't helping, my friends. Because I know I want to have > kids and y'all are scaring the heck out of me. You know, this full-disclosure baby exhaustion thing is much like the full-disclosure marriage thing. Before you get married, you're told over and over and over again (in general conference, in conversations with friends, in books [both national and LDS], in conferences and news and seminars and everywhere you turn) that marriage is tough. YOu have to work at it. You have to have date nights and communication and sensitivity and compassion and all that other fun stuff. You read all the books, you take the classes, you watch the videos and listen to the tapes, you might even go to counseling, and you can be as prepared as you can possibly be, and you're still thrown for a loop. Intellectual preparation and education is certainly wonderful, but it's is sadly lacking in the real category. You simply cannot know what it's like until you experience it. However, despite the hard work, despite the setbacks and discouragements, despite the challenges and obstacles, the beautiful moments honestly do make it worthwhile. The same could be said about babies. . . and young children. (Today, however, as I clean up the pond created in our basement when my five-year-old and three-year-old decided to create their own waterfall down the back stairs, is not one of the beautiful moments. . . .) Kellene Adams -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 14 Jun 2002 12:47:08 -0700 > I'm looking for information both on official statements by the Church (if > there were any) regarding the Japanese internment camps of WWII, and on the > thoughts and opinions of individual Mormons on that issue--particularly > those with direct experience, be it when friends were sent to an internment > camp, when one was set up near their home, or any other direct connection. > A few years ago when our family lived in SLC we attended a special presentation at the downtown library about Topaz. It was tied to the opening of a special exhibit about the camp and included a film, a play and several guest speakers (including the schoolteacher who played a large role in establishing the Topaz museum). I was sad to see that the exhibit opening was very poorly attended. Almost everyone there looked to be Japanese. In one of the presentations the point was made that the Japanese living in Utah didn't want to have anything to do with the camp Japanese. If I remember correctly there was a letter from the SL Japanese-American League that verified that assertion. I guess the reasoning behind that was that Utah Japanese wanted to distance themselves from the fate of the internees. There were also several statements from people living in nearby towns and what their feelings were about the camp. I'm sorry that I don't remember many specifics, but if I were you I'd call the library and see what type of information they might still have from that event. FWIW, when we lived in SL we encountered an incredible amount of racism from our neighbors--especially against Asians. I was particularly senstive to the slurs because my husband and kiddos are part-Japanese. It was shocking to me that members of the church could be so prejudiced. Jana Remy Irvine, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 14 Jun 2002 14:16:31 -0600 Wonderful, an opportunity to sound off on a political issue without feeling guilty for not including a literary tie-in. I'm helping with research, after all! I have no personal experience with Topaz or any other Japanese internment camp, nor do I know anyone that does. I have heard several lectures, impromptu and otherwise, on the evils of what went on during those times, however, and have developed an opinion on the matter. Lucky you. (I usually form an opinion on everything I learn anything about. Fortunately for my eternal salvation my opinions are liquid and change easily to fit new facts) =20 The events surrounding the internment camps are divided into two parts in my mind. First we have the internments themselves and the reasons behind them and second the consequences to the interned and the reasons behind them. I think it was a wise idea for the government to intern those of Japanese descent during our war with Japan. The vast majority of those interned were innocent and harmless and yes it was unfair. War is like that. Japanese spies caused a lot of harm to United States citizens, soldiers and otherwise. As an example of this we have Pearl Harbor. In the movie of the same name there is a single "Japanese spy" character shown taking tours and photographs and reporting to his superiors. I assure you (in spite of any historical inaccuracies that film may or may not have been guilty of) there was a real-life counterpart to that character at Pearl Harbor, more than likely several of them. The ability of spies like that to cause Americans grief did not go away when we officially entered the war. Of course, we didn't intern Germans during the war, perhaps it was because they were white, or perhaps interning those of German descent, a much larger task, was seen as impossible and not worth attempting, whatever the reasons, it was unfair. War is like that. We will never know how many American lives were saved because Japanese moles were languishing in an internment camp instead of gathering and reporting intelligence, but I am sure there were many. I am of the opinion that the inconvenience experienced by those who were interned, if that had been as far as it went, was a small price to pay for the safety of their fellow citizens. Now for the second half. The consequences to the interned and the reasons behind them. I understand there was a distinct lack of appropriate sanitation and medical care within the internment camps. There are many possible reasons for this and I don't know the real ones, perhaps no one does. They range from a country at war being unable to devote the resources (I personally don't buy this), to the bigotry of those in charge letting them believe that the interned weren't worth the expense, and every shade in between. However, I also understand that everything the interned owned, be it their homes, their land, their belongings or their money in the bank was subject to indiscriminate confiscation by local authorities and to uncontested looting on the part of their neighbors. This was inexcusable and the result of stupidity, hate, and sheer unadulterated bigotry. Those responsible should have been persecuted to the full extent of the law, as should any who skimped on the sanitation or medical care in the internment camps. Personally, having learned a lesson from history, I like to believe that if such a thing ever happens again, I and my children will be of sufficient character to do everything in our power to stop such consequences from falling on the interned. And, what do you know, I've thought of a literary tie-in. "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it." I don't recall who said that, but the idea is that you can avoid mistakes once you've seen them made and understand why they caused the results they did. This holds true for fiction as well as history. Good authors put their characters in believable situations, have them behave believably and have them suffer believable consequences. Having seen a situation in a book allows me to react more appropriately should that situation arise in my reality, because I've thought about it beforehand. Sorry for the ramble. Hope it was worth the time to read. -Ethan Skarstedt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tait Family" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 14 Jun 2002 18:27:08 -0700 Scott, Maybe this is a long shot, but you might inquire of Dean Hughes. He deals with the issue tangentially in his Children of the Promise books, and it would not surprise me if he could point you to some primary sources. Let us know what you find. I for one am very interested. There is a family in our ward here in suburban Houston with Japanese heritage. The mother is Japanese and grew up in Salt Lake City--either her parents or her grandparents came from Japan directly. From some things she has said to me, I get the feeling that she grew up (in the 60s and 70s, I presume) with a heavy burden of racism, or perceived racism, directed at her, and now has experienced some of the same things with her children. Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kathy Fowkes" Subject: Re: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 14 Jun 2002 16:59:44 -0700 John, If you're interested in a particular type of "ghostly" appearances, you might try talking to the folks at the Salt Lake chapter of the International Association of Near Death Studies (IANDS). IANDS started 20-30 years ago focusing on the near-death experience, but in the last 10 or 15 years has broadened its studies to include after-death communications (ADCs), prebirth experiences (PBEs), and other spiritually transforming experiences (STEs). In LDS circles we're more likely to label a "ghostly appearance" an angel, rather than a ghost, or else if it's malevolent in some way, we consider it simply an evil or unclean spirit. LDS doctrine as I understand it is that evil spirits or devils are the ones who followed Lucifer and were cast out of heaven for rebellion. There are other theories that I'm not sure are doctrinal regarding the difference between an evil or an unclean spirit, but since I can't remember my references, I'm not going to go there. Clark Goble made reference to a theory regarding unclean spirits: > For instance Mormonism has a long history of including Near Death >Experiences into our folk doctrine. Often this is done even when the doctrinal basis for the story doesn't fit Mormonism. One popular one I >remember is the idea that people addicted to drugs or alcohol or other >addictive substances try to recapture the feeling by "jumping" into people >in bars or the like. Sometimes this gets put in the more LDS context of sons of perdition who never had a body. But there is this folk doctrine >about addiction and bad habits continuing into the spirit world where they >can't be acted upon. This then supposedly causes all sorts of stresses for >the dead. This reference of ppl who died as addicts attempting to take possession of a living addict's body in order to attempt to get his "fix" is a direct reference to George Ritchie's telling of his near-death experience in _Return From Tomorrow_, a very popular NDE, and the first single NDE to be published in America. George Ritchie is not LDS, but is a devout Christian and a very sweet and kind man, in his 70's or so now, and continues to stand by every word he wrote about his NDE. The reason many LDS folks accept Ritchie's experience into their belief system is because it is in harmony with LDS doctrine, a point at which Clark and I apparently disagree :-). The basis for belief I believe beings with Alma's discourse on death, resurrection and judgment day in chapter 34 of the Book of Mormon, specifically verse 34: "for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world." (This, I think, isn't referring to being possessed by a devil, but rather which spirit, evil or good, one seeks to listen to and follow). Added to this is our official doctrine which acknowledges that Melchizedek Priesthood holders have divinely-endowed power to cast out devils and unclean spirits from both places and people. The final clincher is the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith regarding evil spirits which can be found in _Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith_. George Ritchie's account of being taken by an angel to a bar to witness an alcoholic's fracture of spirit and the attempts of evil or unclean spirits to enter through the fracture and take possession of the addict's body is plausible, given our actual beliefs, though others may disagree with me on that point. LDS author Sarah Hinze's books give many PBE experiences: _Life Before Life_, _Coming From the Light_, and _The Castaways_. These spiritual experiences include visions and dreams of those who declare that they have not yet been born, and that their time is soon to come. Hinze goes into much more detail about the various types, characteristics and purposes of PBEs in her books. Included in _Castaways_ is an account of a Japanese woman's experience with her unborn son which might interest you. Sarah was interviewed for a Japanese television series a couple of years ago, and the director of the episode gave Hinze the story at that time. She also has a website, www.prebirth.com. There's a website for those interested in after-death communications, also, but the owner of the site is not LDS, so it may not interest you for the research you are currently doing. The ADC research they've done is interesting, nevertheless. www.after-death.com (If you leave out the hyphen you'll end up at an LDS near-death experiencer's site.) Their book is _Hello From Heaven_, and Bill guggenheim and Judy Guggenheim are the authors (divorced, so they don't like being "and" with just one last name between them), if I'm remembering correctly. Her name's right. His I'm not sure of. The website, I believe, is just Judy's. The _Beyond the Veil_ series of books recount many folkloric visions and angelic visitations though I know at least a few of them are edited (which really irks me). Recently, Richard Eyre published _Life After Life_ but I haven't heard a lot about it, except that it was promoted very heavily. The Crowther book is comprehensive, but if it's the one I think it is, I have a personal beef with it -- he used a LOT of stories and research that Sarah Hinze did, and didn't cite her for half of it. But then, I'm rather over-protective of my friends, so just ignore me on that one. Another good book with an LDS slant on angels, including a number of recounted experiences with angelic visitors, as well as great quotes from General Authorities regarding our beliefs about angels is _The Truth About Angels_ by Elaine Cannon. Some Salt Lake IANDS members could point you to even more material than has already been given by the AML-list members. The IANDS site is at www.iands.org and the Salt Lake chapter is at http://www.iandsslc.org/. Hope this is of some use. :-) Kathy Fowkes -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tait Family" Subject: Re: [AML] Attacking the Family Date: 14 Jun 2002 19:21:13 -0700 Eric has done an excellent job of summarizing many discussions that my husband and I have engaged in over the years. I want to throw out a few random responses. I'm sure many others will have more enlightened contributions to make, but here goes. One Sunday I was sitting in Relief Society, enduring another lesson on The Family. The gist of it was that "the world" is attacking the family and everyone "out there" is wicked and messed up and aren't we glad that we belong to the True Church where families are still valued. This was a ward in Utah County, one that I was not particularly happy to be in at the time. We had just moved, under less than happy circumstances, from central Texas, where we had lived for several years. I was inclined to be critical anyway, but this lesson really irritated me. For one thing, I had just been living "out there" in "the world" and I knew many good, faithful, non-LDS people who loved and valued their families and tried to uphold high standards. In lessons like this what happens is that we construct an artificial sense of "us" versus "them," mostly so that we can feel good about "us." It's a low-risk way of affirming our values. What needs to happen instead is that we need to recognize the forces that are attacking OUR families and discuss the areas in which WE members of the True Church may need to repent and re-evaluate. Off the top of my head, I would list the following as among the most serious threats to families: Materialism/consumer debt, which leads to parents having to work long and hard to keep up payments and standards of living. Busy-ness and competing demands on time and resources. This includes several aspects of pop culture (TV, music) which, for whatever messages it sends or doesn't send, provides an irresistable amount of noise and distraction that interferes with communication and family dynamics in countless ways. As my husband just said it, noise pollution is one of the biggest threats to the family these days. Anger/dysfunctional communication and so forth, which build barriers and lead to abuse and emotional havoc in families. Pornography, especially internet pornography IS a huge problem in the church, both for adults and teens. And I could go on. But what I really want to suggest is that one of the biggest problems that we have in Mormon culture is our relentless idealization of the Family. We raise our children, especially our girls, to have unrealistic expectations of marriage and families. We encourage them to enter into marriage and parenthood before they are financially secure or emotionally ready. We assume that everyone, especially women, wants to live in a traditional family with as many children as possible. And all the while we, and they, live in messy reality. The guilt and frustration can easily lead to disillusionment--not to mention debt, divorce, and dysfunctional communication. Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 14 Jun 2002 17:17:24 -0700 on 6/13/02 3:16 PM, Ivan Angus Wolfe at iaw2@email.byu.edu wrote: > > What I find interesting about Eric's list is that it is composed of strictly > conspiracy theories propounded by ultra-conservative thinkers. Absent were > conspiracies held by those on the far left. > [snip] You may have noticed that in my original questioned I mentioned the John Birch Society, the Communists and the Greens as the principal conspiracy theorists. There are plenty of wacky populist theories out there but one never knows what right and left wing actually mean then it's hard to pin them on one side or the other. UFOlogists and Alien Angel believers are usually pinned on the whacky New Age left, but then again Hitler and the Nazis were whacky New Agers and Blavatsky-ites (an amazing irony) but they're always called right-wing. I'm the sort of person that wants a definition to actually mean something, so I detest the fact that when anybody says left or right it could mean something entirely different. Thanks for the addition, though. There are indeed plenty of conspiracies from the left bank as well as the right. I particularly like the one about the Patriarchy deluding women into believing that they like lovemaking when in reality it's rape 100% of the time. Oy vey! Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 14 Jun 2002 17:40:36 -0700 on 6/14/02 10:23 AM, Eric R. Samuelsen at ersamuel@byugate.byu.edu wrote: > Responding to the Laird Jim: > >> What worries me are >> several problems that come up when creating even a false secret brotherhood >> dedicated to evil. >> >> First there are their acts. Evil is not pleasant to write about > >> Creating >> characters that are steeped in evil is no fun, and making them believable is >> even less fun. > > You're kidding, right? There's nothing more fun in the world than writing > villains. The hard part is reigning yourself in. Certainly as an actor, > there's nothing more fun than playing a villain, and writing them has it's own > pleasures. It's good guys who are hard to write. Most of the pleasure of > writing is creating characters who do awful things I wouldn't ever do on my > own account Nope, not kidding at all. Most villains in fiction and particularly in plays and movies are silly, not villainous. That's why you get so many off-stage bad guys because if you're really tryin to figure out the motivation it gets messy and awful. Mostly they're "Grand Theft Auto III" bad guys. They run down pedestrians and shoot cops and blow stuff up, but its just a stock character. A really good villain like Iago or MacBeth is a rare thing even in Shakespeare. Richard III and Claudius are clowns. Its the real hardened villain that I have a problem with. > >> How villainous can a >> villain be and yet exist in literature that Mormons would not object to? >> What would be the point of writing a book that my own people wouldn't read? >> Especially because it wasn't uplifting. > > Well, Mormons flock to see Shakespeare, and my subjective impression is that > the plays of his that do best with Mormon audiences are Macbeth and Richard > III. And the Book of Mormon has generally been a popular favorite, aside from > the Isaiah passages, which folks just skip. Coupla nasty bad guys in that > work. > > As for 'uplifting', I don't have the faintest idea what that word means. > Anyone? My favorite movie of the last ten years, Amores Perros, provided me > an intensely moving spiritual experience, and was also extremely violent, with > quite graphic sexual content. That's 'uplifting' to me, in ways that > manipulative schlock like 'Testaments' never could be. > > As for creating fiction with secret combinations in it, I think that's a > wonderful challenge. Just make it plausible. Can we declare space aliens, the > UN and the Kennedy assassination off-limits? > > Eric Samuelsen > Since I only know my own definition of uplifting I'll explain it. It means self-improving--it increases. Soul stretches, mind expands, etc. This doesn't come necessarily from Disney's _The Little Mermaid_. _We Were Soldiers_ both movie and book form were uplifting, but also horrible. The problem is that in the movie particularly the villain was off-stage. Johnson only showed up in a TV announcement and McNamara etc. didn't show up at all. My character is going to see things up close and personal, and the bad guys are truly vile. It's an Ammonihah moment with no Amulek. The line I'm approaching is the one that was missed in _American Psycho_ both book and movie form. Where does horror end and voyeurism begin? _Silence of the Lambs_ has Lector as a hard core villain I'm glad is fictitious, while in _Hannibal_ he becomes a cheap gruesome joke. Not uplifting--doesn't increase anything of value, it's just a cheap thrill, though not to me. I was just annoyed. I don't want to wander over the line, which is the main purpose of this thread. I don't like bad guys. Some I hate (such as paedophiles) and others I despise (such as cads). Cads I can deal with, and similar types of villains I can work up without a sweat. It's the really vile sort that trouble me. Thanks, Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 14 Jun 2002 18:56:49 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- > > Now, that could make an interesting LDS book. The Lord calls a man from, > say, Portugal to be the prophet, and the Caucasian American contingent of > the church says, "No! We won't have it! He's not One of Us!" Then what > happens? Does the Lord accept their dismissal of His choice, or does he say > to the Causcasian American bigots, "You're out.We'll just go along without > you." There are some interesting precedents in the Old Testament to this > sort of thing. First of all, it wouldn't happen that way. First, the man from Portugal would be called as an Apostle. If he then outlived the other apostles, he would become prophet. During that long time, it would be expected that the Saints would have got to know him somewhat, so there would probably be little problem with accepting him whatever his race might be. OTOH, if the Church at large refused to accept him, the Apostles would have to get together and receive revelation on another candidagte. I say all this, of course, as if this speculation (based on the way prophets have been chosen since the time of Brigham Young). The Lord could trump my opinion at any time. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Mod Message: List Volume Date: 17 Jun 2002 17:00:41 -0500 Folks, We've got a lot of good conversation going on right now. Unfortunately, I can also see that we're likely to start bumping up against the 30 posts/day limit if things keep up the way they have been (though due to schedule/technical limitations I haven't been able to put out a full day's worth of posts some days during the past two weeks; I expect this to improve as of now). So I'd like to remind everyone of the general guideline that on the whole, it's best to limit yourself to 2-3 posts per day, particularly during high-volume times. If I notice that the number of posts from a particular person is higher than that, I may have to cut some; if you do it for yourself, then you can decide which of your comments are the ones you care most about. (One good thing to keep in mind is that if you have several comments on the same thread, they can be compiled into a single message, even if they are responding to several different people's comments. Only if they're from the same thread, though.) Again, this is not intended as a rebuke to anyone, nor as a request to tone things down. Far from it! Let the conversations continue... (By the way, this message won't count against today's total.) Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Attacking the Family Date: 14 Jun 2002 19:52:29 -0600 ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen > > HOMOSEXUALITY > > It's hard for me to see how gay marriage threatens The > Family. It seems to me that proponents of gay marriage are > in fact very much pro Family, in that they see families as > something inherently positive, so much so that they want the > definition of Family to expand, so that it can include all > committed monogamous relationships. So on what basis is it > legitimate to oppose such a definitional expansion? > > Children? Those children who are reared in same-sex > households have no particular tendency towards same-sex > attraction, no more so than children raised in heterosexual > families. Gay men have no greater tendency towards > pedophilia than straight men. Children taught by gay > teachers do not become gay as a result. But becoming gay themselves isn't at all the problem with gay marriage. The Family: A Proclamation to the World spells it out clearly, a marriage needs both a man and a woman. There are a lot of reasons for that. Children learn a lot of things from their parents. At least, they should. They *should* learn about healthy human relationships--how women treat men, how men treat women, how to be a man or woman. If you change that binary to a unary, then children miss out on a great deal of human dynamic. I know I'm talking about an ideal here, but as I said in a prior post, I prefer to leave the exceptions for individual circumstances. The key point is that its best if children have a father and a mother. Not just for the luuuuv, but for the tutelage, and role modeling. > No, it seems to me that the Church, by opposing gay marriage, > is trying to accomplish one specific and limited objective: > to give support and encouragment to LDS people who suffer > from same sex attraction and who are trying to fight it. At > a time when everything in our culture is saying 'give up, > give in," the Church continues institutionally to insist that > there is another alternative, a very difficult and painful > one, but also a possible one. That too. But I still think that the main reason is so that families will be where we learn about our roles and relationships. > Well, in conclusion . . . I don't have any conclusions > really. Just thinking out loud. It's an interesting issue, > though. I think of my family being under siege, and what > worries me is the sexualization of society, the unreality of > so much pop culture. Fantasies are great, in their place. > As long as they're clearly labeled as such, and tempered with > some hard edged realism. I agree. Though I think that the main force against families right now are technology, economic, and sociological change. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kelly Thompson" Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 14 Jun 2002 21:07:58 -0600 I just think that it is interesting that a century ago most people in Uta= h had accents from other countries. [Kelly Thompson] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Date: 15 Jun 2002 02:09:14 -0500 At 05:20 PM 6/10/02, Marianne Hales Harding wrote: >>I've probably asked fifty colleagues that over the years. The unanimous >>answer, from every one of them, was no. They wouldn't 'fess up. They >>would rather risk facing the Lord with unrepented sins on their >>conscience than risk losing their jobs. That's where we are right now. > >I so could not live like that. I think I'd rather go work for Satan's >school in SLC (all you UofU grads can take some gentle ribbing, >right?). As a BYU grad I am both surprised and not surprised at this >post. I know it's a tough climate as far as orthodoxy is concerned, but >it strikes such a discordant tone to me to think of my dear professors >chosing employment over being right with God. Yowsa. That's a pretty >serious situation and one that, were I BYU's prez, I'd want addressed in a >big way. Was it always this tough? Was I in an undergrad fog and missed it? Then there's all those BYU undergraduates who write to SLC complaining that their introductory geology or biology professor is preaching "false doctrine" (i.e., evolution) and should be disciplined for it . . . I guess I do have the best of all possible worlds: teaching at a state university where the president is LDS . . . ;-) -- Ronn! :) Ronn Blankenship Instructor of Astronomy/Planetary Science University of Montevallo Montevallo, AL Disclaimer: Unless specifically stated otherwise, any opinions contained herein are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent the official position of the University of Montevallo. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Date: 15 Jun 2002 03:10:54 -0600 Jeff Needle wrote: > I knew going in to the book that Will would not hold BY blameless, to say > the least. I knew he had that bias, and made some provision for that in > reading the book. My main concern was, did he have history to support his > thesis? This is a tough question. > > And I continue to feel some discomfort about *defending* any person's bias. > I'd rather just report the findings, and let others engage in the argument. I wonder if we're approaching this whole MMM thing all wrong. We keep bickering over whether Brigham Young was responsible or not, with the presupposition that if he was, that was a bad thing. You all know me. I'm willing to loudly speak the unthinkable. My question is, was that a bad thing? As some have pointed out here, it was a war situation, a guerilla war. The Mormons felt besieged and on the verge of destruction. Brigham Young had seen the Saints driven from home to home that they had built with the sweat of their brow, driven with ugly violence. He had sworn to never let that happen again. It was truly a war situation. I've read one historian who suggested that something like MMM may have been necessary to show the USA that the Mormons were not pushovers anymore, that they would defend themselves. He suggested that MMM may have actually prevented a great deal of violence brewing against the Mormons. I put this forth as food for thought, without offering my own opinion on the matter (mostly because I'm not sure what my opinion is yet). -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 15 Jun 2002 03:22:31 -0600 Preston wrote: > Both novels are > by [L.E.] Modesitt, a rather prolific and successful science > fiction writer who lives in southern Utah, but is not a > native of the state and has never been a Latter-day Saint. Yes, he is very popular, but for the life of me I can't figure out why. I've read one of his novels, _The Magic of Recluce_, the first volume in a series. It was a slow, tedious thing that never seemed to go anywhere or let anything terribly interesting happen, sort of an aimless travelogue of one character's escapades. It was a great disappointment, because I had seen him as a guest at BYU's "Life, Universe and Everything" SF symposium a couple years ago. His description of the kind of things he writes about sounded very interesting. If only the book had actually been like he described. Perhaps the book was an unfortunate fluke. So I tried the first book of another series. But I didn't get far into it before it was painfully obvious that this book would follow the same tedious style as the one I'd read. I've not touched another Modesitt book since. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Box Office Report June 7 02 Date: 15 Jun 2002 07:42:12 -0500 At 01:21 PM 6/11/02, you wrote: > >The critical response to "Ya-Ya" has been sharply divided, >with some critics praising it and others left rather luke >warm. RottenTomatoes.com lists a 44% rating for the movie, >with 39 positive and less enthusiastic 50 reviews, yet the >rating is 56% when only the top critics are tallied. ("As >Good As It Gets" has an 89% rating and "Life As A House" has >a 48% rating on RottenTomatoes.com.) Have I missed something? What is the LDS connection to "The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood"? -- Ronald W. ("Ronn") Blankenship mailto: ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: [AML] Kimberly HEUSTON, _The Shakeress_ (Review) Date: 15 Jun 2002 07:44:05 -0600 > > THE SHAKERESS > > By Kimberly Heuston. > > 207 pp. Asheville, N.C.: Front Street. $16.95. (Ages 12 and up) [Reviewed by Paris Anderson] First, I must preface this review by noting that Kimberley Heuston and I write for the same audiance, but I'm not jealous in the least. I am a very generous person by nature and I realize sometimes--on rare occation--things can be successful even if they are done completely wrong. THE SHAKERESS is a --very-- successful book. Heuston creates credible characters that, in spite of their "niceiousity" are very endearing. Her storyline, though vaguely predictable (no big twists), is surprisingly compelling--almost riveting. But the most telling sign that this is a good story and a successful book is that after setting it down--I walked away feeling that Naomi Hull, the protagonist, is my friend. I respect and admire her. THE SHAKERESS is set in the early 1800's. It is a story about four children, Naomi is thirteen at the beginning of the book, whose parents and younger brother are killed in a house fire. They go to live with an aunt who makes them feel unwelcome and is planning to send Naomi off to work in the textile mills as an indentured servant (a happy slave). Of course, Naomi feel threatened and prays for help. She feels prompted to leave her aunt's house and move to a Shaker colony. Her brothers and sisters seem to fit in well there, but she can never fit in. At the age of 16 she leave the colony to go be a private nurse to a woman who is desperately ill with a chronic liver disease. A couple of missionaries of the Mormon type get to her before Naomi can get there, and they heal her. She accepts another position in a nearby town as the local wise-woman/midwife, living with a family who is interested in Mormon teachings. After a few years pass the youngest, to whom Naomi is very attached, becomes very ill with appedicitis. Although, it isn't clear (and in that time period it wouldn't be) it appears the boy's appendix ruptures--a certain death sentence. Naomi is called in. She tries to help him, but realizes there is noithing to be done and resigns herself to making him more comfortable. But then the boy's older brothers, who have joined the Mormon Church and have receive the Priesthood, arrive and give him a blessing. The boy doesn't recover immediately, but immediate improvement and relief is apparent. Naomi, who is very religious by nature, is taken by the power and spirituality of the moment and eventually moves to Kirtland, Ohio to join the Church. This book is a good tool for teaching other writer (like me) how to write religious fiction. It could easily have been happy and sweet--or preachy--but instead the author chose to have a resurved, understated tone. Woody Allen said not to confuse the artist and the man, but good writing is so intimate it's hard not get glimpces of something that appears to be the writer soul. It appear Heuston has a beautiful soul--a precious soul. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shelly Choong" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 15 Jun 2002 08:34:54 -0700 Marianne wrote: . I am a writer/editor on a parenting > resource website that has very active message boards. Often women share > their "birth story" and I have recently come to the conclusion that it is > just not healthy for me to read them anymore. Every time I read one I learn > something new about childbirth that freaks me out. ~I was going to remain a lurker, but this thread hit home. I'm childless. Not by choice. But that's a whole different story. The thing is, I want to know why Mormon women do this sort of thing? Why is it whenever a group of Mormon women get together for Enrichment Night, or gather in the hall of the church, the conversation always gets around to their 36 hour labor sessions, etc.? ~I don't go to Enrichment Night anymore, and I don't mingle much with Mormon women, and this is why. I got so tired of listening to the pregnancy and birth stories. How many times can I nod and say, "oh, my gosh," while someone is telling me about their episiotomy? ~I find this to be a curiously Mormon habit. I've been with groups of other women from work and although they talk a great deal about their children, they don't ever mention the births of their children. What is it about our culture that makes this such a popular thing to discuss? I spoke to one sister about it, and she said she thought it was a form of competition; to see who could beat out the group with the most difficult births, etc. I'm not sure if that's it, but I haven't come up with anything better. Any ideas? (ie "mucus plug" I will > say no more so that those who don't know what I'm talking about can live on > in blessed ignorance.) ~Unforutately, I DO know what you're talking about, and I've never had a child. Shelly (Johnson-Choong) http://www.shellyjohnsonchoong.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 15 Jun 2002 12:02:33 EDT Clark, One of the most fascinating books I have in my library on spirits as well as the modus operandi of Gods and angels is in a 1904 book by a former BYU English Professor Nels L. Nelson titled Scientific Aspects of Mormonism. You probably will not be able to get a copy of it, or maybe it is more available than I suspect. The byline for the book is Religion in Terms of Life. Some of the chapter titles if your interested: * Man's Spiritual Life a Process of Evolution * How God Shapes the Destiny of the Individual * True Education and True Repentance Indentical Operations of the Mind * Spiritual Forces only HIgher Powers of Forces Known to Physics * What Intelligent Beings Will Do in the Hereafter * The Real Meaning of Godhood * How Our Father Became God * Mormonism Destined to Have the Last Word This book and other writtings by Brother Nelson contain some unique understandings as to the parts Moroni and the Prophet Joseph Smith both played in the "translation" of the Book of Mormon and how angels or spirits communicate to mortals and with each other. One short passage may give you a taste to the line of thinking of this marvelous old book: At any rate, with such a rational view of the modus operandi of Providence, one can draw near to God with full confidence that if his petition involves tghat which will be for his own eternal good, it will be granted. The thought, however, opens op a marvellous new world, a world of beings behind the veil, and their relationship to us, which will be discussed in a later chapter. "The explanation of how God can hear prayers from millions of worshippers," writes a friend to whom MS. of this work was submitted for criticism, "has often come to my mind, but I have not dared to put it forth so boldly. I have explained that He has means whereby He can hear us, and read our inmost thoughts; but that those means are in the nature of angels appointed to deal with the prayers or petitions of men, I have not felt at libetry to express. That this is so, is probable; but will it be wise to make the assertion as strong as you have made it? May it not seem a shock to many good people's faith in prayer?" __To which I can only say, that the wxplanation is put forth, not dogmatically, but only as a suggestion. It is a thought that has helped to make my own prayers more real and vital, and therefore it is hoped that it may also help other doubting Thomases. The older I get the more I notice in the written works, especially scriptures, and in my own life the nature, purpose, power, and involvement of angels in our lives as mortals. Even when we are not very strong in our belief or awarness of them? Glen Sudbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Grant for Irreantum Date: 15 Jun 2002 13:08:04 -0600 The AML did manage to get a small "Assistance to Literary Magazines" grant this year from the Utah Arts Council. So now we can/must say "Irreantum is funded in part by funds from the Utah Arts Council and National Endowment for the Arts." I am thinking about putting the whole amount (somehow they arrived at the figure of $960, about 10% what we applied for) into next year's contest. We are supposed to use the grant to raise the literary quality of the magazine and encourage artists, and that's the best way I can think to do it. I would hope a first prize of $500 or so could actually provoke more than a dozen or two entries, like we currently get with a $100 first prize. We'd welcome any comments and advice on using the grant, running a contest, and anything else related to the mag.. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: [AML] AML-List Up for Review Date: 15 Jun 2002 14:14:53 -0700 Hi folks! Here is another long list of titles for review. Please look over this = list and consider reviewing a book for AML-List. Keep in mind that all = reviews are due one month from receipt of the book.=20 If you are new to AML-List, see = http://www.aml-online.org/reviews/index.html for more info. Regards, Jana Remy AML-List Review Editor The Hero By Ron Woods http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375806121/qid=3D1024173969/sr=3D1= -1/ref=3Dsr_1_1/103-8512551-2678215 Seabird By Edna Smith Browne http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0910523568/qid%3D1024174119/ref%3D= sr%5F11%5F0%5F1/103-8512551-2678215 A Disciple's Life: The Biography of Neal A. Maxwell By Bruce Hafen http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=3D100045921 The Day Alma Died By B.V. Cheyenne www.keystoneproject.com Single Parenting: Help for Latter-Day Saint Families By Kimberly Heuston http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=3D100012286 Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, A People of Promise By Glen Leonard http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=3D100040886 Prelude to Glory, Vol 6: The World Turned Upside Down By Ron Carter http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=3D100048868 A Thousand Souls By Lee Nelson http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555176534.html Ghosts of the Oquirrhs By Marilyn Brown http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555176585.html Fields of Clover By Marilyn Arnold http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555176011.html Stop the Yawns By Marcus Sheridan http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555176542.html Becoming the Bold Missionary By George Durrant http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555176739.html Phay Vanneth: Dead or Alive By Vione Schow http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555176054.html -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Introduction: Lisa Turner Date: 15 Jun 2002 18:13:25 -0600 At 02:46 PM 6/14/02, you wrote: >I have had three books published in the LDS >market -- two humorous novels (PRAY AWAY POUNDS and TWELVE DISASTERS OF >CHRISTMAS) and a book of essays. I read Pray Away Pounds, and I thought it was great. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Review Date: 15 Jun 2002 14:29:17 -0700 Review ====== Title: American Apocrypha - Essays on the Book of Mormon Author: Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe, eds. Publisher: Signature Books Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 368 Binding: Quality Paperback ISBN: 1-56085-151-1 Price: $21.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle It takes only a single reading of the title to convey the purpose of this fascinating collection of essays. "American Scripture" is different from "American Apocrypha." One may accept apocryphal writings as scripture or not; one need not attribute either inspiration or historicity to apocrypha. Is the Book of Mormon "scripture"? Is it "inspired"? These are, of course, loaded questions, since such words defy common definition. Clearly the editors reject Book of Mormon historicity. In the view of some, this is tantamount to rejecting it as "scripture," as "inspired." However, the editors make the following comment in their introduction: Is the Book of Mormon pseudonymous? We think so. Apocryphal? Yes. Is it therefore less able to touch people's hearts? No. Our position is that the scriptural tradition includes fiction -- parables, poetry, hyperbole, psalms, historical versimilitude, and other genres -- and that such writing can be as powerful in providing people with spiritual guidance as non-fiction. To acknowledge the obvious fictional quality of the Book of Mormon is not to detract from the beauty and brilliance of the sermons, visions, and other imagery. (Introduction, ix) What remains unstated here is that most religious literature, including the Bible, while ostensibly reporting historical events, makes no such explicit claims by its authors, outside the narrative itself. The Book of Mormon is unique -- it claims to relate historical events, and buttresses these claims with statements to this effect by the scribe who translated the book. Thus, in any discussion of Book of Mormon historicity, it is not just the veracity of the book that is in question, but likewise the veracity of the author/translator. Can the contributors to this volume support such a broad, and challenging, agenda as the editors set forth -- to acknowledge the Book of Mormon as a work of fiction, and yet have value in a spiritual sense, while at the same time maintaining the integrity of its author? Or did the editors supply this thought as a token sop to those who will inevitably attack their effort? This remains to be seen. The first essay is by Edwin Firmage, Jr., and is titled, "Historical Criticism and the Book of Mormon: A Personal Encounter." It details Firmage's journey from true believer to informed skeptic. He utilizes the methodology of Historical Criticism, long a popular apparatus among Biblical scholars. Citing a noticeable theological evolution within the text (and not always proceeding along strictly canonical-order lines), he proposes an order of writing that differs from the final compilation. Firmage notes the development of ideas -- such as church government, the administration of the sacraments, etc. -- and shows how this development is more clearly delineated when the text is studied in order of dictation, rather than the order in which the final text was published. In the end, Firmage maintains his belief that the Book of Mormon is a modern text, but continues to find new insights as he maintains his study. Next is "Automaticity and the Dictation of the Book of Mormon" by Scott C. Dunn. It is a fascinating survey of literature produced through the process known as "automatic writing," and brought many new ideas to my mind. In this essay, the term "automatic writing" refers to the ability to write or dictate text in a relatively rapid, seemingly effortless and fluent manner with no sense of control over the content. Indeed, except for sometimes knowing a word or two moments in advance of writing or speaking, the individual is typically not consciously aware of what the content of the writing will be." (p. 18) He cites such familiar examples as "A Course In Miracles" (while oddly not mentioning a later admission by the author that the work is fraudulent) and "The Urantia Book," but also mentions Charlotte Bronte as claiming something akin to automatic writing in her authoring of "Jane Eyre." Dunn's essay opens up an interesting possibility in understanding how Joseph Smith was able to produce the Book of Mormon in a mere 90 days, and draws parallels between what Joseph's experience may have been and those reported by other automatic writers. Thomas W. Murphy contributes the next essay, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics." As one may infer from the title, this is a largely scientific explanation of the search for Israelite DNA among the American populations said to have descended from Lehi's sons. Murphy discusses how genetic research has failed to show any such connection. A non-scientist like myself will find some parts of the essay bewildering, but Murphy manages to distill the intended lesson from the scientific findings, in hope of satisfying specialist and layperson alike. Now that quantitative scientific methods can indeed test for an Israelite genetic presence in ancient America, we learn instead that virtually all Native Americans can trace their lineages to the Asian migrations between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago. While molecular anthropologists have the technological capability to identify descendants of ancient Hebrews, no traces of such DNA markers have appeared in Central America or elsewhere among Native Americans. Ultimately, as [John L.] Sorenson noted, these findings may not matter to Latter-day Saints, who have a spiritual witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon. Yet, the discoveries caution against confusing a spiritual witness with scientific evidence. Spiritual witnesses may reach beyond science, but should not be confused with it. (p. 68) I was dismayed at the final paragraph. We can continue our impressive genealogical research, and we should utilize the latest genetic technologies to enhance the precision and accuracy of our findings. But I believe that we should avoid a fruitless quest to tie Native American origins to the Middle East. There is as much chance of finding genetic proof of a Lehite civilization in the Americas as there would be of finding the Book of Mormon gold plates. (p. 69) Two observations: 1. I'm uncomfortable with any scientist who says, in essence, "give it up." Murphy has essentially closed the door on further research and the possibility of discoveries that might verify the Book of Mormon story. However remote one may feel is the possibility of success, I applaud continuing efforts. 2. And I thought his final comment was, well, snide. I can't think of another word to express what I felt. And speaking of the gold plates... Dan Vogel chimes in next with a heated discussion titled "The Validity of the Witnesses' Testimonies." As is his wont, Vogel doesn't pull any punches. He believes that the evidence, taken in toto, indicates that the plates simply never existed. How, then, to account for the testimonies of the three and the eight? And how to deal with the general reports of the witnesses' reliability in business and social affairs? Vogel makes a case for the irrelevance of such questions when it comes to spiritual things. That is, a person can be an honest, upstanding citizen, and yet be subject to delusion when it comes to things of the spirit. Vogel suggests several scenarios, none of which will be satisfying to the true believer. And, in fact, none of his scenarios satisfied me as providing a final answer as to whether the plates existed or not. Were the witnesses victims of mass hypnotism? Were they coerced by Joseph Smith to word their testimonies in a way that did not reflect their actual experience? Vogel explores other visionary experiences of the day, and suggests that Mormonism can produce no compelling reason to believe the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses, while at the same time rejecting that of other, non-Mormon accounts. I found this chapter to raise more questions than it answered. While providing historical and methodological alternatives to the standard accounts, I didn't find any one explanation sufficiently compelling to be especially disturbing. George D. Smith's "B.H. Roberts: Book of Mormon Apologist and Skeptic," covers no new ground, as far as I could see. But Smith treats Roberts, and his struggle to come to terms with his inability to produce scientific and archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, with great sensitivity and an appreciation for the man himself. As is well known, Roberts embarked on a quest to answer the questions of a sincere skeptic who, after reading the Book of Mormon, had trouble reconciling some of the historical claims made therein. Roberts discovered that satisfying answers were not forthcoming. In his public life, Roberts continued to serve his Church callings, and defended the Book of Mormon. But privately, he continued to express doubts, and frustration that his colleagues would not engage in serious dialogue about these problems. During the last twelve years of his life, Roberts spoke with two voices regarding the Book of Mormon. When he could not come up with answers to his questions, he did not find it necessary to abandon his role as a general authority, nor to renounce his faith. But he did share his concerns with colleagues and friends... What significance is there to this dichotomy? That such issues were raised, albeit cautiously, within the highest quorums of the church evokes questions of widespread misgivings about the Book of Mormon within the larger, general membership. Just as we all try to balance our hopes and fears as we confront unfulfilled wishes, more than a few private doubters and public believers must personally share Roberts's questions about the keystone document of their faith. Unfortunately, the taboo against questioning prevents frank discussion of this revered work, although church members, if they were asked, would probably acknowledge that their belief in the Book of Mormon is not measured by the way they view history in general. (p. 145-146) I appreciated Smith's frank, but sympathetic, review of Roberts, in my opinion one of the great, unappreciated thinkers in Mormonism. Chapter 6, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah," by David P. Wright, examines the evidence that points to Joseph Smith's dependence on the King James Version of the Bible for the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon. While this may be fairly obvious to many, Wright, in the longest and most complex essay in this collection, draws upon his knowledge of linguistics and ancient languages to demonstrate this dependence in a scientific and disciplined fashion. Ordinary readers, like myself, will find themselves a bit lost in Wright's technical discussion. I sometimes wondered if I really needed to have all the information he was offering. Linguists, of course, will appreciate his detailed treatment. I was dismayed that he didn't address a question I've had -- if Joseph Smith really used the KJV as his basis for the Isaiah chapters in the BOM, did he have a copy of the KJV open at the time of the dictation? Given the amount of material, is it suggested that he memorized the text, making changes as he went along? I find it difficult to envision such a scenario. I had hoped Wright would have addressed this issue. As part of his presentation, Wright goes heads-on with John Tvedtnes of FARMS, answering Tvedtnes' claims of BOM-Isaiah antiquity. Taking 36 cases as presented by Tvedtnes, Wright introduces his understandings, countering Tvedtnes' arguments. I felt nearly as lost in this chapter as I did in a previous chapter on genetics. Since I'm not a Book of Mormon apologist, I feel no need to respond to any of Wright's arguments. I can only observe that the true apologist has, in this chapter, fertile ground for research and debate. Harking back to Ed Firmage's article on historical criticism, Susan Staker offers "Secret Things, Hidden Things: The Seer Story in the Imaginative Economy of Joseph Smith." Assuming a non-canonical order of dictation, Staker surveys Joseph Smith's understanding of his role as "seer" as compared to the evolving role of the seer in the Book of Mormon and in other revelations received during this time period. These seer narratives in the Book of Mormon are already laying the groundwork for what will become the most radical and enobling impulse within Smith's religious economy. By the time of his death, he will not only have written into one encompassing plot the old and new worlds, the Old and New Testaments, and biblical and contemporary histories, he will also have written God and man into one interlinking cosmic narrative. As the final revision of his writing and rewriting of biblical narratives, Nauvoo's secret temple rituals will plot the life story of earthly man (and by Nauvoo an earthly woman) becoming king (and queen), priest (and priestess), god (and goddess). Looking backward to Smith's threshold narratives about God's seers in the Book of Mormon and its environing 1829 revelations, it is possible to see man becoming god as the final emplotment of the life story of the seer which preoccupied and fascinated Smith from the beginning: the story of an earthly being who comes near to God, learns his secrets, and wins the possibility of being transformed, pushing beyond the limits circumscribed by the natural world and human mortality. (p. 262) Central to the role of seer, according to Staker, is the possession of, and ability to translate, sacred records which contain secrets known only to them. As such, they are the custodians of the mysteries of God, foremost among them the message that God will become a man, come to earth, and die for the sins of the world. Such claims may explain how, for example, the name of Jesus Christ, the name of His mother, Mary, and other details of the incarnation, could be known in the Book of Mormon, and yet not otherwise known in the Hebrew scriptures. Staker's essay is a fascinating view of the developing role of "seer" in the life of Joseph Smith, Jr. Drawing richly from the early revelations, and correlating non-Book of Mormon writings with those of the Book of Mormon, a picture arises of a prophet gradually coming to an understanding of his role in the cosmic picture. This is a chapter well worth studying. We now move on to Dan Vogel's second contribution to this collection, titled "Echoes on Anti-Masonry: A Rejoinder to Critics of the Anti-Masonic Thesis." Here Vogel takes on a disparate quartet of gentlemen who, I fear, would struggle to find much in common: Richard L. Bushman, Blake T. Ostler, D. Michael Quinn and Daniel C. Peterson. (I've met all four men; I'm particularly amused by the pairing of Peterson and Quinn!) Vogel's thesis is simple, and is summed up in his familiar frank, and blunt, style: Despite the efforts of Bushman, Ostler, Quinn, and Peterson, anti-Masonry remains the probable source of inspiration for the Book of Mormon's Gadianton bands. The declarations of some apologists -- for example, William J. Hamblin's statement that the "supposed Gadianton-Masonry connection has been debunked," or John Gee's assertion that the anti-Masonic thesis has been "conclusively demonstrated to be a mirage" -- are premature and native. (p. 312) Vogel addresses, in a point-by-point manner, the various arguments used by Bushman and the others in dismissing the idea that the Gadiantons were invented by Joseph Smith as a reflection of the anti-Masonic feeling in early 19th-century America. Whether he achieves his goal will be up to the reader. The final essay is, in my opinion, the singular gem of the collection. Robert M. Price presents an intriguing piece titled "Joseph Smith: Inspired Author of the Book of Mormon." You may remember my citing words from the introduction where the editors essentially ask, "Can I decide the Book of Mormon is a fictional account, and still find spiritual value?" Up until this last essay, I found little in the way of answering this key question. Price comes through, in spades. (Which comment, I would add, should not suggest to anyone my own view on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. My evaluation is based solely on the competence of the writer's presentation.) Allow me, please, a lengthy cite: One of the chief points of contention and division between the Mormon church and its "separated brethren" ironically harks back to the discovery of the lost Book of Deuteronomy in 2 Kings 22, for today virtually all critical scholars are agreed that the tale of Josiah and Hilkiah tries to hide the very thing it hints at: that the book was not discovered and dusted off but actually created by Hilkiah, Huldah, Jeremiah, and others of the "Deuteronomic School" who thus sought to win the impressionable young king to their religious agenda. What is set forth in 2 Kings as reactionary (restoring the past) was really revolutionary (pressing on into a new future). Though it no doubt contained much traditional material, both from Israel in the north and from Judah in the south, Deuteronomy was essentially a new book, a "modern" revision and updating of previous laws collected in the Yahvist Epic (the "J Source") and the Elohist Epic (the "E" Source"). On the basis of a platform of a newly streamlined monotheism (or at least monolatry) and a humanitarian regard for slaves, animals, and employees, Hilkiah, Huldah, and the others hoped to avert God's wrath for the abuses they had witnessed with increasing disgust for far too long. Thus they penned the book in secret, much like the framers of the United States Constitution, delegates commissioned for one purpose, strengthening the Articles of Confederation, who in fact accomplished another, creating the Constitution. Again, virtually all critical scholars agree that Joseph Smith did not discover the Book of Mormon, but rather created it. His goal would have been as analogous to that of Hilkiah as his methods had been; in response to his confusion over which nineteenth-century version of Christianity to embrace -- none seeming to have any particular advantage over the others, all seeming to be severely in want of something -- Smith tried to make a clean break with the recent past and to go on into a new future by invoking a more distant past. And in so doing he had created something new, an imaginary Sacred Past, the way it *should* have been (p. 323-324) Price goes on to cite multiple biblical examples of such inspired story-telling and subsequent pseudepigryphal writings, pushing his case for Joseph Smith as an inspired inventor of the Book of Mormon story. Price takes an interesting view of canonicity, attaching the idea of a closed canon to the Book of Mormon's idea of priestcraft. He sees the closing of the canon as one of the roles of a corrupt priesthood, thus leaving open the incorporation of new writings as they emerged. He also makes a case that the closing of the canon *created the need* for pseudepigrypha. Drawing on the authority of already-acknowledged prophets and inspired writers, how could one ignore these new works? If Price's hypothesis is true -- if Joseph Smith really did invent the story of the Book of Mormon, used biblical-sounding language, and presented it as true history in order to attach it to an acknowledged authority base -- then, Price argues, Smith is simply following a long, honored tradition. Price, in essence, wants to demolish the old dichotomy of Joseph Smith as inspired translator vs. Joseph Smith as impious fraud. He sees a middle way, and views the results of critical studies of the Bible as examples. I have no doubt this entire line of thought will raise the ire of some. I remind you that I am neither endorsing nor rejecting Price's argument, simply reporting it. Conclusion ---------- The essays contained in "American Apocrypha" were appreciated by me in varying degrees. As a non-scientist, the genetics article was baffling. And as a non-linguist, the Isaiah article left me scratching my head. But as a whole, the thoughts contained herein were stimulating and thought-provoking. I thought that the few examples of mockery (one is cited above) would have been better left out. If the authors had hoped to gain credibility for their causes, this was, I believe, less likely given the condescending tone of their comments. "American Apocrypha" should be on the shelf of every serious student of the Book of Mormon. No matter where you come down on the issues, the questions asked in this volume are not likely to go away very soon. Signature Books is to be commended for a fine collection. ----- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com jeffneedle@nethere.net "We're all only fragile threads, but what a tapestry we make." Jerry Ellis, "Walking the Trail" ----- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com jeffneedle@nethere.net "We're all only fragile threads, but what a tapestry we make." Jerry Ellis, "Walking the Trail" -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: R-Rated Movie Resurrection? (comp 1) Date: 17 Jun 2002 17:26:13 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post. As mentioned before, I'd really rather just as soon that we didn't get into a full-blown discussion of this issue yet, but I didn't want to simply deep-six comments that have come in on this thus far. We'll see where it goes from here...] >From lajackson@juno.com Thu Jun 13 21:04:59 2002 Earlier, Larry Jackson wrote: As a personal decision made over 20 years ago after seeing two of them [R-rated movies], I have not attended them since. D. Michael Martindale: Now that would depend a great deal on _which_ two you saw. Larry Jackson: I saw two recommended by my friends as being "can't miss" films that were "outstanding" and contained "very little objectionable material." "They should not even be rated R" was the usual comment. Each time we have had this discussion on this list (and others), I hear the exact same reasons I should attend certain films. These were trusted friends. My friends were wrong. They are still my friends. I just don't accept movie content advice from them anymore. Early Larry: As a priesthood leader, I would counsel accordingly, including what prophets have said on the matter. Michael: Ooh, ooh! Is it time to resurrect that thread again? What prophets have said about R-rated movies? [MOD: If we must go here, I suppose we must. But I'd really rather put it off another half-year or so...] Larry: I vote we wait. I have all the quotes. In fact, I heard most of them when they were said. And I'm not currently in a position to counsel members as a priesthood leader, so I'm not going to lead anyone astray ... And the real reason I wrote was that I forgot to say I was graduated from the school of the Communist colors, not the school of the color of the wide and vast expanse of empty sky. Now, should I have self-censored that comment? Larry Jackson >From ThomDuncan@prodigy.net Fri Jun 14 16:10:22 2002 Shucks. Because I stand ready and willing to re-upload my list of statements made by Apostles and others about R-rated movies. (Very surprising, by the way, to those who think that the "Prophet" has said we shouldn't see R-rated films). But being the polite gadfly that I am, I will refrain from polluting the list, though I am willing to send the list to anyone who privately emails me. ThomDuncan@prodigy.net >From dmichael@wwno.com Sat Jun 15 02:35:22 2002 Eileen Stringer wrote: > > Ooh, ooh! Is it time to resurrect that thread again? What prophets have > > said about R-rated movies? > > > > [MOD: If we must go here, I suppose we must. But I'd really rather put it > > off another half-year or so...] > > Personally I would like to see that particular thread entombed another > couple of years at least before it sees resurrection morn........ I won't resurrect it at the moment, but perhaps I can explain why it interests me. I grew up in the church, mostly in Minnesota (so this isn't a strictly Utah phenomenon), and cluelessly swallowed along with the best of them all the rumors and folk doctrines that floated around. These unofficial pseudodoctrines that can start up merely from a casual remark by a General Authority only add to the list of "don'ts" that Mormons have to adhere to, the list that we all judge each other by (even though we've been commanded not to judge). Now when something on that list is a commandment from God, that's just fine; that's something we should worry about obeying. But when spurious things end up on that list, causing people extra stress trying to conform, or extra guilt because they're not conforming, all for nothing, that frosts me. I grew up believing Coke was against the Word of Wisdom--seriously, really against it. Then as a teenager I found out it wasn't true. That was my first disillusionment about the gospel as taught by our culture. Of course, once I discovered that anomaly, I had to wonder how many others there were. It was all downhill from there. That's the danger of these pseudodoctrines--they make you wonder just what is valid and what isn't. If we only preach valid doctrine in the first place, then the question doesn't have to arise in the first place. It was a long road before I finally started questioning core understandings I've held about the church. I stayed pretty orthodox for quite a while, slowly collecting pseudodoctrines. But inevitably I reached the point of critical mass where sufficient evidence accumulated that I could no longer in good conscience maintain the image of the near-perfect church I held for so many years. I began questioning a great deal. It was a disconcerting time--still is, really. Now why should I have had to go through that, when all that was necessary was to stick to genuine doctrine in the first place? I've survived the ordeal with my testimony remaining--a very different testimony from what I once had, but a testimony nonetheless. But many have not survived the ordeal. Many have just left. Now why should they have to go through that, when all we had to do was preach the truth all along, and not make stuff up as we go to suit our fancy? Here's an example of how this stuff gets made up without the perpetrator even recognizing it. I was a teenager and my dad was in the bishopric in Minnesota. One general conference rolled around where the president (Harold B. Lee?) set a goal for everyone to have their food storage by such and such a date. Shortly after, my dad came home from church all riled up about how someone teaching a lesson that day had said, "Now the prophet has said that we'd better get our food storage by such-and-such-a-date or it will be too late for us." Making up doctrine on the fly. The adage "The prophet has told us not to see R-rated movies" is just that sort of thing. No president of the church has said that ("the prophet" always means the president of the church). One president, Ezra Taft Benson, once advised a group of teenagers that they should not see R-rated movies. Forever after that speech, the pseudodoctrine has been spread that any Mormon seeing an R-rated film is violating a commandment from the prophet. It's been spread so much, no one even recognizes the origin anymore. It's just one of those things we've heard so much, it must be true. But it's not. I spent years feeling guilty about seeing R-rated movies because of that. I still kept seeing them, because for some reason the admonition didn't seem right, but I felt guilty for it. All for nothing, because it was a false doctrine. Some will argue, well, if it's bad for teenagers, then it's bad for adults too. I don't buy it, but if that's how you feel, then by all means make it a personal rule not to see R-rated films. But you have no right to fabricate a commandment for others that was never given based on your interpretation of a statement by a General Authority. Not even bishops have that right. Not even other General Authorities. But isn't it such a minor thing? you might say. Avoiding Coke or R-rated movies--are they such a big deal? Are they worth risking your salvation over? First of all, I'm not risking my salvation over disobeying false doctrine. Second, pseudodoctrines are not always small things. I've become increasingly convinced that the prohibition against giving blacks the priesthood was not sound doctrine, but a man-made concept born out of the culture of the times. A great many people were hurt deeply because of that doctrine--and still are, a quarter century after its repeal. Plus, when "good" members of the church use these pseudoctrines to judge other members, the damage can be eternal. The most recent pseudodoctrine whose rise I've predicted is the admonition to avoid piercings and tattoos. It was a strong recommendation from the First Presidency. Such a thing is not to be lightly dismissed. But it wasn't a commandment from God. If you want to take the admonition seriously (and I recommend you do), then by all means do so. But I just know that, over and over again, there will be "good" members of the church who take it as a commandment and will judge harshly anyone who has two pierced earrings in one ear, or a tattoo that they may have gotten in the Navy before they joined the church and can't easily rid themselves of now. There is no doctrine that getting a tattoo is breaking a commandment of God. But you know there are members out there who believe there now is, and will treat others accordingly. That treatment at a fragile moment in someone's life may be part of the reason that someone leaves the church. When somebody like Larry Jackson says he has seen two R-rated movies and didn't feel good about it, so won't see anymore, I say that's fine. But he went on to invoke what the prophet has said about it. He was vague enough that I may be reading him wrong, but it sounded to me like he was invoking that common pseudodoctrine, "The prophet has told us not to see R-rated movies." And when someone brings up a pseudodoctrine, I don't like to let it lie unmolested, because I think they're a harmful aspect of our culture. D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Change Names or Not? Date: 15 Jun 2002 03:03:02 -0600 Bill Willson wrote: > I feel strongly that the story needs to be told, but the names and places as > well as the exact details of the situation should be altered so as to > protect innocent people, and also protect the author. We have enough rich > lawyers lying in wait to ensnare the unwary without giving them such a rich > treasure to fight over. The people who have the most potential to be offended are the same people who will recognize their own story when they read it, even with fictionalized names and places and a pseudonymed author. So will that approach provide that much protection? Won't the fundamentalist angel of destruction come down upon the infidel anyway, if it would have with all the facts? -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Kirk Subject: Re: [AML] Models for Mormon Art Date: 16 Jun 2002 18:26:28 -0700 Linda wrote: >Julie, >I'm curious; did you ask the man who critiqued your painting why he had that >reaction, why he equated Mormon and Nazi propaganda? You say he seemed to >like it. I don't believe people in general would have that reaction. >However, I think there is not harm in "generalizing" one's subjects. >Linda Hyde > > and Robert wrote: > >So, did he mean your boys looked too Aryan? Or did he mean that your painting >got a message across very strongly? Does he think LDS flyers are as false and >propagandistic (is that a word?) as Nazi propaganda? Or does he think they're >equally effective in getting their message across? You know, I didn't outright ask him about whether he liked them - I know that sounds silly, but I was in a crit with about 15 other people, and other people would start talking and then the subject would eventually change - so I never got back to it. But the basics of what he seemed to be trying to get across is this - that he associated the look of Nazi propoganda posters as trying to show young, virile aryan men - "we can conquer anything and are meant to be the chosen race". Then he also brought up the Mormon flyers as being this same type of view - "we can conquer anything and we are the chosen race". Yes, I did get a bit of a feeling that he didn't mean that in the nicest of terms. But I also think he was trying to convey part of what you are saying also - that act of conversion and the "promise" being offered of something greater. Yes, he brought up the flyers as the ones that you see in the pamphlets and so on that are handed out to nonmembers, but I also kind of got the feeling that he was talking about manuals and magazines also - so I'm not sure if he had some personal connection with Mormonism, and I never got a chance to ask as it was the final day of the class and I had to leave a bit early for something for my kids. For the most part, people in the class made sounds of agreement, but also gave me alot of positive feedback on the paintings and the emotional content of them. whether they knew it or not, they gave me a broad range of responses that were all in the directions I was trying to hit, so to me that is successful. In thinking more and more about it, and having now put it into words, and reading responses from both you and Linda, I think I have come to the conclusion that we need to paint what we know and what moves us. Using my kids as models fits for me and what I am doing as part of my exploration is on the level of an open religious discussion, but part of it is a personal journey also and (tying into the "Baby Exhaustion" subject) a discovery of how my observation of my children's personalities, mistakes and successes, and the relative guilt or joy I feel over those actions play into my painting. I think I am more working on the guilt phase right now, but am hoping to hit the joy phase sometimes this decade ;o) One thing I will say is that, seperate from my painting, it really bothers me to hear someone equate those two things together - Nazi posters and Mormon flyers. The qualifier being that I do see a much greater attempt to show the diversity of people who try to follow the gospel - but I still have a hard time with it and struggle with whether it is my personal mission to deliberately try and change that view. and how do I go about that with honesty, trying to put genuine feeling into what I'm painting. I see too many people over the years who almost seem to be "cashing in" on the growth in popularity of ethnic art - such as the massive amounts of artists who want to replay "Dances with Wolves". There is alot of gray area there as to when we are being genuine and when we are commenting on something we really have no right to lay claim to. Julie -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] LEONARD, _Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, A People of Promise_ (Deseret= Date: 17 Jun 2002 02:44:53 +0000 Deseret News Sunday, June 16, 2002 Impressive 'Nauvoo' captures an era By Dennis Lythgoe Deseret News book editor NAUVOO: A PLACE OF PEACE, A PEOPLE OF PROMISE; by Glen M. Leonard; Deseret Book and BYU Press, 828 pages; $39.95. This remarkable new book has actually been in the works since 1978, the year Glen Leonard assumed authorship of what was scheduled to be the Nauvoo volume of a 16-volume history of the LDS Church commissioned by Leonard J. Arrington, then LDS Church historian. T. Edgar Lyon, historian for Nauvoo Restoration Inc., had spent about 10 years researching the history of Nauvoo for both restoration and scholarly purposes. But in 1978, Lyon lost a battle with cancer, and Glen Leonard took over the project. It is gratifying to see it reach fruition with the publication of what is sure to be the definitive history of Nauvoo for years to come. Leonard, a mature, careful, insightful historian, has applied all of his impressive narrative and interpretive talents to this work in a successful effort to write a frank and open history of one of the most important periods in LDS history. The book tells the story of the development of Nauvoo, Ill., established by industrious, determined religious pioneers who not only created a beautiful, prosperous city on the banks of the Mississippi but built a temple as the center of worship. The story of Nauvoo is political, social and economic, but it is primarily a religious story, and Leonard understands that. Nauvoo represented not only a peak period in the establishment of Joseph Smith's teachings but also a crisis based on persecutions and the eventual assassination of the Mormon prophet. It represented a major transition from Smith's leadership to Brigham Young's more pragmatic approach, and in Leonard's opinion it set the stage for the entire, lengthy administration of Brigham Young during the Utah years. Leonard has told the story in a creative way, being careful to include all the relevant threads from the Missouri and Ohio years so that the reader never loses perspective. He effectively illustrates the importance of place to the Latter- day Saints as they struggled to develop a kingdom dedicated to their faith. Joseph Smith played the starring role in this fascinating story, demonstrating unusually diverse and charismatic talents in governing both the Church and the city. But Leonard is determined to tell the whole story, and so he never glosses over problems. He frankly treats the major issues of plural marriage and succession in the presidency of the church after Smith's death. Leonard traces the beginnings of plural marriage in the culture as a religious precedent begun by and participated in by Joseph Smith and continued by Brigham Young. In addition, Emma Smith's opposition to the practice is documented. Leonard also treats the crisis of succession in detail. The major issue, as Leonard sees it, is that Smith determined at the time of his death that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles assumed the authority to govern the church when the prophet was no longer with them. Therefore, the individual claims of Joseph Smith III, James J. Strang, Oliver Cowdery or Sidney Rigdon were placed secondary to the authority of the Twelve. That is why Brigham Young, as president of the Twelve, eventually succeeded Joseph Smith. Leonard treats persecution with equal frankness. This is not a story in which Mormon pioneers appear to be perfect. They made mistakes, and Leonard documents them, believing that accurate history is also faithful history. He also deconstructs a number of myths that have been passed down through generations. For example, those who killed Joseph Smith did not have horrible things happen to them: "They lived out their lives as respected citizens=20 with successful careers in their communities." Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company Well-seasoned historian has a gift for language to tell story of Nauvoo By Dennis Lythgoe Deseret News book editor The author of "Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, A People of Promise" is perhaps the ideal historian to produce an interesting and accurate volume about one of the most important periods in LDS history. Although he has spent the past 24 years as director of the Museum of LDS Church History and Art, Glen M. Leonard holds a doctorate in history and American Studies from the University of Utah, has written extensively about LDS history and is known for his gift for language. In a far-ranging interview with the Deseret News in his museum office, Leonard reflected on a project that has taken a huge chunk of his personal time since 1978, when he took over the research T. Edgar Lyon had been doing on Nauvoo after the highly respected historian passed away. "I had just been named museum director, and we had just moved into a new home in Farmington, and I was too busy to do anything on Nauvoo for 10 years," Leonard said. Elder Loren Dunn, who at the time was the director of the board of Nauvoo Restoration Inc., arranged for Leonard to have two leaves of absence to work on the book. By 1996, Leonard had finished a 1,000-page manuscript (later cut to 664 pages) that he considered "open and honest" and designed "to appeal to a broad, general audience." Because of a prior commitment with the Utah Historical Society to write a history of Farmington, Leonard left his Nauvoo manuscript while he spent 3 1/2 years completing the Farmington volume, which was finished in 1999. Then he spent two years cutting the first half of the Nauvoo book by a third. Leonard actually logged the hours he spent on the Nauvoo book, mostly evenings, weekends, holidays and vacation time. "I had a full-time job, 40 hours a week, and my church callings took 15-20 hours. From 1988-1996, then from 1999-2001, I squeezed out 25 months of full-time work. It's a two-year project spanning 10 years. I love research and writing. I love to massage the writing, and it was hard to let go, but the book needed to get on the shelves." It was published just this month. It was important to Leonard to give the reader a sense of place. "Nauvoo was a special place, because it was a city of distinction," he said. "It had a prophet. . . . Nauvoo was the place where he lived and where the people gathered. Nauvoo was laid out in a four-square pattern like other cities of the time. The difference Joseph Smith made was that in the place of the courthouse on= =20 the central square, he built a temple. It was geographically centered =97 on= a=20 prominence on top of a bluff. . . It became the geographical and spiritual center of this religious city." Leonard did not hesitate to tackle controversial issues, such as plural marriage and succession to the presidency of the church. "Plural marriage was a confidential practice. It was not publicly announced and only introduced privately to very few. You have a lack of information, because very few people were writing anything about it. To find out who knew and what they thought about it was a real challenge. I did what I could to tell the story of plural marriage honestly and openly," he said. When Smith was killed, the crucial question for the church was who would succeed him. "It became an issue of the right of the Twelve Apostles to govern. Most people living in Nauvoo who had known the Twelve in England felt that was the natural way to go. But those who opposed it opposed Smith's later teachings on the temple and plural marriage. Some supported Joseph Smith III, who was not old enough to lead the church," he said. One myth Leonard has corrected is the common tendency for Mormons today to believe that Gov. Thomas Ford of Illinois "was a bad guy." In the book, Leonard considers Ford to be "a good guy," who was perceived by Smith and Brigham Young as "helpful, neutral - a law and order person. Ford was a former Illinois state supreme court justice. He was a Democrat, and the Mormons trusted the Democratic point of view more than the Whig." Leonard believes Ford wanted to prevent civil war. "He could see brewing two peoples who had political ambitions that were basically similar. But the issue became so complicated that the anti-Mormon people said 'We were here first, so YOU should leave.' Gov. Ford saw that. Ford tried to keep the peace. When the martyrdom took place, he was as shocked as everyone else. He trusted the military people guarding Joseph Smith to do their duty. He was a bit naive, but he took their word, and they violated it." It is Leonard's academic training as an historian, perhaps, that causes him to react with humility when asked if this is the definitive history of Nauvoo. "I didn't finish the Nauvoo history =97 I let go of it. Histories are written, then time passes, then new ways of asking the questions develop. I took a fresh approach and tried to give a comprehensive treatment. But in a few years, I suppose someone will try again." He is grateful to both Deseret Book and BYU Press for being "very supportive" of his frank and open approach. "We didn't have any battles. The manuscript didn't have to go through the general authorities of the church for approval. Elder Loren Dunn, an early supporter, read the manuscript, and he was helpful in raising a few questions, but he did not challenge my subject, my historical approach or my interpretations." Leonard sees Nauvoo as "the culmination of Joseph Smith's period and the beginning of Brigham Young's, and you see the transition in the book. The peaceful interlude is truly an unfolding of a new perspective on how to govern the church and how to implement the programs. Joseph Smith and his teachings became the core of how Brigham Young managed his whole administration. The concept of a covenant community continued in an ecclesiastical way instead of a community sense, but the principles are still with us." Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Join the world=92s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.=20 http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 15 Jun 2002 18:51:50 -0600 At 03:01 PM 6/13/02, you wrote: >I'm planning several novels that would use this research, one intended for a >Mormon audience and one for a national audience, and I am quite interested >in understanding the authentic mindsets of people on all sides of that >issue. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. George Takei, who played Sulu on Star Trek, was interned at the age of four when his family was sent to a camp. He writes about it in his autobiography. I have a copy of the book if you'd like to borrow it. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 16 Jun 2002 09:44:05 -0600 Marianne wrote: > And this thread isn't helping, my friends. Because I know I want to have > kids and y'all are scaring the heck out of me. Man, alive! Sometimes I > think we have way too much childbirth/child rearing full disclosure. The > pendulum has swung with a vengeance. LOL. You may have a point here, Marianne! Sometimes it's better not to know too much beforehand. I wonder how many of us in the preexistence would have jumped for joy had we *really* understood what we were getting into. :-) But the thing is, childbirth and child rearing, like life, is as much about joy and grace and a kind of transcendent holiness as it is about pain and drudgery and exhaustion. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DiannRead@aol.com Subject: [AML] Re: Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 16 Jun 2002 16:32:15 EDT Hmmmm, interesting theory. I'm going to start paying more attention to that here in San Antonio, TX, where wards and stakes are a mix of Spanish- and English-speaking members. (Our bishopric currently is all Anglos, but we have Hispanic members in our High Council.) Also, the ordinance workers at the Houston temple are a mix of English- and Spanish-speakers. At least one of the sealers is Hispanic, and another--a good friend of my husband--is Dutch and has a different accent altogether. But this is Texas, not Utah . . . . Diann T. Read -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Kirk Subject: [AML] Provo Street Painting Fest Date: 16 Jun 2002 18:34:56 -0700 Just a general announcment for those interested - Labor Day weekend of this year there is going to be a street painting festival held in Provo at the Riverwoods mall. I'll be there doing some workshops before hand and the featured painting which will be a large figurative piece, but more than that, I wanted to make the announcement so that anyone who might be interested in completing a painting knows and can keep the dates free. Anyone with any interest in doing a street painting is welcome to apply to do a square - if it is a first time I'd recommend doing one of the smaller ones, somewhere around 6'x4' to get the feel of it without being overwhelmed. I'll post some follow up info on who to get hold of in a few weeks for applications. Feel free to keep my email address and get hold of me though if you don't see the info come up. Also, if you haven't seen this type of work in person before, you might want to try and make it by that weekend - later in the weekend being better as the paintings are nearing completion. The work is way more impressive and monumental in person than photos can ever get across. It is a pretty unique type of performance art - the festival should be getting a number of the better California artists out there so there should be some nice paintings to view. Julie Kirk -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Homefront Ads (SL Tribune) Date: 17 Jun 2002 02:33:11 +0000 LDS Ads The Message: Family First Salt Lake Tribune Saturday, June 15, 2002 BY CHRISTOPHER SMITH THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE One of the most successful broadcast advertising campaigns has never paid for a minute of commercial airtime. It's never used celebrity pitchmen, sexy models, catchy jingles or bawdy humor. No Madison Avenue ad agencies, focus groups or test markets. Yet since 1972, a series of sentimental vignettes promoting family togetherness produced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has defied programmers' inherent reluctance to give a religious group free airtime as part of television and radio stations' public service obligation. The campaign has beat out such powerhouses as Coke and Nike for national advertising awards and become a model for subtly marketing religion in mass media. "The goodness of the message stands on its own," said Curt Dahl, who has written and produced hundreds of the so- called "Homefront" public service announcements for the LDS Church through church-owned Bonneville Communications in Salt Lake City. "Our quest has always been to give people a little reminder to take a closer look at their relationship with their families." With storylines and imagery that sometimes evoke Norman Rockwell's Saturday Evening Post covers, the ads have become a public touchstone to the modern image of Mormonism, a staple of overnight commercial breaks and the electronic medium equivalent of a Gideon Bible in a hotel room nightstand. "We thought, well, advertising can sell products like soap and sodas and sedans, and was very successful at doing that, can it do something to promote an ideology?" said Richard D. Alsop, recently retired president and general manager of Bonneville, who hatched the Homefront concept with colleague M. Gordon Johnson in 1971. The initial 1972 campaign lacked the production quality that would be the campaign's hallmark. But the tone was set the next year with an ad showing a father in a recliner watching TV as his son waits outside the window, baseball and glove in hand, eyes pleading for Dad to play catch. "Remember last week when you said next week you were going to spend more time with your children?" the announcer asks the potato chip-chomping father. "It's next week." Others were poignant. A popular ad featured a pigtailed little girl returning home from a birthday party, eager to report what happened, only to be ignored by busy parents and siblings. She finally finds an interested ear -- the family pooch. "Children can go to the dogs when families don't listen," intones the voice-over. Storylines are often mawkish -- in a 1978 spot, a feuding husband and wife reflect on happier times in a mini "Love Story" sequence as the announcer says, "Think of the times you pulled together instead of apart, and then, think again." Other plots became classics: 1985's "Water Fight," where carousing muddy kids are caught by their stern father, who warns "Don't anybody move. I'll be right back," only to return with a camera and join in the mess. "Water Fight" took the American Advertising Federation's top national award that year -- Apple's legendary 1984 Macintosh Superbowl spot was the previous winner -- and was included in The 100 Best TV Commercials by Bernice Kanner. This summer, a popular Homefront ad from early in the campaign will be re-made and re-issued for the first time. "Kidnapped" was a 1974 commercial featuring a son who persuades his father to take a break from the pile of work he has brought home to see something in the camper. When Dad gets inside the camper, his son shuts the door and hops into the pickup cab where Mom is waiting behind the wheel and they drive off with Dad locked in the camper. "What does it take to get you back into the lives of your children?" asks the announcer. "Give them everything, give them your time." The venerable ad campaign represents a "masterful job of branding," according to one scholar who studies how effectively churches use mass media. "These ads have remade the public image of the Mormon church without ever addressing Mormon theology or Mormon understandings of God," said Jeffrey H. Mahan, professor of ministry, media and culture at Iliff School of Theology in Denver, and author of Religion and Popular Culture in America. "They have played a major role in repositioning the Mormon church in the wider society," said Mahan, an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church. "The church was largely seen as an alternative religion, always a little strange anyplace but Utah. What the advertising campaign did was to help make them mainstream." With the 83rd set of Homefront spots going to broadcasters this month (new spots are mailed to 1,200 TV stations and 4,000 radio stations every three months), Homefront is marking its 30th anniversary. Bonneville officials contend it is the "longest running, most broadcast, most highly awarded public service campaign in the world," racking up Clios, Emmys and Cannes Film Festival honors, as well as airing on thousands of local stations and most major broadcast networks in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the South Pacific, Latin America, Brazil, the United Kingdom, the Philippines and Europe, creating millions of impressions. Still, many Utah viewers may have never seen the ads, which seldom air on commercial television stations in Salt Lake City -- world headquarters of the LDS Church. "My guess is because [LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University public television station] KBYU runs them all the time, the other stations figure there's enough exposure in this market," said Dahl, Bonneville's creative director. "Honestly, I can't tell you the last time I've even seen one on [LDS Church- owned commercial television station] KSL." By design, the ads are a soft sell, with messages that are as universal as a Hallmark greeting card. Only a video logo or tagline mention at the end indicates sponsorship, such as "a thought from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Bonneville also produces a separate series of advertisements that the LDS Church pays to air on some cable networks and TV stations nationally that include an offer of a free Book of Mormon for those who call a toll-free phone number. "There are some similarities in the feel of those paid ads compared to Homefront, but there is usually a deeper emotion at work in the paid ads since not everyone is ready for that message at all times in their life," said Dahl. "But Homefront is our flagship, and there's never been anything said to me that the church wants it to do more than it already is doing." While the immortality of the family is a central cornerstone of Mormon doctrine, the low-key style of Homefront's message has allowed broadcasters to overcome hesitation of airing religious public service announcements (PSAs) from among the thousands of spots sent by non-profit groups. Studies have shown spots with religious or political messages are routinely trash-canned by programmers, whose stations no longer must fill a federally mandated "quota" of PSAs but are under a "public service obligation" by broadcast licensing agencies. "A church-produced PSA getting on the air is an aberration to a certain degree," said Dennis Wharton, senior vice president of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). "But this is one of the more highly run PSA campaigns because it isn't saying, 'Go to church Sunday or you'll go to hell.' It's a non-proselytizing, universal appeal for family support, and the pro-family message is a safe message to run in every market in America." A survey of broadcast public service directors by the Kaiser Family Foundation released in February found a 57 percent majority cited PSAs about family, children or teen topics as their station's top priority for filling donated airtime. A soon- to-be-released NAB survey found TV stations average 73 minutes per week airing PSAs while radio stations average 100 minutes per week. In 2001, the NAB says American broadcasters donated $6.6 billion worth of airtime for PSAs. It's free advertising that has prompted other faiths to cast a sometimes-envious eye toward the LDS Church. The United Presbyterian Church actually produced and offered PSAs before the advent of Homefront, but no religion has managed to match the global branding of such slogans as "Family: Isn't it about time?" as has modern Mormonism. And some faiths would never consider trying, reflecting an age-old debate whether mass media are an appropriate vessel for the gospel. "The United Methodist Church has made some real efforts to have a stronger media presence, and while no one involved would acknowledge it, they are clearly informed by the Mormon model," said Mahan. " But in my own denomination there are those who believe we should trust people to come to us for the rightness of our message rather than watering down the truth into a 30- or 60-second commercial." Dahl, like many Bonneville veterans, is convinced of the propriety of the Homefront approach through hundreds of letters and anecdotes collected from viewers or listeners, or by LDS missionaries who regularly report people they contact recognize the faith through the ads. His own experiences, which have become the basis for innumerable Homefront storylines, lead him to believe spending time with family is a message that can never be repeated enough. "A few years ago I was working at home at night, trying to get a new series of Homefront spots written and my young daughter kept calling me to her bedroom to get her a drink of water, a blanket, her doll, on and on," he said. "I was thinking, 'Doesn't she understand I have to work on these ads about spending time with family?' And she called me to her bedroom again, and I went in and said, 'Now what do you want?' And she said, 'Dad, I love you.'" Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] More Nauvoo Books (Deseret News) Date: 17 Jun 2002 02:54:05 +0000 Deseret News Sunday, June 16, 2002 Books welcome readers to Nauvoo By Dennis Lythgoe Deseret News book editor THE GATHERING TO NAUVOO, by Fred E. Woods, Covenant, 261 pages, $19.95; NAUVOO: THE CITY BEAUTIFUL, by John Telford, Deseret Book (Eagle Gate), 53 pages, $19.95; THE NAUVOO TEMPLE STONE, by Timothy Robinson, illustrated by Robert Barrett, Bookcraft, 32 pages, $16.95. The release of several new books coincides with the dedication of the LDS Church's Nauvoo Illinois Temple this month. Fred Woods, a professor of LDS Church history at BYU, has written "The Gathering to Nauvoo," a collection of stirring personal narratives of some of the hundreds of LDS converts who traveled thousands of miles to "gather" in the "City of the Saints." Woods used several archives to assemble interesting accounts of these peoples' experiences crossing the ocean, including disease, winds and waves, dancing and singing and sea burials. Some of the converts came from the Pacific Islands, the result of the missionary work of such powerful personalities as Addison Pratt, Benjamin Groudard, Noah Rogers and Knowlton Hanks. Robert Pexton was a British convert who brought his family to Nauvoo in the fall of 1841. He wrote, "I spoke to my wife about it and she was willing that I should go and leave her behind until I could send for her as we had not sufficient means for both to go . . . This was a sad parting but I was reconciled to go." Twenty-one-year-old Thomas Callister left his home on the Isle of Man in January, 1842, for Nauvoo. He wrote, "I left all my relatives and friends for the Gospel sake." His brother, John, offered him half of all he owned if he would not go. When Thomas refused, his brother said "he would be happier if he could lay him away on the hill with his parents." Prescilla Staines, who took a voyage on the "Fanny" in 1844, wrote, "I left the home of my birth to gather to Nauvoo. I was alone. It was a dreary winter day on which I went to Liverpool. The company with which I was to sail were all strangers to me. When I arrived at Liverpool and saw the ocean that would soon roll between me and all I loved, my heart almost failed me." John Telford took the full-color photos and Susan Easton Black and Kim C. Averett wrote the text for "Nauvoo: The City Beautiful," a book for the armchair traveler or for the traveler who plans to visit Nauvoo this summer. First published in 1997, it has been re-released with updated photos of the new Nauvoo temple from construction to its completed state. The book includes 50 photographs, including pioneer homes and businesses. The text is a minimal contribution compared to the lush photos. Finally, "The Nauvoo Temple Stone," by Timothy Robinson, is a children's picture book in which the author imagines what those who worked on the construction of the new temple would have said when they discovered the foundation stones of the original temple. People comment on the different stones as if one were symbolic of a testament, one a prayer, another a monument, another a sentinel, another a seed and another a bridge. The book, simple and straightforward, is enhanced by the paintings of Robert Barrett. Robinson is director of electronic publishing at Deseret Book, and Barrett is a professor of illustration at BYU. An accomplished=20 painter and illustrator, his work has been included in LDS Church magazines and in art exhibits across the country and in Germany. Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company 'Sacred Stone' =97 a story of faith By Carma Wadley Deseret News senior writer SACRED STONE: The Temple at Nauvoo, Heidi S. Swinton, Covenant, $29.95, 166 pp. Nauvoo, the swamp. Nauvoo, the beautiful. Nauvoo, the troubled, the persecuted, the abandoned. Nauvoo, the city built on the banks of the Mississippi River by Mormon pioneers in the early 1840s, was all that and more. But above all else, says Heidi Swinton, it was Nauvoo, the city of Joseph's temple. "The real story of Nauvoo is the story of building a temple. Saints gathered to Nauvoo by divine command to build the temple. The economic structure of the town embraced the practice of tithing one day in 10 to temple labor . . . . Nauvoo was a Mormon town; and the centerpiece of Mormon worship =97 as taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith and elaborated by President Brigham Young =97 was clearly the temple." The story of that remarkable building is told in "Sacred Stone: The Temple at Nauvoo," which is a companion piece to a documentary,= =20 "Sacred Stone: Temple on the Mississippi," by Lee Groberg, which will be shown on PBS this fall. The book was released to coincide with the open house and dedication of the rebuilt temple (footage of which will be included in the film). Swinton does an excellent job of putting the Nauvoo temple in context =97 in world religious history, in Mormon history and in American history. With the temple as a central focus, she discusses the events that unfolded in and around Nauvoo during the construction period =97 from the gathering of the saints, to the= persecution,=20 to the death of Joseph Smith and the forced evacuation of the city. She details the methods and processes of construction. And in a series of well-placed sidebars contrasts that with modern construction. Throughout, she quotes diaries and writings of Nauvoo citizens. From their words, you get a clear sense of what the building meant to the saints, how it was worth any sacrifice. And she quotes a variety of historians - both LDS and non -LDS - to show how historical perspective has strengthened that meaning. "It was both the project of building the temple and the experiences=20 spiritually within it that was the glue of the community and that also took them across the plains," notes BYU professor=20 emeritus Truman G. Madsen. As Brigham Young said: "We completed the temple, used it a short time, and were done with it. On the 5th and 6th of February, 1846, we committed the building into the hands of the Lord, and left it." The question most asked by historians of the period, says Swinton, is:= =20 Why would they finish the temple knowing they were going to leave it. Loren Horton, senior historian with the State Historical= =20 Society of Iowa, suggests: "The answer is in their religious faith. They needed the temple for what was going to be done for them in the temple." "Sacred Stone" is written as a popular history, meant to be read quickly and enjoyed on many levels. Drawings, photographs, pull-out quotes are used liberally to enhance the text and please the eye. In the end, it is a beautiful book, not only for that design, but also for the spirit it evokes. As you read, you get a deep appreciation for the Nauvoo Temple =97 both old and new. And you come to realize that its story is not the story of a building, as remarkable as that building was, but a story of faith, obedience and love. It is the story of a people's relationship with their God. Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Setting Goals Date: 16 Jun 2002 21:40:35 -0600 I would like to chime in with Jacob's well reasoned response to the goal setting mentality. As usual, he has hit it on the head. If goals are part of the gospel, why aren't they explicitly in the scriptures? (Set ye therefore goals, that ye may achieve the success of perfection.) And if most of religious life is helping others, how can we set goals for that? I went on a mission in what must have been the height of goal-setting mentality. A ward leader at the MTC told us it is all about goal setting--that he only needed a home teacher to check up on his goals. Even the prophet at the time (whom I love deeply) was tell missionaries to set baptism goals (1000 per missionary per mission, but 500 per mission for German missions). Reality was about three orders of magnitude less. We had a general authority come to the mission and chastise us for not having companionship baptism goals. I put a personal story in my novel *Angel of the Danube* where the main character tells how zero was a good prediction, but not a goal. Goals must be whole numbers greater than zero. The number one is a good goal. I've since found out that any goal mulitplication greater than one is merely showing off. First, you have to finish the one thing, whether it is getting out of bed in the morning or finding someone to baptize or saving souls or getting married or having children or about anything. Selling cars, houses, cows, etc. There were two zone leaders in our mission who decided to set a zone goal of 2000 baptisms for the last four months of the year (or a decade's worth). When they went around to the districts, there was a great discerning between the faithful who accepted goals of 100 plus baptisms per companionship, and the unfaithful who wondered whose grip on reality was failing. P.S. Baptism rate was unchanged. Do I have goals? No, just projects. And I've accomplished a few things in my life that some would consider noteworthy, although I've done it without the satisfaction that it was sheer will that made things come to pass. I've had to settle for the attitude that it was the result of many people working and helping and giving and thanking the Lord for giving me the means and time and patience I've needed. Now I need someone to tell me I could have done more if I used goals ;) Alan Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] 2002 Pearl Awards (Deseret News) Date: 17 Jun 2002 04:31:04 +0000 Deseret News Sunday, June 16, 2002 2002 Pearl Awards highlight inspirational music By Carma Wadley Deseret News senior writer Singer/songwriter Cherie Call and instrumental folk ensemble Enoch Train were the big winners Friday night at the 2002 Pearl Awards. Held Friday night at Cottonwood Auditorium, the awards celebrated the excellence, diversity and impact of the LDS music community. The awards are presented by, and voted on by, members of the nonprofit Faith-Centered Music Association. Call and Enoch Train, composed of Clive Romney, Janice Andersen, Daron Bradford, Dave Compton, Rich Dixon, Rob Honey, Tom Hewitson and Jay Lawrence, each carried off four awards. Tyler Castleton also made multiple appearances on the podium, honored as producer of the year and for his work on several other songs and albums. K. Newell Dayley, longtime mentor, teacher,=20 conductor/composer/performer and current dean of the College of Fine Arts and Communications at Brigham Young University, was honored for a lifetime of service. Throughout the evening, performances by Call, Enoch Train, Julie de Azevedo, Katherine Nelson, David Tolk, the Children's Olympic Choir, Doug Walker, Christina England and Jericho Road showcased the= =20 breadth and depth of local talent. That diversity was also highlighted by the award winners. >From Call's poignant "He Gives Flowers to Everyone," about taking advantage of opportunities; to Hewitson's lively "Babylon/Paddy Clyde," written as a tribute to an ancestor; to the contemporary flair of guy-group Jericho Road (Bret Bryce, David Kimball, Abe Mills, Justin Smith); to songs written for the Olympics and the movies; the awards paid tribute to music that is, as Hewitson put it, "medicine for the soul." Kevin Kiner, honored twice for his music for "The Other Side of Heaven" may have been the first non-LDS artist to receive a Pearl Award. "I'm Catholic, but I'm a person of faith," he said. The theme for the movie, in fact, was inspired by a Bible passage his wife read to him. The Los Angeles-based Kiner, with 10 motion pictures and numerous TV shows to his credit, called "The Other Side of Heaven" "probably the most important thing I've ever done." He summed up the evening: "This is real music. It just happens to be faith-based." The Pearl Award program, hosted by Scott Christopher, will be broadcast on KJZZ-TV on June 30. The 2002 Pearl Award winners include: LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT: K. Newell Dayley EXCELLENCE IN RECORDED SONG Sacred: "Mountain of the Lord," written by Doug Stone; performed by Jenny Jordan Frogley Inspirational: "He Gives Flowers to Everyone," written, performed by Cherie Call Contemporary: "I Can't Count the Stars," written, performed by Julie de Azevedo Sacred/Inspirational Instrumental: "The Other Side of Heaven Suite," written by Kevin Kiner Contemporary Instrumental: "Babylon/Paddy Clyde," written, arranged by Tom Hewitson; performed by Enoch Train Holiday: "Good Tidings," written by Colette Call; performed by Jenny Jordan Frogley, Ernest Enoch and Millennium Choir EXCELLENCE IN RECORDED ALBUM Sacred: "God Be With You =97 Hymns of Comfort, Hope & Peace;" various artists; Greg Hansen, Michael Dowdle, producers Inspirational: "Songs of the Soul;" BYU Singers; Ron Staheli, producer Contemporary: "He Gives Flowers to Everyone;" Cherie Call; Tyler Castleton, producer Sacred/Inspirational Instrumental: "American Tapestry;" Jenny Oaks Baker and Jenny Richards; Kenny Hodges, producer Contemporary Instrumental: "Set Sail;" Enoch Train; Clive Romney and Enoch Train, producers Themed or Concept: "Women of Destiny;" various artists; Tyler Castleton and Staci Peters, producers Musical Presentation or Soundtrack: "The Other Side of Heaven;" Kevin Kiner; Mark Evans, producer Compilation: "Light up the Land;" various artists; R3Media, producer EXCELLENCE IN ARTISTRY Male Recording Artist of the Year: David Tinney Female Recording Artist of the Year: Cherie Call Instrumental Recording Artist of the Year: Sam Cardon Group Recording Artist of the Year: Enoch Train New Artist of the Year: Jericho Road Producer of the Year: Tyler Castleton Songwriter of the Year: Cherie Call Performing Artist of the Year: Enoch Train EXCELLENCE IN RECORDING Orchestrator/arranger: Greg Hansen Studio Musician: Daron Bradford Studio Vocalist: Jenny Jordan Frogley Engineer: Barry Gibbons OTHER Album Design: Fluid Studios, Foil Graphics and Tom Hewitson, "Light Up= =20 the Land" Retail Manager: Kay Curtiss, Kensington, Md. Record Label: Shadow Mountain Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:=20 http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vholladay5254@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Setting Goals Date: 17 Jun 2002 09:55:28 EDT In connection with the discussion on goals between Karen Tippetts and Jacob Proffit and tying in Jennifer Breinholt's comments: I had a very negative experience with goal setting in my mission. First, I went into the mission with some rather lofty goals, which had no real basis in reality. Then as I was struggling with those goals and my own abilities and responsibilities, I felt the pressure of others setting the goals for me, and my worth being attached to both my willingness and ability to accomplish them -- something our culture is only too willing to do. It came down to ignoring everyone else and finding what was do-able for me. (Thanks for articulating your experience well, Jennifer.) But to throw away "goal-setting" entirely and take a sort of Tao approach - let everything just flow - that reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend when I told him that answers to my prayers never seem to come while I'm on my knees - it's when I"m up and doing that I figure things out. He said to the effect that in deciding how the Lord answered my prayers, I was limiting the ways the Lord could answer me. What if one time I needed it, the answer came while I was waiting and pondering? Similarly, what if there is something we really want that we can work towards - like writing a few pages a day, or making sure we have 15 minutes of uninterrupted time with our scriptures (so we can enhance our spirituality, "unmeasurable" as it may be)? I agree, goals are scary, because first of all we have to commit to "do" something and then work towards it, and it means putting ourselves on the line - if we quit, does that say something about us and our ability to work towards something? Are we "failures" if we "give up"? Some people can't NOT finish a book, even after they've realized it's not something they're enjoying. Because if we just up and quit, aren't we quitters, slackers? Not necessarily. But the decision to put our energy towards something, just as the decision that a particular goal is not among our priorities, is a very personal decision. And yes, Jennifer, I think that would make an excellent basis for a novel. I think you should (and could) do it. Valerie Holladay, who had an unwritten but determined goal to write something and send it off and finally did it, although admittedly in response to external pressure, which is not always a bad thing -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 17 Jun 2002 09:19:33 -0600 Ivan Wolfe quite correctly pointed out that the nutty conspiracies that I = listed were all right wing, and that there are any number of equally kooky = conspiracy notions floating around in leftist circles. Quite true, of = course, but not really relevant. I was naming theories I'd heard in my = ward. Aside from me, there don't seem to be any left wing kooks in my = ward. =20 >Right wingers tend to believe communists are behind it all >Left wingers tend to believe it's capitalists=20 Well, I'd say 'big corporations.' =20 >Right - The Media and Hollywood! >Left - Hollywood is fine, except for George Lucas and his awful Star = >Wars movies. I think most lefties are pretty down on Hollywood too. George Lucas is a = target, no doubt about it, but only since Phantom Menace. (We liked Star = Wars, because the good guys were part of a 'rebel alliance.' Liberation = theology to the forefront!) But we lefties tend to think Big Money has = created a pro-violence pop culture. Basically lefties want to see movies = starring John Malkovich or Nastasja Kinski, shown in theatres where = instead of juju beans, they sell oatmeal cookies. Movies where it rains a = lot. Told backwards. Mostly we think that big name Hollywood lefties = 'aren't doing enough.' >Right - Bans books about sex, violence and satanism. >Left - Bans books like the Bible, the Giving Tree and anything by a dead = >white >male. Not at all. Gay dead while males are much sought after. And I'd love to = know where you get your idea about The Giving Tree. I mean, are there = specific instances you know about where the radical left has tried to ban = it? I think it's a great kid's book, myself. Huck Finn is an occasional = target of the nutty left, although not by me. I would say this: the right = wants to ban books, while the left wants to ban conservative campus = speakers. (Banning either, of course, is an absolute desecration of the = most cherished values of both conservatism and liberalism.) >Right - Bill Clinton ordered the murder of lots of people. >Left - George W. Bush allowed 9/11 to happen to solidify his power Not so sure this has solidified so quickly. Most lefties are still stuck = on Iran/Contra. =20 My main point is, however, that Mormons seem particularly prone to = conspiracy theories generally, in part because the Book of Mormon talks = about secret combinations, and in part because of the 'constitution = hanging by a thread' prophecy. That's a good one for us, because on the = left or right, we tend to see 'constitutional crisis' every time there's a = scandal, or even a well publicized policy difference. Of course, since = Mormons tend to be conservative, we're more prone to conservative = nuttiness. But because we're Mormons, we're generally prone to nuttiness. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kimheuston@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Attacking the Family Date: 17 Jun 2002 17:43:25 EDT I'm a divorced mother of four, and the thing that I worry about for my children is that they will go into marriage tentatively, ready to pull back if the signs aren't good. Marriage is like worship--you can't do the hard, important stuff unless you trust the relationship enough to commit yourself to it totally. I know that in my case, the divorce has been a huge blessing, and I am daily grateful that I am living at a time when it was both possible and sort of acceptable. But the side effects are just as enduring as the blessings. Kimberley Heuston -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rich Hammett Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 17 Jun 2002 16:51:18 -0500 (CDT) > From: Ivan Angus Wolfe > > What I find interesting about Eric's list is that it is composed of strictly > conspiracy theories propounded by ultra-conservative thinkers. Absent were > conspiracies held by those on the far left. We _were_ discussing LDS culture! How often do you hear kooky, left-wing conspiracies in Sunday School? Didn't Eric mention he had heard all of the above in Sunday School? [snip] > The far left conspiracy theories are just as fun. And nearly completely absent from LDS culture. I think it's time for Salt Lake to have another "division bell" Sunday, where the left side of the congregation becomes democrats, and the right side republicans. The american church is a little too monolithic for its own good. BTW, is that story about dividing up the wards into political parties true? rich -- / Rich Hammett "You cannot reason a person \ out of a position he did not reason / himself into in the first place." \ rhammett@hiwaay.net / http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 17 Jun 2002 15:54:14 -0600 [MOD: I want to let Eric get his reply in, but let me remind everyone that the main focus here is on the experiences and opinions of those involved (both at the camps and outside the camps)--which Scott specifically asked about as a help in doing research for some Mormon lit. Let's back off a bit on the was-it-justified/wasn't-it-justified debate, which is essentially political, not literary or experiential.] Obviously, Ethan wouldn't have written this without knowing it would be = controversial. Let me just say, full disclosure, that my hands are = shaking right now, I'm so angry. If that was the reaction you wanted, you = got it. >I think it was a wise idea for the government to intern those of those >interned were innocent and harmless and yes it was unfair. War is like >that. Japanese spies caused a lot of harm to United States citizens, >soldiers and otherwise. =20 There is no evidence, none, that the interned Japanese-Americans were = involved in any espionage during the war. There is no evidence, none, = that any of the interned were thus prevented from spying. When Earl = Warren (yes, the Earl Warren) was asked about evidence of any espionage = work by any interned, he said there was none, and then added "see, that = just shows how devious they are." I'm paraphrasing, not having my sources = in front of me, but that's about right.=20 >As an example of this we have Pearl Harbor. In >the movie of the same name there is a single "Japanese spy" character >shown taking tours and photographs and reporting to his superiors. I >assure you (in spite of any historical inaccuracies that film may or may >not have been guilty of) there was a real-life counterpart to that >character at Pearl Harbor, more than likely several of them. =20 Let it go that we're reduced to citing bad Jerry Bruckheimer movies as = evidence. Let me add simply that the internment camps housed Japanese/Amer= icans living on the mainland. Hawaii was something else. A single act of = espionage commited one place cannot be used to justify the mass illegal = and unconstitutional detainment of thousands of loyal citizens who happen = to live hundreds of miles away. >We will never know how many American lives >were saved because Japanese moles were languishing in an internment >camp >instead of gathering and reporting intelligence, but I am sure there >were many. =20 I'm just as certain that there were none. There's no evidence whatsoever = that a single mole was detained. Amazingly enough, a very large percentage= of the children of detainees volunteered for service in the armed forces, = where they served with unprecedented distinction--more citations for valor = than any other ethnicity. >I am of the opinion that the inconvenience experienced by >those who were interned, if that had been as far as it went, was a small >price to pay for the safety of their fellow citizens. Inconvenience? A mild word for flagrant violations of, among other = things, the principle of habeas corpus. >Now for the second half. =20 And in the second half, you basically say 'still, it was lousy in those = camps, let's not let it happen again.' Unless, of course, some misguided = notion of patriotism requires again rounding up people by race and = throwing them in prison with no charges filed, while their goods and homes = are being illegally confiscated. Parallels with Missouri? Many many = many. >"Those who do >not study history are doomed to repeat it." =20 Yes. And unless despicable acts are condemned strongly, in unmistakable = terms, they will indeed be repeated. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 17 Jun 2002 16:11:53 -0600 >You know, this full-disclosure baby exhaustion thing is much like the >full-disclosure marriage thing. Kellene--that doesn't help either! :-) I remember what a difficult transition that first month of marriage was....you're not making this any less scary.... :-) My Aunt Carolyn said that life in her generation was easier because birth control wasn't nearly as good as it currently is and getting pregnant wasn't something you decided to do, it was something that accidentally happened. Aaah, those were the days. Ok, Jonathan, this is the last from me on the subject as I am not planning on writing a book about it and I can't think of another literary tie-in. ;-) Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tait Family" Subject: Re: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 17 Jun 2002 17:31:06 -0700 In a humorous vein, there's Sam Taylor's classic novel, Heaven Knows Why. Old Moroni Skinner dies and goes to heaven, but he's worried about his grandson, so he gets permission to make a "visitation" and that sets in motion a hilarious story. I can't remember now if that's the kind of thing you were looking for, but I'll jump at any chance to pitch that book. Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: [AML] Labor Horror Stories (was: Baby Exhaustion) Date: 17 Jun 2002 15:55:27 -0700 I may have a partial answer to Shelly's question. BTW, it isn't just Mormon women who do this. I've been around other women who freely share their labor, birth, nursing, etc. stories as well. I think it might be the commonalites. If you are with other people who have given birth there are certain commonalities you will share and other parts of the process that will be unique to each woman. Even if you have nothing in common with a particular person, or they even irritate you, you can feel sympathy for anyone who has been in a rough labor. And everyone seems to want to help someone have a successful nursing experience. For me, since I'm kind of an oddball in any ward I'm in, pregnancy, giving birth and nursing is one thing I truly have in common with my sisters and there's a certain comfort there. And, since the Church is so family-oriented, and being "A Mother In Israel" is considered a praiseworthy endeavor and a kept covenant, LDS women tend to show it off. It is like belonging to a club, and we get cliquey about it sometimes. For my own sense of mischieviousness, it's also a subject related to that Mormon taboo of not talking about sex. Not too many people want to talk about that part of it, but the results of the act, ah that's perfectly acceptable. ;-) Some of that may be changing when even I was surprised to hear the former Stake Prez's granddaughter talking about nursing and being on the pill at the same time in the most casual manner, it was kind of fun, and even I couldn't top the nursing tip of taping plastic bags to one's breast's in the shower to catch everything when the let down reflex kicks in. How's that for WTMI? :-) Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Re: Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 17 Jun 2002 17:27:26 -0600 ___ Jim ___ | Most villains in fiction and particularly in plays and movies | are silly, not villainous. ___ This is a really good point. That's why I tried bringing up the anarchist is history. There actually are people who seem to outsiders to have completely irrational and silly motivations. Probably the "classic" anarchist of this sort are the Mad Max like crazed motorcycle gang. (Which has as precedence I suppose the mainstream fear of real gangs of that sort) The problem is that while such stock villains sometimes work in B-movies, often more is necessary to make them believable. As I said the James Bond villain of SPECTRE makes little sense, although there is some historical precedence. What are they trying to accomplish and why? On the other hand my dad and I were talking about this on the phone the other day. We decided that in recent G7 protests that some of the anti-globalists have not rational ideology that we could discern. Even some forms of anarchy I can understand. i.e. a Thoreau like extreme libertarianism or a kind of idealism of primitivism. (Yes, you too can be a caveman) The fear of change, especially technological change, seems to give rise to "rebirths" of Luddism. (The Luddite revolts were revolts over the changing technology of textiles around 1800 and most anti-technology movements are now called Luddites) I can accept some anarchy as "youthful energy" focused into violence. (Think the novel version of _A Clockwork Orange_) However the villains of most books require more than that. That's especially true of conspiracies, although I suppose some might call the anti-globalist movement a kind of anarchistic conspiracy. Still give me a villain with a recognizable belief structure over anarchists any day. Heavens, even Satan had a kind of recognizable ideology in the scriptures. ___ Jim ___ | _Silence of the Lambs_ has Lector as a hard core villain I'm | glad is fictitious, while in _Hannibal_ he becomes a cheap | gruesome joke. ___ The serial killer has indeed become the villain of the last decade or so. I'm kind of hoping that the genre has spent itself out. Even monsters of the 80's and 90's are often supernaturally charged serial killers. While some of this goes back to Jack the Ripper I think it is more than "crazy" is a nice simple cop-out for a villain. Hannibal transcended the genre because he was such an *intelligent* killer. Further what is often most intriguing to audiences about characters like Hannibal is that they follow a kind of rationalism. Yes it is a warped and twisted rationalism that devalues human life. But that is what makes it both so scary and so interesting. This is also why I thought _Hannibal_ was such an interesting story and movie. Yes the ending is silly and the "black comedy" aspects Harris attempted failed. But the whole theme of Hannibal being a true Renaissance man are dead on. He makes use of a lot of real Renaissance philosophy, especially Bruno's Art of Memory. (A kind of mnemonic device based upon a stage of images and actions) Further many of the praised ideal figures of the Renaissance were horrible violent characters. Indeed in the book there is that subtext regarding the ancestor of the police officer chasing Hannibal. In the film Scott captured that whole "feel" of Renaissance Italy perfectly. Say what you will about the second half of the film but the first half is amazing. Further while Hannibal is "gruesome" I'm not sure he is worse than what you'd read in Dante or other writers of the era. It is a testament to how easy and peaceful our modern era is that violence like that does phase us so. Both _Hannibal_ and _Seven_ make abundant use of both _The Divine Comedy_ and _Canterbury Tales_. Perhaps it says something that was once typical and mainstream has now been relegated to "madness." Does this suggest that villany is always this "looking back" rather than a looking forward? My favorite literary series is actually a science fiction series called The Childe Cycle by Gordon Dickson. (Who sadly died before finishing it) In it there is a rather well thought out conspiracy led by a Satan figure whose aim is a rational approach to the old Luddite movement. He has decided that the problem of humanity is that we spread out too far and too fast. We have to return to earth. It really is very similar in some ways to the anti-globalism movement. In the series he is part of a kind of genetically superior near Umbermensch who can manipulate governments, universities and corporations from behind the scenes. They play religion cards as a kind of equivalent to anti-semitism. The whole conspiracy is well thought out and makes a lot of sense. The main hero is also a kind of Neitzschean Umbermensch who actually has aims fairly close to the Satan figure. However he wants to base everything on personal freedom and growth. Like the villain, Bleys Ahrens, the hero is super intelligent and can manipulate armies and corporations to bring about victory. Yet he quickly sees the futility of achieving the ends of mankind through that kind of manipulation. Whereas Ahrens wants stasis, the hero Donal Graeme sets out to have a kind of eternal progress. What does this say about conspiracies in literature? I'm not sure. However it seems that a *believable* conspiracy are for some sort of ultimate political end. Further if the conspiracy is to be an evil conspiracy, it must be because the ideology is intrinsically evil. Which, I suppose, gets us back to history. The popular conspiracies of the 20th century involved communism. The popular liberal viewed conspiracies involve the CIA or Corporate America and are capitalism unbounded. Yet for both I think there is an identifiable ideology and it is the conflict with that ideology that drives the plot. Hannibal is the border line. He is both too rational and too mad. He is the past brutal aspect of our humanity reborn as the civility of the past that we've now lost. In a way he is the ideal villain for America as he is the very thing that we reacted against. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: RE: [AML] Models for Mormon Art Date: 17 Jun 2002 17:40:36 -0600 At 11:11 PM 6/13/02, you wrote: >I mean the woman with Teutonic braids >in her hair is a classic. And she looks like she could >kick anyone's butt. Even Abinadi who is the ratty old man >looks like he could lay down some serious stuff and that >he hits the gym in between calling wicked priests to >repentence. Someone has referred to Friberg's paintings as "prophets on steroids." barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fred C Pinnegar Subject: Re: [AML] Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Date: 17 Jun 2002 17:53:50 -0600 (MDT) Michael Martindaale said: "I wonder if we're approaching this whole MMM thing all wrong. We keep bickering over whether Brigham Young was responsible or not, with the presupposition that if he was, that was a bad thing." I agree with Martindale's suggestion. Most people seem to think the MMM was a bad thing and they personally would never have participated in it. My opinion: I hold Brigham blameless, despite his inflammatory rhetoric. Things got badly out of hand at a combined Fathers and Sons Priesthood outing/ Service Project/ National Guard one-weekend a month meeting. Nevertheless, last week's SS lesson on the commandment of the Lord to destroy all the Amalikites and all of their property is instructive here. After the MM massacre there were many people who objected to destroying the property of the emigrants and wanted to take it, like Saaul, to the the tithing house. Nephi Johnson said, when asked his opinion: "I think we should burn these wagons and go home like men." Nephi v. Laban, same thing. Interesting how Porter Rockwell is disparaged along with MMM these days, but it is curious how few Missouri Wildcats wandered through the state after 1857 whipping and prodding "Brigham" and "Joe." What is this bleating of sheep I hear? I think that the good hearted men who participated in the event with the evil hearted, felt badly about what they had done for the rest of their days. Juanita Brooks talks about their horrible dreams, but they also seem to have found a way to live with it. My wife's aunt Anna Brooks Taylor was baptized by Isaac Haight. Fred Pinnegar -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 17 Jun 2002 18:30:39 -0600 On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:34:54 -0700 "Shelly Choong" writes: > ~I find this to be a curiously Mormon habit. I've been with groups > of other women from work and although they talk a great deal > about their children, they don't ever mention the births of their > children. What is it about our culture that makes this such a > popular thing to discuss? Possibly because it is the most common experience shared by a large number of Mormon women? After I had worked in a TV movie with Markie Post my wife and I went to a wrap party. My wife and Markie talked about birthin' babies for three quarters of an hour. It was something that they had in common. The fact that they both knew me took all of two minutes to discuss and set aside. scott -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Remy Subject: RE: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 17 Jun 2002 18:01:16 -0700 First of all, I agree with Ethan when he stated that "sheer unadulterated bigotry" was behind much of the abuse of the rights and property of Japanese-Americans during World War Two. The fight against the Japanese had a powerful racial undercurrent unlike the European was which gets very little press today-we hear very little about the Marines who collected scalps and ears of the Japanese soldiers they killed, the gold teeth they cut out of the battlefield wounded, and their moms back home who supported them in these inhuman acts. I recommend War without Mercy by John Dower to anyone (especially Scott Parkin) who wants to learn more about the racial tensions (and the associated propaganda) that existed on both sides of the Pacific. I know that this thread is sounding more and more political, but I feel that Ethan's post cannot go without some clarification, and I also feel that much of what I have to say may be relevant to Scott's research. I am a child of grandfathers who fought on both sides of the War-my Japanese grandfather in the Japanese Army, and my American grandfather in the U.S. Army Air Corps. I have been interested in the War and in its social and cultural issues for most of my life and have done some research on the topic. With this background, I would like to respond to several points Ethan made: > I am of the opinion that the inconvenience experienced by > those who were interned, if that had been as far as it went, was a small > price to pay for the safety of their fellow citizens. The irony of this statement is that the Japanese Americans were model citizens. They considered the U.S. to be their home, had few ties to Japan, and worked and studied hard in spite of constant discrimination. The all Japanese-American 442nd Regimental Combat Team which saw action in Africa and Italy, is still, man-for-man, the most highly decorated combat unit in the history of our nation. Many were volunteers from the concentration camps, willing to die for a country that brushed their "inalienable" rights aside. > Japanese spies caused a lot of harm to United States citizens, > soldiers and otherwise. Most of the Japanese spies who supplied information to the Japanese military were native Japanese on overseas assignment from their government prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Examples included spies posing as tourists and a young Japanese James Bond type who operated out of the Japanese consulate in Honolulu. Please note all of those who were interned were from the West Coast. No Hawaiian Japanese were sent to camps, even though most of the accusations of espionage were in Hawaii. > We will never know how many American lives > were saved because Japanese moles were languishing in an internment camp > instead of gathering and reporting intelligence, but I am sure there > were many. I have never heard of one example of a Japanese-American or Japanese immigrant spy ever being caught. As stated above, most spies were visiting Japanese, not the American citizens and resident aliens who were encarcerated. Once again, Japanese-Americans saved many more American lives than they were responsible for taking. I challenge you to find one example of a spy who was captured in the camp round-up (most of the men were separated from their wives and children and interrogated by the military and by the FBI in an attempt to catch potential saboteurs). You are making a strong claim-enough to deny an entire group their rights as citizens-with no evidence to back it up. I wanted to back up some of my claims with references (I'm going on fuzzy memory), but I am away from my books and the darn UC Irvine Main Library just started their summer hours. I would be more than happy to follow up this post with some cross-references if any one is interested. Scott, I am excited about this project you are working on. Considering how much we associate the United States with being the champion of human rights in this world, I think that it would be an incredible service to introduce greater introspection through thoughtful literary works like the one you are proposing. Our government stripped an entire race of their rights not very long ago. We are currently stepping up our government's power over its citizens as we immerse ourselves in another "war" against an enemy associated strongly with Muslims and Arabs. These are both misunderstood groups for which many Americans have an unhealthy amount of apprehension and suspicion-probably not unlike how Americans felt about the Japanese 50-60 years ago. The topic remains very relevant for us today. John Remy UC Irvine -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 18 Jun 2002 03:49:41 +0000 Scott, I know I have seen oral history projects done with former internees, but I don't know about the people who lived around the camps. The Utah Hitorical Quarterly is a good journal to look at. Chieko Okazaki has also mentioned the camps some. In a talk at BYU she mentioned prejudice in Utah during the 40s. She said that she and her husband Ed could not be married in the Salt Lake Temple soon after the war becuase of some kind of state law. I'm not sure why, it wasn't miscengenation since they were both Japanese-American. They were married in another temple, Los Angeles, I think. If you are looking for comments from leading members in Utah Church and Society, D. Micheal Quinn is probably a good person to ask (at least to find negative comments). He prefaced his recent article in Dialogue about prejudice against homosexuals in the Church with a long section about prejudice against ethnic groups in Utah. It was mostly about blacks, but there might have been something about Asians as well. He could probably tell you if there was anything, which I assume there would be. You may know about a children's book about Topaz, _Children of Topaz_, by BYU professor Michael Tunnell, Morrow, 1993. Ethan, You make some interesting points. I would like to point out a few things, all in hindsight, of course. While there were Japanese spys in Hawaii at the time of Pearl Harbor, they were all Japanese nationals. There was never a case of a Japanese-American involved in spying or sabotage during the war. And the case of Hawaii makes it difficult to say, "well, that is becuase they were all interened." There was no internment in Hawaii, simply becuase it would have been impossible. Japanese-Americans made up a huge percentage of the population, not only was there no where to put them all, but doing so would have destroyed the local economy. So they continued to live and work as normal. So here was this big Japanese-American population, with opportunities to do sabotage, and yet none occured. (The Church had a very active mission called the 'Japanese Mission' in Hawaii amongst this population. It was the only Japanese language mission in the Church in the years 1925-1948, while missionary work was suspended in Japan). The internment decision appears to have been strongly linked to the anti-Asian bias then rampant in California and the rest of the Western United States and Candada. As someone mentioned, Dean Hughes talks about Mormon Japanese-Americans and the prejudice they faced, both in Hawaii and in Utah, in his wonderful Children of the Promise series. An excellent study of racism on the battlefield and on the homefront in both Japan and America during World War II is John Dower's "War Without Mercy." I think Dower is one of the best historians currently working, in terms of both his analysis and his writting style, and I have used the text in my classes several times. In America, the war with Japan was framed in racial terms in ways very unlike the war with Germany. Japan had its own particular virulant forms of racism. This was a major reason that the fighting decended to the degree of brutal, take-no-prisoners level far beyound that found in the fighting between the Americans and the Germans/Italians. Japan's racism led to their own mistakes. The uncle of my dissertation advisor, a Japanese-American from Hawaii, was taken prisoner in the Phillipines. The Japanese assumed that he would be on their side, and took him into their confidence. He was able to transmit a considerable amount of useful information to the Americans becuase of this. Scott, by all means do this project. Dean Hughes scratched the surface of it, and I would be fascinated to see more. Think of all the different kind of charachters you could have. The Japanese-American inturnees in the West (including Mormons), the locals working there as guards, etc, "free" Japanese-Americans in Hawaii and their neighbors, a Japanese-American in the division that fought so bravely in Italy (I forget the number, Ed Okazaki was in it, it suffered the highest ratio of casualties in the US Army during the war), a Chinese-American who is stuck in the middle. Then there was a US Senator from Utah at the time who had served a mission in Japan in the 1910s. I forget his name, but I have it in my papers somewhere if you are interested. It has been said that he was a key figure in the decision not to bomb the ancient capital of Kyoto becuase of its cultural significance. It would be interesting to see what he said about the internment, he might also make a good charachter. Sounds great. (Oh, hey Scott, as long as I'm talking about your projects, you mentioned something earlier about a book for people who are struggling with Church issues. You might look at at one book that was somewhat similar. I think it was called, _For Those Who Wonder_. I think the author was named Larsen. If you look at any Sunstone from the 1993-2000 period, there always was a little ad for it somewhere in it. I picked up a copy at a used book store, it contains several short stories and essays by the author, written in the kind of tone that it sounds like you want to do. I've seen copies at the used book store on Provo Center Street (Pioneer?) and Sam Weller.) Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "althlevip" Subject: Re: [AML] Understanding Others Date: 17 Jun 2002 19:54:40 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 7:21 PM Maybe God will figure out what to do with me someday and then He'll tell the bishop. I think maybe if he tells the bishopp not to shake my hand or look at me maybe he know other things that would help. Paris Anderson Hang in, Paris. I admire you. Thanks for your candor in explaining your situation. There are two churches, the official church that the obedient attend and the underground church where the mavericks and backsliders and puzzled souls worship. They are both God's church. Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 17 Jun 2002 23:06:21 -0600 Scott, You'll want to talk to Mike Tunnell at BYU. He is the author of _The Children of Topaz_. I'm sure he can point you toward a number of valuable sources. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 18 Jun 2002 12:26:17 -0600 Ethan Skarstedt wrote: >>>I think it was a wise idea for the government to intern those of Japanese descent during our war with Japan. The vast majority of those interned were innocent and harmless and yes it was unfair. War is like that. Japanese spies caused a lot of harm to United States citizens, soldiers and otherwise.<<< ...and... >>>Of course, we didn't intern Germans during the war, perhaps it was because they were white, or perhaps interning those of German descent, a much larger task, was seen as impossible and not worth attempting, whatever the reasons, it was unfair. War is like that. We will never know how many American lives were saved because Japanese moles were languishing in an internment camp instead of gathering and reporting intelligence, but I am sure there were many.<<< One of the issues that really fascinates me about the Japanese internment camps is precisely this issue of fairness. As you point out, Japanese immigrants and Americans of Japanese descent were interned whereas German immigrants and Americans of German descent were not. Assuming equal opportunity for espionage, the question remains--why did we choose to intern one group and not another. Some thoughts-- * The German-American Bund (American organization of German-Americans) was quite active in its pursuit of support for Germany throughout WWII, and quite vocal in its efforts to both remove the US from the war, and to subvert support for the American war against Germany. Very few members of the Bund were ever arrested. * There was a small concentration of German merchant seaman during WWII, amounting to several hundred. These were actual POWs, and were thus protected by international requirements for prisoner of war camps. Their housing was considered to be superior to the average American home at the time. * There are no confirmed cases of espionage by Japanese Americans during WWII (either the Issei--first generation immigrants--or the Nissei--American born children of the Issei). * The previously existing laws under which American could be interned during times of war 1) required an explicit charge of supporting the enemy against the individual, and 2) allowed for a hearing wherein the charges were read out and the individual could answer to those charges and/or challenge their validity by the normal legal procedure. Both of these conditions were met for German-Americans who were arrested during the war; neither of these conditions was met for the Japanese Americans interned during the war. ===== Again, what interests me (and concerns me) is that when one population is subjected to a greater scrutiny and penalty *in otherwise essentially similar situations* it suggests that there are other reasons for that scrutiny than simple issues of national security. In other words security was the excuse, not the reason. An existing mistrust was given vent in the name of a noble ideal that was not only not applied equally, but not applied at all to other qualifying populations at the same time and in the same place. This issue has popped up a couple of times on this list, most recently in Jeff Needle's review of Will Bagley's book and some of the sub-discussions about Brigham Young's role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Paris Anderson noted (and Clark Goble expanded the notion) that a massacre of 250 people by Mormons is a great tragedy and indictment of the Mormon cause and leadership, but a similar massacre of nearly 400 Indians (including women and children) only five years later is viewed simply as the spirit of the times and excused as unfair but understandable--and acceptable. The Mormons and Indians were mistrusted, therefore any act by them was of far greater note than equivalent actions by agents of the government. It's only a national tragedy if the victims are "us" rather than "them." This is exactly the methodology that allowed the Mormons to be evicted from state after state by the authorized and legal authorities of those states, and that facilitated another aborted attempt during the "Utah War." In Nauvoo of the early 1840s Mormons were given a time table for evacuation and were given the opportunity to sell their property at whatever prices the market would bear. Of course the market paid pennies on the dollar and consisted of the very people who were evicting them. In the name of moral superiority and national outrage the people of Illinois felt justified in extorting that property from the Mormons--using the law as the bludgeon to act out on their individual greed, jealousies, and fears. In San Francisco of the early 1940s a similar plan was implemented on a population that had been viewed as untrustworthy outsiders for many years (Topaz was populated mainly by people from the San Francisco Bay area). Interestingly, both populations attempted to reintegrate with the mainstream afterwards, and made limited efforts to seek redress for the evident wrongs perpetrated against them (it was actually the children and grandchildren of the Japanese internees who sought redress with the greatest vigor; those who were actually interned generally tried to act as though it never happened). And while the Japanese Americans received their official apology and redress was ordered in 1993, no such redress was ever made to the Mormons (that I know of). Utah has its share of racist history, and tensions here were just as high toward people of Japanese descent as they were elsewhere (Utah never implemented the relocation acts that created Topaz, though it turns out that a somewhat impromptu voluntary camp was set up in Orem--I'm still researching that and will report on my findings if anyone is interested). It turns out that one of the people in my ward was a carpenter who both helped build and dismantle Topaz, and I spent several hours with him yesterday talking about that and other issues. He makes no bones about the rampant and overt hate that most Utahns had for people of Japanese descent. The prevailing attitude was that "the Japs brought it on themselves and deserved what they got." Things have changed a lot in the last 60 years, and as a nation we are more aware of issues of racial or social hate. I can't help but believe that part of the reason California is now such a champion for diversity (after a somewhat less noble start) is that the generation that grew up after Manzanar and Tule Lake and Topaz and Heart Mountain were so horrified at what had happened in their own home state that they backlashed the other direction. Sadly Illinois had no such backlash in support of the Mormons (though Governer Thompson did plead to the Mormons to "please come back" during the 1978 dedication of the Nauvoo Women's Monument). Maybe it does me no good to look at Topaz--we live in a different world, after all. But the social and political factors that allowed the legal authority to evict Mormons from Nauvoo and people of Japanese descent from California still exist. Maybe I'm probing an old wound; my intent is not to condemn individuals or assign specific blame. But I also believe that until the stories of those who lived inside of Topaz are seen as part of the stories of Americans in general, the separation that allowed it to happen in the first place can still recur. Until everyone is "us" the lines are still drawn--faint though they may appear to be. FWIW. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Attacking the Family Date: 18 Jun 2002 13:48:45 -0500 It seems to be often the case that when one says something like, "children who grow up in two-parent homes do better than children who live in single-parent homes," a single parent will respond in irritation, "I provide my child a loving environment that's healthier without my abusive former spouse," or "some of us have to live in the real world." Indeed, we all have to live in the real world, and sometimes the kids are better off without the abusive ex. So? The data still show that kids whose parents stick together fare better in school and in relationships than kids whose parents divorce, even when the marriage is unhappy. The problem here is that the data describe the world statistically, and every human who's ever lived somehow deviates from the mean. We can always point to a divorced, never-married, or gay parent who's done a splendid job, and a married heterosexual couple that's botched it. The stats still say that kids who live in so-called traditional families do better. That isn't an attack on non-traditional parents and families, but an observation on the way things are. Literature is always about special cases. Special cases have no place in economics except as charming stories and curiosities. All the world is special cases, and saying something useful using them would be like a biologist describing wolves by describing every individual wolf in the world. But because many of us who are concerned about social problems, the family, and justice in the world come from humanities backgrounds, we persist in wanting to look at the special cases, in assiduously avoiding generalities to fret over a law that would be unfair to Mrs. McGee out in Hot Springs. The law can't do that, because treating people as special cases will always lead to unfairness and injustice. Divorce is bad, and you know someone who's better off divorced. There's no conflict there, so long as we remember that the first statement is a statistical generality, and the second is a specific case. Social science and public policy have to focus on the former; the latter is the material on which to build a story. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Mormon News Date: 18 Jun 2002 17:18:19 -0400 Just to let everyone know, I just went to the Mormon News website and it still is showing Feb and March as the most recent news happenings. This is why I haven't been forwarding anything. Debbie Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Mod Message re: Attacking the Family Date: 18 Jun 2002 16:59:15 -0500 Folks, With regrets, I note that this thread is rapidly becoming more and more political, and at this point has the strong potential for turning into a debate both over governmental policies and over doctrines and policies of the LDS Church--both areas that are off-topic for AML-List. I do not want to have to shut down this thread, but I also think I need to say that we've now gone far enough down this path. With apologies to those who may feel that their views have not yet been represented, I need to request that any further posts on this topic focus on literary questions, not doctrinal or political ones. This can include discussion of how we, as a culture, talk about this issue (i.e., analysis of our cultural rhetoric); but we need to be careful in how we characterize other people's opinions on this. E.g., it's okay to say, "I've noticed that in high priest's group they say __," but it would be better to avoid saying "I can't understand how any idiot could say __ like they do in high priest's group." Apologies again for interrupting the conversation just when some may have felt that it was starting to get good. Sometimes, sadly, it's my job to add a little blandness to life... Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] LEACH, _Mission Accomplished_ (Review) Date: 18 Jun 2002 03:55:01 +0000 Mission Accomplished By Frank Leach Cedar Fort/Bonneville Books. 2001 85p., $9.95 I was pleasantly surprised by this breezy, charming little book. It was like an unremarkable but pleasant light lunch, not distinctive enough to remember long afterwards, and I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it, but it went down very nicely. It is short novel, just 85 pages. A young Wyoming couple meet Mormon missionaries, and while both are impressed, only the wife joins the Church. The story, told from the point of view of Will, the non-member husband, revolves around his relationship with the various missionaries who pass through their lives. Will is the kind of dry-land Mormon that I think many of us have known, comes to many of the activities and often to Church to support his family and because he has made friends in the ward, even serves in callings like cubmaster, but for whatever reason has not joined. Not far into the book the local Bishop asks Will to let them set up a missionary apartment in his basement, which helps to keep the lives of the missionaries central to the novel. About 12 different missionaries are introduced in the course of the book, and even though each one lasts only a few pages, Leach manages to make all of them well-drawn, distinctive, believable characters. Some teach Will lessons through their actions, while others receive needed encouragement from their non-member landlord. He even reprimands a straying Elder and gets him back on the right path. Problems tend to be solved pretty quickly, but somehow Leach manages to get through each one without trivializing the difficulties. He just tells the bare bones of a story, and moves on. Leach's theme is that missionaries don't know all the good that they are doing, and so should not become depressed at their seeming lack of success. Many of the missionaries confide in Will about their disappointment with their lack of baptisms, yet they each teach Will something, or perform valuable services for others in the community. Of course, in the end Will finally agrees to be baptized, a decision not made through a life-changing event, simply through a recognition of the accumulation of positive Church-related experiences. In fact, after everything, the decision is related in less then a paragraph. "But one day I decided it was time to get ready. No more coffee. Try to be better." That's it. The back cover says that the novel is based on Leach's own conversion. Leach's style is very direct, breezy, and pleasant to read. He certainly never over-analyzes things. I think that new novelists tend to err too far on the long-winded side, particularly in the way they describe characters' emotions. Even if I find Leach a bit too breezy, that is a lot easier to stomach than over-cooked prose. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 15 Jun 2002 03:26:00 -0600 Barbara Hume wrote: > Now, that could make an interesting LDS book. The Lord calls a man from, > say, Portugal to be the prophet, and the Caucasian American contingent of > the church says, "No! We won't have it! He's not One of Us!" Why is everyone assuming we Caucasion American types would balk? I wouldn't, and I'm about as Caucasian as you can get without being albino. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: Re: [AML] Will BAGLEY, _Blood of the Prophets_ (Review) Date: 18 Jun 2002 00:28:54 -0600 >>> dmichael@wwno.com 06/15/02 03:10AM >>> > >I wonder if we're approaching this whole MMM thing all wrong. We keep >bickering over whether Brigham Young was responsible or not, with the >presupposition that if he was, that was a bad thing. > >You all know me. I'm willing to loudly speak the unthinkable. My >question is, was that a bad thing? As some have pointed out here, it was >a war situation, a guerilla war. The Mormons felt besieged and on the >verge of destruction. Brigham Young had seen the Saints driven from home >to home that they had built with the sweat of their brow, driven with >ugly violence. He had sworn to never let that happen again. It was truly >a war situation. MMM was a very bad thing, regardless of who planned and executed it. The only question still open to debate is how far responsibility extends. The Fanchers weren't combatants; they were families on their way to California. They were nearly out of the territory when they were massacred, and the war (such as it was) hadn't begun yet. There are stories (mostly fabricated) about how the Fanchers or people travelling with them provoked the attack, but even if all the stories were true, how would you rationalize killing women, children, old men--essentially everyone old enough to testify against the perpetrators? >I've read one historian who suggested that something like MMM may have >been necessary to show the USA that the Mormons were not pushovers >anymore, that they would defend themselves. He suggested that MMM may >have actually prevented a great deal of violence brewing against the >Mormons. I don't buy it. Initial reports held the Indians responsible for the massacre. Years passed before it was established that Mormons were behind it. Fear of the big, bad, immigrant-killing Mormons is not what prevented Johnston's Army from attacking. In fact, if the extent of Mormon involvment had been revealed sooner, the Army would likely have taken it as evidence that the Mormons actually were in rebellion, as reported. Is this historian really saying what it sounds like--that, yeah, several dozen people got murdered, but at least we showed the world that we weren't going to turn the other cheek anymore? And this was a good thing? MBA (Morgan B. Adair) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Utah/LDS-Made Movies on AFI's "100 Years, 100 Passions" List Date: 18 Jun 2002 10:23:06 -0500 If you watched the American Film Institute's 3-hour special "100 Years... 100 Passions" on Tuesday, June 11th you may have thought to yourself: A lot of these are movies that Latter-day Saints and/or native Utahns worked on. Well, Utahns and Mormons must be a pretty romantic bunch, because a large number of their movies appeared in AFI's list of Top 100 most romantic American films of all time. (Most of the native Utahns listed below are now-deceased Latter-day Saints). In fact, the movie voted the #1 most romantic movie of all time, "Casablanca" (1942) was co-written by Logan, Utah native Casey Robinson. Robinson, who was the highest paid screenwriter in Hollywood during the peak of his career, only assisted on the "Casablanca" screenplay, and did not receive an onscreen credit. (He is listed in texts, databases such as IMDb, and his contributions are discussed on the audio commentary track on the "Casablanca" DVD.) Furthermore, Robinson was the sole screenwriter (adapting a novel) of "Now, Voyager" (1942) -- voted #23 on AFI's list. Robinson was also the sole screenwriter who adapted the play to make the Bette Davis/Humphrey Bogart movie "Dark Victory" (1939), voted #32 on AFI's list. Two of AFI's top 100 most romantic movies were directed by Ogden, Utah native Hal Ashby: #69 "Harold and Maude" (1971) and #78 "Coming Home" (1978), for which Ashby received a Best Director Academy Award nomination. Two animated feature films appear on AFI's list, including #95, Disney's "Lady and the Tramp" (1955). Two of the directing animators on "Lady and the Tramp" were Utah natives: Les Clark and Eric Larson. Yet another Utahn with multiple films on AFI's "100 Passions" list is Bluff, Utah native Charles Lang. Lang was the director of photography (cinematographer) on AFI's #54 pick "Sabrina" (1954) and AFI's #73 pick "The Ghost and Mrs. Muir" (1947). Lang received an Academy Award nominations for both of these. Some Utah/Latter-day Saint actors were prominent in a number of movies on AFI's list. Third on AFI's list is "West Side Story," featuring actor/dancer Russ Tamblyn in the 4th billed role. And Mormon actor Moroni Olsen played a major supporting role in Alfred Hitchcock's "Notorious" (1946), #86 on AFI's list. Olsen also supplied the voice of one of the angels in AFI's #8 pick, "It's A Wonderful Life" (1946). Another angelic voice in the movie was supplied by Utah native Joseph Kearns. A more prominent onscreen role in "It's A Wonderful Life" was played by Utah-born character actor Charles Meakin. But the most significant contribution that a Latter-day Saint made to "It's A Wonderful Life" was it's film score, by famed Mormon/native Utahn composer Leigh Harline, a multiple-time Academy Award winner. One of the most famous roles on the list was that of Fay Wray, the leading lady in "King Kong" (1933). Fay Wray was an ethnic Mormon, born in Cardston, Alberta. She also lived in Mesa, Arizona and Utah before heading for Hollywood. Native Utahn actress Dorothy Gulliver also had a small role in "King Kong." Academy Award-winning Utah designer/set decorator Thomas Little worked in the art department on "King Kong." Brigham City, Utah native Portia Nelson had a small role as "Sister Berthe" in "The Sound of Music" (1965), voted #27 on AFI's list. Latter-day Saint actress Joi Lansing had a small part in "Singin' in the Rain" (1952), #16 on AFI's list. Utah character actor Leonard Strong played the Siamese interpreter in "The King and I" (1956). (Interestingly enough, Latter-day Saint film director Richard Rich directed the 1999 animated remake of "The King and I," although that version didn't make it onto AFI's list.) William Borzage, a native of Utah, had a small role in "Way Down East" (1920), #71 on AFI's list. One starring role worth noting is that of Tom Hanks in "Sleeless in Seattle" (1993), #45 on AFI's list. Hanks is neither an ethnic Mormon nor current Latter-day Saint, but he was a Latter-day Saint briefly during his childhood. Finally, a movie that does NOT feature a Latter-day Saint staris "Grease" (1978), #97 on AFI's list. The lead role originally was offered to none other than Marie Osmond, who turned it down because she found the script morally objectionable, allowing Olivia Newton John to jump into the role. Latter-day Saint filmmaker Michael T. Amundsen has made a number of Church and seminary videos. He was also the assistant film editor on "Witness" (1985), the Harrison Ford-meets-Amish people movie that is #82 on AFI's list. Utah art director Ted Haworth received an Academy Award nomination for his work on "Marty" (1955), #64 on AFI's list. Bryan H. Carroll (a native of Bountiful, Utah native) was the visual effects editor on "Titanic" (1997), voted #37 on AFI's list. One last romantic note: Natacha Rambova was the great-granddaughter of Heber C. Kimball, an early apostle of the Church. She was born "Winifred Kimball Shaughnessy" in 1897 in Salt Lake City, but after a name change would become the wife of Rudolph Valentino, one of the most famous romantic leading men in Hollywood history. Rambova was a talented costume designer and art director in her own right. Rambova was the art director and costume designer on "Camille" (1921), starring Valentino, but not in the 1937 Greta Garbo version which is on AFI's list. But Valentino, whose career was largely managed by Rambova until his death, is the star of another movie on AFI's list. To be honest, many Valentino biographers would say that Rambova "mismanaged" her husband's career. Ever notice how in his later movies the famed "Latin Lover" appeared increasingly effeminate? That was Rambova's doing. Yes,Hollywood's hearthrob let himself be dressed up like a sissy by a Europhile Mormon costume designer. The things a person will do for love... - Preston Hunter, LDSFilm.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Labor Horror Stories Date: 17 Jun 2002 23:49:58 -0500 At 10:34 AM 6/15/02, you wrote: >I've been with groups of other >women from work and although they talk a great deal about their children, >they don't ever mention the births of their children. What is it about our >culture that makes this such a popular thing to discuss? I spoke to one >sister about it, and she said she thought it was a form of competition; to >see who could beat out the group with the most difficult births, etc. I'm >not sure if that's it, but I haven't come up with anything better. > >Any ideas? I'm not sure either. I *do* know that after the birth of my first child I was swamped with questions at church as to how it went, women wanting a play-by-play color commentary, something I wasn't completely comfortable with. I mentioned this to my small-town doctor, not of our faith but close enough to it to understand us, and he said something to the effect of, "why should your birth experience be any less private than the conception?" I thought that was a profound truth. He went on to say I only had to share what I felt comfortable with. My best guess is that it's an extended version of "girl talk" discussing periods and the like. I have discussed births, labors, etc. with other women, including total strangers in parking lots. Come to think of it, what brings that on is a pregnant belly. Usually it's been mine. Apparently the sight of that huge belly brings all sorts of memories to mind. So if it's peculiar to our culture, it's probably due to the incredible *quantity* of pregnant bellies to be found in our wards. I don't envy you the trial of enduring nonvoluntary childlessness in such a culture. Few things are a crummier deal than that. (I know from having way, way too many friends in the same situation.) Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report June 14 Date: 18 Jun 2002 13:54:29 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of June 14, 2002 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 6 The Divine Secrets of the 8,874,585 2,507 10 Ya-Ya Sisterhood 34,000,024 21 The New Guy 210,606 282 38 Eliza Dushku (lead actress) 28,676,549 29 ESPN's Ultimate X - The Movie 139,859 47 38 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,392,835 32 Murder by Numbers 78,326 196 59 Ryan Gosling (lead male actor) 31,683,100 48 The Believer 23,780 10 31 Ryan Gosling (lead actor) 157,487 51 China: The Panda Adventure 16,466 7 325 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,455,716 58 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 12,103 5 773 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,376,039 64 The Other Side of Heaven 8,086 11 185 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,566,132 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 65 Galapagos 7,932 5 962 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,400,840 72 The Singles Ward 6,302 7 136 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 782,066 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Will Swenson, Connie Young, Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne, Michael Birkeland, Robert Swenson, Lincoln Hoppe, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, etc. 98 Mark Twain's America 3D 769 1 1445 Alan Williams (composer) 2,230,218 "Minority Report", produced by Gerald Molen (the Latter-day Saint producer of "The Other Side of Heaven") finally gets released next weekend. Will it perform well enough to knock "Scooby-Doo" out of the top spot? Our guess is you won't hear anyone connected with "Minority Report" saying anything like, "We were shooting for #1, and we'd have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those darn kids and their blasted dog!" The makers of "The Singles Ward" have begun auditions for their next feature film, "The R.M." That there is a lot of interest in the film which is scheduled to be released in January is evidenced by the large numbers of would-be performers who showed up for auditions - over 450 people - nearly twice what had been expected. HANDCART SCHEDULE CHANGE: Kels Goodman's epic pioneer feature film "Handcart" was originally scheduled to be released on July 24th this year -- Pioneer Day. The film is done. But the release date is being moved back, probably to August, because late July was overcrowded with other movie releases. Test audiences loved everything about "Handcart," so we expect the movie to be very successful. "Jack Weyland's Charly" is still set to be released in September, and we expect the re-release of "Out of Step" sometime after that. UTAH SHORT FILM FESTIVAL: Winners in the 21st annual Utah Short Film and Video Festival, held May 31st through June 15th, 2002, were announced. The judges were Utah filmmakers Steve W. Olpin and Nancy Green. If you're involved in the Utah film industry, you're already familiar with many of these award-winners, so we won't introduce them further. Interestingly enough, one of the films is actually ABOUT a Utah filmmaker: Brad Barber's winning documentary "Inspire or Damage" profiles wheelchair-bound BYU film student Travis Eberhard. Best Experimetal "Moon Walk" by Trent Harris Special Merit Award Young Media Artist "Heart Wars" by Erika Longwell Best Young Media Artist "Release" by Shawn Lartrabe and Chase Nye Special Merit Award Animation "Little Girl With Blue Eyes" by Hyrum Summerhays and James Holmes Best Animation "Airship" by Sam Yousefian Best Documentary "Inspire or Damage" by Brad Barber Special Merit Award Narrative "Water With Food Coloring" Rick Page and Luke Schelhaas Best Narrative "How to Feed Your Cat Without Starting an Interplanary War" by Matt Glass Best of Show/Mort Rosefeld Award "October" by Nathan Meier PEARL AWARDS: Congratulations are in order to composer Kevin Kiner, for becoming the first non-LDS artist to win multiple Pearl Awards. Mr. Kiner won two Pearls for his work on the soundtrack to "The Other Side of Heaven". The annual Latter-day Saint music industry award show, the Pearl Awards, was held last week. Hollywood film scorer Kevin Kiner won two awards for his "Other Side of Heaven" film score: Best Musical Presentation or Soundtrack (Mark Evans was the soundtrack CD's producer), and Best Sacred/Inspirational Instrumental Song, for "The Other Side of Heaven Suite." Kiner, a practicing Catholic, is the first non-Latter-day Saint artist to receive multiple Pearl Awards. Presenters included Senator Orrin Hatch, BYU starting quarterback Bret Engemann, News 4 Utah Anchor Ruth Todd, Grant Nielsen and Amanda Dickson from KSL News Radio 1160, Colors, Shane Jackman, Kenneth Cope and Ryan Shupe. The Deseret News reported: "Hosting for the second year, KJZZ Movie Guy Scott Christopher kept things lively with his relaxed banter and great audience rapport. His on-stage interaction with presenter Julie Stoffer (of MTV's The Real World) proved to be one of the evening=92s highlights." Also worth noting, the award for Instrumental Recording Artist of the Year went to Latter-day Saint composer Sam Cardon. Cardon has composed many film scores, including "Mysteries of Egypt," "Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure" and "Brigham City. Cardon-scored films have grossed over $50 million at the U.S. box office. Interestingly enough, Cardon (who was nominated for 4 Pear Awards this year) was NOT nominated for his "Brigham City" score. This is probably because the nominations were not for actual film scores, but for albums, and the minimalist score used in "Brigham City" was not sold as a CD. The "Brigham City"-inspired CD "Welcome to Brigham" features only one track from Cardon's score. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Homefront Ads (SL Tribune) Date: 18 Jun 2002 13:20:17 -0700 Does anyone know if these ads are viewable online anywhere? I can remember these commercials touching me when I was a kid, before I knew anything about the church. Years ago I received an email from a (non-member) man who I only knew from an email list, but he knew I was LDS. He thanked me for paying my tithing. He'd heard one of the church's radio spots, and it had inspired him to want to be a better father. He said he knew the church used tithing money to pay for those commercials, and he just wanted to thank me! I wrote him back and thanked him--for automatically assuming that I did actually pay my tithing! :) Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Setting Goals Date: 18 Jun 2002 14:25:29 -0700 (PDT) --- Alan Rex Mitchell wrote: I second Alan's compliment of Jacob's post. It was exactly what I was thinking---although expressed more clearly than I would have been able to. I find that even when I set the goals myself that I spend most of my time trying to short-circuit them. It's worse when someone else tries to set them for me. That's not how I find my motivation. > > I went on a mission in what must have been the height of goal-setting > mentality. My mother had a district leader who challenged all the members of the district to have their calling and election made sure (within a month, I think). > Do I have goals? No, just projects. The great thing about projects is that they are always 'pending' --- even if you haven't worked on them for several months (or years). Goals seem to always have time limits or other numbers involved. > > Now I need someone to tell me I could have done more if I used goals ;) > You mean _Angel of the Danube_ wasn't written on a Palm pilot running FranklinCovey time and priority management software? Dude, you are so not in the right paradigm. You gotta be down with the seven habits if you want to *truly* show off your mad skillz. ~~William Morris, who had a real moment of awe combined with nausea when he was walking to the New California Media Conference in downtown San Francisco and stumbled across a FranklinCovey store. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Starling" Subject: [AML] Re: Secret Combination in Literature Date: 18 Jun 2002 15:25:34 -0600 =46or anyone who's interested, I wrote a 12-page, 48-point rebuttal to the = =46ILM "The God-makers". It resulted my being sued by anti-Mormons twice, once for $3million and onc= e= for $25 million. =46ortunately they lost in court. Several websites have it available. Do a Google search on my name + God = Makers if you want to find it. Robert Starling --- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for= = the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Setting Goals Date: 18 Jun 2002 15:34:36 -0600 Since we're on the subject of Mormon literature: It occurs to me that a discussion of goal setting and numbers and so on = might lend itself well to comedy. I remember Bela Petsco's missionary = book from twenty some odd years ago, and an impassioned story in there = about number-oriented mission presidents and assistants to the President. = At the time I read it, I was straight off a very numbers oriented mission, = and I remember thinking Bela had nailed it. Now I'm not so sure. Maybe = impassioned fervor is the wrong tack to take. Surely an obsession with = discussions taught or tracting hours or the like is pretty funny. =20 >Even >the prophet at the time (whom I love deeply) was tell missionaries to set >baptism goals (1000 per missionary per mission, but 500 per mission for >German missions). Reality was about three orders of magnitude less. We = >had a >general authority come to the mission and chastise us for not having >companionship baptism goals.=20 So did we, in Norway, and at the time, I became very ill trying my = darndest to reach completely nonsensical goals. Nowadays, I think it's = pretty comical. We had a regional GA at the time who kept coming up with = various programs which had, apparently been tried with great success in = Dusseldorf. They were universally ludicrously inappropriate for Norway, = and I suspect that the shining successes of Dusseldorf were as fictional = as most of the tracting hours I reported. Now, that all seems very very = funny to me. (To this day, I loathe the city of Dusseldorf. Never been = there, know nothing about it, but I despise the place. That misplaced = hatred seems pretty funny too. Even the name of the place. Dusseldorf; = that's a funny word.) I just saw Ice Age with my kids, which I found quite interesting. The = main plot, with the sloth, the mastadon and the sabertooth joining forces = was idiotic, just a typical children's movie with anthropomorphized = animals behaving like, from left to right, a stoic philosopher, a borscht = belt comedian and a Tortured Soul. (They're rescuing a human child. = There's a word for the relationship between a hominid infant and a = sabertooth tiger. That word is 'lunch.") The main characters all = performed various comic stunts, suitable for an audience of eight year = olds, and there was a certain amount of potty humor, ditto. My eight year = old enjoyed it immensely, and the evening passed agreeably enough. =20 But there was also this astonishing subplot, which was featured in the = trailors and which you may have seen, in which a squirrel behaved vaguely = like maybe something resembling an actual squirrel, trying to hide an = acorn. That whole sequence was something else again. First of all, it = was fairly true; I mean, the behavior could be rationalized as sort like = what an animal might do, maybe. Okay, not really, but it was trueish, in = the general address of something resembling a kind of truth. It was = exceptionally cruel, again, a bit like nature herself. And it was = existential comedy at its finest, amazingly funny in a Sisyphean way. =20 Man did it remind me of missionary work. All that work, all that = mindless, insanely repetitive, endless work. All those doors, all those = rejections, most of them politely direct and to the point, a few frightenin= g and dangerous, all of them humiliating. And we kept persisting; just = like that squirrel, we kept looking for a good place to put that acorn. = =20 Missionary work is funny. It's not, mostly, about Huge Moral Dilemmas = (Nothing Very Important, Fires of the Mind). It's not about Heroic Self = Sacrifice (God's Army). It's not about The Triumph of Naivete (Saturday's = Warrior). I mean, it can be about those things, but they all seem to miss = the point a bit, I think. Missionary work is about bureaucratic self-impor= tance, and that's funny. It's about working until your heart breaks to = achieve certain impossible number goals, and that also seems to me pretty = funny, Orwellian funny at least. It's about Motivational Speeches, all of = which strike me as amazingly funny. It's about bothering people at home = who don't want to be bothered, because your priority is Bearing Testimony = of The Truth and theirs is Getting Dinner On Followed By TV; that seems to = me very funny indeed. Missionary work is funny, and I don't know that = that's ever been explored. (Maybe I should. Hmmmm. . . .) Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] Setting Goals Date: 18 Jun 2002 14:37:18 -0700 If it is appropriate to do so, I'd like to offer an essay I wrote years ago on the topic of goal setting. It can be found at http://www.springsofwater.com/wilderness/essview.phtml?title=To+Hope+and+Qui etly+Wait?&loc=/rejoice/hopewait.txt . In facilitating resources, on-line and in person, related to addictions, I find goal setting to be the antithesis to good recovery. I discourage people who are trying to recovery from addiction from setting goals. It makes for a dangerous focus on the problem they are trying to overcome. I do not see the setting of goals to be anywhere in the scriptures I read, and as far as I know, I'm reading the same standard works as anyone else. When a man who is trying to overcome an addiction sets a goal to stay clean for x number of days, he may very well meet that goal, but oh watch out for day x+1! On the other hand, when it comes to things like writing, I find I don't get much done without a goal, or at least a routine that includes writing. I need someting in between. If I set a goal to write every day, I will probably not write any day, but if I make a statement that I want to get some writing done, I usually do. Rex Goode -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 18 Jun 2002 15:07:26 -0700 I agree. I just finished reading it, having found it at DI. What a delight! We need some more Sam Taylors. On 17 Jun 2002 at 17:31, Tait Family wrote: > In a humorous vein, there's Sam Taylor's classic novel, Heaven Knows > Why. Old Moroni Skinner dies and goes to heaven, but he's worried > about his grandson, so he gets permission to make a "visitation" and > that sets in motion a hilarious story. > > I can't remember now if that's the kind of thing you were looking for, > but I'll jump at any chance to pitch that book. > > Lisa Tait > > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > ----- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com jeffneedle@nethere.net "We're all only fragile threads, but what a tapestry we make." Jerry Ellis, "Walking the Trail" -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Labor Horror Stories Date: 18 Jun 2002 16:15:48 -0600 Shelly Choong wrote: > ~I find this to be a curiously Mormon habit. I've been with groups of other > women from work and although they talk a great deal about their children, > they don't ever mention the births of their children. What is it about our > culture that makes this such a popular thing to discuss? I spoke to one > sister about it, and she said she thought it was a form of competition; to > see who could beat out the group with the most difficult births, etc. I'm > not sure if that's it, but I haven't come up with anything better. Scott Bronson already gave my suggestion--that people tend to talk about common experiences. It's a way of connecting to other people and creating a slightly larger "us" than existed before. It's why most of us find "how's the weather?" so amusing--it's one of the few things all of us have in common, so cliched as it is, it's also true that any conversation can be started (or resurrected) by resorting to that old familiar theme. In the Church I think we tend to feel an added social pressure at times, and that pressure often leads to an almost desperate attempt to find something, anything to talk to each other about. We're supposed to be this big happy family in the Church, but in the end we're also individuals with different tastes and ideas and assumptions, and small talk that touches on politics or social issues or even history can lead to a kind of argument that scares many as being too confrontational. We're supposed to be one, yet most of the interesting topics lead to contention. So we look for something that everyone can agree is a difficult yet common experience. This idea of "surviving the war" and telling your stories strikes me as another part of it. Here in Santaquin it's still possible to get people talking about the forest fire last summer with only the broadest prompting. I spent twenty minutes yesterday swapping fire stories with a man I knew by face but not by name. For those twenty minutes we were bosom buddies who had survived the terror and thus could speak at a more intimate level--partly because we know that there are relatively few of us who felt that fear directly, so our association with other survivors is that much more special. We feel affinity for each other regardless of any other separating factors; whatever else is true, we saw that fire with our own eyes. It may not make us special to the world at large, but it binds us in a way that transcends other differences, at least for the moment. I think that social pressure is sometimes even more keenly felt in the Church than elsewhere. We're thrust together with a group of functional strangers and told to be unified. So we revert to the few core topics that most of us have some familiarity with--What do you do for a living? How about that heat spell? How many children do you have? (usually followed by the birthing discussion) Are you from this area? etc. Of course I suspect you're right--having established commonality, we then look for ways to establish ourselves as the authority on the subject. Each of us wants to feel special and important, after all. Men discuss their scars; and so do women. (Which, of course, leaves the unscarred feeling left out, but that's a different discussion...or lack of discussion...or something.) Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 18 Jun 2002 16:33:43 -0600 ___ Rich ___ | How often do you hear kooky, left-wing conspiracies in Sunday | School? ___ Actually while it may seem a little surprising, the fear of the Military Industrial Complex does pop up quite a bit. Whether or not that is a left or right wing worry is a little difficult I suppose. (After all it was Eisenhower who coined the term) Part of the problem is that there is a lot of overlap between goofy left wing conspiracies and goofy right wing conspiracies. Further I have to admit that I have heard a lot of conspiracies of all sorts, right and left, here in Utah. Not all conspiracies are "false" or "urban legends" either. Let us recall that some turned out to be horribly true, such as testing syphilis on African Americans. The testing of various drugs by the CIA in Toronto back in the 60's also was true. The most famous conspiracy in Utah (outside of the Mountain Meadows Massacre or the "shadow government" of Deseret) was the nerve gas release out past Tooele in the late 60's. The VX gas purportedly came right to the edge of Utah lake. (Today it would have resulted in large number of casualties) Part of the "conspiracy of silence" involved a great deal of pressure on various law enforcement individuals to keep things quiet. Some of the stories related to this (whether true or false) get quite entertaining. Is that a right wing conspiracy or a left wing one? I believe that it was past encounters with government conspiracies in regards to nerve gas, nuclear weapons testing and the like which led strong Utah opposition to the MX missile plans in Utah back in the 80's. Perhaps these aren't quite as fun as the John Birch conspiracies, but they are part of Utah history and still do come up in church every now and then. I've heard lots of strange left wing conspiracy theories in church from more liberal Mormons also. Even here in Utah county! Then there were some of Hugh Nibley's comments on capitalism that always brought me a chuckle. Apparently the debates between Nibley and Wilkinson were the stuff of legend. Each was quite adept with conspiracy theories, as I recall. (Wilkinson was rabidly anti-communist and apparently a lot of the old extreme BYU dress code came from his opposition to the student activism of the 60's and 70's) -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 18 Jun 2002 16:40:47 -0600 ___ Kathy ___ | George Ritchie's account of being taken by an angel to a bar | to witness an alcoholic's fracture of spirit and the attempts | of evil or unclean spirits to enter through the fracture and | take possession of the addict's body is plausible, given our | actual beliefs, though others may disagree with me on that | point. ___ The problem is the implications of this notion of inebriation facilitating possession. For instance if alcohol and presumably pain killers do such a good job, shouldn't we expect people to emerge from operating rooms possessed fairly quickly? I think that most NDE are sort of interpreting folk beliefs and folk psychology onto reality. This is a great example. It sounds persuasive until you start thinking through the implications for a general theory of biological - spiritual interactions. What I suspect happened here is that people recognize that various drugs cause people to act in a manner they otherwise would not. Given a common belief that "Separates" our mind from our body (the ghost in the machine) this would imply that something else is driving the body. (Which is nice because then you don't have to blame the person for their acts. Rather the drug simply blocks the spirit from controlling the body) The problem is that a modern neurological perspective would simply say that aspects of our personality get activitates that otherwise would not. It is always *us* in these situations. I suspect that a lot of this is akin to how most mental illness would have been called possession in past centuries. Now we know better, given a greater knowledge of the biology of the mind. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 18 Jun 2002 17:44:09 -0600 I think what would make it an interesting book is the complexity and variety of responses. I actaully think having a non-US, non-white prophet would be cool, and I--being of norse descent--am also white to an alarming degree. I'm also Canadian by birth, however, so I don't quite have the US-centric view some do. I also spent my mission years in the South, where many people still had trouble accepting that people of other races could hold the priesthood. (Thus leading to my testimony that while the church is true, people still suck...) There were even wards that had to be racially devided, the hard feeling were so bad. So I don't think everyone to accept it quite as easily as you and I. And judging from the political views I hear in Sunday School, just a non-american prophet might be enough to trigger a crisis in faith in some. And yet, those with real testimonies would have to find a way to overcome their prejudices. If I had any skill in contemporary fiction, I'd be tempted to write it. candesa Russell Asplund director of research and development 801.426.5450 russa@candesa.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 18 Jun 2002 17:42:10 -0600 [Jonathon: I realize that this post is entirely political/philosophical but since you let Eric's through and he was responding to me, I though I'd send my reply anyway.] Eric said: "Obviously, Ethan wouldn't have written this without knowing it would be controversial. Let me just say, full disclosure, that my hands are shaking right now, I'm so angry. If that was the reaction you wanted, you got it." Yes, I knew it would be controversial. I don't know whether I should be perversely gleeful that I got Eric to use the 2nd person in a post or frightened. >>I think it was a wise idea for the government to intern those of >>Japanese descent during our war with Japan. The vast majority of those >>interned were innocent and harmless and yes it was unfair. War is like >>that. Japanese spies caused a lot of harm to United States citizens, >>soldiers and otherwise. =20 "There is no evidence, none, that the interned Japanese-Americans were involved in any espionage during the war." Of course there's not. Interned Japanese would be incapable of engaging in espionage, that was the point. "There is no evidence, none, that any of the interned were thus prevented from spying." And what would this evidence have been had it existed? Pointing out that there's no evidence for something when there's no real way for that evidence to exist proves nothing. "When Earl Warren (yes, the Earl Warren) was asked about evidence of any espionage work by any interned, he said there was none, and then added "see, that just shows how devious they are." I'm paraphrasing, not having my sources in front of me, but that's about right. " I certainly won't argue with anyone about the infamy of Earl Warren, but pointing out that a man like him said what you quoted accomplishes nothing. So he was a wacko. What's new? An interned spy is out of circulation and therefore cannot spy, and therefore cannot leave evidence of his spying. Pointing out the lack is pointless. >>As an example of this we have Pearl Harbor. In >>the movie of the same name there is a single "Japanese spy" character >>shown taking tours and photographs and reporting to his superiors. I >>assure you (in spite of any historical inaccuracies that film may or may >>not have been guilty of) there was a real-life counterpart to that >>character at Pearl Harbor, more than likely several of them. =20 "Let it go that we're reduced to citing bad Jerry Bruckheimer movies as evidence. Let me add simply that the internment camps housed Japanese/Americans living on the mainland. Hawaii was something else. A single act of espionage commited one place cannot be used to justify the mass illegal and unconstitutional detainment of thousands of loyal citizens who happen to live hundreds of miles away." The character in the film was not offered as evidence, he was an example of what spies do and how innocuous activities like picture taking and touring can be directly translated into horrendous loss of life. Nor was that single example of espionage supposed to justify the internment of thousands of loyal citizens in an attempt to catch a few spies in the same net. In it's role as an example I meant (the actual) Pearl Harbor to typify the kind of thing that spying can make possible. I will again refrain from listing the possible consequences of Japan spying on the U.S. during WWII because they are nearly infinite. >>We will never know how many American lives >>were saved because Japanese moles were languishing in an internment >camp >>instead of gathering and reporting intelligence, but I am sure there >>were many. =20 "I'm just as certain that there were none. There's no evidence whatsoever that a single mole was detained. =20 Again, the fact that there's no evidence that a single mole was detained means nothing. Millennia of warfare has never seen a war that did not involve the warring groups spying on each other. History therefore leads me to believe that the Japanese were at least attempting to spy on us during WWII. And pragmatism leads me to believe that those of Japanese descent were extremely likely to have among there number a few who would and did spy for the Japanese, especially considering the social climate of the time. A climate which could understandably have led to nostalgia for the homeland. "Amazingly enough, a very large percentage of the children of detainees volunteered for service in the armed forces, where they served with unprecedented distinction--more citations for valor than any other ethnicity." I would not presume to define the motives of those Japanese/Americans who volunteered during WWII. I will, however, say that I am aware of the great extent of their valor. Being of Irish descent I feel an inkling of what I imagine they felt every time I hear about an atrocity committed by the IRA. I get the urge to do something to wipe out the stain those butcherers of children spread on the good name of the Irish. That Japanese/American men would feel the same urge and would have the courage and strength to do something about it does not amaze me. >>I am of the opinion that the inconvenience experienced by >>those who were interned, if that had been as far as it went, was a small >>price to pay for the safety of their fellow citizens. "Inconvenience? A mild word for flagrant violations of, among other things, the principle of habeas corpus." You missed the latter half of that sentence. "...if that had been as far as it went,..." (and perhaps I should have said vast inconvenience) As we are all aware, it went a good deal farther, tragically so. As I tried to put forward in my post I separate the idea of the internment and the way the internment was implemented in my mind. In reality they cannot be separated. It was an effective measure against espionage but it was not worth the crimes perpetrated on Japanese/Americans. Frankly, I am of the opinion that, overall, the internment of Japanese/Americans during WWII was not worth it. If we can't, as a nation and a people, do something like those internments without descending to the depths that were reached during WWII then we have no business doing it. I like to think that intelligent and effective precautions against espionage will be taken in my homeland during times of war. And that political correctness will take a back seat to the lives of soldiers and citizens. While I am of the opinion that the idea of the internments was a good one, they are so close to my personal line that even a single abuse of the situation is enough to scrap the whole idea. >>Now for the second half. =20 "And in the second half, you basically say 'still, it was lousy in those camps, let's not let it happen again.' Unless, of course, some misguided notion of patriotism requires again rounding up people by race and throwing them in prison with no charges filed, while their goods and homes are being illegally confiscated." =20 The race card holds no water with me in this instance. It is a sad fact that people of Japanese descent have common physical traits. The most efficient first step to determine who is of Japanese descent is to look for those traits. It is another sad fact that we were at war with Japan. The two facts combined show that (the merits of the internment policy aside) the rounding up of people by race was the best way to accomplish the stated purposes (no matter the racial opinions of those who crafted and carried out the policy). =20 The property of those interned should have been jealously protected and maintained in their absence. If we're not capable of doing that then we have no business implementing an internment, no matter the reason. Of course, it is even arguable whether the anti-espionage benefits from an internment like the one I describe are worth the rights that are, by definition, trampled. I have said which side of that line I stand on but I don't fault anyone for standing on the other. "Parallels with Missouri? Many many many." If a nation of mormons had been at war with the "missourians", who were abusing the mormons among them, there would be a meaningful parallel. Not as it stands. >>"Those who do >>not study history are doomed to repeat it." =20 "Yes. And unless despicable acts are condemned strongly, in unmistakable terms, they will indeed be repeated." =20 "Eric Samuelsen" Having now read all of today's posts on the subject, I want to add something to this one. The fact that no Japanese/Americans were ever caught committing espionage (something I was not aware of, recall my liquid opinions) means very little. To say that no espionage was committed because no one ever got caught is as untenable as saying we knew espionage was going on even though we never caught anybody. The only difference between the merits of the two statements is that on one side there resides the weight of history and experience. -Ethan Skarstedt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 18 Jun 2002 19:24:38 -0600 John, I'm sorry that I can't remember the person's name or where I lived in Texas when I heard this account of some visitations from a spirit, but I want to relate an unusual aspect of those appearances for you to consider. A woman in Relief Society was bearing her testimony concerning some genealogy work that she was doing. On several occasions she smelled the distinct odor of cigar smoke in the room where she was working. No one in her home smoked so this was very puzzling to her. She eventually recognized the presence of her grandfather (a cigar smoker), who had absolutely no interest in the gospel while living, and sensed that he was ready to have his work done. I have thought a lot about this. Did the spirit have the power to manifest his presence thought the perception of cigar smoke or was it her sub-conscious mind at work? Nan McCulloch Draper, UT -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] LEACH, _Mission Accomplished_ (Review) Date: 18 Jun 2002 20:57:09 -0700 Thanks for posting this review! I've heard of "dry" Mormons, but never heard the phrase "dry-land Mormon." I assume they mean the same thing! As much as I read, I also appreciate brevity. I hope this author continues to write. [Jeff Needle] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: [AML] Betsy Brannon GREEN, _Hearts in Hiding_ (Review) Date: 18 Jun 2002 21:31:42 -0700 Review by Arlene Kay Butler (forwarded by Jana Remy) Hearts in Hiding by Betsy Brannon Green Covenant Communications Published 2001 Softcover 299 pages $14.95 Target Audience: female LDS teens and adults Summary: The story artfully combines a suspenseful thriller and romance story together beginning with the murder of Kate's husband Tony, a FBI agent working undercover, by the mob he is trying to infiltrate. The FBI = learns there is also a contract out on Kate's life. To protect her and the = baby she is expecting the FBI moves her to a new town with a new husband and = a new identity. Mark Iverson, the FBI agent who is assigned to be Kate's husband is not very happy with the prospect of taking over the identity of another = couple who although LDS are the inactive, pampered daughter and son-in-law of a state senator. There is some fun as conservative stalwart members Kate = and Mark pretend to be the glamorous high-living couple Nikki and Drew = Johnson who are trying to become active and reform their life in a small = Southern town. As they grow to love the town and it's people, the drama unfolds as the = mob learns the real Kate is missing and put their resources to finding her. I will not ruin the book by revealing everything but suffice it to say = that the story takes many unexpected twists which masterfully keeps up the suspense. Add the tension as the couple find themselves falling in = love. Throw in the delightful humor and people of Haggerty and you have a rich story. Betsy Green has produced an absolutely wonderful book that is charged = with suspense and romance. I could not wait to see how the story turned out = but then was disappointed when it ended because it was so enjoyable. It had nice doses of humor such as this non-member description of a home = teacher: "Winston has gone to help at the wreck so Drew can come to the hospital. He should be here soon. And I've called Elmer," Miss Eugenia continued = and Kate stared blankly. "He said he was your household teacher and that I should call him when you had the baby," she explained. The book did not whitewash life. There are realities that real people = face such as Kate has been married and is pregnant. When they decide to = marry for real in the temple, Mark's family comes only to try to talk him out = of marrying a widow with a baby. Kate also has to work out her feelings = for a dead husband that she did not really know very well. I look forward to more books from this first time author who will no = doubt become very popular. This well-written, delightful book is well worth = the money and is one of the few books I liked well enough to put on my = re-read list. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Labor Horror Stories Date: 19 Jun 2002 03:47:13 -0500 At 10:34 AM 6/15/02, Shelly (Johnson-Choong) wrote: >~I was going to remain a lurker, but this thread hit home. I'm childless. >Not by choice. But that's a whole different story. The thing is, I want to >know why Mormon women do this sort of thing? Why is it whenever a group of >Mormon women get together for Enrichment Night, or gather in the hall of= the >church, the conversation always gets around to their 36 hour labor= sessions, >etc.? > >Any ideas? When I was growing up=B9 and would go with my parents to visit my mother's= =20 family, my cousin (who was about my age) and I would try to figure out why= =20 so much of the conversation of our elders revolved around the latest=20 hospital visits, or just the general everyday aches and pains, of=20 themselves or other family members. I suspect the explanation is similar. Maybe it all boils down to something as simple as "Misery loves company"? If so, though, why does no one want to hear me describe my symptoms when I= =20 am not feeling well? _____ =B9This is not an invitation for discussion on whether or not that process= is=20 now, or ever will be, complete. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam=85 God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 19 Jun 2002 08:15:32 -0700 I didn't know that Gordon Dickson was dead! I guess I'll be waiting a few years longer for the end of the Childe Cycle. I've liked him ever since Thieves World. IPR. I believe that the only place that villains ARE forward-looking is in literature. In reality they're mostly looking to ressurect a non-existent past. Communism is trying to restore feudalism, Nazism the Roman Empire, Jacobinism/Napoleon wanted the Roman Empire too, even the Sons of Liberty were after the Roman Empire without the militarism. America is essentially a bourgeois Roman Empire and hence much more stable and moral, but who knows how long it will last. Anthropologists are always hunting for some perfect people of the past--it used to be the Mayans tillt they found that gore-spattered cave in the Yucatan, but they're still trying to find them. It's probably because of the city of Enoch. The conspiracy in my fantasy world is governed by a devil-prince who is trapped in "The Hammer of the Netherworld" which is constructed from the heart of his former body. He cannot move or act, only influence and issue commands to his followers. His goal is to eradicate all life in the world, but he of course uses lies to persuade people to follow him. He sets tasks to the different branches of his secret brotherhood that are designed to bring high body-counts and no more. He doesn't care who wins as long as there's plenty of blood on the ground. His supernatural followers know this but all do not serve his ends necessarily, and sometimes build their own not quite rivals to his. So far the ultimate bad guy is a fairly standard satan-figure. It's the sophisticated followers that I'm having trouble with. The foot soldiers are no problem, its the leaders. They're going to try to convince what amounts to an apostle to rebel and become perdition, cause he KNOWS the truth. That's my dilemma--how do I marshal arguments designed to convince a prophet that won't convince a reader? I've spent years trying to undo the ill effects of my public education--so many falsehoods and lies taught as facts and just lurking around my head without me even being aware of them. I don't want to fill somebody's head with lies that they don't recognize as such. I got all kinds of idiotic notions from schoolteachers, even though I recognized from a very early age what a joke school is. It still works its way in there, and years later there might be a whole web of beliefs based on a fallacy learned as a kiddie. For example I believed that in a divorce a man was ALWAYS responsible. No matter what she did HE was to blame somehow. The man was responsible for everything that went wrong in a marriage, too. This was something I didn't think about or really realize was in me until I saw the movie "War of the Roses" a few years ago. All my friends sided with Michael Douglas. I sided with Kathleen Turner. The argument grew heated, and eventually I realized that the belief I had, though certainly of feminist origin, was extraordinarily demeaning to women, as are many other feminist ideas. (I exclude pre-1920s and iFeminism from that statement.) I don't want to do that to somebody else. This fallacy has brought real consequences. I am terrified of divorce even now, despite the fact that I have pruned most of the ideas behind the fear. In the case of the Kumanite brotherhood it could be much worse. My first attempt was comical, and my second very scary. I'm leaning towards the comical, but unfortunately that would detract from what is otherwise quite serious. The tone of the first book is almost entirely serious. Bad things happen, and the hero who becomes a prophet is a murderer trying to atone for his crime. I can't see goofy arguments working properly, but at least it would make things safe. Hannibal Lector is not a convincing villain in this sense. He couldn't convert anybody, which is why the ending to _Hannibal_ is so silly. His arrogance is just too great to be convincing. I have to admit however that it was _Silence of the Lambs_ that first set me onto Marcus Aurelius, who remains my favorite philosopher. I owe that to Hannibal Lector's "Simplicity! Read Marcus Aurelius. Ask of each particular thing what is it in itself, in it's nature." You never know where you'll find a nugget of wisdom, but it works the other way too. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: [AML] Banned Books (was Secret Combinations) Date: 19 Jun 2002 10:27:10 -0600 (MDT) Ivan Wrote: > >Right - Bans books about sex, violence and satanism. > >Left - Bans books like the Bible, the Giving Tree and anything by a dead = > >white > >male. Eric replied: > Not at all. I'd love to = > know where you get your idea about The Giving Tree. I mean, are there = > specific instances you know about where the radical left has tried to ban = > it? I think it's a great kid's book, myself. Huck Finn is an occasional = > target of the nutty left, although not by me. I would say this: the right = > wants to ban books, while the left wants to ban conservative campus = > speakers. (Banning either, of course, is an absolute desecration of the = > most cherished values of both conservatism and liberalism.) Here's a few links: http://www.harperchildrens.com/hch/nonfiction/features/banned/banned.asp http://bakerbooks.net/facts/dyk.html http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/nwsevnts/exhibits/banned99/ "The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein Removed from a locked reference collection at the Boulder, Colo. Public Library (1988). The book was originally locked away because the librarian considered it sexist." Basically, the arguments I've heard from the loony left (remember Eric, I'm talking about the loony far left) is that since the tree is female and the boy is male, the strory is really about how the only true fulfilment a women can find is in sacraficing herself totally to make a man happy. personal fulfillment is not an issue for the (female) tree - making a man happy is the highest duty." Also - I find it interesting that you assert the elft doesn't try to ban books - I think they do, they just don't call it banning. They call it "being sensitive." Huck Finn is banned so that they can be sensitive to racial issues. I have a book called 100 Banned Books, that is interesting. The editors try to keep a neutral tone, but a close examination of the language reveals a few prejudices - generally, it is bad to ban a book for any reason (I agree there) - but when they describe books banned by the far left like Huck Finn or the Bible, there is slight change in tone where it becomes clear the editors sympathize with these misled but good people who are just being sensitive to racial and religous issues - but those on the right are just uptight losers with nothing better to do. I think book banning is neither the exclusive province of the right or left - just that the left uses a different name. One last thought - I never think it is right to ban a book, but I also feel that half of what is called "Banning" or "Censorship" really isn't - people just use those terms as a sort of name calling (the logical fallacy of "prejudicial language"). ---Ivan Wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "ROY SCHMIDT" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 19 Jun 2002 10:34:40 -0600 Just a couple of comments. Although German Americans were not rounded up into camps, they were watched very carefully. An example would be my father-in-law who migrated to the United States after the first part of the Great War (the one to make the world safe for democracy). This man was denied promotions, and endured slurs, etc. all during the second half of that same war. Interestingly, this was in Milwaukee, which, of course, has a huge German population. In my home town of Baltimore, also with a large German population, many German societies disbanded, and those that remained were watched very closely. About thirty years ago, I got to know several Japanese American families in California that spent time in the camps. Prejudice was on a roll even before the war, with at least two of the young men being denied membership in the Boy Scouts. Try telling them they got what they deserved. One woman that I knew was born at Topaz. She campaigned mightily for reparations. Her parents, however, just wanted to get on with their lives. By the way, all of these families became very successful, and did it in one generation, starting with virtually nothing. Was there anything positive coming from internments? I have a theory that goes along the lines that Earl Warren, the main proponent of the camps, realized the injustice his xenophobia brought to many innocents. He, therefore, became just as enthusiastic a proponent for civil rights for all Americans, and led the Supreme Court in breaking new ground in that area. Roy Schmidt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 19 Jun 2002 10:33:10 -0600 (MDT) > > We _were_ discussing LDS culture! How often do you hear kooky, left-wing > conspiracies in Sunday School? Didn't Eric mention he had heard all of > the above in Sunday School? > > [snip] > > > The far left conspiracy theories are just as fun. > > And nearly completely absent from LDS culture. > / Rich Hammett Have I been attending all the wrong wards? Yes - i hear the far right theories more often, but every far left theory I listed I have also heard at church. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Labor Horror Stories Date: 19 Jun 2002 11:46:51 -0600 The spring issue of Irreantum (now at the printers) has several short stories on the theme of childbirth, including one by Linda Adams that goes into a lot of detail about the labor and delivery of a woman's first child. If you're not a subscriber and want this issue, send $5 with a note requesting the spring '02 Irreantum to AML, PO Box 51364, Provo, UT 84605. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Randall Larsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Utah/LDS-Made Movies on AFI's "100 Years, 100 Passions" List Date: 19 Jun 2002 09:34:46 -1000 Preston and Listmembers, I didn't notice it if you mentioned Sam Taylor the greatgrandson of Pres. John Taylor. He was the writer of the original Sabrina. He also wrote a comedy about "Flubber" and a Flying Car which starred Fred McMurray. The second picture probably failed to make the AFI list. A number of filmaker's think Sam's book Nightfall at Nauvoo would make a great Movie or MiniSeries. Unfortunately the project could have been better done in the 1970s when people were more open to non-stereotypical views of history. *** Perhaps I missed it but does Don Bluth get a mention for any of his work at Disney or on his own. *** It was nice to see Michael T. Amundsen mentioned. I knew Michael from the LA1st Ward about 1978. Michael collaborated with me on a treatment back then that didn't quite make it to the Big Screen. I would like to see him get a shot at screenwriting as well as editing. In my opinion editing is not the highest and best use of Amundsen's talent. *** Hal Ashby's "Coming Home" was quite controversial in 1978 for one of its lovemaking scenes. As I recall Ashby thought the way the scene was depicted was crucial to telling the story. I applaud Ashby for his artistic integrity. I do recall that when I saw the film with a group of LDS singles in LA there were more than a few blushes among the sisters. Thanks for sharing your list, Kind regards, Randall Larsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 19 Jun 2002 14:03:34 -0600 I noticed the following came up as a sponsored link on the Google search for you. Is this a business venture started by the anti-Mormons after they lost their lawsuit against you? Pest Starlings a Problem? Complete Bird Control Product Line Call 800-503-5444 for Expert Help! www.birdbarrier.com Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 19 Jun 2002 13:32:06 -0700 > have thought a lot about this. Did the spirit have the power to manifest > his presence thought the perception of cigar smoke or was it her > sub-conscious mind at work? I don't see why not. My husband's grandmother had a vision of an ancestor while working on genealogy, the vision was of a woman holding some forget-me-not flowers. If it's possible to manifest a vision, why not a scent? I myself have encountered dead spirits, when I was in intensive care (almost died). I only caught a glimpse of them, what they looked like, when my eyes were closed. However I felt them next to me several times. The interesting thing is that when I did have the vision of them, I only saw their waist lines. I found out a couple years later that my husband's grandma's vision of her ancestor was also of only a waistline. Susan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 19 Jun 2002 14:54:11 -0600 Every theory? I quote from your first post: Right - Bans books about sex, violence and satanism. Left - Bans books like the Bible, the Giving Tree and anything by a dead white male. So you have heard people condoning the banning of the bible in Sunday School? Man, those must be some interesting wards you attend. Either that, or you might be tending to exagerate a little. candesa Russell Asplund director of research and development 801.426.5450 russa@candesa.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Personal Beliefs/Fallacies (was: Secret Combinations in Literature) Date: 19 Jun 2002 14:58:51 -0600 At 09:15 AM 6/19/02, you wrote: >I've spent >years trying to undo the ill effects of my public education--so many >falsehoods and lies taught as facts and just lurking around my head without >me even being aware of them. I don't want to fill somebody's head with lies >that they don't recognize as such. Fallacies that unconsciously control one's decisions are a genuine problem for all of us, no matter where we picked them up. For example, the client whose book I'm helping her write allowed her personal situation to deteriorate because she had picked up such notions as "Hold the family together no matter what. Keep working hard and be a good wife, and everything will turn out fine. Never let people find out you're in pain or in trouble -- just keep smiling. Don't rock the boat." Because she had those beliefs, her husband bullied and intimidated her and her children for years before she stood up to him. I can't point a finger, because I stayed married to a bully for far longer than I should have, because I believed that a woman could not make it in this world without a man. I didn't know why I felt unable to break out of that situation, because that belief was buried deep. Hard to comprehend now, thirty-some years later. If you know me now, you know what a difference there is in my philosophy! I think that one important element of creating a fictional character is to understand what that character's basic, unconscious beliefs and assumptions are: "I am better than other people. Love is an illusion. No one will accept me because I'm [black, female, handicapped, a genius]. Deep down inside, everyone's good. Life's a bitch and then you die. You can do anything you want if you work at it hard enough. My father died at fifty, so I will, too." Whatever. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 19 Jun 2002 15:05:11 -0600 At 03:25 PM 6/18/02, you wrote: >It resulted my being sued by anti-Mormons twice, once for $3million and onc= >e= > for $25 million. On what basis? that you had no right to show them up or reveal the flaws in their arguments? Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Attacking the Family Date: 19 Jun 2002 08:21:26 -0700 on 6/18/02 11:48 AM, James Picht at pichtj@nsula.edu wrote: > Divorce is bad, and you know someone who's better off divorced. There's no > conflict there, so long as we remember that the first statement is a > statistical > generality, and the second is a specific case. Social science and public > policy > have to focus on the former; the latter is the material on which to build a > story. A great point. Just because all generalities have exceptions doesn't mean that there must be no rule, only exceptions. The funny part about a lot of people with humanities backgrounds is their submersion of the individual into a statistical sea. I've heard "the masses" and "women" and "African-Americans" etc etc spoken of as if there is only one, and all others are mere copies of the model. It seems to me that the argument is over the location of the pigeon-hole, not whether there should be one. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Attacking the Family Date: 18 Jun 2002 17:39:06 -0600 >That isn't an attack on > non-traditional parents and families, but an observation on the way things are. That may be, but the only time (other than now) that I hear this and similar stats used is to buttress up the notion of the superiority of the nuclear family. So it may, per se, be an attack on non-traditional families, but it is often used as a weapon to attack non-traditional families. > Divorce is bad, and you know someone who's better off divorced. There's no > conflict there, so long as we remember that the first statement is a statistical > generality, and the second is a specific case. I contend that many members of the Church don't have the ability to see the subtleties you suggest. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Missionary Fiction (was: Setting Goals) Date: 19 Jun 2002 15:14:44 -0600 Eric Samuelsen wrote: <<< Missionary work is funny, and I don't know that that's ever been explored. (Maybe I should. Hmmmm. . . .) >>> Yes, it is funny. The two words I would use to describe its humorous aspects are "absurd" and "pathetic," both hard to appreciate when they're actually happening to you but great fodder afterwards. Not that I didn't have several incongruent laughing fits at certain points on my mission because of these very reasons. For me, full-time missionary service was a long, slow, grinding depression punctuated by the occasional release of laughter, either triggered by interactions with funny members or missionaries or just little breaking points in my own mind. As far as exploring this, an author named Holly Welker has just sold a missionary memoir with some absurd/pathetic undertones (including missionary goal-setting) to Signature Book. An excerpt appeared in a recent Sunstone (their Eugene England tribute issue), and another one will appear in the spring Irreantum. I've read the whole manuscript, and it certainly explores the absurd and pathetic aspects of missionary life, though I wouldn't say humor is its primary rhetorical mode (it's more a jeremiad). I'm not 100% comfortable with Welker because she's now openly inactive and pretty much denied the atonement in her Sunstone piece (the Irreantum piece is much more benign). However, she captures much that is true about missionary life and stays pretty balanced and fair in telling her story. It will definitely be a worthwhile book to watch for, I believe under the title _The Rib Cage_. As for me, I have a little piece in the upcoming Sugar Beet about missionary disappointment in response to the recent Supreme Court ruling protecting door-to-door solicitation. A sampling: "Dude, I am so disappointed," said Elder Carl Everson of the Colorado Denver Mission. "Hardly anyone is ever home when we tract, except old people, the unemployed, and housewives who might try to seduce us. I'll tell you what, if missionaries or any kind of salesmen knocked on my door, I wouldn't be happy about it. So I'm just a hypocrite out here. We're lower on the totem pole than telemarketers." (Missionary-related pieces by other people in the Sugar Beet pipeline include "Missionary Cooks Inedible Meal" and "MTC Now Powered by Its Own Methane.") Also, the latest round of my missionary memoir proposal is getting farther than the edited journal manuscript I was sending around last year (I'm still using essentially the same query letter to open doors--all told, about 40 agents have responded positively to it). In fact, just last Friday I had an agent offer to represent me, and a handful of others are still seriously considering it. If anyone is trying to sell Mormon-oriented material on the national market, I will share my list of agents who are showing openness to it. (I hope anyone else working along these lines will also share intelligence.) Here's part of a note the agent who wants to represent me sent about her interest in Mormon-related works, for anyone else looking to make connections: "My first job was at Reading International, the late Cambridge (with a branch in Belmont) bookstore. After that I worked for Lauriat's, a venerable (and now defunct) Boston bookstore chain where my best employee quit (in 1977) to go on his mission - my first interaction with Mormon culture. My repping was with national accounts (then Walden and Dalton) and in the southeast, where I lived in Virginia and Tennessee. I repped for many independent and university presses, and as a result know many of these folks personally. I returned home to Massachusetts four years ago. I next came into contact with Mormon culture when I repped for Gibbs Smith/Peregrine Smith Books in Layton. His sales manager and I became friends, and he showed me all around SLC, including Temple Square and a great visit with Patrick at the Waking Owl. (This was twenty years ago.) Through Gibbs and company I met Terry Tempest Williams; we had a memorable dinner in New York many years ago, and I saw her recently when she spoke here at Mt. Holyoke. So, we are acquaintances, which means that I send her a Christmas card every year, but never get one from her! After I got online, about ten years ago, I discovered that there is a whole group of Roghaar relatives I did not know existed; they are all in Utah, and most are Mormon. (The family came from Holland, and one of the brothers went west and landed in SLC.) This was quite a surprise for our branch of the family, and we're in touch about genealogy information on a regular basis. Also, my friend Jana Reiss from Publishers Weekly is a convert to Mormonism and she is very interested in Mormon spirituality. So, combined with my interest in religion and spiritual autobiography, your book is a natural for me." Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Attacking the Family Date: 17 Jun 2002 17:50:07 -0700 [MOD: Richard and I have had some back-channel discussion of this post, which I recognize does go down the political road which I mentioned in my moderator message on this thread. He's persuaded me that having let Eric's original question through, there's value to letting this perspective/reply through as well, although I'm still extremely leery about the potential for turning this into a political discussion, which is not AML-List's function. So having given this thoroughly mixed signal, I guess it rests to me now to issue some kind of revised guideline. And so... What I'd ask, if your perspective disagrees with Richard's (or someone else's) on this thread, and you want to make a comment, is that you focus not on debating or disproving the other person's point, but simply expressing how it is that you see this issue. Keeping in mind, again, that the primary purpose is not to get into a political discussion, but--at most--to discuss what it is that we as Mormons (or others as Mormons) mean when we/they talk about the family being "under attack." A discussion of our culture--not a debate over politics. Thanks again from the--somewhat inconsistent--moderator...] Eric R. Samuelsen wrote: It's as though the institution of The Family is what's under attack, that the very idea that we should organize ourselves into families is regarded in some circles as a questionable one, that we have to vigilantly defend not just our own circles of kinship, but the very notion of kinship itself. If this is what is meant by attacks on The Family, then I have to say that it's a very questionable notion, that Families are under attack Richard Hopkins responds: Eric is very blessed that he did not attend a liberal arts college in either Southern California or the North East, because attacks on the very idea that we should organize ourselves into families are very mainstream at UCLA (where I went to school), and other universities. The attack is often more subtle than most people perceive, however, and is largely on a legal nature. It is in large measure fueled by pro-abortionists and the homosexual lobby. As a former lawyer, allow me to briefly summarize the issues of jurisprudence involved. Why should government involve itself in domestic relationships at all? Why make the contract of marriage one that is enforced by the government? The justification that has been relied upon by governments since the beginning of recorded history is the interest of the community in the perpetuation of the group being governed. Through the years, it has been observed (both by wise men and in the commandments of God) that a good family produces good new citizens of the community. Statistics show that the most rounded and beneficial childhood experience comes in homes where there is a father and mother. Hence, laws have been passed by various governments over history specifically intended to help and preserve the family as an institution which produces the best possible future citizens. This is the interest of government in domestic relations and the foundation for all of what is called family law. What is happening that affects this situation? First we have the Roe v. Wade decision, which held that government had no interest in the very most fundamental aspect of its future citizens, namely the preservation of their potential future lives, because of a woman's right of privacy. This reasoning undercut some of the most fundamental reasoning in support of governmental intrusion in the domestic relationship. If that aspect of family life--the life of the unborn child--cannot be regulated because of a right to privacy, what aspect of family life can be regulated? How can any aspect of government intrusion in domestic relations be upheld? Some may like this result, but it means the fall of The Family as a government supported institution. Now homosexuals want to be included in marriage, notwithstanding the fact that, by their very nature, such relationships do not produce offspring, i.e., future citizens. The whole concept of the family as preserved by laws in this country, is, by these means, made into a mockery. Why should government interfere with homosexual relations? Why should homosexuals be dragged through divorce court? Having practiced law in such courts to some extent, I suspect that if gays ever got these rights, which they seem now to want so badly, they will rue the fact that they have become subject to government interference in their personal and property relationships. The next logical step is for them to lobby for the dismantling of all domestic relations laws. And why will this be possible? Because we have lost sight of the purpose of these laws. The laws of domestic relations were intended to strengthen and protect the family. There is no other reason why governments should say who a man can divorce and why his wife should get a certain property settlement or child support. Such laws make divorce more difficult, thus acting as a discouragement to the break up of families (an effort that must also be balanced against abuse of the institution, of course). They also provide support for children and spouses when the first objective doesn't work. The failure to recognize these principals, the argument in favor of making what amounts to a mockery of domestic relations law promoted by the gay lobby, and the fundamental damage done to governmental power over domestic relations by legalized abortion, are but two examples of the attack on "The Family" afoot in this country right now. I would add to that the failure of the justice system to recognize pornography as a drug administered through the eyes rather than as "free speech," and the growing attempt of pedophiles to gain the same distorted status given gays as others. The attack on the family is not new, however. Both Plato and Aristotle thought children should be taken from their parents at an early age and raised by the state. Its hard to get rid of some bad ideas. Hope this helps to clarify what is a very valid concern by the Church at this time. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Deseret News: Audition for _The R.M._ Date: 19 Jun 2002 16:04:12 -0600 Film drawing big lines - for auditions By Callie Buys Deseret News staff writer OREM - To those standing in line, the wait to audition for "The R.M." seemed almost as long as the last three months of a two-year mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Casting director Michelle Wright, director Kurt Hale watch audition for "The R.M." Stuart W. Johnson, Deseret News Still, open auditions in Orem for a new film aimed at LDS audiences enticed 700 people to spend time over three days waiting to audition for one of some 85 speaking parts in "The R.M," created by the same producers as "The Singles Ward." "It was a madhouse, but it was worth it," said Wendy Pyper. Pyper and her 8-year-old son auditioned for the movie. Both returned for call-back auditions, held Tuesday and Wednesday. Director Kurt Hale attributes the turnout largely to word of mouth. While producers informed acting agencies about the auditions, about 50 percent of those auditioning were not represented by an agency, Hale said. Jolene Sayers attempted to audition for a part in the movie June 10 but decided to turn back after seeing the line. She came back the next day to audition and went to call-back auditions on Tuesday. "I'm so nervous," she said before her call back. "I hate auditions." Casting director Michelle Wright said people came from California, Arizona, Idaho and Colorado to audition for the movie, which will film in Salt Lake and Provo most of July and early August and reach theaters in mid-January 2003. "It's a popular film production that everyone wants to be a part of," she said. While "The Singles Ward" featured a mainly young adult cast and aimed primarily at a similar audience, this film is for cast members and audiences of all ages, Hale said. The film tells the story of a young man named Jared McAllister who has recently returned from an LDS mission. McAllister returns expecting to reunite with his girlfriend, get a high-paying job and go to Brigham Young University. None of these things go right for McAllister, whose parents and 11 siblings moved to a new home without telling him and forgot to pick him up from the airport. McAllister faces numerous other challenges, including a stint in court, as he returns home. Kirby Heyborne, who played a young man preparing for an LDS mission in "The Singles Ward," has already been cast as Jared McAllister. The movie will also feature cameos by "recognized faces," Hale said. Merrill Dodge planned to audition for a role as a judge, but casting directors at the first audition asked him to read the part of Jared McAllister's father, Brigham McAllister. Dodge was called back Tuesday for the part. Dodge, who has been involved in theater and movies for over a decade, still feels nervous before an audition. In fact, he gets more nervous for an audition than for a performance. "Somebody who says they're not nervous, I don't believe it," he said. For this audition, the actor stands on an X taped to the floor of a small room. A camera in the corner quietly documents the audition, including a scene in which Dodge spit out a mouthful of LDS acronyms. Directors look for some things while an actor may be focusing on something different. "The uncertainty of the whole thing makes it kind of exciting," he said. Not getting a part may not reflect on one's ability as an actor, he adds. Rejection is part of the game. While directors whittled the 700 hopefuls to a more reasonable number for call backs - around 60 came back Tuesday, and at least that many were scheduled for Wednesday - most of those called back will inevitably not get the part they want. While the film serves a specific audience, there is no preaching and no agenda, Hale said. "Comedy is universal," he said. "It's not sappy, preachy or heavy handed." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] Re: Understanding Others Date: 19 Jun 2002 16:23:50 -0600 Subject: Re: [AML] Understanding Others Maybe God will figure out what to do with me someday and then He'll tell the bishop. I think maybe if he tells the bishopp not to shake my hand or look at me maybe he know other things that would help. Paris Anderson Hang in, Paris. I admire you. Thanks for your candor in explaining your situation. There are two churches, the official church that the obedient attend and the underground church where the mavericks and backsliders and puzzled souls worship. They are both God's church. Levi Peterson > althlevip@msn.com I tend to agree with Levi: However, I think that position is *sometimes* oversimplified. (not to imply that Levi was doing that, because, believe me, I worship the art of brevity which sometimes precludes one from going into all the altho's, except, also's, and what-if's ......and I'm not acquainted with his writings so I'm not critiqueing anything in a personal way either). Back to the oversimplification aspect I mentioned which I am now going to oversimplify as well. I love the idea of mavericks. I'm related to Wyatt Earp (altho' I'm sure someone here will correct me and say he would now be considered socially conservative???? hmmmm.........) and Merele Haggard and who knows who else on my mother's heathen side..... that blood runs deep, its very instinctual. But I do think it's possible to be obedient to the gospel, unpuzzled, very clear in your thinking, and still be a whopping maverick. Courage that doesn't even get noticed. In fact, if you know the scriptures and doctrine well enough, you could be forever correcting people in meetings, on the street, in your dealings with the clergy etc...perfect strangers on the internet..........and never gain friends, notoriety, or a coterie for it. I rather think the artistic community in the church splits down the standard, traditonal lines of politics mentioned recently in various post, without taking any great surprising leaps into the Unkown. I prefer the big risks that bring about the Fear and Trembling of Abraham (or perhaps it's just that my heroes have always been ancient prophets/cowboys) There's not much to being a maverick when you're surrounded by your own, in either political or socio-economic camps (which brings up a whole other comment on the posts wherein certain people who escape my middle-aged memory, mentioned they'd never had an outrageous experience in a Salt Lake ward......socio-economic conditions always factor in, so we're talking apples and oranges unless all of that is put on the table and factored in......which of course reminds me of another post on the subject of portraying evil......I highly recommend viewing some Discovery Channel documentaries on sociopathic serial killers. I bet Dean Koontz, Frank Peretti, etc research all that stuff), but I digress and wander in a futile attempt to avoid Lesson 4 of Descriptive Astronomy. Jana Pawlowski. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 19 Jun 2002 18:09:51 -0600 On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:34:40 -0600 "ROY SCHMIDT" writes: > Just a couple of comments. Although German Americans were not rounded > up into camps, they were watched very carefully. An example would be > my father-in-law who migrated to the United States after the first > part of the Great War (the one to make the world safe for democracy). > This man was denied promotions, and endured slurs, etc. all during > the second half of that same war. In my science fiction short story "And the Moon Became As Blood" (Irreantum, Spring 2000) the main character, Karl Schneider, is stranded on an abandoned moon base by neo-patriots because back on Earth WWIII is just getting started with the Germans as the primary instigators. I meant nothing personal against Germans in that. In fact, on my Mom's side I am a Snyder (Anglicized Schneider) and a White (direct descendant of Pegrin White). It simply demonstrates that there are always some who will over-react and blame an entire race (or culture, etc.) for the actions of some. scott -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kathy Fowkes" Subject: Re: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 19 Jun 2002 17:42:52 -0700 > The problem is the implications of this notion of inebriation facilitating > possession. For instance if alcohol and presumably pain killers do such a > good job, shouldn't we expect people to emerge from operating rooms > possessed fairly quickly? Not necessarily. I'm not an expert on this stuff, I just find it fascinating. From my point of view, there is a choice involved, conscious or subconscious, that a person makes when they (or *I*, past tense, having done this myself when I was 15) get so drunk or toked that they can't feel or think straight. It's a choice to deaden oneself from emotional pain and the influence of the Spirit both, which in LDS doctrine means a turning toward, and a choice to invite, evil influence over one's life. Someone who accepts anethesia to undergo an operation is not making that choice at all, so continues under the protection of the Spirit and, given they are in an operating room, ministering angels perhaps. Choice has everything to do with it. It's an eternal law, whether a person believes in that law or not makes no difference -- when you choose to deny God's light, you come under the influence of darkness. There are no twilight areas where we are not enticed by light or darkness. We either follow God, or the enticements of Satan. At least, I haven't found any evidence in the scriptures or the teachings of the prophets to allow for the possibility, and ample evidence to suppose that we are under the influence of one or the other at any given time, such as: "Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other." (2 Nephi 2:16.) Also, a simple search on the infobases or gospellinks CD under the term "evil spirits" yields a tremendous number of teachings by the leaders of the Church regarding the reality and influence of such spirit beings. Marvin J. Ashton's _Measure of Our Hearts_, chapter 5, for starters. > I think that most NDE are sort of interpreting folk beliefs and folk > psychology onto reality. This is a great example. It sounds persuasive > until you start thinking through the implications for a general theory of > biological - spiritual interactions. Given that God has made it very clear in our day that we are not physical beings only, but have been spiritual beings for eons, and only in these few short years have we ever been physical at all, and given that God has also made it very clear that we are continually being enticed by light or darkness, and that Satan does in fact have power over us if we give it to him by our choices, those implications of biological - spiritual interactions are not only possible, but reality. I think this is what Ritchie's NDE account points out all throughout his book. He saw angels striving to teach spirits in prison, who were prisoners of their own sins and lustful desires. He also saw angels with scientists, teaching them the truths they were seeking to discover. In both cases the individuals with physical bodies were unaware of the angels who were striving with them, but that did not make the reality of those angels and their influence any less real. Writers often talk of their muses. I believe in muses. I just call them angels. These things Ritchie saw are not out of harmony with our doctrine. I could easily copy and paste enough scriptures and teachings of prophets and apostles to fill a 1000 page volume, but my guess is that pretty much everyone on AML list knows them as well as I do. I can state from first-hand experience that Satan and his minions are most definitely hard at work, influencing whereever they can find someone to listen to them, because I've seen them in the same manner that Susan Malmrose saw dead spirits around her in the hospital. It is a real way of seeing -- spiritual mind as opposed to natural mind, D&C 67:10. Unfortunately, this was in my own home, and was a problem for several months, until we fasted and prayed and rededicated the house (for the third time. Long story, won't bore you with it.) It is a reality that a person can be attacked by evil spirits, as Heber C. Kimball described with such hair-raising eloquence on his first mission to England, and can also invite evil spirits and unclean spirits to enter and influence them that way. But it is a choice, or they cannot enter at all. Enter they most certainly do, if we are to believe what our prophets both ancient and modern have taught. Either that, or the dozens and dozens of prophets and apostles, ancient and modern, are off their rockers in this department, exercising their priesthood to cast out devils, etc. My faith is with our priesthood leaders--that they know what they are talking about and doing. > I suspect that a lot of this is akin to how most mental illness would have > been called possession in past centuries. Now we know better, given a > greater knowledge of the biology of the mind. Interesting. If this were the case, then why would the gospel writers have bothered to make an account of just how many evil and unclean spirits were cast out of individuals, such as the seven who were cast out of Mary Magdelene by the Savior, or others who, when asked their identity, were so many they called themselves "legion", and were sent into a herd of pigs and ran off a cliff?Then there are the accounts of the ones to whom Jesus spoke, and who answered through the mouth of the one over whom they had taken possession, and who identified him as the Son of God, and whom He commanded to be silent? We know better now? Hmm....I wonder. I do not place as much faith in science, which denies the reality of anything that can't be seen, touched or measured in some physical manner. Yes, science has discovered many of the biological components that influence human behavior, but does this negate the reality or power and influence of spiritual things? Not in the least. The spiritual is created before the physical, according to LDS doctrine. Perhaps the physical discoveries of science are just the surface, and there is a spiritual component at work that influenced the physical pattern that has developed. (Which component can just as easily be one's own spirit influenced by the "scar" left by a traumatic childhood event, creating a "glitch" in the person's ability to act rationally, yet still a spiritual influence). I have yet to find a single talk by a prophet that denies the possibility of possession. Instead I find accounts of confrontations with Satan and accounts of angelic visits to those in need over and over and over. Kathy Fowkes -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 19 Jun 2002 15:23:58 -0700 > Barbara Hume wrote: > > Now, that could make an interesting LDS book. The Lord calls a man from, > > say, Portugal to be the prophet, and the Caucasian American contingent of > > the church says, "No! We won't have it! He's not One of Us!" > > Why is everyone assuming we Caucasion American types would balk? I > wouldn't, and I'm about as Caucasian as you can get without being > albino. > I suspect that Barbara wasn't saying 'All Caucasian American Mormons would balk.' However, the statement 'Some C.A.M.s would balk' is undoubtedly true. 'Some' might be 25%, it might be 10%, it might be 1%, it might be 0.01% (at which point you're into only hundreds or dozens of CAM's). But there would undoubtedly be some. And considering who they might be, and how they might react, could very well be the basis of some great stories. (One of which is fermenting in my mind as we speak....) Robert ********************************************************************** Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too 'Man is that he might have joy--not guilt trips.' (Russell M. Nelson) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 19 Jun 2002 16:39:55 -0600 Roy Schmidt wrote: > Just a couple of comments. Although German Americans were not rounded > up into camps, they were watched very carefully. An example would be > my father-in-law who migrated to the United States after the first > part of the Great War (the one to make the world safe for democracy). > This man was denied promotions, and endured slurs, etc. all during the > second half of that same war. Interestingly, this was in Milwaukee, > which, of course, has a huge German population. > > In my home town of Baltimore, also with a large German population, > many German societies disbanded, and those that remained were watched > very closely. Many ethnic communities fractured during the war for exactly this reason. Good Americans of German or Japanese descent wanted to prove their loyalty and so avoided meeting with each other. Again, because those of Japanese descent were more easily visually identified there tended to be a substantially more intense scrutiny on a daily basis. I know that it was very common for individual communities throughout the U.S. to require that residents of German or Japanese heritage register with the sheriff. Remembering that the Japanese internment camps mostly housed Californians, most other Japanese Americans were not required to relocate--the rationale for interning the California populations was that the west coast was a strategic military zone; areas inland were not considered to be as vulnerable to attack. The real fear of attack was part of what raised the levels of concern. Most Americans had no idea where Pearl Harbor was, but it was in the United States, so the idea that modern war could be fought on our territory created a very real terror in the minds of Americans in the west. Added to the ordinary tensions of the war, that made life in the western U.S. particularly difficult for those of both German and Japanese descent. And yet... Because of the extensive missionary program of the Church, many people had their own direct experience with both Japan and Germany and had learned to love the people prior to the war. That created some odd situations in Utah where the population of returned missionaries was so concentrated. The prophet at the time was Heber J. Grant who had served a mission in Japan and was generally beloved by the Japanese people (his translation of the Book of Mormon is still the preferred edition for many Japanese even though a newer more accurate translation is available). In response to reports of prejudice and racial hate by Mormons he is quoted as saying: "Americans who are loyal are good Americans whether their ancestors came from Great Britain or Japan. Let us therefore endeavor to banish these foolish prejudices from our natures and let us attempt to see that all good and loyal Americans are treated as such." The odd bipolarism was probably at its height in Utah County because of Geneva Steel--the largest inland steel plant in the West. Many of the workers were veterans who carried special hatreds for both the Germans and the Japanese, and Geneva was seen as a legitimate target for terrorist attack. Tension at Geneva was quite high. It turns out that there were a number of labor camps in both Provo and Orem where internees from Topaz worked in the orchards. The Orem camp was later converted to a German POW camp and German labor was used in those same orchards. The German POWs apparently felt much more at ease than the Japanese Americans living and working in the area; I can only assume that the visible racial identification made the difference. Ethan Skarstedt wrote: >>>Again, the fact that there's no evidence that a single mole was detained means nothing. Millennia of warfare has never seen a war that did not involve the warring groups spying on each other. History therefore leads me to believe that the Japanese were at least attempting to spy on us during WWII. And pragmatism leads me to believe that those of Japanese descent were extremely likely to have among there number a few who would and did spy for the Japanese, especially considering the social climate of the time. A climate which could understandably have led to nostalgia for the homeland.<<< In an interesting bit of trivia, it turns out that U.S. intelligence had infiltrated the Japanese consulate in San Francisco and recovered documents from the Japanese government on immigrants to the U.S. In a direct response to the question of using Japanese immigrants to gather information or carry out acts of destruction, the Japanese immigrants were deemed unreliable and referred to as cultural traitors for having left Japan in the first place. This attitude by Japan made the later internment of Japanese Americans that much more bewildering for those interned. They knew that the "old country" despised them for having left, and their new country despised them for having arrived. When the loyalty oaths were administered to many in the camps, they very much feared to answer the question of loyalty to America either way. There was a real fear of deportation back to Japan, so renouncing all ties to Japan meant that if deported those people would become essentially disenfranchised from any country. As you point out, it's impossible to know whether the internment camps reduced spying by Japanese Americans. But the troubling question for me remains whether it's right to imprison people on the basis of fear of what they *might* do. It seems to me that the American justice system is based on the presumption that one is innocent until proven guilty (a position upheld in 1944 by a federal court that paved the way for the closing of the internment camps), so the pre-emptive imprisonment of anyone for the crimes that they might commit seems to fly in the face of well-established law. I'll be curious to see how Spielberg handles this idea in his new film, _Minority Report._ As Mormons we seem to oscillate between the idea that to even think of sin with fondness is every bit as bad as committing the sin proper, and the notion that thoughts (or faith) without works (or acts) has no meaning. This conceptual dichotomy is one of the things that I find so interesting in researching Mormon response to both people of both German and Japanese descent during WWII. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Style in Types of Literature Date: 19 Jun 2002 16:14:25 -0600 As I was reading an article in the Ensign this morning (my competitive righteousness claim for the day), I finally realized what my problem with it is. Some people on the list have expressed a distaste for the publication, and I've considered many of the complaints a form of literary elitism: "This magazine does not meet my high standards for literature." I like getting the Ensign, because I find many good concepts in its pages. (When you're as full of faults as I am, just about any article is a call to repentance.) But I noticed how hard I have to work to extract those concepts from the pages -- rather like mining for gold nuggets -- and I decided it is that institutional writing style. I can imagine editors at the Ensign, who perhaps receive manuscripts that have some life and personality in them, but then must blandize and homogenize them into that same old boring, somewhat pompous style. It pushes your eyes away from the text and makes them slide across the page, and then you have to go back and deliberately extricate the thoughts you want. The information is good, but it makes you work for it. Surely this is not a Good Thing. Later today I had another, more worldly, thought about writing style, this one about genre fiction. I just read another of those Clive Cussler adventure novels about Dirk Pitt. I enjoy those books for the most part, knowing not to expect emotional satisfaction from them, but they have all the flaws that romances are accused of having -- improbable heroes, impossible plots, cliches, formulaic elements repeated in every book, purple prose, stereotyped characters -- could it be that they are popular despite the flaws because they appeal to the male fantasy rather than to the female fantasy? I mean, how ridiculous is James Bond? barbara hume, who figures things out about ten years after everyone else, but I have fun -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 19 Jun 2002 16:19:35 -0600 Nan McCulloch wrote: A woman in Relief Society was bearing her testimony concerning some genealogy work that she was doing. On several occasions she smelled the distinct odor of cigar smoke in the room where she was working. No one in her home smoked so this was very puzzling to her. She eventually recognized the presence of her grandfather (a cigar smoker), who had absolutely no interest in the gospel while living, and sensed that he was ready to have his work done. I have thought a lot about this. Did the spirit have the power to manifest his presence thought the perception of cigar smoke or was it her sub-conscious mind at work? > Spirits often announce themselves or identify themselves through smells. The sense humans (live ones) most strongly associate with memories is smell. That story is not in the least unusual or extraordinary. In fact, that Relief Society sister should consider herself lucky. My grandfather announced/identified himself with the odor of urine soaked overalls. And that pretty well sums up his sense of humor, too. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: RE: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 20 Jun 2002 03:08:04 -0500 At 05:40 PM 6/18/02, "Clark Goble" wrote: > ___ Kathy ___ >| George Ritchie's account of being taken by an angel to a bar >| to witness an alcoholic's fracture of spirit and the attempts >| of evil or unclean spirits to enter through the fracture and >| take possession of the addict's body is plausible, given our >| actual beliefs, though others may disagree with me on that >| point. > ___ > >The problem is the implications of this notion of inebriation facilitating >possession. For instance if alcohol and presumably pain killers do such a >good job, shouldn't we expect people to emerge from operating rooms >possessed fairly quickly? *Obviously*, the difference between alcohol and anesthesia that allows the drunk to be possessed but not the sedated patient is that drinking alcohol is a willful sinful act. It isn't called "demon rum" for no reason . . . ;-) -- Ronald W. ("Ronn") Blankenship mailto: ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] re: Utah/LDS-Made Movies on AFI's "100 Years, 100 Passions" List Date: 20 Jun 2002 11:23:01 -0500 Randall Larsen wrote: >>I didn't notice it if you mentioned Sam Taylor the >>greatgrandson of Pres. John Taylor. He was the writer >>of the original Sabrina. He also wrote a comedy about >>"Flubber" and a Flying Car which starred Fred McMurray. >>The second picture probably failed to make the AFI list. Thank you very much for reading the "LDS-made movies among AFI's To 100 Most Romantic Films" report. And thank you for remembering Sam Taylor, a truly under-appreciated American writer, screenwriter, and a great Latter-day Saint. Alas, Samuel W. Taylor, the Latter-day Saint writer did not write "Sabrina." The writer of that wonderful movie was Samuel A. Taylor, the non-LDS writer. Easy to be confused. They are both accomplished screenwriters, and have similar names, but not the same person. Samuel A. Taylor (non-LDS) wrote a number of other films, including: The Love Machine (1971); Topaz (1969); Rosie! (1968); Three on a Couch (1966), and best of all, Alfred Hitchcock's "Vertigo" (which, interestingly enough, was also included in AFI's "100 Years . . . 100 Passions" list, despite featuring a wonderfully twisted "romance" -- one of Jimmy Stewart's most out-of-character roles -- but one that really highlighted his talent as an actor. Samuel W. Taylor (LDS) wrote the story that was the basis of "The "Absent-Minded Professor" (1961), and also a sequel, "Son of Flubber", and also a TV version and a much later Robin Williams version "Flubber". His other movies include: Bait (1954); Man with My Face (1951); The Man Who Returned to Life (1942). He also wrote for Alfred Hitchcock's TV show. But probably his greatest literary accomplishment is his novel "Heaven Knows Why!", which has been mentioned recently on AML-list in the discussion of Mormon books featuring "ghosts" (Moroni Skinner is a spirit, not a ghost). One of the great cinematic crimes of the 20th century is that "Heaven Knows Why!" has yet to be made into a feature film. Hopefully the 21st Century will rectify this matter. >>Perhaps I missed it but does Don Bluth get a mention for any of his work at Disney or on his own? AFI's "100 Years . . . 100 Passions" list includes only 2 animated feature films: "Lady and the Tramp" and "Beauty and the Beast." Two of the animation directors on "Lady and the Tramp" -- Les Clark and Eric Larson -- were from Utah (probably LDS). But none of Don Bluth's Disney movies are included on this particular AFI list. And, actually, the only Disney movie Bluth actually DIRECTED was the short New Testament film "Small One." He was animation director on "Pete's Dragon", and an animator on The Rescuers (1977); The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977) and Robin Hood (1973). *** >> Hal Ashby's "Coming Home" (1978) was quite controversial... Just a note on Ashby. He is, indeed, a native of Ogden, Utah and a graduate of Utah State University in Logan. But he was raised in a very broken down, alcoholic home. I don't know whether or not he was ethnically Mormon, but he was not raised LDS. More typical of Latter-day Saint moviemaking of the late 1970s was Charles Sellier's "documentaries": "In Search of Noah's Ark" (1977) and "Beyond and Back" (1978), Bill Anderson's "Apple Dumpling Gang" (1975) starring Don Knotts, and the Osmonds' "The Great Brain" (1978, starring Jimmy) and "Goin' Coconuts" (1978, starring Donny and Marie), all of which were somehow overlooked by the AFI. I actually haven't seen "Goin' Coconuts." Is it a passionate movie? -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 20 Jun 2002 11:44:19 -0700 > From: "Barbara Hume" > > > > Now, that could make an interesting LDS book. The Lord calls a man from, > > say, Portugal to be the prophet, and the Caucasian American contingent of > > the church says, "No! We won't have it! He's not One of Us!" Then what > > happens? Does the Lord accept their dismissal of His choice, or does he > say > > to the Causcasian American bigots, "You're out.We'll just go along without > > you." There are some interesting precedents in the Old Testament to this > > sort of thing. > > First of all, it wouldn't happen that way. > > First, the man from Portugal would be called as an Apostle. If he then > outlived the other apostles, he would become prophet. During that long > time, it would be expected that the Saints would have got to know him > somewhat, so there would probably be little problem with accepting him > whatever his race might be. > OTOH, first let's imagine that our fictitious/someday Apostle is not only Portuguese-speaking, but also very dark of skin. (I'm thinking of Elder Helio da Rocha Camargo from Brazil, who, IIRC, was very dark.) I can see some members doing exactly what some other members did in 1978; just plain stop going to church. I don't know any personally who did that -- living in Canada, esp. Northern Canada, will do that to you %-) -- but I'm sure any of you who've lived in Utah or in the deep South probably have heard of at least one or two. And if/when such an Apostle succeeds to the Presidency, I could see more people just plain stop going to church. The stretch to 'people who don't sustain the new Apostle/Prophet' to 'people who split from the church when that happens' to 'people who go completely ape over the idea' is not a particulary long one, IMHO. For an immediate, recent example of 'people who split from the church when X happens', check out The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days. These people in Manti UT split from the church after the 1990 revision of the temple endowment ceremony. Any bets on how many similar groups will pop up the day after the first black Apostle is called? Anyhow, Barbara, thanks for the idea. I'm not up to a book as yet, but a few short stories could very well be in order.... > OTOH, if the Church at large refused to accept him, the Apostles would have > to get together and receive revelation on another candidagte. Or, perhaps, the Apostles would have to get together and beat the Church at large over the head with a very large, very figurative stick. > I say all this, of course, as if this speculation (based on the way prophets > have been chosen since the time of Brigham Young). The Lord could trump my > opinion at any time. As he could do to all of us. Robert ********************************************************************** Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too 'Man is that he might have joy--not guilt trips.' (Russell M. Nelson) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Satan Figures (was: Conpiracies in Literature) Date: 19 Jun 2002 15:48:47 -0600 ___ Jim ___ | I didn't know that Gordon Dickson was dead! I guess I'll be | waiting a few years longer for the end of the Childe Cycle. ___ Yeah. It sad, although I think you can get an idea of where he was going with the series by reading _Time Storm_. It is thematically quite similar. I must admit that Dickson did shift things from his original outline. There were to be a few more historical novels covering both the Renaissance general Hawkmoon and also Milton. He touched on those figures as historical musings by main characters. But I believe that originally it was to involve time travel. There used to be a very good essay regarding his plans and the themes within the series at the back of _The Final Encyclopedia_. Although to be fair the last few books were far weaker than the others in the series. I have to admit that I loved the way Bleys was cast as a kind of Islamic version of Lucifer. He's sad and melancholy - sort of the guy who is vastly smarter than everyone else and feels the weight in this sad way. Shades of Milton, but with a distinctive twist. He's almost *not* a bad guy. Satan is probably an oft used character in fantasy, and in literature in general as an archetype. But the Bleys Ahrens character of Dickson is the most believable version of Satan I've ever read. It probably "explains" one of the big problems I had with Mormonism when I was younger. What was Satan thinking? I mean here is this guy who thinks he is smarter than God, apparently wants to help people, yet is characterized as evil incarnate. And yeah he is evil, but what is his motivation? In Dickson the difference reading _Young Bleys_ verses the way the character appears in _The Final Encyclopedia_ is remarkable. In the earlier book you only know the character indirectly. He leads a secret conspiracy of "Others" who are taking over civilization. He seems completely evil, and yet at the same time a distorted mirror of the hero. In _Young Bleys_ Dickson fleshes out the character, using several psychological theories of how a Satan-like personality could develop. Further the most haunting scene in the book is Bleys fasting non-stop to try and have a spiritual experience and being unable to. By lacking that spiritual element he almost has no choice but to become what he lacks. Yet that making himself a God always has a hollowness to it which then becomes part of his personality. He inability to know God ends up being an inability to really be human. Having said that though the book isn't as great as the early books. The sequel, _Others_, is not good at all and ends up being little more than the tedium of how to run a conspiracy and manipulate governments. ___ Jim ___ | I believe that the only place that villains ARE forward-looking | is in literature. ___ Sometimes. You have interesting counter-examples. Think _Beyond the Thunderdome_ in which the Tina Turner character is trying to re-establish civilization. It's looking back in a sense, but looking forward in the sense of creative civilization. ___ Jim ___ | His goal is to eradicate all life in the world, but he of | course uses lies to persuade people to follow him. ___ Nihilism is an excellent role for villains. And there is that sense of nihilism in many Satan characters. Even the Bleys character is nihilistic. Of course Bleys is more in a Neitzschean sort of way in which he doesn't know the implications of his own belief. The ultimate nihilism of the sort you mention is the old Beserker stories. (I forget the author - I think it was Frank Saberhagen) There you have some weapons that were programmed for war and exceeded their programming and took on the characteristic of eradicating all life. I suspect that originally it was meant as a metaphor for atomic weapons. It took on an interesting life of its own with the combination with the Frankenstein or golem myths. This then arises in movies like the Terminator series and perhaps some cyberpunk thrillers. Of course I'm sure to the computer they *are* forward looking. Take _The Matrix_. There the computer is looking after itself and is a devil only in the sense of the old Gnostic demiurge. Orson Scott Card's version of the devil in the alterative universe retelling of Mormonism is also a character of this sort. There the devil isn't a person so much as he is the concept of unmaking as opposed to making. It's a little odd as he basically moves to making both the devil and god fairly "Platonic" like and quite un-Mormon. (Although I believe he was inspired by the hermetic view of Mormonism that came from Quinn's _Mormonism and the Magic World View_) Still I'm not sure how we reconcile the Card view of the Devil and his conspiracies with the fairly complex picture given in The Pearl of Great Price. It's odd that both the Beserker view of the devil and the Bleys kind of devil seem so much more believable than the traditional view in fantasy. (i.e. in Alvin Maker or popular series like that Robert Jordan work) ___ Jim ___ | It's the sophisticated followers that I'm having trouble with. | The foot soldiers are no problem, its the leaders. They're | going to try to convince what amounts to an apostle to rebel | and become perdition, cause he KNOWS the truth. That's my | dilemma--how do I marshal arguments designed to convince a | prophet that won't convince a reader? ___ I think part of it is the old Book of Mormon adage of the "live life wild now and at worst you'll just have to repent later on." Typically the "prophet" like character have some life of asceticism and offering the world really is a big temptation. It is the story of the 40 days in the wilderness. If you were wandering in the wilderness living on locus or worse yet fasting and Satan offered you a big meal, plus a few ladies in waiting to give you a massage, would you do it? This is itself just a variation of the old "vanity is the root of all evil." Satan works through some character flaw which only occurs because of the vanity of the main character. Thus if a good "prophet-like character" is jealous, that jealousy is played up. (Look at the Cain and Abel story) ___ Jim ___ | Hannibal Lector is not a convincing villain in this sense. He | couldn't convert anybody, which is why the ending to _Hannibal_ | is so silly. His arrogance is just too great to be convincing. ___ Well I'll agree that the Lecter-Clarice romance wasn't well written. But I think what Harris was doing was critiquing the reason the film _Silence of the Lambs_ was so popular. It was that odd relationship between the two characters. That people liked it basically for romantic reasons was very warped. So Harris writes a black comedy in which the Clarice - Hannibal "romance" is a type for relationships in general. What the ending shows is that Lector *can't* convince Clarice. So instead he effectively rapes her mind. He uses all the cunning of psychology and chemistry to brainwash her. But what does this say about Hannibal himself and the place of mental illness? Effectively what Hannibal must do is make Clarice as insane as he is. But if mental illness is both biological and also due to psychological trauma (as the novel suggests with Hannibal's history) then that ought to be able to be done to Clarice. This is itself then a black comedy critique of the classic Romantic view of romantic love as a kind of madness where you lose yourself in the other. Unfortunately Harris didn't pull it off. As for Hannibal being that arrogant, I'm not sure he is per se. The only scene that is "unbelievable" in this way is how he escapes from the pigs. In the film that is quite unbelievable. In the book though there is a missing character that makes it more believable. (Especially since, as I recall, she had been a patient of Lecter) But Lecter as a devil character is interesting. He is persuasive, but persuasive because he knows how our minds work. So he can use the deficiencies of our psyche to control us. And when he needs extra help, well there are lots of psychotropic drugs out there that he can use to weaken the spirit. Of course Harris is, like so many before, giving psychology as a science far more power than it really has. Heavens, psychology is still very primitive - especially compared to physics or chemistry. Perhaps this psychologist as magician type metaphor will be more true in the future, but right now it certainly isn't! I always chuckle when a book or movie portray the psychologist as having all this secret knowledge that makes them the master manipulator. If anything the opposite is true! (And I love _Good Will Hunting_ because of how it treats psychology) ___ Jim ___ | I have to admit however that it was _Silence of the Lambs_ that | first set me onto Marcus Aurelius, who remains my favorite | philosopher. I owe that to Hannibal Lector's "Simplicity! Read | Marcus Aurelius. Ask of each particular thing what is it in | itself, in it's nature." ___ I must admit I'm not too big a fan of Aurelius. He is my least favorite Stoic. (Give me Seneca over Aurelius any day) As a coincidence Stoicism is my main topic of study at the moment. Hannibal's use of Renaissance stoicism certainly is important to the character though. The Aurelius quote proves why I twist in my seat every time someone quotes "to thine own self be true." If Hannibal was fulfilling his nature in the Greek sense of the notion, do we really want him to? I always bring that point up in church. I guess I've not quite reached my "self-censorship" stage, as others in the thread from last week have. I should add that the reason Hannibal kills is because the individuals he kills aren't acting in a harmonious way, according to the Stoic ideal. He has de-humanized them in such a way that they have become only cogs in a cosmic machine. (A common view of Stoicism) Thus he kills the 1st string cellist because she was playing poorly in a symphony. His apparently grotesque ways of killing and even cannibalism end up being part of a Stoic kind of irony and the view of sympathies within stoicism. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 20 Jun 2002 15:13:49 -0500 Many of the conspiracies I hear mooted in church (and elsewhere) are difficult to identify as 'left' or 'right.' For instance, there's the ever-popular issue of governmental erosion of individual liberty, which comes from paramilitaries, religious fundamentalists, op-ed columnists for the _NY Times_, and various law school profs. In some versions it's a conspiracy, in others it's part of a reasonable discussion on current approaches to security issues and terrorism. Conspiracy theories focusing on government misbehavior, even the behavior of particular branches and agencies of government (CIA, FBI, BATF, DoD) come from left and right, and it's often hard to identify whether the source is a left-wing or a right-wing loon. Paranoia isn't ideologically biased, and even people with paranoid delusions may have enemies. The need to identify a conspiracy idea with an ideological orientation is perhaps related to our need to categorize (dichotomize?), even when categories fly in the face of reality. Every interesting nut is interesting in his own way and deserves to be studied as an individual. Many of them self-identify as left or right, but there's no more reason to ask them what they think of themselves than there is to ask a platypus what it thinks of itself. It's an interesting object of study, not a dinner date. A platypus isn't a liberal or a conservative; it's a platypus. I think the same is true of conspiracy nuts. People who write about platypusses (platypi?), alas, often have feelings of disdain for nature's oddities, so they prefer to associate the platypus with the ideologies of their ex-spouses (most of whom were slime). It can make their writing turgid. Oliver Stone's movies are usually intrinsically silly, but the ideological baggage he brings to bear on his conspiracies is so much baroque icing on the cake. It's like putting silly ears on the platypus. Isn't that over-kill? If we're going to write about secret combinations, why hobble the story with ideology? The banal desires of conspirators are universal (though usually tightly controlled) and apolitical. Aren't they already interesting enough that way? Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 20 Jun 2002 15:13:57 -0600 ___ Kathy ___ | From my point of view, there is a choice involved, conscious | or subconscious, that a person makes when they (or *I*, past | tense, having done this myself when I was 15) get so drunk | or toked that they can't feel or think straight. ___ I don't want to get away from literature too much. There is a danger that this could turn into a science discussion. So I'll try and focus on the "literary" emphasis of these stories. If anyone is interesting in the science discussion, the mailing list Eyring-l discussed this issue a few days back. Anyway the issue is that what allows the people to be possessed wasn't the alcohol, in your mind. It was their intent that caused the problem then it would occur whether they drank or not. Now there is a kind of "folk" doctrine that our habits stay with us forever and this is why it is easier to repent in this life than in the spirit world. While I've heard authorities make both comments, it technically isn't a doctrine. (And there are some problems with the notion IMO) The difficulty is that if *alcohol* is bad because it is a way to "drown out" bad feelings, then shouldn't the desire for any such substance do the same? The danger in these folk tales is that they seem to fit perfectly drugs such as Prozac or Zoloft. Why is it those are acceptable ways to drown out pain or depression but alcohol isn't? (Ignoring the WoW ban, for the moment) Psychotropic drugs like Prozac can create far greater personality changes than alcohol. The difference seems to be that alcohol makes one inable to function. That's a social no-no and so we have these stories (Which I see more as parables) that discourage it. The danger I see in these sorts of stories and urban legends is that I think they teach a rather pernicious idea. While I can't say for sure, I suspect that those attempting to drown their sorrows in drugs or alcohol really are suffering a great deal of anguish. They are attempting to "treat" themselves. The problem with drugs and alcohol is that they don't solve anything. They numb the pain rather than cure the pain. But when used as a kind of psychological crutch of this sort, that's exactly what is going on: a kind of pain killer. My problem is why deadening oneself to a kind of emotional pain could possibly be conceived of as opening oneself to the devil? I can see one doing stupid damaging acts under the influence - especially the way these substances affect some peoples personalities. But why is "emotional pain" bad to treat while physical pain is OK? If alcohol or the like open us up to the adversary it is simply because he is no dummy. He recognizes that it is easier to manipulate people when their inhibitions are down. But then it is easier for mortal people to manipulate others as well. That's why a common technique in spying is to get your target drunk so as to make it easier to get information. Further you see the same phenomena at dance clubs or the like. The girls who are intoxicated become prey for sexual predators. Until the last decade that kind of "date rape" was acceptable. I bring up the example of date rate (which I recognize is not a black and white issue) because that is how I see these people. This oft told story really teaches something quite contrary to what I see in the gospel. I find it interesting as a folk tale. But the way it is used is dangerous. (As are most "possession" stories) ___ Kathy ___ | If this were the case, then why would the gospel writers have | bothered to make an account of just how many evil and unclean | spirits were cast out of individuals, such as the seven who | were cast out of Mary Magdelene by the Savior, or others who, | when asked their identity, were so many they called themselves | "legion", and were sent into a herd of pigs and ran off a | cliff? ___ Saying that most cases of "possession" are actually mental illness or the like isn't saying that it never happens. Not having first hand informed witnesses of what happened there, I can't say for sure what went on. However if Christ said there were devil possessing her, then I'll trust him. Unfortunately the accounts we have were written long after the fact by people other than Christ. Even if it were something else going on, how would Jesus explain it to a bunch of basically uneducated people in Palestine? I think that there is a danger of projecting their descriptions into our worldview. When I was a kid my Dad had us read various descriptions of the last days in Isaiah and Revelation. He'd then ask, well if you live back then and saw a tank or an airplane, how would you describe it to the people around you? It was a really interesting Family Home Evening less and got me thinking about those sorts of issues at the ripe old age of eight. I think it still applies. We have to remember that people until recently had no idea about science. In the 17th century a lot of what we take for granted as basic engineering or science caused people to get labeled as witches or the like or possessed. Through most of humanity people have been ignorant and superstitious. This isn't to say that there aren't really miracles or the like. Far from it. However it does suggest that how people interpret things can be very culturally dependent. There's an old quote by Arthur C. Clarke that says, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." That is very true. So let me ask you. If someone like the mathematician from _A Beautiful Mind_ was sent back to the year 100 AD, how would people view him? How about someone with a brain tumor? What if you gave a powerful modern synthetic drug like LSD to someone without them knowing about it. How would they describe what happened to them? I think that you'll find "devils" as a nice simple explanation that most people would apply to all these very explainable phenomena. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Ghostly Query Date: 20 Jun 2002 17:45:10 EDT In nursing school there was a psych unit that spent time teaching us about the ins and outs of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia where people do hear voices or see things. I thought it particularly interesting to hear the instructor discuss the voices as being a sign of mental illness when we teach our children to listen to the "still small voice." Not long afterward, I had occasion to get acquainted with someone who was a new convert to the Church. I told her that I wanted to ask a very personal question and asked her about it. She said that she had heard both the voices of her illness (whether evil spirits, malfunctioning mental connections, or whatever) and the voice of the Spirit. She said that there was very definitely a difference and she could tell where the voices were coming from. Karen [Tippets] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Attacking the Family Date: 20 Jun 2002 14:58:14 -0700 >> Divorce is bad, and you know someone who's better off divorced. = There's no >> conflict there, so long as we remember that the first statement is a >> statistical generality, and the second is a specific case. Thom Duncan responded: >I contend that many members of the Church don't have the ability to see = the >subtleties you suggest. I want to add something here. In the number of Wards and Stakes my = family has been in there have been several divorces. Unfortunately, most = have been where the husband initiated the divorce. In each case the = woman was better off for a variety of reason (except financially and all = of the women got the proverbial screw put to them where it came to = either Child Support of Alimony) after the divorce but in each case = their self-esteem was crushed. I am convinced down to the depths of my = soul that the Spirit is probably screaming in the Bishops' or Stake = Presidencies' ears to not give some of these clowns Temple Recommends = because of either how they treated their family before the divorce (wife = and/or Children - step or biological) or how they treated them in the = divorce proceedings. Either way they have violated the covenants and = meet the criteria of D&C 121 or since the divorce in dealing fairly with = their fellow man (especially that updated clause about financially = meeting their previous family's needs and their obligations). To me it = is a travesty that they have no clue what they did wrong and many times = go on to do the same things, and commit the same sin over and over = because no one has the intestinal fortitude to call them on what they = are doing and either hold a Priesthood Court or sit them down for some = serious counseling which should include removal of their recommend. You can probably tell I have a strong opinion about this right now due = to a dear friend of mine whose divorce just became final. For the record = - do not get me one on one and ask my opinion of this kind of stuff. I = may use words not fit for a Temple attending member. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Randall Larsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Utah/LDS-Made Movies on AFI's "100 Years, 100 Passions" List Date: 20 Jun 2002 12:10:58 -1000 Preston, Thanks for the correction on Sabrina. Actually the values of Sabrina aren't LDS. The Movie Sabrina is a typical Greek new comedy (as Nibley would say). Girl meets Boy. Girl can't marry boy because boy is rich and girl is poor. In the end the couple live happily ever after when its discovered that by some quirk of luck (good investments) the chauffer's daughter is now rich TOO. Now that they are BOTH rich they CAN marry. **** Do you know what episodes of Hitchcock Presents that our Sam wrote? I knew Sam and was particularly interested in his writings about Mormon History: Nightfall at Nauvoo, the Kingdom or Nothing, (compiler) John Taylor Papers I and II. **** On the OSMUND movie Goin Cocanuts (a take off on the Marx Bros. Goin Bananas). It was comedy (forgettable for the most part). It had a nice chase scene in boats. The Osmunds were friends with Dr. Winn in Studio City. I worked with Dr. Winn on video productions. In the late 70s when the Osmunds wanted to set up a video editing facility in LA, I recommended through Dr. Winn that they lease a building on La Brea about half way between Wilshire and Santa Monica Blvd. I thought it would be good to be near the ad agencies on Wilshire. It put them out of Hollywood however so they didn't get much business. In Hollywood it is very important to do business at the center. That is why the Osmund's Orem studio was not such a good idea in the first place. *** I don't know whether Reed Smoot is on the AFI 100 yet but I notice he is getting a lot of high profile work these days. He DP'd an interesting Short film in the 70s called "The Rainbow War" Anybody seen it? This Smoot short is still shown frequently in intercultural training programs? Arafat and Sharon should probably view this picture. kind regards, Randall Larsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 20 Jun 2002 16:23:01 -0600 I don't know anyone in Happy Valley who would not accept a black president of the church if he spent a goodly amount of time as an apostle. Once people here get to know black people they go out of their way to accept them. We have the neatest black man in our bishopric and he is by far the most loved man in that group. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "gtaggart" Subject: RE: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 20 Jun 2002 16:59:19 -0700 Robert wrote, "OTOH, first let's imagine that our fictitious/someday Apostle is not only Portuguese-speaking, but also very dark of skin. (I'm thinking of Elder Helio da Rocha Camargo from Brazil, who, IIRC, was very dark.)" I think you were really thinking of Elder Helvecio Martins, recently of the Quorum of the Seventy, baptized in the early 70's in Rio, and much, much darker than Camargo. Both wonderful men, by the way. Interesting note about him: He was baptized before the revelation on the priesthood. When the church organized the first stake in Rio, he was called to the stake Sunday School Presidency, either as President (as I remember it) or as a counselor (as I've read elsewhere), even though he still couldn't hold the priesthood. As I recall, Bruce R. McConkie organized the stake. To occupy that position today, you need to hold the priesthood. Greg Taggart -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shelly Choong" Subject: Re: [AML] Labor Horror Stories Date: 20 Jun 2002 17:46:44 -0700 Chris Bigelow wrote: > The spring issue of Irreantum (now at the printers) has several short > stories on the theme of childbirth, including one by Linda Adams that goes > into a lot of detail about the labor and delivery of a woman's first child. > > If you're not a subscriber and want this issue, send $5 with a note ~Thanks Chris, but I think I'll pass. What I do think would make an interesting topic for Irrenatum to explore would be what it means to be a childless mother in Zion. Sheri Dew gave a talk about that earlier this year, and I found it to be an interesting approach to the issue. ~I've appreciated everybody's posting on this subject. Just getting some feedback has helped. This is a tender issue for me right now because at 39, my biological clock isn't just ticking. It's tocked. There seems to be various stages of dealing with being childless in a church that values children as much as we do. And I suppose this is just one more stage. ~Thanks again. Shelly (Johnson-Choong) http://www.shellyjohnsonchoong.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Changing Names Date: 20 Jun 2002 22:19:28 -0600 The current (July 2002) Writer's Digest has an article addressing this very issue. It's called, "To Tell the Truth," and deals with the difficulty of writing an truthful memoir, especially when the real people involved will be reading it. It also (briefly) addresses what to do to protect yourself (such as gathering as much evidence and other information as you can, rather than relying on just your own memories). Thought it might be helpful. :) Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Setting Goals Date: 21 Jun 2002 06:42:45 -0600 I wrote: > >Even > >the prophet at the time (whom I love deeply) was tell missionaries to set > >baptism goals (1000 per missionary per mission, but 500 per mission for > >German missions). Reality was about three orders of magnitude less. We >had a > >general authority come to the mission and chastise us for not having > >companionship baptism goals. Eric Wrote: > Missionary work is funny. It's not, mostly, about Huge Moral Dilemmas (Nothing Very Important, Fires of the Mind). It's not about Heroic Self Sacrifice (God's Army). It's not about The Triumph of Naivete (Saturday's Warrior). I mean, it can be about those things, but they all seem to miss the point a bit, I think. Missionary work is about bureaucratic self-importance, and that's funny. It's about working until your heart breaks to achieve certain impossible number goals, and that also seems to me pretty funny, Orwellian funny at least. It's about Motivational Speeches, all of which strike me as amazingly funny. It's about bothering people at home who don't want to be bothered, because your priority is Bearing Testimony of The Truth and theirs is Getting Dinner On Followed By TV; that seems to me very funny indeed. Missionary work is funny, and I don't know that that's ever been explored. (Maybe I should. Hmmmm. . . .) > Eric Samuelsen Of course it's funny. Baiting the dog. How a greeny learns they are the worst mission in the world. A district meeting where they compare the worst X, the most off-the-wall door approach, the best hazing. An accidental date to the opera. Stealing, copying, and returning the old companion's journals. Trying to buy a gun from an investigator. Zone conferences. Wagering on a diamond-wearing sister missionary's future. Paper airplanes and firecrackers. Street preaching and singing/preaching at Mardi Gras beer garden. Tracking in the wrong area of town. Meeting an investigator at her workplace--a public restroom. Why don't you break down and read *Angel of the Danube*, which has been called Serio-comic by Cracroft. You get all this and folk tales, and the serious search for meaning. But I disagree with Eric--yes it is funny, but it is also about heroic self sacrifice, moral dilemnas, and the Triumph of Naivete. If not the last, there would be no worldwide Mormon church, only a small religious community on the Amish scale. Miracles happen. Alan Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Starling" Subject: [AML] Re: 1. Sued by anti-Mormons and 2. Minority Report Date: 21 Jun 2002 08:59:26 -0600 Here's an answer and a question/comment... RE: At 03:25 PM 6/18/02, you wrote: >It resulted my being sued by anti-Mormons twice, once for $3million and = once > for $25 million. >On what basis? that you had no right to show them up or reveal the flaws i= n= =20 >their arguments? The basis for one lawsuit was that I had "interfered with a prospective = economic relationship" between the producers of "The God Makers" film and = the church that was going to show it (and take up a collection for the = producers), because I wrote a letter to the pastor of the church. The judg= e= said I had a right to be a "film critic" and express my opinion, so the = case was thrown out. In the second lawsuit, someone (in Texas I believe) had re-typed my rebutta= l= to the movie and added a disparaging note about the star/producer, which = was claimed to libelous. In this case, I had a few thousand copies of the = paper in circulation to prove that my original did not contain the offendin= g= paragraphs, so I was in the clear. >so the pre-emptive imprisonment of anyone for the crimes >that they might commit seems to fly in the face of well-established law. >I'll be curious to see how Spielberg handles this idea in his new film, >_Minority Report._=20 Many on this list may have read Gerald Lund's "The Alliance", which also = deals with a future society in which technology makes possible the arrest o= =66= people who are merely _thinking_ about committing a crime. The work of th= e= "thought police" in this case are seen to be implementing Lucifer's plan = =66rom the pre-mortal existence by making _sure_ that no one sins. It's an interesting parallel. Robert Starling --- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for= = the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 21 Jun 2002 09:54:19 -0600 A correction... I wrote: > The prophet at the time was Heber J. Grant who had served a mission in Japan > and was generally beloved by the Japanese people (his translation of the > Book of Mormon is still the preferred edition for many Japanese even though > a newer more accurate translation is available). Of course Brother Grant directed Alma O. Taylor to translate the Book of Mormon; Grant himself was probably not strong enough in the language to do such a translation himself. To further clarify, that older translation is not generally available today but is reported to me (by one former missionary to Japan) to be quite beloved among some older Japanese who link it in their minds to President Grant. Thanks to Andrew Hall for providing me with direct, updated information on a datum that I had dredged up from an old, uncorrelated (and un-source-checked) memory. This history stuff is harder than it looks... Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Labor Horror Stories Date: 21 Jun 2002 15:33:03 -0700 At 10:34 AM 6/15/02, Shelly (Johnson-Choong) wrote: >>~I was going to remain a lurker, but this thread hit home. I'm = childless. >>Not by choice. But that's a whole different story. The thing is, I = want to >>know why Mormon women do this sort of thing? Why is it whenever a = group of >>Mormon women get together for Enrichment Night, or gather in the hall = of the >>church, the conversation always gets around to their 36 hour labor = sessions, >>etc.? >> >>Any ideas? Ronn said: >When I was growing up=B9 and would go with my parents to visit my = mother's=20 >family, my cousin (who was about my age) and I would try to figure out = why=20 >so much of the conversation of our elders revolved around the latest=20 >hospital visits, or just the general everyday aches and pains, of=20 >themselves or other family members. I suspect the explanation is = similar. > >Maybe it all boils down to something as simple as "Misery loves = company"? > >If so, though, why does no one want to hear me describe my symptoms = when I=20 >am not feeling well? Maybe this all goes back to the old days of pioneers and maybe even the = Civil War and other things. What I'm trying to say here is if you have = ever watched old war verterans it gets to a point in the conversation = they start talking about how many bullets they took in the war. Or my = scar is bigger than your scar therefore I'm tougher. He who has the most = scars is toughest of all. Having spent many a summer going to visit relatives and hearing many = conversations inevitable you would hear "Did you hear about so-and-so? = Poor dear, she had xx hours of surgery and is still sick, etc." My guess = is it was a way of getting respect (scars) or sympathy (poor dear) but = in either case it can leave the wrong impression if the same story gets = told over and over. My personal opinion of Sisters who talk about their labor pain/times is = they are trying to find out if they fit in. I know how Shelly must feel. = I have known people in some of the Wards we have lived in where they = were childless and not by choice either. Hopefully the sisters are not = insensitive about your situation. One suggestion I could make is find a = good sister who you feel you can be close to and see if they have any = clue of what they are trying to accomplish/figure out when this kind of = conversation comes up or talk to one of the Relief Society Presidency = and see if they have any ideas how to get your feelings known and = understood.=20 Point of reference and point of view is huge in liturature but many do = not realize how big this is in life as well. Everyone wants to relate on = some level. Wanting to relate to someone's experience and not being able = to (and feeling you should) can impact you on a "Self Esteem" level. It = is like wanting to walk a mile in someone's moccasins and every time = they hand them to you to walk in they take them back before you can put = them on. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] Responsibility and Medication (was: Ghostly Query) Date: 21 Jun 2002 16:56:17 -0600 ---Original Message From: Clark Goble > ___ Kathy ___ > | From my point of view, there is a choice involved, conscious > | or subconscious, that a person makes when they (or *I*, past > | tense, having done this myself when I was 15) get so drunk > | or toked that they can't feel or think straight. > ___ > > The difficulty is that if *alcohol* is bad because it is a way > to "drown out" bad feelings, then shouldn't the desire for any > such substance do the same? The danger in these folk tales is > that they seem to fit perfectly drugs such as Prozac or Zoloft. > Why is it those are acceptable ways to drown out pain or > depression but alcohol isn't? (Ignoring the WoW ban, for the > moment) Psychotropic drugs like Prozac can create far greater > personality changes than alcohol. > > The difference seems to be that alcohol makes one inable to > function. That's a social no-no and so we have these stories > (Which I see more as parables) that discourage it. Interesting idea. I agree that "drowning out bad feelings" isn't the issue. And I don't think it is that alcohol incapacitates people, either. At least, not as such. I think the core issue is one of judgement and personal responsibility. Alcohol impairs judgment. Although people may speak of "numbing the pain" what they are also doing is drowning out legitimate burdens. It's one thing to alleviate your pain, but you must be careful to a) take the responsibility to balance the benefits vs. detriments, b) consult resources that can provide crucial information on the planned solution, and c) ensure that any solution doesn't impair the ability to fulfill other important obligations. Alcohol just doesn't fit the bill. If you have such serious problems, then self-medicating is only going to make those problems worse--predictably worse. Drinking to alleviate pain is, simply put, irresponsible. Taking psychotropic drugs like Prozac et. al. is fundamentally different because doing so is a function of responsibility--you recognize your pain, you seek help, you become informed and seek the advice of professionals, and you monitor your condition to weigh the benefits and possible draw-backs. > The danger I see in these sorts of stories and urban legends > is that I think they teach a rather pernicious idea. While I > can't say for sure, I suspect that those attempting to drown > their sorrows in drugs or alcohol really are suffering a > great deal of anguish. They are attempting to "treat" > themselves. The problem with drugs and alcohol is that they > don't solve anything. They numb the pain rather than cure > the pain. But when used as a kind of psychological crutch of > this sort, that's exactly what is going on: a kind of pain > killer. > > My problem is why deadening oneself to a kind of emotional > pain could possibly be conceived of as opening oneself to the > devil? I can see one doing stupid damaging acts under the > influence - especially the way these substances affect some > peoples personalities. But why is "emotional pain" bad to > treat while physical pain is OK? Because the way they choose to "treat" their emotional pain is to abandon their responsibility. If *you* don't want to be responsible for your actions, some other entity is eager to pick up the slack. By drinking alcohol or taking illegal drugs, you are declaring in a very real way that *you* don't care what you do or what happens to you. It's a clear declaration and as such, it doesn't surprise me that you forfeit certain intrinsic protections. Not that I think it is a terribly common occurrence, really. Just that the justification can be deeper and harder to dismiss than you've outlined here. > If alcohol or the like open us up to the adversary it is simply > because he is no dummy. He recognizes that it is easier to > manipulate people when their inhibitions are down. But then it > is easier for mortal people to manipulate others as well. > That's why a common technique in spying is to get your target > drunk so as to make it easier to get information. Further you > see the same phenomena at dance clubs or the like. The girls > who are intoxicated become prey for sexual predators. Until > the last decade that kind of "date rape" was acceptable. I think it can go beyond mere suggestibility. If you deliberately forfeit control of yourself, then you really have no call to be surprised if something else takes control. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Minority Report Date: 21 Jun 2002 17:21:29 -0600 Robert Starling wrote: > Many on this list may have read Gerald Lund's "The Alliance", which also > deals with a future society in which technology makes possible the arrest of > people who are merely _thinking_ about committing a crime. The work of > the "thought police" in this case are seen to be implementing Lucifer's plan > from the pre-mortal existence by making _sure_ that no one sins. > > It's an interesting parallel. We'll see what Spielberg does. The fact that the film deals with the point at which their "perfect prediction" fails or is manipulated by evil-doers suggests that despite the assurances that murder can be stopped, the cost ends up being much, much too high. Certainly a story that celebrates agency and the dangers of any institution that limits the exercise of that agency--told from a distinctly non-LDS perspective. Sadly, the few stories I've seen from LDS perspectives have been disappointingly weak. I thought Lund's book was at best simplistic and at worst uninteresting. It's a fairly ordinary demagogue using mind control to cement his power over a weak-willed populace. But he stopped well short of a deep exploration of the issues of agency in anything but an all-or-nothing format. There was no second level to it, and that disappointed me. David Farland's _Runelords_ series seems to be taking a much more interesting look at the issue in a far more complex setting. I need to read the second and third books to see if they follow up on the powerful themes suggested in the first volume. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathy Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Labor Horror Stories Date: 21 Jun 2002 17:59:22 -0600 Shelly Choong wrote: > my biological clock isn't just ticking. It's tocked. I remember being comforted by Patricia Holland saying something like: There are women with 3 children who grieve because they couldn't have 8, and women with 8 who grieve because they didn't have 3. Right on. I don't know how it is to grieve, childless, but I do know how it is to be so overwhelmed with burgeoning bodies of children and their friends and accoutrements that I have thought I would lose my mind. Cathy Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Setting Goals Date: 21 Jun 2002 17:00:38 -0700 Alan Mitchell wrote: But I disagree with Eric--yes it is funny, but it is also about heroic = self sacrifice, moral dilemmas, and the Triumph of Naivet=E9. If not the = last, there would be no worldwide Mormon church, only a small religious = community on the Amish scale. Miracles happen. I like this. I'm currently working on something that deals with Social = Anxiety Disorder and my mission. You never know unless you have been = there how many are experiencing this "heroic self sacrifice" and how = miracles do happen in the lives of member, the lives of your contacts, = the lives of your companions and District/Zone Elders and Sisters, and = most especially in your life. Many, unfortunately, become obsessed with = being the best at the minutia (setting goals, both personal and = companion, for teaching, baptizing, etc.) but what we really went there = to learn was by far the most important: Sacrificing ourselves for the = Lord and learning to work together with someone we may not even like in = love and harmony in spite of the trials we experience. I'm still = learning this and it has been 25 years ago I came home from my mission = to Montana and Wyoming and 22 years ago I was married to my lovely wife = (come this August). Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Utah/LDS-Made Movies on AFI's "100 Years, 100 Passions" List Date: 22 Jun 2002 10:12:24 -0700 Randall Larsen wrote: >I don't know whether Reed Smoot is on the AFI 100 yet but I notice he is >getting a lot of high profile work these days. >He DP'd an interesting Short film in the 70s called "The Rainbow War" >Anybody seen it? This Smoot short is still shown frequently in >intercultural training programs? I recently bought an IMAX movie that's been released on DVD called THE MYSTERIES OF EGYPT. (My 14 year old daughter wants to be an Egyptologist and is obsessed with all things Egyptian in any form). There is a short documentary included on the DVD showing how they made the film, including interviews with the creative staff. Reed Smoot was the director of photography on that project. Besides being a look behind the scenes, it was nice to "meet" the man I read so much about on this list. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] _The Ark_ (Play) Date: 22 Jun 2002 13:13:50 -0600 The third time was the charm. This was significantly more entertaining = this time. For all you friends of Elizabeth Hansen (writer, actor, = musician) on the list, try to see her as Eliza in this musical at = Thanksgiving Point. It runs through July 6. She was fabulous. A very = well-cast, entertaining show. If Egyptus was not played as black (as = has been referred to on the list), the plot themes in the play would be = far less satisfyinig. It is easy to see why that probably won't change. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Changing Names Date: 22 Jun 2002 19:03:06 -0600 At 10:19 PM 6/20/02, you wrote: >The current (July 2002) Writer's Digest has an article addressing this very >issue. It's called, "To Tell the Truth," and deals with the difficulty of >writing an truthful memoir, especially when the real people involved will be >reading it. It also (briefly) addresses what to do to protect yourself (such >as gathering as much evidence and other information as you can, rather than >relying on just your own memories). Thought it might be helpful. :) Thanks for the article reference. Fortunately, my client kept a very detailed diary, but I'm not sanguine about using actual names in the book. I've received a wide variety of suggestions from the list on how to approach the issue! I think probably different publishers might have different policies as well. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons and Topaz Date: 24 Jun 2002 12:25:44 -0600 Heber J. Grant never learned Japanese, though he tried mightily. He did dedicate Japan for the preaching of the gospel, and wrote a beautiful tract inviting Japanese people into the gospel. Basically, he felt that his time in Japan was not fruitful, and he was thrilled to be able to preside over Europe when that call came. I only know this because Pres. Grant asked a Black man (Abner Howell) to be the porter on the train which would take fifty missionaries and President Grant (with one of his wives and one daughter) to a port in Seattle, from which they would go to Canada and then board a ship to Japan. As Abner Howell reports it, the missionaries wanted him [Ab] to come with them to Japan. He also reports that President Grant told him to be faithful to his religion and he would find "luck" throughout his life. At the time, Ab was Methodist. I have a sense that Heber J. Grant (who played a "pickininny" in a production of _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ in Utah and who rode in a carriage driven by Isaac James [see _One More River to Cross_], had sympathy with and for those of African descent--though he did tell racist jokes over the pulpit (as did others). But at least he prefaced his by saying, "I don't mean this to apply to all Negroes." Well, you can read all about that and more when the final volume of the trilogy gets published--which will be later than it's supposed to be because it's still pretty lousy and unfit for anyone's eyes but mine and Darius's. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 24 Jun 2002 12:42:28 -0600 I do have one question here. And BY NO MEANS do I intend to accuse Nan (who I know as a remarkable, truly good woman) of any measure of racism. This is just something her observation leads me to think about. Years ago, Alan Cherry said that we will know hearts have changed when Blacks "are no longer seen as exotic." Sadly, I know a whole bunch of folks who would not accept a black president of the Church. One of the things I have come to see in my growing awareness of race issues in the Church is the subtlety of racism. I hear things which appear on the surface to indicate that the speaker is truly tolerant ("Isn't that Colin Powell a great man? I wouldn't care if he were blue or purple..."). The fact that race is the first thing mentioned about him--or anyone else--says something. It comes from the same foundation as that awful cliche, "He's a credit to his race." At some point, there simply must be no distinction except the celebration of various gifts and the beauty of all colors. One of my dear friends (black) was a bishop in California. When one of his members brought her parents, the parents asked why she had never mentioned that the bishop was black. She said, "Oh, I guess I never really noticed." THAT'S where we need to be. We sometimes assume that racism will be clearly visible and that racists will make themselves known in their jokes and in overt actions. One of my favorite sayings comes from a black man in conversation with a white man who's claiming to have no prejudice, even though he does believe blacks should be separate from whites. The black man's response, after a long chuckle, is, "You still got the disease. You just don't know you got it." [Margaret Young] Nan McCulloch wrote: > I don't know anyone in Happy Valley who would not accept a black president > of the church if he spent a goodly amount of time as an apostle. Once > people here get to know black people they go out of their way to accept > them. We have the neatest black man in our bishopric and he is by far the > most loved man in that group. > > Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Non-Volitional Protagonists Date: 24 Jun 2002 14:30:30 -0600 A few musings, if you will, on characters, and on the tragically wasted = opportunity that was The Other Side of Heaven. One of the first things I teach my students is the notion of the volitional= protagonist. By 'volitional protagonist,' I mean a character who makes = the most important decisions in a story, who strongly pursues an objective,= who drives the action of the story forward. Of course, it is possible to = write a story with a non-volitional protagonist too, but generally such = characters are seen as weak. Characters to whom life happens are = generally less appealing than characters who make life happen. =20 As a case in point, I offer The Other Side of Heaven, which I just saw for = the second time. First time I saw it, I was fairly high on painkillers, = and I thought it was an attractive, but somehow unengaging film. I just = saw it again, and now know why it did not succeed in becoming the first = cross-over hit of Mormon cinema. Let's face it; it's stalled at around = four and half mill, and while it may do some ancillary business, it's = disappointing. Let's also face another unpleasant fact; the film didn't = deserve to do better. It's not good enough.=20 Back to volitional characters: Two scenes in particular stick out for = me.=20 First, there's the scene where Groberg is learning the language, and sits = on a little sand spit for four days reading the Bible, cover to cover, = phrase by phrase, in both English and Tongan. This is a movie moment, = contrived and melodramatic, but quite effective in showing a strong, = heroically determined character. It didn't actually happen, of course; = John H. Groberg learned Tongan the way everyone learns a language, = gradually, through a lot of study, practice, reading and listening. = Still, this is a very volitional moment, and establishes Groberg as a = highly motivated and charismatic protagonist. The second scene comes later in the picture. A rich creep has anchored = his yacht in the bay, and three sailors have come to the island, offering = cases of rum to the villagers in exchange for the sexual favors of their = daughters. The elderly Protestant minister stands up against them. So = does the branch President. Groberg does . . . absolutely nothing. The = sailors punch out the branch President. Groberg does nothing. They cut = to his face throughout the scene. He still does zip. =20 In this scene, Groberg, the protagonist of the film, is non-volitional. = Faced with a difficult situation, he reacts passively. His character, in = that moment, is cowardly and weak. And the film never really recovers = from it. That one scene wrecks the movie. A few comments about that scene: =20 a) In my classes, I talk about normative and non-normative behavior. How = would most folks react to such and such a situation? It's okay to have = your characters behave non-normatively, but if they do, you'd do well to = explain why. So think about this situation. Three pimps have come to = your ward. They offer cash to the Young Women. Your bishop stands up to = them, and gets punched out. What would you do? =20 Don't know about you, but me, I'm fighting right alongside him. Make him = a minister, or a rabbi, same diff. Any reasonable moral human being would = fight that particular moral evil, seems to me. So Groberg in this scene = is not just non-volitional, he's non-normatively non-volitional. =20 b) So this scene could be a turning point for the character. He doesn't = stand up to evil, feels terrible about it, resolves to never do so again, = and behaves heroically the rest of the movie. It doesn't happen that way, = though; the scene connects to two other scenes, but in neither of them = does Groberg change in any way. =20 c) It's not in the book, and didn't actually happen. That's one explanatio= n for a puzzling and repugnant moment; that it happened that way in the = book, so what're going to do? But it didn't happen that way in the book. = =20 In the book, Groberg DID stand up against the moral evil of the rich creep = in the yacht. d) Are there other explanations for this odd little scene? Was it some = sort of weird Tongan cultural practice, to condone prostitution? I don't = think so, and it's never explained like that. The one girl who goes out = to the boat later washes up on shore after the hurricane; is this scene = meant to show how the hurricane is God's punishment for the rich creep? I = doubt it, and that's really troubling on a lot of levels. =20 e) When I say 'this scene wrecks the movie' do I mean that everyone who = sees it is morally corrupted so that they now think more positively = towards pimps, or do I mean that everyone who saw the film focussed on = that moment as I've described it? No, and I doubt it. What it does, = though, is make the character weak, so that, from then on, when we see him = and people say what a great guy he is, we know better. All it really = does, I think, is make the character less compelling, less interesting. A = lot of people saw this film uncritically; just loved it, because it was = pretty, and it was John H. Groberg, and it was spiritually uplifting. But = the point of making and marketing this film was to make a film that people = outside the Church would enjoy and find compelling. And the protagonist = of the film was too weak for that to happen. A lot of the criticism we read here on the List echoes what I'm saying. = Consistently critics were saying 'there wasn't enough character development= ,' or 'the main character seemed flat and uninteresting,' or 'we don't = know enough about John Groberg at the end of the film to care much about = him.' What they're saying is, this is a film about John Groberg, and John = Groberg is not a compelling character. I'd say, he's insufficiently = volitional. Characters are defined by the choices they make, and this = character doesn't make many choices. And throughout the rest of the film, we're told what a great guy he is, = but he doesn't do enough to show us that that's true. For one thing, he = never once rows his own canoe. (Never trust a guy who has a chauffeur; = only trust the guy who drives his own car.) He's shown being rowed = various places. That's significant; he appears weak, with the peculiar = weakness of the cultural imperialist. Yes, the film tells us that he, a = white guy, is learning far more from the Tongans than they're learning = from him. But that's not what we see. We're told about conversions he's = made and branches he's formed and schools he's built and staffed. We = don't see him do any of it. Non-volitional, and therefore, uninteresting. = =20 One criticism of the film was that we don't see him doubting, we don't see = him questioning, and the defense was, well, Groberg doesn't. He doesn't = doubt; he just gets the job done. But that's not true of his book. In = the Eye of the Storm is full of scenes where he's homesick, and lonely, = and unsure of his own abilities. He's frequently vulnerable in the book, = and then overcomes those feelings of inadequacy (volitional!). There's a = terrific character arc in the book that simply didn't make it on the = screen. Fact is, we've nearly reached a point where a marvelous moment is passing = us by. The Mormon Cinema Movement Richard Dutcher started is in danger of = fizzling out, and in large measure it's because the writing isn't good. = Brigham City is the best written film of the lot, and it needed another = draft. Singles Ward is unwatchable, and mostly because it's so poorly = written. =20 The Other Side of Heaven is the biggest missed opportunity yet, though. = Producers of the stature of Molen and Garbett. Great source material. A = story that could really work. Some budget, and some marketing savvy. And = a pretty good director. But Mitch shouldn't have written it. He can't = write at all, and the result is a film that doesn't work. I don't mean it = should be darker, or it shouldn't bear a strong testimony, or that it = shouldn't be about missionaries. I mean it invents scenes that destroy = any positive feelings we might have about the main character. I mean it = tells its story so poorly we end up not liking a character we should like. = And that's the ballgame, folks. I have a solution, too. If any of you know Jeff Simpson or Jerry Molen or = someone, let 'em know I've got an offer to make. Any prospective Mormon = film, I will allow for workshopping in the BYU Writers/Directors/Actors = workshop. I will open up WDA for contemporary LDS film scripts. We have = workshopped screenplays in the past, and my students are great. They'll = tear the work to pieces, and they'll offer insightful and helpful = suggestions for improvement. At BYU, we will never produce a new play on = our season that hasn't been through WDA first. We'll ask nothing in = return. We just want the quality of writing to improve. With one more = draft. . . . Eric Samuelsen =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "gtaggart" Subject: RE: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 24 Jun 2002 15:01:13 -0700 Margaret Young wrote, >>Years ago, Alan Cherry said that we will know hearts have changed when Blacks "are no longer seen as exotic." I think Bro. Cherry is right. Blacks are still "exotic" in the church; that is, there are too few of them in some locations (Happy Valley included). And because of that, they still elicit surprise, even excitement as they assume leadership positions in the church. "Mom, you won't believe it. My bishop at BYU is black!" Which may be one reason Margaret wrote, "Sadly, I know a whole bunch of folks who would not accept a black president of the Church." How do you know this? How big is "a whole bunch"? Are you assuming they wouldn't because they preface the word "man" with the word "black" as the occasion warrants? Have you done surveys? Or have a whole bunch of members walked up to you and stated, "I could never accept a black president of the church"? (Margaret, please forgive me. I don't mean to pick on you.) Last night my wife and I went to ward prayer at a BYU student ward that I was recently called to serve in (apologies to those who feel it's showy or prideful to mention church service). As we walked from the car to the student lounge, I told my wife of three women in the ward I had visited with earlier that day to call to positions in the ward. I spoke of them as young women from Lithuania, the Ukraine, and Albania. Why? Because it was informative, and because they were from exotic places. One day blacks will no longer be exotic in the church, even in Happy Valley. Until that day, my guess is that we will continue to refer to our black bishop or our black stake president. Why? Because it's informative and, surprise, because--if I were the speaker anyway--it would speak of a certain pride that blacks are becoming less and less exotic in the church. I guess I'm sexist too because if I had a woman bishop, I'd have trouble not saying, "our bishop, who's a woman by the way, gave a remarkable talk in ward conference today." Speaking of women, I have to share my favorite response to the question, "will women ever hold the priesthood?" I was in state priesthood leadership meeting in Lansing, Michigan sometime around 1980. Former Michigan Governor George Romney, our regional representative, was answering questions from the congregation. Someone asked the women/priesthood question. Romney responded, "Well, if ten years ago, someone had told me that I'd be sitting in Sacrament meeting at 10 AM in the morning, in two-piece garments, with a young black man passing me the sacrament, I'd have told that someone he was crazy." Isn't continuing revelation great? I feel that this list often sells the general membership of the church short (which is worse, racism or elitism?). I, for one, don't know a whole bunch of people who couldn't accept a black man as president of the church. I do know a humongous bunch who believe that the church is the Lord's church and is led by Him. And I believe they'll continue to pay their tithes, continue to sit in Sacrament meeting in two piece garments at 10AM, and continue to raise their right arms to the square to sustain the president of the church, even if she happens to be a black woman. In short, continuing revelation trumps both racism and sexism in this church. Greg Taggart -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] _Angel of the Danube_ (was Setting Goals) Date: 24 Jun 2002 14:25:59 -0700 (PDT) --- Alan Rex Mitchell wrote: > Why don't you break down and read *Angel > of > the Danube*, which has been called Serio-comic by Cracroft. You get all > this > and folk tales, and the serious search for meaning. > This is a serious tangent: But speaking of Cracroft on _Angel of the Danube_, in his cover blurb he compares it to Bellow's _Hendersen, the Rain King_. Intrigued, I actually went out and read _Hendersen (son?)_. I fail to see much of a comparison between the two works beyond that which is so general as to be useless, that is that both deal with an American in a strange land (Austria, Africa). Hendersen is nothing like Barry Monroe. Perhaps he's thinking of the fact that Barry has his Dude-speak and Hendersen has his own idiosyncratic phrasings. Or it could just be that both are serio-comic novels. Okay. So there are some points of comparison, but I thought the comparison weird. Not the least because while the reference may have been apt 30 years ago, in my experience, these days, Hendersen is pretty low on the list of Bellow novels that people read. And rightly so. It hasn't aged well. Anyway, _Angel of the Danube_ is much better than Bellow's _Hendersen the Rain King_----if that matters to anyone. Just one example is that the way Barry employs Austrian culture and folk tales and the way he relates to the Austrian people is way more interesting and fruitful and coherent than how Bellow portrays Hendersen among the Africans. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kathy Fowkes" Subject: Re: [AML] Responsibility and Medication Date: 24 Jun 2002 15:06:47 -0700 The danger in these folk tales is > that they seem to fit perfectly drugs such as Prozac or Zoloft. > Why is it those are acceptable ways to drown out pain or > depression but alcohol isn't? (Ignoring the WoW ban, for the > moment) Psychotropic drugs like Prozac can create far greater > personality changes than alcohol. What Jacob said :-). And one other thought. Having used both alcohol at one time, as well as marijuana (ages 14-16 in my search for the true meaning of life, believe it or not, along with the desire to self-medicate, and fit in with the crowd), and having used Prozac for 4 months at the end of my final bout with clinical depression in 1993, I can state from experience that the two aren't even similar in their effects on the brain and body. Yes, they both effect the serotinin levels, but the body's response to that effect is totally different. Alcohol depresses, reduces inhibitions, and impairs judgment and physical functions, for starters. Prozac and other pschotropic drugs alleviate depression, *normalizing* emotions rather than drowning them out, so that a person can function. Properly regulated, these drugs enhance one's ability to meet life's responsibilities and problems and deal with them. Alcohol is an attempt, as Jacob said, of bailing out on responsibilities and problems. Alcohol puts you to bed; Prozac gives you the emotionally stability to actually get OUT of bed and face the day without being overwhelmed by merely thinking of swinging your feet onto the floor. Alcohol increases negative emotions while reducing inhibitions -- I lost count how many fights my father got into while drunk, and how many times he broke down in tears after too many martinis because he was overwhelmed by the misery and waste he made of his life. Prozac normalizes negative emotions so that fear in all its guises (pressure, frustration, terror, impatience, despair, helplessness, hopelessness, anger, etc.) can be recognized without becoming incapacitating, and set aside as the lie it is. Alcohol and psycotropic drugs just aren't honestly comparable beyond the surface. I'm trying to find a literary tie-in, but not succeeding. Maybe it's just good first-hand experience for someone's character outline? :-) Kathy Fowkes -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Art Communities Date: 24 Jun 2002 17:40:46 -0500 I've always wondered about the money that pays for art in this country and the communities that generate/support it. Several incidents recently have gotten me thinking about this again, and from a slightly different perspective than I've done before. Incident #1: Laurel and I went into Minneapolis a couple of weeks ago (looking for lichis), and found our way to a place called The Loft, a self-styled literary center where writers could rent space to work, there was an independent bookseller and cafe, etc. Very nice, but a bit depressing, too, as I looked at the books on sale in the bookstore and contemplated how few of them I had even heard of, let alone purchased (many of the books I had heard about were through AML-List; Brady Udall's _The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint_ was fairly prominently displayed, by the way). I wondered who was the target audience for all these books--most of which clearly seemed intended for a different demographic than mine--when it occurred to me: this bookstore caters to writers and would-be writers, particularly from the literary/small magazines crowd. And English professors, and others of that ilk. It was one of those moments when you catch a glimpse of the life you might have led, under other circumstances--in my case, if I hadn't married and had children, and/or had actually become an English professor as I once designed. Incident #2: I was reading an article in one of our local newspapers, based on a book that was apparently recently published, about the role that small, liberal, "diverse" communities (composed largely of gays and "bohemians," i.e., artistic types) play in the revitalization of old, run-down neighborhoods in many large cities. The cycle evidently goes something like this: artists and others wanting access to a downtown lifestyle, in a diverse and tolerant neighborhood, start moving into run-down inner-city areas that are (relatively) inexpensive because they are so run-down. Noting the new demographics, small businesses start moving in to cater to that clientele. Eventually, the neighborhood becomes too expensive for the original occupants, or even for the bohemians etc.... but the point was that these small but influential groups wind up having a major impact on the economic health and development patterns of the city in question. And so I started thinking about the effects of such groups in the national arts community, and Eric Samuelsen's observations about how much of the national "serious" theatre is concerned with depicting gay lifestyles. I thought about my best friend during my growing up, not a Mormon, who is now a German professor at a small west-coast college with no children and with a gay companion, and the fact that he makes at least as much as I do each year (certainly more, this past year), and that probably a lot more of it gets spent on new books and music and such. And so he clearly has much a much greater--potential, at least--impact on the national arts scene than I do, as a consumer/patron of the arts. And so it's that much more likely that the art that gets produced, within that community, will address his interests and tastes than mine. The impact and importance of the gay community within the artistic community in the United States is something of a commonplace, or perhaps a cliche. I don't have access to relevant statistics, and so I don't know how much this generalization is actually justified by the facts--but there's at least a strong belief that gays make up a large percentage among those in the performing arts and the more "literary" (as opposed to "popular") creative writing community. Of course, there's a stereotype--justified or not, I don't know--that men who are more artistic in their inclinations may be more likely to wind up affiliating themselves with the gay community. But I also think that there's a sheer economic aspect to this, in that adults without children are likely to have a much higher proportion of disposable income to spend on things like theater. (Yes, I know that there are gays who have children, but I would think that the numbers are, at any rate, considerably lower than in the straight population.) And then there's the fact that cities are generally seen as more tolerant of diversity. Cities are the locus of civilization, and particularly of elements of culture such as theater and classical music and such that require a large, present audience--and of creative, cross-fertilizing communities of individual artists such as writers and sculptors and painters and the like. (Hence the importance of the Wasatch Front as a cradle for Mormon arts.) And so New York City sees itself as the center of arts in the United States, and other large cities such as Minneapolis pride themselves on their artistic impact as well. And then I think about myself. I'm a writer, a professional who works with both technology and education. I love music, and I enjoy drama; I'm a reader (and a fairly sophisticated one by general standards, though middle-of-the-road at best for AML-List), and I'm married to someone else who shares my tastes and inclinations. And I don't see above two real concerts a year, and not much in the way of drama beyond local high-school productions, and I buy relatively few new books except by authors I already know and like, or that I have reason to trust for other reasons. If the arts in this country were depending on my level of support, there'd be maybe 12 full-time artists working today--total. Part of it, of course, is children. A big part is children, and not just in the financial sense. Children take an enormous amount of time and attention. And when it comes time to allocate the recreation/culture budget, a high priority gets placed on things that can be shared with them. Which means, frankly, not as much money for truly sophisticated, adult art (not meaning "adult" in an R-rated sense, but simply in terms of approach and interest level). And as a parent with children, you don't frankly have a lot of time and attention to keep up with trends in the art and literary world. Art is a product of the individual artist, but also of a community. To be an active part of that community requires that you put time into what's happening in the community--that you know what people are talking about, and read or listen to those things. All this is time that--as a parent, and to some degree as an active member of the Church--I don't have available, without making an enormous effort. And I don't, on the whole, make that effort. In part, that's because the community whose tastes I see reflected in that bookstore I browsed in Minneapolis largely seems taken up with interests and issues different from mine. Part of the jolt of that experience was the realization of how little I fit in that setting, even though it's one that, under other circumstances, I could see as almost a native habitat for someone with my interests. So where is all this going? I'm not exactly sure. Partly, it's an observation about the nature and composition of the artistic community in the United States--or rather, about *an* artistic community in the United States, or perhaps a number of artistic communities, since I've come to believe that really many of the large "communities" to which we belong are largely composites of a number of smaller communities. (Here on AML-List, for example, I think we represent not, perhaps, so much a single community as an umbrella under which members of a number of different--but interrelated--communities may gather.) It makes sense that art will reflect the interests and perspectives of those who create it and those who pay for it. And so, to the degree that artists and an artistic community have interests and perspectives that differ from mine, it makes sense that the art they create is likely to appeal to them, not to me. This is perfectly natural. Where this becomes a problem is when members of any particular community come to assume that theirs is "the" correct perspective on art, and that artistic quality as defined within the confines of their community is a universal value. (I am a relativist in this regard; I do not believe in any one set of standards that universally separates good art from bad art.) At that point, the territory that people start fighting over is art itself, in all its manifestations. Art can easily come to be seen as a possession of a single group or approach, rather than a medium--or set of media--or, perhaps most accurately, a way of working with a variety of media--that can serve many purposes within many different communities. And so I don't know. This set of reflections makes me a little sad, in that it makes me think that it's not really coincidence that much of what passes for exciting art in the New York scene (and elsewhere) doesn't really touch me or those I know that much. I think it comes down to some real differences in lifestyle, in interests--in a lot of different things. And that's okay. It's just a bit like having a conversation with a friend whose views differ from yours--and ending the conversation with the realization that the differences between you are much wider than you originally thought. And that's the way I feel, right now, about myself, in connection to much of the larger artistic community in this country. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] "Smith Family" Tonight (Tuesday, June 25) Date: 25 Jun 2002 09:47:05 -0500 We'll metion this more in the LDS Box Office Report, but just a quick note for now -- to hopefully alert you to TONIGHT's airing of "The Smith Family", Tasha Oldham's POV documentary. ldstoday.com lists four newspaper articles about "The Smith Family" -- all are essentially raving about how good it is. I am really looking forward to it. Oldham is a practicing Latter-day Saint who has been working on her "Sisters in Zion" documentary (from which work "The Smith Family" doc emerged) for a long time. I remember first learning of it a couple years ago. Anyway, by all accounts she is really a talent to watch for, and this the Deseret News, USA Today, and the Dallas Morning News ALL recommend. 9:00 p.m. today (Tuesday, June 25th) on PBS. If you're setting VCRs... the program is 1.5 hours long. ALSO: This is a great week for LDS filmmaking. What will probably by Jerry Molen's last movie opened on Friday. It IS the Number One movie in America, according to the final box office tallies, fending off that evil Disney film "Lilo and Stitch" (evil meaning: "challenging our boy for box office supremacy"). Yeah, yeah, yeah, Molen only produced it. The bigger names are Tom Cruise, Steven Spielberg and Philip K. Dick. Whatever. Jerry is still the man, as well as the first-billed producer. So what do you get when a Scientologist, a Jew, a Mormon and a really, really odd revelation-receiving science fiction writer (i.e., PKD) make a movie? One of the best movies of the year. A serious Oscar contender. I saw it last night and it is a tour de force incredible, thought-provoking, entertaining, edge-of-your-seat movie. Seriously, this may be Tom Cruise's best movie EVER, and it is Spielberg's best movie in a LONG, LONG time. Definitely PKD's best movie since "Blade Runner" (which I've only seen on television). Better than Jerry Molen's last picture? I'll have to plead the fifth on that... Preston Hunter www.ldsfilm.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Date: 24 Jun 2002 16:03:10 -0700 I was away for awhile so it's taken me some time to plow through the many terrific posts that were waiting in my mailbox. In reading through this thread I haven't seen mention made of Anne Perry's mystery novels featuring Thomas and Charlotte Pitt. Several of the ones published in say, the last 3-5 years have mentioned or prominently featured an organization called "The Inner Circle". Anyone familiar with Mormon culture and theology will recognize it as a secret combination. As least, that's what I make of it. It even starts out or appears as some quiet benevolent organization that does acts of charity in secret. To some of it's members that is all that it is. But it seems the controlling members at the top have always had an agenda to take a part in controlling politics and the influence of empire on the rest of the world. The latest installment is "The Whitechapel Conspiracy" and it deals with the Inner Circle and their machinations, their attempts to punish Thomas Pitt for his efforts to thwart them and ties it into the Jack the Ripper terror, including the arranging of murders. I enjoyed reading it. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] Art Communities Date: 24 Jun 2002 21:15:24 -0500 I found Jonathan's comments particularly interesting, especially because I, too, am from the Twin Cities area and have experience with the Loft and the literary community of which he speaks. When I moved to Minnesota in '98, I actually took a creative writing class from The Loft (the place for writers and literary types Jonathan visited in Minneapolis). My husband was getting his MBA at the U of M and we had recently moved to MN from Utah. I was all alone, home full time for the first time in my life with a 2 month old and a 22 month old, cramped into a tiny apartment (we had owned a house in Salt Lake), down from two cars to one, and so on, so I saw my once-a-week outings to the Loft to take a class as a much-needed mental and emotional recharging. I had a great experience there and, ultimately, was led by the Loft to a local private university, Hamline University, and their MFA program. I have loved Hamline, and their program allows me to take classes at night, part time, which makes it feasable to get my MFA slowly--the only way for me to do it with three small kids. Although the majority of classmates and other members of the literary "community" I have come to meet through my association with The Loft and Hamline have been wondeful and kind and accepting, there have been a few people in each class who seem a little suspicious--sometimes even mildly contemptuous--once they find out I'm Mormon. (Not everybody knows I am, but it comes up when I mention I'm from Utah, or went to BYU, or write a short story about my great-great grandmother who was convinced one of the three Nephites healed her baby.) Jonathan wrote: > Where this [artistic communities] becomes a problem is when members of any particular community > come to assume that theirs is "the" correct perspective on art, and that > artistic quality as defined within the confines of their community is a > universal value. (I am a relativist in this regard; I do not believe in > any one set of standards that universally separates good art from bad art.) > At that point, the territory that people start fighting over is art itself, > in all its manifestations. Art can easily come to be seen as a possession > of a single group or approach, rather than a medium--or set of media--or, > perhaps most accurately, a way of working with a variety of media--that can > serve many purposes within many different communities. The idea of art as a possession of a certain group and, by extention, a manifestation of a certain group's world view came home to me most strongly this last semester as I served on the editorial committee of our literary magazine, Water-Stone. We received a lot of great stuff, and I was very open to all sorts of different types of fiction. But I found some members of the committee (often those who profess to be the most open-minded) strangely opposed to many pieces that had to do with marriage, or children, or middle class suburban life. One piece about a new (suburban) mother whose husband was an attorney who liked to golf received an almost angry response from a few people. One woman called the protagonist a "whiner" and undeserving of any interest and attention, and another woman said, "Why should I even read this? This has nothing to do with my life." I could understand jettisoning the piece if it wasn't well done, but it was very well done, and even though I'm not usually very outspoken I turned to the woman who asked why she should read it and said, "Well, isn't that the purpose of fiction? In many ways, the life I'm reading about here *is* my life, yet I'm open to--and excited about--reading about people of color, single people, people who live in India and the Bronx and small Arizona towns. Very rarely do I read well done literary fiction that resembles my life, yet I still keep reading." I often feel on the outside of the literary community in my Masters program--but it's okay. I *am* different than they are. I did take a different road. There are probably relatively few religiously conservative 30 year old mothers-of-three in most MFA programs across the country. But it has been fun being an "alternate voice" every once and a while. I think once most people realize that I'm willing to treat everybody with respect and kindness, they do the same for me, and we all learn from each other. I still remember during one of my first classes at Hamline my professor called me up after class to discuss a story I'd written that she particularly liked that dealt a little bit with Mormonism and she just looked at me for a second then shook her head and said, "I just find you really, really interesting." I never had anybody in Utah say that to me. There I'm just another youngish looking lady pushing a double stroller through Target. So being on the outs does have its upside. Angela -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] _The Brothers Karamazov_ Translation Date: 24 Jun 2002 23:22:34 -0600 What is the best (in any list member's opinion) translation of _The Brothers Karamazov_? Thanks in advance for your recommendations. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] _The Brothers Karamazov_ Translation Date: 25 Jun 2002 09:39:19 -0700 (PDT) --- Sharlee Glenn wrote: > What is the best (in any list member's opinion) translation of _The > Brothers > Karamazov_? > When it comes to translations of Russian authors, I'm partial to the team of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. I'm afraid that I don't have specifics, but most of their translations appeared throughout the 90's (althought I believe they are continuing to work on translating Tolstoy). ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] "Smith Family" Tonight (Tuesday, June 25) Date: 25 Jun 2002 12:06:07 -0500 At 09:47 AM 6/25/02, you wrote: >9:00 p.m. today (Tuesday, June 25th) on PBS. If you're >setting VCRs... the program is 1.5 hours long. Be sure to check your local listings for the actual time (10:00 pm here). -- Ronn in Birmingham, AL :) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] LDS Box Office Report June 21 Date: 25 Jun 2002 12:31:36 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend of June 21, 2002 Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com Despite stiff competition from "Lilo & Stitch", "Minority Report", which was produced by Gerald Molen (the producer of "The Other Side of Heaven") did come in at the number one spot this weekend, although only by a mere $400,000. Tonight (Tuesday, June 25th) at 9:00 PM (in Utah), Tasha Oldham's = "The Smith Family" premieres on PBS (KUED). Everything we've heard about the 90-minute documentary has been very positive. There is an excellent article about it in The Progressive (Thank LDSToday.com for pointing to this link) - http://www.progressive.org/July 2002/mck0702.html. The PBS web site for for the documentary can be found at http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2002/thesmithfamily/index.html. The cinematographer for "The Smith Family", by the way, is Tahlee Booher, who also was the DP on Rob Sibley's "The Shadow of Light." Future scheduled airings in Utah (all on KUED) are June 28th at 12:30 AM, July 2nd at 9:00 PM and July 3rd at 3:00 AM. Check your local listings for broadcast times outside of Utah. [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a=20 mono-spaced font, such as courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 1 Minority Report 35,677,125 3,001 3 Gerald Molen (producer) 35,677,125 7 The Divine Secrets of the 6,028,457 2,310 17 Ya-Ya Sisterhood 46,711,890 30 ESPN's Ultimate X - The Movie 105,014 44 45 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,599,305 =20 34 Murder by Numbers 65,372 160 66 Ryan Gosling (actor) 31,798,199 39 The New Guy 52,053 107 45 Eliza Dushku (actor) 28,827,716 47 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 22,763 6 780 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,413,891 57 China: The Panda Adventure 11,635 7 332 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,486,093 58 The Believer 11,478 6 38 Ryan Gosling (actor) 183,264 61 The Other Side of Heaven 9,532 13 192 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,585,106 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 65 Galapagos 7,658 4 969 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,414,863 =20 71 The Singles Ward 5,456 6 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 793,636 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Will Swenson, Connie Young, Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne, Michael Birkeland, Robert Swenson, Lincoln Hoppe, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, etc. 87 Mark Twain's America 3D 1,375 1 1452 Alan Williams (composer) 2,233,076 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kimheuston@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Art Communities Date: 25 Jun 2002 13:45:20 EDT I found both Jonathan's and Angela's comments thought-provoking and right on the mark. I, too, read omniverously but seldom buy books; I, too, more often read reviews of cultural events than actually attend; I, too, devote the bulk of my resources to my four children. I grew up in New York City where my Dad ran one of the city's most elite private schools, and although we were poor as churchmice, my classmates were the daughters of the city's most important executives and political celebrities. Today these women, as well as my classmates from Harvard, where I got my bachelor's, are at the forefront of their chosen fields and extend their influence further through their membership the boards of cultural and philanthropic organizations, etc. etc. I, on the other hand, am the single mother of four children living a quiet life as a teacher in Sandy, Utah. By any external measure, my friends are the important ones and I am a long-forgotten blip on the radar screen. But I've chosen this life because I don't believe it's the external measures that matter. My life is not glamorous, but it is full, rich, and meaningful. My friends were raised by nannies, popular culture, and each other. My children have been raised by me and the Lord--okay, and a lot more Nintendo than I would like. And not always in the way the Lord would like, especially before anti-depressants. But the intent and the effort has been there, as it has been with my students--to teach them the discipline and joy of academic excellence, of course, but more important to give them my time, my love, and my respect. I think those are the investments that bear fruit beyond the checkout line. And I think further that we are all incredibly lucky to be living at a time when, for one reason or another, popular culture (even popular highbrow culture) is increasingly aware of its own sterility. Like Angela, I was an anomaly in my low-residency MFA program, and like Angela, I sometimes accrued unexpected benefits from that position. Five years ago my novel _The Shakeress_ would not have been published. Instead it was snapped up by an editor who is known within the trade as "the Prince of Darkness" because he is so eager to push the envelope. It's a pretty ordinary first book. Some of my reviews have been ordinary, and some have been predictably nasty because it's a book about a Mormon conversion and the jacket copy says I live in Salt Lake City. But I also got a review in the NY Times BECAUSE it's a book that takes the spiritual journey seriously. I didn't know any of that would happen when I wrote it. I just wanted to be able to talk about things that were important to me in the way I used to be able to talk to my husband but could no longer. I think it's typical of the way the Lord works that he helped me shape my loneliness and despair into something that became alive and juicy not only for me, but maybe for one or two of the readers who read it. Kimberley -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Responsibility and Medication Date: 25 Jun 2002 13:59:51 -0600 ___ Kathy ___ | Alcohol depresses, reduces inhibitions, and impairs judgment | and physical functions, for starters. Prozac and other | pschotropic drugs alleviate depression, *normalizing* emotions | rather than drowning them out, so that a person can function. ____ As I said, I didn't really want to get into the scientific discussion of alcohol and how it might relate to possession. My point wasn't about the functions of various drugs on the brain and nervous system. (I'm aware of the difference between psychotropic drugs and alcohol) My point was that if it was the *intent* that determines possession that then the *type* of drug shouldn't matter. If the *type* of drug matters, then it seems that the problem isn't the intent. That's pretty much all I was saying. If we tie it into an effect of alcohol on the brain that then allows possession (as you now seem to be moving towards) there are still many sorts of problems. For one there are many substances that are depressants and that inhibit action. Tranquilizers, pain killers, and many other substances do this. If it is that sort of effect rather than our intent then, as I mentioned, we ought to expect many people emerging from operations to be possessed. ___ Jacob ___ | I think the core issue is one of judgment and personal | responsibility. Alcohol impairs judgment. ___ I agree. The problem with many substances is that we can be manipulated through them. Of course one can also say the same about romance, which I've seen also impairs judgment. At least with drugs people know they are being impaired. People making questionable decisions for reasons of sex or romance are typically oblivious. Allow me to tie this back to the original thread of secret combinations and ghostly possessions. In typical spy strategies the two most effective and popular methods are to question people when drunk and to have a "femme fatal" who seduces to get information. Even when information can't be achieved directly by those methods one can often set someone up in a compromising position where they can then be blackmailed. What I'm suggesting is that we ought to look at possession, both in literature and in real life, a little less "superstitiously" and a little more like Satan and his followers are very effective adversaries. We want to avoid all these acts for the same reasons that we see so frequently in political intrigue. It is a way to ensnare people in foils they don't want to be involved in. I'm not denying real possession. However were I Satan I think I could cause a lot more havoc by subtly ensnaring people in choices of their own making than possessing them. (And one would assume that a possessed person is about as culpable for their acts as an insane person is) ___ Jacob ___ | Taking psychotropic drugs like Prozac et. al. is fundamentally | different because doing so is a function of responsibility--you | recognize your pain, you seek help, you become informed and | seek the advice of professionals, and you monitor your condition | to weigh the benefits and possible draw-backs. ___ I agree, although I would place a strong emphasis on "monitor your condition." All too often people don't do that. Many tragic events have transpired because of that. Psychotropic drugs affect different people in different ways and they don't always help and may cause very detrimental personality changes. ___ Jacob ___ | If you deliberately forfeit control of yourself, then you | really have no call to be surprised if something else takes | control. ___ Once again I think we have to be careful about what we mean by "control of yourself." I think you are equivocating a little here. We have a notion of "self" and somehow consider the sober us the *real* self while the drunk person is an other person. This goes back, I suspect to Descartes and the "ghost in the machine." We think of alcohol as stopping the *real* us from controlling our bodies. Somehow we think of psychotropic drugs as enabling the *real* us to control our body better. However despite the very different functions of these drugs you mention, they both are similar in that they merely change what the real us is and how the real us functions. We haven't given up control, although we may open ourselves up to external manipulation. We *have* changed how we control ourselves. Put an other way, if something takes control because we are "forfeiting control" it is the way we might give up control if some foreign spy were trying to manipulate us. As I understand the extensive literature of folk tales about demonic possession, I think something fundamentally different is being asserted. Now clearly even for LDS theology we have something complex going on. We believe that there is a spirit that enters our body and then leaves and that this spirit is a thinking being in many ways. Where I think we have to be careful is in assuming that this spirit is the real us while the body is just something the spirit controls. The abundant evidence from scientific work on the mind suggests that such a simple view is incorrect. We are our bodies in many fundamental ways. That isn't to deny the spirit. But it does suggest that when the D&C talks about the soul being the spirit and body together it means in a very integrated and holistic way. Traditionally we've tended to adopt something like a Cartesian dualism where the spirit and body are fundamentally divided. (Although we view the spirit materialistically) Most of the literature on spirits I've read in Mormonism - especially folk tales - makes use of that view. (With a few significant exceptions) Yet I do not think that view can be supported. Further we have to distinguish those speculations about spirit from official doctrine. This is why I remain deeply suspicious of the ever-popular NDE literature. It tends to often be viewed in the wordview that was popular before science started learning so much this century. Yet not only are such tales not church doctrine, they often contradict certain elements of church doctrine. For instance often a fairly non-Mormon view of spirits enters into these tales - especially ones that are told long after the fact for publication. When I hear these stories told in church, I truly do worry that they become part of LDS folk doctrine without people thinking about how these stories arise. As I said, I'm not saying that there is no such thing as possession. However I think we ought to be very careful about people speaking of possession who haven't thought through the issues. I think there often is a kind of na=EFv= e judgment about what is really going on. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] _The Brothers Karamazov_ Translation Date: 25 Jun 2002 16:31:35 EDT Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokonsky did a wonderful translation of The Brothers Karamazov. It gets my vote for the best. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: RE: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 25 Jun 2002 16:36:18 -0600 I'm a bit split on the two sides being presented on this issue. On the one hand, I agree with Margaret that the color of a person should be all but invisible. One of my friends served her mission in Georgia and when asked if one of her investigators was black, she had to stop and think about it. (The woman was black, but my friend had only ever thought of her as a beautiful woman named X.) When she returned to Provo, she felt that Utah is incredibly boring, because we all look the same. On the other hand, until blacks are not a minority in the church and Utah in particular so it's not unusual to have a black man as bishop in Utah Valley, it will be brought up. Why? Because of the way humans use language to communicate. And that's not racism. For example, when telling a story, a person invariably wants listeners to picture the same thing in their heads as the speaker does. So if I tell a story about a doctor, and I know that my listener will likely picture a male doctor (since the vast majority of doctors in the US are male), and my doctor was female, I will probably mention her gender. I will do this not out of sexism, only out of wanting the correct picture in the listener's mind. However, if I was telling the same doctor story to a friend in Finland and the doctor was male, I might want to clarify that point, because most doctors over there are female. Again, not a sexism issue. Now if someone in Georgia (or Africa or any number of other locations with a different demographic than Utah) mentioned their bishop, they might very well need to clarify that he was *white.* Not a racism issue. It's a communication issue. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Art Communities Date: 25 Jun 2002 20:56:53 -0600 Kimheuston@aol.com wrote: I just wanted to be able to talk about things that were important to me in the way I used to be able to talk to my husband but could no longer. Funny about that. I used to be one of the greatest poets of the 20th century (or whatever). After I married I hardly ever wrote poetry again. Someone mentioned that to me and asked me why, and without hesitation I said, "I've got someone to talk to now." I would so much rather have a friend than write a poem. It's kind of ironic that marriage put an end to writing poetry. One of the things my wife liked best about me was my poetry. It's one of the few things she has encouraged me in. Now it's gone and she has no one to blame but herself. I guess a massage whenever she wants one is some kind of substitute. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laraine Wilkins Subject: [AML] Essays on Infertility Date: 26 Jun 2002 14:59:00 -0600 This seems related to the childbirth discussion.=20 For anyone who might be interested in telling their stories about infertility...=20 A friend in my ward is soliciting essays for a book she'd like to get published. Feel free to forward this message to anyone you think might be interested. You can contact her directly (email address below; her name is Bryn Brody).=20 --Laraine Wilkins In an effort to reach out and support other LDS women who have had or are currently experiencing infertility, I'm putting together a collection of true, personal essays, with the hopes of publishing them. =20 To date, I have four essays. Each deals with a spiritual shift in understanding a certain gospel principle, such as faith or patience, which has come as a result of infertility. Some are witty, others more somber. Each is less than 10 typed, single-spaced pages. I'm hoping to add at least 10 more essays. =20 The focus should be uplifting, citing a specific event or lesson which has come as a result of infertility. =20 Please feel free to contact me at bigbahamamama@email.com for further information or to submit an essay.=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: [AML] Mormon Teens Doing _Hamlet_ Date: 26 Jun 2002 13:18:54 -0600 When my 17-year old son told me he and his drama friends were producing _Hamlet_ this summer I was shocked. I tried to talk them out of doing something so difficult, but rehearsals were underway. Eric "C" Heaps, an honors student at BYU wanted to direct Hamlet before leaving for his mission. They've been rehearsing in my backyard, using several levels of scaffolding to give them a set. Having 15 teens in the backyard means lots of pizza and doughnut boxes, but I've also noticed some interesting things. One, that they start their rehearsals with prayer each time. (Hopefully, they will be blessed enough to carry this off--they have no adult help on this at all.) All of them are or have been involved in productions at Lone Peak High School. These students have studied stage combat techniques from BYU grad students and have taken on themselves the challenge of blocking a lengthy sword fight between Laertes and Hamlet. This is not only difficult, but dangerous, and they seem to be pulling it off with vigor. The production has four evening performances at 7:00 p.m. They've rented the Castle Theater, 1300 E. Center, in Provo for performances on Monday, July 8th and Tuesday, July 9th. These will be preceeded by two performances in Alpine, Ut. City Hall Park, 50 E. 50 N., on the evenings of Friday, July 5th and Saturday, July 6th. Tickets will be $5.00 in advance, $6.00 at the door. Bring a blanket to sit on. If you are interested in supporting these young people in their ambitious effort, please make note of the dates. For tickets in advance you can call Eric at 787-3667. Cast: Hamlet Ben Henderson Ophelia Chelsey Richardson Claudius Carl Schmeil Gertrude Lindsey Nielsen Polonius Cameron Wilbur Laertes Alex DeBirk Horatio Tabitha Schloss Gae Lyn Henderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] _Minority Report_ (Review) Date: 26 Jun 2002 13:50:39 -0600 Preston Hunter wrote: > One of the best movies of > the year. A serious Oscar contender. I saw it last night and > it is a tour de force incredible, thought-provoking, > entertaining, edge-of-your-seat movie. Seriously, this may > be Tom Cruise's best movie EVER, and it is Spielberg's best > movie in a LONG, LONG time. Definitely PKD's best movie > since "Blade Runner" (which I've only seen on television). (A small warning--this post will probably contain some small spoilers for the film, though my intent is to keep the discussion at a broad conceptual level. Still, any discussion of reactions to a story must of necessity give up some details. FWIW.) I saw _Minority Report_ the day it opened and have been trying to figure out what I think of it. In general I liked it a lot, but I also left the theater feeling vaguely dissatisfied and I've been trying to figure out why. A couple of impressions... I had enormous expectations going into this film. The buzz has been very positive, and the subject matter really fascinates me--especially in a post 9-11 United States where we are now actively debating what personal liberties we're willing to give up in order to ensure our safety. It's one of the fundamental moral questions, and ties back to a number of discussions we've had on this list, including interning Japanese Americans for fear of what they might do, and driving Mormons from state to state for the same reason. I was really primed for this film. Maybe too primed. This is a very well made film. The visuals are quite spectacular and the interactions well thought out (the interaction by the precrime cops with the 3D recording interface is especially fun). There were a lot of fun cinematographic gewgaws that used color, blurred motion, slow frame rates, and other visual techniques to create a sense of otherness when dealing with the images provided by the precogs. Spielberg is learning how to treat science fiction as a legitimate medium for telling a story. The tendency in film (as in literature) is to dwell on the technically cool stuff at the expense of the surrounding story. Especially in film, the desire to richly create this alternate world can lead to boring viewer moments (anyone remember Star Dreck: The Motion Sickness with its excruciating long shots showing that space is really, really big?). Yes, this film featured some pretty spectacular world creation shots, but it mostly used effects to a purpose, rather than as the purpose. And the story was treated as a real and serious part of the total film. Good stuff. A clear improvement from his promising but overdone effort with _A.I._ A hallmark of Phillip K. Dick's fiction is a world that is substantially different than our own in many of the details, but that is still familiar in most of the broad strokes. The result is a sense that the world of the story is not so much a speculation on what our world might look like in the future as it is a fable set in a future world reminiscent of our own, but not necessarily evolved from it. Where PKD tends to draw these differences (and similarities) with a soft touch, Spielberg is much more heavy handed. Spielberg may have shown me too much of this alternate world and tied it too concretely back to my own, creating a desire to know more about how we got there from here than is really necessary for the story. I think this is the basis for my vague dissatisfaction with _Minority Report._ Civil liberties have taken a very drastic turn in this fable, and I either needed that change to be more clearly explained or else needed a greater distinction between the world of the story and my world. I admit freely that this is something I have a hard time with in a lot of science fiction, and is a criticism that I regularly make. If this is supposed to be *my* future, I want to know how we got there--especially when some fundamental social/political institutions have changed so radically. That is a purely personal reaction, and is not one that most of my friends have. I really wish the film had been shorter. At very close to two and a half hours, I would like to have seen this trimmed to be much closer to two hours. Part of the length could be reduced by ending this film about ten minutes before it actually did. In my mind, Spielberg went for a happy ending (or at least fully resolved one) that didn't quite feel right to me. A friend offered an alternate ending to the film that I think would have been quite satsifying and that is essentially opposite to the current ending, that would have left most of the primary issues resolved for the viewer, but unresolved in this future world. I wanted the Tom Cruise character to be a little darker and more desperate, and I wanted the issue to resolve a little less cleanly. Your mileage may vary. For my dime this film tried too hard to end nice, and I just didn't buy it. So... Having nitpicked a bunch of little things that are largely one person's individual biases, I have to say that this is a very good film and very much worth seeing. It raises an interesting and timely issue and tells a successful story based off that issue. I'm not sure the story was as deep as some are suggesting (not unlike _The Matrix_ which had far less depth than many people gave it credit for), but it's a darned good film and may well take over the top spot in my list of quality sf films. It is to Spielberg's credit that most of my criticisms are those of personal approach, not of basic story. I would have told the story differently, but Spielberg told it well. In the end, that's all anyone can ask. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] "Smith Family" Tonight (Tuesday, June 25) Date: 26 Jun 2002 13:56:58 -0600 I watched this show last night with keen interest because I just helped bury someone under almost identical circumstances, although he didn't infect his wife with AIDS. The show was thought provoking but not extremely compelling. It definitely makes you seriously consider the dilemma of "repenting" of one's "gay" orientation. I remain hopeful that it is possible to somehow do so, but I also think homosexuality is one of the hardest things to deal with once it has a hold on somebody, since it intertwines with so many aspects of one's identity and humanity. I personally believe that a growing number of evil spirits are homosexuality specialists, similar to the dried-up-looking female spirit my mother once witnessed besetting her daughter who had an eating disorder. Overall, I agree with the New York Times reviewer. Some excerpts from the review: A Family's Tearful Battle Against a Painful Death By NEIL GENZLINGER Given the sad subject, it's surprising that "The Smith Family," tonight's season-opening installment of the "P.O.V." series on PBS, isn't more moving. [...] It is a story full of emotion, and Ms. Oldham shows it all; "understatement" does not seem to be in her filmmaking vocabulary. There are endless scenes of family members hugging, of this member or that weeping while being interviewed. This is not to make light of the family's long and wrenching journey; only to say that the focus on the pain (and especially the drawn-out death watch for Mr. Smith) feels uncomfortably voyeuristic. Perhaps that's because relatively little time is spent on two areas that would give the film a more substantive reason for being: how the Smiths reached their reconciliation, and how their faith fitted into the picture. [...] As for the couple's Mormon faith, the film's most compelling moment is when Mr. Smith tells of how he followed church teachings about confession and repentance, initially believing that he would be cleansed of his homosexual urgings. "I spent five, six years still trying to change, believing I could," he says. "With the passage of time, I began to gradually realize that this was something I could not change." But just when it seems that the film will delve more deeply into what must have been an intense spiritual struggle, perhaps even providing some background on and input from the church, it turns back to the hugging and weeping. The effect is to leave us on the outside of this story of remarkable strength, never quite showing us how we might achieve such resilience for ourselves. Full text: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/25/arts/television/25GENZ.html Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young Subject: Re: [AML] _The Brothers Karamazov_ Translation Date: 26 Jun 2002 14:23:05 -0600 I know of a couple of translations of The Brothers Karamazov, but I'm not very knowledgeable about their respective merits. Constance Garnety was an early translator; her translation has been criticized as not close enough to the original. I've used and enjoyed the Norton Critical Edition, edited by Ralph Matlaw, consisting of the Garnett translation revised by Ralph Matlaw. (He also provides critical and background material, including excerpts from Dostoevsky's journals and letters related to the novel.) I'm aware of another highly acclaimed translation which I've ordered but not read. It is by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky and is available from Farrar, Straus and Giroux. (You can learn more about it and even see excerpts at the following site: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679729259/qid=102512089 7/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-7955907-4419111 or for a shorter URL, try the following and click on the title: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-7955907- 4419111 These sites list this version as being available from Vintage Classics, but that edition is out of print; the translation is now being published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux. To learn about this edition, try this site and plug in "Brothers Karamzavo" under "title": http://www.fsgbooks.com/searchnn.htm ) You may also be interested in the following exchange from "The Dostoevsky Campfire" (an internet discussion forum): Posted by Terra on February 17, 192002 at 16:57:16: In Reply to: Re: Brothers Karamazov -- advise for translation posted by Mr. Hydrogen on March 22, 192001 at 01:43:10: I just finished reading Brothers K in a translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, published in 1990 by North Point Press [the one now available from another publisher as noted above]. Before beginning the book, I compared the Peaver/Volokhonsky translation with that of Constance Garnett (Signet Classic), and found the former to be more fresh and direct. In Pevear's introduction, he notes that "previous translators of The Brothers Karamazov into English have revised, 'corrected,' or smoothed over his idosyncratic prose, removing much of the humor and distinctive voicing of the novel. We have made this new translation in the belief that a truer rendering of Dostoevsky's style would restore missing dimensions to the book." - Terra [the next apparently from "Mr. Hydrogen":] : I would completely recommend the MacAndrew translation. His are always the crispest and most lively. He did translations also of "The Possessed", "The Adolescent", "Notes from Underground" and "The Gambler." : When he's not around, I go for Constance Garnett. ***** Best wishes, Bruce Young -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] _Minority Report_ (Review) Date: 26 Jun 2002 18:25:27 -0700 Scott wrote: "I think this is the basis for my vague dissatisfaction with _Minority Report._ Civil liberties have taken a very drastic turn in this fable, and I either needed that change to be more clearly explained or else needed a greater distinction between the world of the story and my world. I admit freely that this is something I have a hard time with in a lot of science fiction, and is a criticism that I regularly make. If this is supposed to be *my* future, I want to know how we got there--especially when some fundamental social/political institutions have changed so radically. That is a purely personal reaction, and is not one that most of my friends have." I couldn't help being struck with the manner in which this post relates to what is now going on in our nation. I am in visting mod right now, and have been with three of my four sons in the past week. One of these sons is an interrogator for Military Intelligence whose last assignement was manning a hotline in Atlanta for those who might call concerning terrorist activity, another is a computer guy for Sharp electronics who, as part of his job spends a lot of his time in Japan and India (He is also a Captain in a reserve Psi-Ops/Civil Affairs Unit in the Army.) The third is a Resource Librarian in Social Sciences at a major University. They are all politically conservative as is their daddy. The overall subject of conversation most of the time we were together was our shared concern about the "Office of Homeland Security" and the publicity of planned details in its development that seem to be major inroads into our constittutional rights. _Minority Report_ (which I have not seen but will see) as reported above and even by the Newspapers would seem to be a timely warning about the things which can happenin our future when we allow the need for a sense of safety to overwhelm our appreciation of our individual rights. Richard B Johnson (who usually as all that stuff after his name but is using a borrowed computer.) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Mary Jane Jones" Subject: [AML] 2002 Pearl Awards Broadcast Date: 26 Jun 2002 19:24:53 -0600 FYI. I thought some of the list members in Utah may be interested in this = broadcast.... >2002 Pearl Awards >Sunday, June 30 >6 p.m. >KJZZ-TV > >Make plans this weekend to watch the 2002 Pearl Awards! The broadcast=20 >will air this Sunday, June 30 at 6 p.m. on KJZZ-TV. The 2001 Pearl = Awards=20 >broadcast picked up a Rocky Mountain Emmy nomination--this year's show=20 >promises to be even more spectacular. Invite your family and friends = to=20 >share in this celebration of excellence in faith centered music. > >Tune in for incredible performances from nominated artists like Cherie=20 >Call, Enoch Train, Katherine Nelson, Jericho Road, Christina England,=20 >Julie de Azevedo, David Tolk, Doug Walker and a 270-voice children's=20 >choir, in addition to appearances from Sen. Orrin Hatch, Julie Stoffer,=20= >Kenneth Cope, Dan Truman, Bret Engemann, Colors, and many, many more! Mary Jane (Jones) Ungrangsee -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Essays on Infertility Date: 26 Jun 2002 21:48:46 -0500 This is tangential, but... I'll forward this to the LDS infertility list I know about. (My website on miscarriage was a springboard for starting it, but I no longer listen in on the discussion.) Anyone interested in joining may sign up by sending blank email to: LDS-infertility-subscribe@yahoogroups.com (Unless it's changed recently.) Very good people have been moderating it. They have also addressed miscarriage issues, and parents coping with secondary infertility are welcome. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: [AML] Generalizing from Personal Experience Date: 27 Jun 2002 23:11:22 -0700 [MOD: I hope that the thread title I've given here catches the essence of what Richard has said, and how these particular items all tie together.] I have sat down several times in the past few weeks to write a "humorous" rejoinder to some of the things that have begun to be "givens" on the list. Among them: People who weep while giving testimonies are doing some kind of maudlin manipulation Missions are generally unpleasant exercizes in number generation and satisfying number crazy mission presidents. Using personal experience, if it includes mention of church callings or tasks is an indirect method of competing with others. There have been a number of others, but, for today, I'll limit myself to those above. I just sat in one of the more powerful meetings of my life watching and listening to the Prophet of the Lord break down into tears repeatedly as the emotion of the moment overwhelmed him. Nothing maudlin, and if it was manipulation, I think we could use more. On this subject, as a point of information, I spent the last ten years of my career teaching and studying persuasion. A major point of almost all the scholarship relating to persuasion is that emotion (particularly well grounded honest emotion) is the key. Logical argument may win a debate, or even intellectually convince but emotional appeal is that which spurs action. Talk to a group of smokers and ask how many of them are intellectually convinced that smoking is unwise, unhealthy etc., etc. The percentage will be in the high eighties or nineties. Intellectual argument doesn't affect their behavior at all. Those who quit are those who are frightened, really sense health risks or are otherwise emotionally effected. Abram Maslow, studying persuasive appeals identified a hierarchy of motive appeals that are effective. All of them are emotional, and I suspect that everyone who has ever sincerely converted to the Gospel has done so , in part, because of a contact with the spirit that was ultimately emotional rather than rational. I, for one, am not ashamed of the fact that I frequently am moved to tears as I attempt to speak about those spiritual things that affect me or have effected me (in other words when I bear my testimony, or in fact whenever I talk about the atonement, the suffering of Christ in the garden, or, for that matter of the glory of the resurrection or Christ gathering the children about him on the American continent. These things overwhelm me with an understanding of how dependent I am on the Grace of the Lord. For that matter, I frequently spend tears on the testimonies of others, and certainly I wept through much of this aftenoon's meeting. If you did not, at least a little, frankly I am sorry for you. Missions: Are they filled with humor, probably, though often in retrospect. I remember my first baptism as a missionary. I really had little to do with the conversion of this dear old sister. She was partially deaf (boy can I relate to that NOW.), in her eighties and her daughter was one of the first converts in the little town of Joensuu that we (with little help from a five month missionary in the days when the first word heard in the foreign language was usually after one's arrival in country), but I went out to do this into a freezing lake (all lakes are freezing in Finland- it doesn't matter what the season) where we had to wade about fifty yards to find a place deep enough. I manage to misspeak the baptism prayer (in Finnish) several times then a foot came up, or a hand. One of my most vivid memories from the mission is that poor sister going under the water for the seventh time muttering (in translation) "not again, not again". All that being said, and acknowledging that I spent the first three months muttering at the missionaries who bore their testimonies after they came home, not because they spoke about the "best two years of their lives" but because they made it sound so easy, like the spirit just picked missionaries up and carried them along. I wished they had told the truth about it being one of the hardest jobs anyone will ever have. But I spent thirty three months in the mission field and I can honestly say that twenty four of them were the best two years of my life up to that time. The other nine were the times when I was wandering in ignorance in the lee of a quick speaking companion trying to stay awake when I didn't understand a thing, or times when I was bleeding through member problems as an underage Branch President, or a certain time when I was just trunky. (Imaging if you will the emotional appeal of a District President (think Zone leader with a lot of ecclesiastical responsibilities as well) who had been a greeny, trained by me, sitting in the room teary eyed, appealing to me to try to become the kind of proselyter I "used to be" . I also had a personal interview with Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, that will stick in my memory for a long time. All that said, I wouldn't trade the time I spent in Finland for anything except my marriage, and I am not sure I could have been even a marginal husband without having served the mission. It is pretty obvious how I stand on relating to past experience ecclesiastical or otherwise. I think that to try to express one's deep opinions without putting them into the context from which they flowed is not only foolish, it verges on arrogance if not actual dishonesty. Think of how much of Eric's contributions are of value primarily because of his experience as a Playwright, a teacher of playwriting, and even as the son of an opera singer. Why should someone whose experience that contributes to the discussion is based on an ecclesiastical callling hide that experience. Frankly I think is is nonsense. Well, If there is anyone whom I haven't offended wait till I get back to my home where I can scan my archives rather than working from memory and I'll try to get to you too. The biggest point that I want to make here is that we, as individuals, tend to make things unversal based on our own limited paradigms. Whoops, I used paradigm. I'd better be careful, someone will think I have been reading _The Seven Habits_. (Actually I have, and for many people whom I have taught to use time management, goal setting, and setting priorities they are very useful-- for some, even life changing-- Not for me but I have seen some real changes, for the better, in some of my in and out of school students. Richard B. Johnson (without all the sig. stuff after my name because I am using my son's computer out in Washington State. Has anyone out there ever heard of Washougal?) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] Nauvoo Temple Dedication Date: 28 Jun 2002 00:19:01 -0600 Didn't you love it when Pres. Monson quoted Jane Manning James in his = address at the Nauvoo Temple Dedication? Thanks to Margaret and Darius = I feel I know Jane Manning James, but I would wager that a huge = percentage =20 of church members do not. I leaned over to a friend and said, "Jane = Manning James was a faithful black Latter Day Saint sister who lived = with the Prophet Joseph and Emma in Nauvoo. Joseph and Emma wanted to = adopt her and have her sealed to them." Yes, I know that if we were all = more =20 socially advanced, I wouldn't have to state that Jane was black, but it = was germane to this story. I probably will continue to identify a = person as black when it is necessary to promote understanding. When my = children and I visited Nauvoo for the open house, we were moved to see a = picture of my great-grandfather, one of the early twelve apostles, at = the foot of the stairs in the Kimball house. I told them that = grandfather knew Joseph and Hyrum Smith and was there when Joseph's = mantle fell upon Brigham Young. I also told them that he came into the = Salt Lake Valley with the first company of Saints and may have know = Elijah Able, Green Flake and Jane Manning James.=20 Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures (was: Conpiracies in Literature) Date: 28 Jun 2002 09:25:25 -0700 One of my own beliefs about the Old Scratch is somewhat at odds with what is generally considered to be the standard Mormon belief. I don't think that's Satan's plan was to force us all to be righteous. This derives from the fact that I don't believe in the existence of force at all--and I believe freedom or agency is the foundation of the whole universe. From that context the only way to destroy agency is to make human life "outcome-based education." No matter what you do you pass. Every soul of us. That would be appealing, that would be something people would go for. I have a hard time buying the idea that 1/3 of the Host of Heaven would've gone for the lash rather than the troll's lollypop. I had a seminary teacher who demonstrated this idea by giving everybody in our class the choice between high schools--a normal high school where you graduated based on your merits (which is how high schools work at least in theory), a wild & crazy high school where no matter what you did you got straight A's and a Force HS where they watched your every move and forced you to get A's. Strangely enough 2/3 of the class voted to stay in a normal school and 1/3 voted for Wild & Crazy HS. One girl wanted to got to Force HS, and considering what a "Molly Mormon" she was it was astonishing that she didn't understand the gag. At any rate that teacher convinced me, and nothing I've heard or read or seen since has changed my mind. I can see a Son of the Morning feeling compassion for all the lesser souls who wouldn't make it the way he surely would, and there pride is born and pride is the source of all evil. My own "devil" has plenty of shades of the real one, but in large part he's based on an Etruscan myth in terms of his powers, etc. Then I cursed him into an inanimate object and he can only influence through lies, having no power without a wielder, which gives the wielder has power of him, which he cannot long abide. The pride part of the temptations I've got in hand, and as well as the carnal stuff though it's very circumspect. The trouble is my hero won't fall for either. He's got a wife and kids, and his history is one of a long attempt at penance for the first crime he commited and realized it was a crime. The idea that Hannibal Lector is using a debased form of stoicism is intriguing, and I appreciate it greatly. Since stoicism doesn't exist in my world I'll have to work it from another perspective but that's okay. I think I'll borrow from Gnosticism since I detest mysticism in general with very few exceptions. I'm fond of Seneca and Cicero, and I wish more of the Zenos and especially Epictetus survived, but I just enjoy Marcus Aurelius. Perhaps its because of all the history surrounding. First read about him in Gibbon but never realized he was a philosopher exactly until _The Silence of the Lambs_. It is strange how full of holes a public education can be. I wish daily that I had been given the benefit of a classical education. As it is I can only read and dream. The strangest thing you said is one I've heard before and still baffles me. I didn't see any romance between Lector and Starling. He perhaps was headed that way but when I see that movie I don't see her as leaning his way. She was looking at him the same way she was looking at Crawford--vehicle for ambition, mentor to learn from. She wanted into Crawford's task force and Lector was her ticket. I don't mean it in a pejorative way; one doesn't rise without siezing opportunities as they come up. The thing about Lector that is so different from so many villains is his education. It flies in the face of several silly ideas that are so prevalent these days. Largest among these looms the idea that there is no such thing as evil. Fact is, one can choose to be evil, and can even glory in it. My apostle-to-be was brought up within a Gadianton-like cult, though the connection with the secrets was a great secret. He did plenty of evil stuff but the Gods zapped him at just the right moment and he's been repenting ever since. His leaders glory in it, and promote him for his ill deeds, and he hides what he feels long enough to escape. And he loses plenty of battles before he finally is Chosen. He was educated to BE evil, and broke away, so I thought they would work on him through his childhood learning, since that is how most of us determine what is right and wrong in a reflexive way. There are plenty of wrong things I believe because I was taught them long ago. My 10 year attempt at purging such things has met with failure--I actually have to wait for some situations to arise to even remember what I was taught. That's what I was going to do to my hero--hit him with several things at once, and mix the truth and lies of his childhood to confuse and tempt him. The thing about Old Scratch offering Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth wasn't much of a temptation to Jesus. He knew that Satan doesn't own them or control them. He just lies a lot and makes people think he has power. Thanks again, Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kirk Strickland" Subject: [AML] Re: Generalizing from Personal Experience Date: 28 Jun 2002 14:33:43 -0600 Veli Johnson, =20 Isn't Washougal where Tanya Harding is from? =20 Enjoyed your post. Not just because I too served in Finland (1973-75), = but because of the point you were making. The reality of an experience = vs. a rose-colored recollection. There's a great short story by Douglas = Thayer in his collection of short stories, Under the Cottonwoods, that = deals directly with the returned missionary sugar-coating syndrome. =20 Veli Kirk Strickland -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Nauvoo Temple Dedication Date: 28 Jun 2002 13:57:57 -0600 I was quite happy that Pres. Monson did not identify Jane Manning James as "our black sister pioneer" or anything condescending like that. I thought Pres. Hinckley was in rare form. During his harangue on Tom Ford (former governor of Illinois) I was straining a little wondering where he was going with it, and I even started wondering whether a prophet could ever let a little senility start creeping over the pulpit, but then he brought it full circle and even snuck in that great little barb about the Democrats. I like Pres. Hinckley because he's often not predictable. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Generalizing from Personal Experience Date: 28 Jun 2002 18:45:03 -0600 ---Original Message From: Richard Johnson > > I, for one, am not ashamed of the fact that I frequently am > moved to tears as I attempt to speak about those spiritual > things that affect me or have effected me (in other words > when I bear my testimony, or in fact whenever I talk about > the atonement, the suffering of Christ in the garden, or, for > that matter of the glory of the resurrection or Christ > gathering the children about him on the American continent. > These things overwhelm me with an understanding of how > dependent I am on the Grace of the Lord. For that matter, I > frequently spend tears on the testimonies of others, and > certainly I wept through much of this aftenoon's meeting. If > you did not, at least a little, frankly I am sorry for you. You had me till here. I don't mind if people are weepy in spiritual meetings. We shouldn't judge them as maudlin or manipulative just because they shed tears. But this part at the end is simply going too far. I get weepy at really odd things--pretty much exclusively based on personal, internal maunderings. So I don't cry much and I have yet to shed tears based on external emotional stimulus--including some pretty spiritual meetings. Now, I didn't attend the Nauvoo dedication, so I can't really speak to the specific circumstances, but I'm relatively certain I'd have stood dry eyed to the end. Maybe I *am* lacking some emotional component that is otherwise common to mankind. But if I do, I don't feel the lack (I wouldn't, would I?). So while I'm willing to withhold judgment of the weepier people around me as you request, I ask the same in return. I don't want or need your pity. > The biggest point that I want to make here is that we, as > individuals, tend to make things unversal based on our own > limited paradigms. Right. Judging others is a tricky business and should be undertaken only with fear and trembling--whichever side of the spectrum they occupy. And really, making values universal is a form of judgment. That's why universals are best received from divine sources. Crying (or not crying) in meetings is definitely *not* a universal so we'd probably be best served if we left both poles alone. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature