From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Essays on Infertility Date: 01 Jul 2002 11:04:13 -0500 I'm sorry, I posted the wrong address for the LDS infertility group. I should have double-checked first. To subscribe, post a blank email to: 2ofus4now-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Or go to the website at: >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/2ofus4now/ It appears to be a busy list, averaging 500 posts a month with 236 members. This is the moderator description of the list: "(Two of Us For Now) We are a support and information group for discussing infertility, adoption, and pregnancy loss from an LDS perspective. We understand the unique challenges and blessings of being LDS and unable to carry or conceive a child. We invite people to participate who have personal experience (past or present) with infertility, pregnancy loss, or adoption; those who support a friend or loved one dealing with these issues; or those who have professional experience in these areas. People with or without children are welcome." Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Nauvoo Temple Dedication Date: 28 Jun 2002 23:03:47 -0600 Oh I agree that Pres. Monson handled Jane's quote beautifully, but I live to make unenlightened comments just to make the rest of you look good. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cherry Silver" Subject: [AML] Call for Papers: Annual AML Conference 2003 Date: 28 Jun 2002 18:31:12 -0600 To AML-List subscribers We are now calling for papers for the 2003 AML Annual Conference to be = held at Gore Auditorium, Westminster College, February 19, 2003 from = 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Directions in Mormon Letters:Voices and Vision for the Twenty-first = Century Contributions solicited:Individual papers of 20 minutes length, panel = discussions, or hour sessions formed from related papers. Help us = review, analyze, and project what is happening in Mormon letters Topic areas now developing: Film and drama; Young adult literature; = Reviews and columns; Speculative fiction; Tall tales & folklore; = Fiction; Poetry; and New developments Submit topics and bios by September 1, 2002 to AML conference chair: = cherry.silver@worldnet.att.net For more information call 801 278-7141 [Cherry Silver] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Generalizing from Personal Experience Date: 28 Jun 2002 22:49:28 -0700 -----Original Message----- "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." You have me there. Hoisted on my own pitard (or is it petard) if you will. > 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 Yep!!!! Richard B Johnson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 29 Jun 2002 12:34:21 -0600 The Laird Jim wrote: > > 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. > 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. > that teacher convinced me, and nothing I've heard or read > or seen since has changed my mind. Anecdotal evidence is not considered the strongest evidence among the scientific community, but at least those who use it generalize from a series of experiences, not a single instance. I think your one instance of anecdotal evidence is unconvincing--rather than "nothing since" being convincing--for the following reasons: 1. It being a single instance, there's no way to draw meaningful cause-and-effect conclusions. The 2/3-1/3 split is impressive, but what caused the split? The students were given three choices, whereas in the council in heaven we were offered only two. Does your example show that the outcome-based way is required to attract one thrid of the vote, or does it just show that one third of the people fear having total responsibility for themselves and will pick whatever alternative helps them avoid responsibilty? I mean, seriously--throw in a third alternative of party-party-party, and who wouldn't choose it? Show me some anecdotal evidence with only two choices: merit-based grades or guaranteed grades from a military-school-style philosophy, and then let's see the vote. Would it also come out 2/3-1/3? 2. I have to assume that the attendees of the council in heaven were not immature adolescents, as are high school students. They were individuals who had progressed (i.e., matured) as much as they were able in their current existence. They knew the score, and I can't imagine very many of them not being able to see the utter fallacy of an outcome-based plan of salvation. A bunch of high-schoolers, sure. Mature adults instructed at the feet of God, no. 3. On the other hand, high school kids, immature as they are, are not remotely naive about what high school is all about. They know from experience what a pain it can be to work for good grades. They also know what it means to be forced to do things. Holy Moley, do they know! Spirits attending the council in heaven, no matter how mature they may have been, had absolutely no experience with mortal life. They were completely naive about what this life would be like. I'm sure they were completely naive about what force is like, since I can't imagine their heavenly parents ever using it. So they would have no fear of the lash. But they could easily have had great fear of not making it back to Father. Never having felt a lash, many of them might consider a plan that guarantees results very appealing, not understanding the price they would be committing themselves to pay. (A great deal of anecdotal evidence exists to prove that humans are good at choosing the immediately expedient without counting the painful costs of the consequences.) Therefore I stand by Mormon culture's traditional interpretation of what Lucifer's plan was. One third of the hosts of heaven were terrified of their own ability (or lack thereof) to succeed at this new project Father had spelled out. They must have been sure they wouldn't measure up. Their great brother Lucifer proposed an alternative, and they jumped at the chance. Force? What did they know of force? It sounded great: force meant they did not have to be responsible, nor would they have to endure the painful consequences of failure that Father described as part of his plan. The lash probably sounded like a cakewalk compared to that. >From their earliest memories they had lived in the glorious presence of Father. Losing that for eternity must have been unimaginable--talk about the ultimate separation anxiety! A few lashes on the back to avoid that--where do I sign up? -- 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: lwilkins@fas.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [AML] Essays on Infertility Date: 29 Jun 2002 13:53:44 -0400 Thanks for forwarding the message to this list. I'll let my friend know. It's curious that in all her searching, my friend didn't find this list. I think she would have mentioned it to me if she had. What is more interesting to me is the fact that she was looking specifically for books, rather than for online discussion groups. If we define Mormon literature broadly, can we think about self-help books as a very different genre from fiction? This raises interesting questions about marketing and accessibility. Are people more likely to look for books to help them out when they're experiencing tough times? If so, is it because books are more familiar? Are they more accessible to those who may not be up to speed on computer stuff? Do they have a certain kind of authority that online discussions lack, even if the book is a collection of essays relating personal experience? Or are books somehow more private? I know a couple in my ward, for example, who chose not to go to a support group for childless couples in our ward because they didn't want to talk about such stuff in a group setting. --Laraine Wilkins Quoting Linda Adams : > 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 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Generalizing from Personal Experience Date: 30 Jun 2002 00:34:10 -0600 Reader response criticism focuses on how one's background and expectations influence the interpretation one makes of a text. Richard Johnson gets something a little different than I do from some of the list postings. For example, he got: > People who weep while giving testimonies are doing some kind of maudlin > manipulation But I got: Emotions can often be evoked through stimuli: music, story, etc., and that factors into verbal representations of belief in church. He got: > Missions are generally unpleasant exercizes in number generation and > satisfying number crazy mission presidents. I got: Missions have ups and downs and are challenging (which is what I also got from what Richard said about his mission). He got: > > Using personal experience, if it includes mention of church callings or > tasks is an indirect method of competing with others. Ah, one of my own posts. What I meant was: Such mentions can or could be competitive in nature, although certainly are not all the time. Of course I may not be getting what Richard intends! Maybe he is just exaggerating his response for humorous effect. But if he is being serious, as I think he is from the tone of the rest of his post, I wonder why I read these postings as thoughtful, articulate musings about some of the underlying implications of various Mormon cultural traditions, while others see them as harshly castigating? Of course the answer to my question is exactly what I mentioned earlier, background and expectations. I've attended so many English conferences in my years of teaching that I've taken on the mindset in which the cultural critique we read on the AML list would be judged as fairly gentle and would certainly be valued. I admit that in my Sunday School class, it would not be appreciated. That is why the AML list is such an interesting place--half Sunday School, half literary. > that matter, I frequently spend tears on the testimonies of others, But I do find some common ground with Richard! I too get very teary-eyed, and it is pretty much every Sunday. However, I don't count it as a particular virtue, just that some of us are built that way. Gae Lyn Henderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Generalizing from Personal Experience Date: 30 Jun 2002 18:45:11 -0600 Richard Johnson wrote: > I wept through much of this aftenoon's meeting. If you did not, > at least a little, frankly I am sorry for you. Jacob already touched on this so I won't belabor the point (too much), but I have to say that the cliche swings both ways on this one. I don't think Richard means to sound quite as condescending as this sounded to me, but the language often betrays the meanings we intend and triggers our individual defenses against familiar, oversimplified condemning judgments that we've all been subjected to. I think all of us have overreacted to something that was intended only as a statement of individual belief but that we took as a generalized truth--and a judgment against us. Whatever the intent, I choose to believe that his point was that he *hoped* (desired, wished for) that others felt as powerful a personal spiritual moment as he did, because that personal spiritual moment was precious and important to him and prompted a complex internal reaction whose outward sign was the shedding of tears. He hopes that others were edified and experienced a similar joy at that moment that he did (not unlike Lehi), whether that experience included tears or not. If some were not touched as deeply as he was, I think he feels honest regret that they could not (for whatever reason) share in the same kind of joy and hope that he felt. At the risk of abusing prior discussions about the importance and role of authorial intent, that's my interpretation and I'm stickin' with it, even if the author informs me that I got it wrong. It's the interpretation that most closely resembles what I would most hope to hear, and that paints a world that I would most like to live in. I once heard it said that offense cannot be given, it can only be taken. Why do so many Mormons find it so hard to simply ignore judgments (real or imagined) that we find irrelevant? If we don't believe a person (or group or institution) is qualified to make a judgment, why do we give that judgment any weight--whether the judge comes from inside or outside the Church? It's part of what makes humor so difficult--one writer's humorous truism is another's irreverent rejection of holy things. If there are a lot of stories about goal-happy, numbers-oriented missionary experiences does that have to mean that all missions were run that way, or even that those that were run that way were inherently devoid of any true intervention of the Spirit? Why? A series of "Seven Habits"-like fads hit the Church *very* hard in the early 1980s, and many well intentioned mission presidents hoped to improve the effectiveness of the missionary program by implementing elements of goal-setting, results orientation, and positive thinking--in their zeal, perhaps over-emphasizing the programmed elements of the approach. I suspect that not a few missionaries took those attempts to improve organizational efficiency as gospel truth spoken indirectly from the mouth of God and became quite aggressive and even a little belligerent with their companions in implementing those principals--all the while invoking the name of the mission president to justify their own well-intentioned excess (if drinking eight glasses of water a day is a good idea, then drinking sixteen is twice as good--and thirty two is even better; lengthen your stride, Elder!). We can deny that such things ever happened, but there are too many people who were disillusioned by some of that organizational excess to make me believe it was limited to only a few missions and missionaries. I think it was pretty widespread, both inside the Church and outside. And the really annoying thing is that in many cases it worked; the number of baptisms increased--and the percentage of members retained after those programmed, organizationally efficient baptisms was pretty much the same as those baptized before it. Was there excess? Of course there was. Were some missionaries (and even some mission presidents) caught up in a numbers-oriented utopia that apparently devalued the individual testimonies of missionaries? I think there was quite a bit of that. Does that excessive fervor actually *make* the individual testimonies of missionaries irrelevant? I don't think so, though at the time I remember having a lot of righteous indignation about reducing the souls of people to formulae and flowcharts. Part of that was that I felt devalued, and I resisted the idea that I could be replaced at any time by anyone and the system would function equally well without me. I knew that I had individual value and no one else could do all of what I could do; I was a child of God, dammit, and I mattered. Some of my friends ended up on different sides of that fence--some were certain that it was all a matter of obedience to principles, and that all we needed to do was trust the system that God had revealed to us; a general argument that I can't really gainsay. Others were certain that the Church had indeed become just another corporate numbers game and that spirituality had become a commodity to be brokered along with pork bellies, real estate, and gold futures--a fear that certainly seemed to have a lot of justification. So which story is true? I think they're both true, and depending on the audience and what context you ask me about it in (and what time of the day, and how well my breakfast agreed with me) I can tell stories from either side of that fence with equal vigor and equal honesty. But authentic and universal are two very different things, and I think we need to be a little careful about conflating those two concepts. This is a change in mindset for me. I was pretty aggressive is criticizing Rex Mitchell's _Angel of the Danube_ for claiming a universality about the missionary experience that I didn't think was fair because it didn't match up in either the broad strokes or the particulars of my own experience. As I've continued to think about that, I think I did Rex a substantial disservice and I probably owe him an apology. He told a story that was true to his own mind and experience, and if that story differed from the one I might have told that only proves that he and I are different people who perceive the world through different filters and with different biases. Which is why it's so important for all of us to tell our stories from our own points of view, and that we cut each other a little extra slack (and a heaping helping of charity) when we hear those stories. That someone else came to a different conclusion than I did does not necessarily challenge the validity of my belief or call into question my right to feel as I do. In the end, each of us experiences a subjective reality that is so unique to us as individuals as to beg whether any two of us would experience identical inputs in the same way. But as we tell a wide variety of stories we begin to see the different ways that each of us perceive the world, and we begin to see how each of us as individuals finds both commonality with, and distinction from, each other. But each individual story can only speak from a limited viewpoint and can only reveal a limited scope of experience. So it's in sharing the variety of all experiences (joyful, joyless, uplifting, depressing, dark, hopeful, hopeless, successful, terrifying, trivial, or momentous) that we can finally begin to hope to understand our own very complex--and often conflicting--thoughts on our own experience. But that's a rehash of Scott's Standard Lecture Number 14. So I'll stop now. Most of us generalize. We want to understand how things work and learn how to predict future results, so we tend to generalize as often as we can. But if we're paying attention we refine that generalization as new data and experience comes in until it becomes specific and repeatable. Then we collect up a group of specific observations and attempt to generalize again, and the process repeats--theoretically into eternity. There's nothing wrong with generalizing, and there's nothing wrong with find either our own or other peoples' generalizations to be incomplete or inadequate. We each have to work out our understanding in our own way and by our own methods. Still, sometimes we do take pride in our own understanding and that pride sometimes causes us to reject or ridicule another's understanding--not always because we think the other is silly, but because we think the other is wrong and we want to show them a better way. Given the choice, I would rather that people share too much of their thoughts with me because I can learn to filter out the stuff that doesn't seem to bear on my own areas of interest or concern. But if people don't share their thoughts with me, my own ability to learn becomes limited and I lose. I know I bristle a lot when people tell me I'm wrong, but at least part of the point of a list like this is to hear what each of us has to say so that we can all learn more about the hopes, sucessess, failures, and joys of the other. So for my dime, generalize to your heart's content--and allow me my own method of understanding and interpretting the world I live in. I don't claim I'm always right, but I do claim that I'm honestly trying to learn more. I think we all are, to some degree or another. FWIW. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 01 Jul 2002 10:33:29 -0600 The Laird Jim wrote: >I don't think that's >Satan's plan was to force us all to be righteous. =20 I don't think so either. Consider my cat. My cat loves to catch and eat mice. Before catching and = eating mice, he plays with them, torments them. It's kinda hard to watch, = frankly. In so doing, he is not cruel or vicious. He's just being a cat. = Cat's play with mice before killing them. Kill or be killed, eat or be = eaten, fight or flee, satisfying basic reproductive needs and trying to = find some rudimentary shelter, living mostly according to instinct; that's = the way life works for all species on this planet except one, and that one = species, man, lives that way a lot of the time. When it comes to mice, my = cat has no agency. My cat can't choose not to torture. Here's how I think the Council in Heaven worked. (My model requires that = we accept pre-Adamic death.) Lucifer said, 'look at all the other species = we've created. They live by instinct. They fulfill the measure of their = being by killing and being killed, and by eating and being eaten. They = are all intelligences, and they all have spirits, the world is a marvelous = place. Man is another creature, as they are. Let him live as all = creatures live.' And Elohim said, "it won't work. The intelligences we = are about to form into the spirits of men and women can't live like that. = They are intelligent in different ways. They must have agency. They must = be capable of making choices, moral choices, as we are. Some will be = lost, to be sure. But their future growth depends on it.' =20 In other words, the metaphor we usually use when we think of Satan's plan = is that of a prison, where we're forced to do as we're told. I don't = think so, though. Put me in a prison, and I'll still have agency, and = I'll still make choices. I think a better metaphor is that of a jungle. = =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] EnderCon Date: 01 Jul 2002 12:25:28 -0600 EnderCon July 5-6, 2002 Utah Valley State College Orem, Utah http://www.endercon.com/ Orson Scott Card is sponsoring EnderCon in celebration of the 25th anniversary of the publication of his first short story, "Ender's Game," in the August 1977 issue of _Analog_. Janis Ian, Stephen Sywak, Mark Wilkinson, Rich Tenney, Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury, Stefan Rudnicki, K. L. Morgan, Susan J. Kroupa, Ann Chamberlin, Michael Collings, Ami Chopine and Robert L. Maxwell are featured. Registration at the door Friday Evening & Saturday (July 5-6, 2002) -- $25.00 Saturday Only (July 6, 2002) -- $20.00 After EnderCon: Uncle Orson's Writing Class 2002, open to novice and experienced writers alike, is a two-day seminar where you'll get to discuss the essence of writing with the master storyteller. Participants will take part in discussions, lectures and idea sessions from morning until night, with Orson Scott Card leading the way. Find out how he molds character and makes obscure ideas accessible for his readers. The class meets on Monday, July 8, from 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. and on Tuesday, July 9, from 9 a.m. - 9 p.m. The cost for this two-day seminar is $150. See http://www.hatrack.com/bootcamp2002/index.shtml for registration. EnderCon Schedule: July 5 - Friday Evening 3:00 - 6:00 p.m. Registration - Sorenson Student Center 3:00 - 6:00 p.m. OSC booksigning at the EnderCon store Hampton Inn - Timpanogos East Room (across the street) 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. Ragan Theatre OSC reading "The Polish Boy" Janis Ian concert 10:00 p.m - midnight Star Party (meet in the parking lot to share rides) July 6 - Saturday 8:00 - 8:45 a.m. Registration - Sorenson Student Center 9:00 - 10:20 a.m. OSC's opening address - Ballroom 10:30 - 11:20 a.m. "Meet the Moderators" "The Epic of Ender" Ender's Trivia Game Round-Robin Ender's Game Reading 11:30 a.m. - 12:20 p.m. "Speakers for the Living: Audiobooks & OSC" "Teachers Roundtable" Ender's Trivia Game Round-Robin Ender's Game Reading 12:30 - 2:00 p.m. LUNCH BREAK 2:00 - 2:50 p.m. "Master Class in Artistry" "Ender's World Technology" "A Beehive of Science Fiction Activity" Ender's Trivia Game Round-Robin Ender's Game Reading 3:00 - 3:50 p.m. "Master Class in Artistry" (continued) "The Reality of Mars" "OSC: Views from Microscope and Macroscope" Ender's Trivia Game Round-Robin Ender's Game Reading 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. Closing Q & A with OSC 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. DINNER BREAK 7:30 - 10:00 p.m. Closing Cantina Marny Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 01 Jul 2002 13:55:47 -0600 Eric R. Samuelsen wrote: >>>Consider my cat. My cat loves to catch and eat mice. Before catching and eating mice, he plays with them, torments them. It's kinda hard to watch, frankly. In so doing, he is not cruel or vicious. He's just being a cat. Cat's play with mice before killing them. Kill or be killed, eat or be eaten, fight or flee, satisfying basic reproductive needs and trying to find some rudimentary shelter, living mostly according to instinct; that's the way life works for all species on this planet except one, and that one species, man, lives that way a lot of the time. When it comes to mice, my cat has no agency. My cat can't choose not to torture.<<< Or is that a learned response? My cats have lived indoors all their lives and were separated from adult cats when only a few weeks old. They never learned to capture mice or to torment them. If anything, my cats seems a bit confused about what they should do with small crawly things. While they will bat at moths and spiders, their only goal seems to be to bop a moving target (a feather, string, pencil, or spot of light will do just as well), not to kill. Once the critters stop moving, my cats lose all interest and walk away. No one ever taught them that crawling things are Nature's neat-to-eat protien treats. So the playing instinct is there, but the killing instinct appears to be absent. They had to be taught that, and weren't. Which is the flip side of the widespread belief that Man is just another kind of animal. Our reactions may be complex, but we are just animals after all and don't have true agency; we're biological machines that must act according to our programming. The only substantive difference between a cat and a person is that a person's programming is much, much harder to decompile and is affected by many more social and environmental factors in addition to the biological ones. The end result, of course, being that we are never truly responsible for our actions. It's always interesting to look at other belief structures and see how they relate. I find this example really interesting in light of Jaina philosophy (a precursor to Hinduism). In that philosophy any five-sensed animal can progress and reach enlightenment. It's why mammals are seen as functional equals to humans--we are all animals of five senses, and are thus equally able to reach the fourth level of enlightenment and have our calling and election made sure (it's also at least partly why their deities are a fairly even mix of human and animal types). Thus, the only inexcusable crime is to kill another being before it has chosen how it will progress during this life; all life is equally precious, and beings of five senses are one conceptual step away from attaining enlightenment and becoming as God. So the question is whether the Jaina raise animals to be equal to Man, or lower Man to be only an animal. Since they expect that any animal can choose to become more than it is, they seem to be uplifting the animals (which formed the basis of a fantasy short story I once wrote where a tiger chooses not to kill while in mid-chew of our POV character). In either case, the idea of agency is critical and forms the basis of the idea that a person who lives like an animal will quite literally become one during the next turn of the wheel. Mix that in with some of Brigham Young's ideas on spirit matter and the nature and organization of intelligences, as well as his take on the dissolution of spirits, and all of a sudden Jaina philosophy (including reincarnation) is not nearly as alien as it might at first sound. The argument can then be made that each and every spirit containing Intelligence is capable of making choices and overcoming its nature, though biochemical interference and limited intellectual capacity make is much harder for some creatures than others. Not an argument; just some thoughts that have been floating around in my mind. Take 'em for what they're worth. >>>In other words, the metaphor we usually use when we think of Satan's plan is that of a prison, where we're forced to do as we're told. I don't think so, though. Put me in a prison, and I'll still have agency, and I'll still make choices. I think a better metaphor is that of a jungle. <<< I've always had a hard time with the "forced righteousness" idea, because it requires that a clear line be drawn with strict enforcement. That creates an either/or situation that actually stimulates a direct moral decision, which is precisely what Lucifer doesn't want--I think he'd rather that we made no decision at all than that we try and fail. It seems like Lucifer said that he would ensure that not one was lost; he never said anything about whether any would rise above the baseline (something there about burying a talent--but at least that one talent wasn't lost). That's why the earth was cursed--for our sakes, and to force us to overcome and discover our potential to become more than we are. In my version of Lucifer's paradise there would actually be plenty of pretty much everything. The animals wouldn't bite and the need to cultvate fields would not exist. Stuff everywhere. The end result being that people simply have no need to adapt, no need to change. Comfort as the great spiritual anesthetic, putting people into a state of both physical and spiritual torpor. Keep people in paradise, and they're unmotivated to do much of anything--either good or evil. They never actually leave the starting line. I think our modern conception of the police state method of Satanic order comes from the fact that we already live in a world where agency is the norm. The only way to attack and defeat the established agency is to make it seem too dangerous, and to emphasize the failures of choice. Even the totalitarian regimes are used as a tool to teach people to resist any authoritarian stance--including the religious one. The law of consequences has been warped from a recognition of natural consequences to a fear of artificially defined consequences, with the result that any discussion of limiting our behaviors by choice is seen as a threat of violent enforcement. For many people honesty really has become little more than the fear of getting caught. I've been researching for a novel that revolves around a Mormon pseudo-utopia and what that might look like. I won't share all of my conclusions (I want there to be some reason to read the novel, after all) but I am starting to see such a Mormon utopia as revising our existing ideas about justice and law enforcement. I tend to see a *lot* fewer police in a society where less energy is exerted in the punishment of offenders--not because the law has become irrelevant, but because the relationship of people to the law has shifted. What's really odd to me is how my idea of a Mormon utopia and my musings on a Satanic utopia merge in some fundamental ways. From a distance they seem awfully similar--until you explore the minds of the inhabitants of each utopia and discover radically different sets of assumptions and desires. We shall see. Scott Parkin (who is very, very interested in having private discussions about different people's ideas of an idealized Mormon society and how it would compare/interact with the rest of the world) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] Re: Generalizing from Personal Experiences Date: 01 Jul 2002 21:55:53 -0600 ---Original Message From: Scott Parkin > > Why do so many Mormons find it so hard to > simply ignore judgments (real or > imagined) that we find irrelevant? If we don't believe a > person (or group or > institution) is qualified to make a judgment, why do we give > that judgment any weight--whether the judge comes from inside > or outside the Church? Ooo. I'll answer. We care about the judgments of others because the judgments of others affect us. And I don't mean just emotionally, either. If someone judges me to be incompetent, he won't hire me. If I'm judged educated, I don't have to justify my opinions as much. Right or wrong, we are all connected together and ignoring the judgments that we find irrelevant can lead to tragedy. The most unqualified person in the world can make judgments that will alter our lives. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] _Suddenly Unexpected_ Auditions Early August Date: 02 Jul 2002 03:46:43 -0500 LDSFilm.com is forwarding this press release -- with permission of the production company: New LDS Comedy "Suddenly Unexpected" Set for Production For immediate release: July 1, 2002 MPotter Productions of Houston, Texas has announced the production of its first feature length film, Suddenly Unexpected. The film will be shoot in Houston, Texas in October 2002 with a planned release in 2003. MPotter Production principles are husband and wife, Mark Potter, the director and Marjorie Potter, the producer. Mr. Potter graduated from Brigham Young University with a directing degree and has attended graduate school at the University of Houston. He has been directing and writing for over 20 years. Ms. Potter who attended Houston Baptist University has been working with her husband for eighteen years developing various works. Suddenly Unexpected is the tale of fretting Elder Jones and his green companion, the quirky Elder Smith, who wake up one Saturday morning to discover that they have been evicted, and people are carting away any and every thing that is not nailed down. From there, things go down hill. "Suddenly Unexpected" follows these hapless missionaries through their misadventures as they begin their road trip that leads them to new and different worlds. All filming for "Suddenly Unexpected" will occur in the greater Houston area. Open auditions will be held in Houston, Texas on August 3, 2002 from 9 am to 1 pm at 10200 Autumn Meadow and in Provo, Utah on August 5, 2002 from 1pm to 6 pm at the Holiday Inn Provo, 1460 S. University Ave. This will be a non-SAG production. For additional information, MPotter Productions can be contacted at mpotter1@pdq.net or the web site for "Suddenly Unexpected" at -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Tucker T. Dansie Short Film Opportunity Date: 02 Jul 2002 10:29:49 -0500 Tucker T. Dansie is a talented filmmaker based in Salt Lake City whose credits are listed on ldsfilm.com (http://www.ldsfilm.com/ ) and whose documentary "Colors" is sold at Deseret Book and other bookstores. He's opening up a couple key roles on his current production to anybody who is interested in working on a short film. Below is his message. You can contact him by writing to us at ldsfilm.com or by writing directly to him at http://www.tuckertdansie.com Hi Everyone, On the 13th of July I will be having auditions for my newest film. I am turning to you all to see if there is one kind soul out there that would like to do some volunteer work for me. On that day from 1-5 we need someone that can work the lobby of the offices where we are doing the auditions. Basically, you would be signing people in and asnwering questions, giving them sides, and then helping use know who the next one to go into the conference room for their audition is. All while keeping them out of trouble!!! If anyone is interested in doing it, you could bring a book if you get bored, that would be awesome, please let me know! It would be a great help to me and I would totally appreciate it. Of course you would get a credit in the film, and I also will give you a walk on extra role in the film in the background. Anyone who is interested please write me ASAP and we can discuss. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: [AML] Selected AML-List Reviewers Date: 01 Jul 2002 10:19:49 -0700 Here are the reviewers for the 6/15 list of available books. If you were selected, please send me your smail mail address. There are still titles available, so if you'd like to review a book, please drop me a line. Thank you, Jana Remy AML-List Review Editor mailto:jana@enivri.com ------------------- > The Hero > By Ron Woods Sharlee Glenn > > A Disciple's Life: The Biography of Neal A. Maxwell > By Bruce Hafen Ryan Orrock > > The Day Alma Died > By B.V. Cheyenne Andrew Hall > > Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, A People of Promise > By Glen Leonard Randall Larsen > > A Thousand Souls > By Lee Nelson Jeff Needle > > Ghosts of the Oquirrhs > By Marilyn Brown Cathy Wilson > > Fields of Clover > By Marilyn Arnold Kim Madsen > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 02 Jul 2002 14:52:08 -0600 Scott said (with snips): In my version of Lucifer's paradise there would actually be plenty of pretty much everything . . . The end result being that people simply have no need to adapt, no need to change. . . . Keep people in paradise, and they're unmotivated to do much of anything--either good or evil. They never actually leave the starting line. Sounds good at first, but I see a problem with it. From what we know, it looks like Lucifer didn't really "get" the plan at all. If he had, he wouldn't have bothered to tempt Adam and Eve, and instead would have let them sit in the garden forever, much like Scott is proposing Lucifer would have wanted us to. *That* would have messed up the plan. But somehow he thought that getting rid of their garden paradise would fit into his own purposes. I tend to side with D. Michael and others who believe that the force concept was real, for many of the reasons already posted. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report June 28 Date: 02 Jul 2002 15:48:10 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of June 28, 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 Minority Report 21,590,412 3,001 10 Gerald Molen (producer) 73,424,800 8 The Divine Secrets of the 4,051,483 2,167 24 Ya-Ya Sisterhood 55,388,642 34 The New Guy 115,103 136 52 Eliza Dushku (lead actress) 28,972,187 36 ESPN's Ultimate X 94,655 38 52 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,783,978 43 Murder by Numbers 36,208 103 73 Ryan Gosling (lead male actor) 31,874,869 47 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 17,102 7 787 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,442,928 62 The Other Side of Heaven 8,311 12 199 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,602,102 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 79 The Singles Ward 4,326 5 150 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 803,286 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, Wally Joyner, Lincoln Hoppe, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, etc. 98 Mark Twain's America 3D 121 1 1459 Alan Williams (composer) 2,235,063 It's kind of fun to watch "Minority Report" and "Lilo & Stitch" jockey it out for position, as the numbers are so consistently equal between them. "Lilo & Stitch" tends to gross more during the week when entertainment for children home from school for the summer is at a premium. However, on the weekends, "Minority Report" performs better and came in at the number 2 spot, behind the new release "Mr. Deeds". Just for the record, the 2-week ticket gross for "Minority Report" brings Latter-day Saint producer Jerry Molen's career total U.S. box office gross to over $1,745 billion. We have nothing to say about "Mr. Deeds," but Adam Sandler's NEXT feature film will be of some interest to this column. Sandler's nemesis in that film, titled "Punch-Drunk Love" (Fall 2002 release), is a quartet of four Latter-day Saint brothers from Utah -- played by the Stevens brothers (who actually are Latter-day Saint brothers from Utah). ON TELEVISION: On Wednesday, June 15th, Latter-day Saint filmmaker Tasha Oldham's critically acclaimed documentary "The Smith Family" premiered nationwide as the season's first episode of the PBS series "POV." On Sunday, June 30th, the already-taped Pearl Awards was broadcast on television in Utah. AUDITIONS: Open auditions for Tucker T. Dansie's latest short film "Quarters & Rocks" will be held on Saturday, 13 July 2002, 1:00-5:00 PM in Salt Lake City. More information here: http://www.tuckertdansie.com/auditions Latter-day Saint filmmaker Mark Potter has announced his production company's first feature film, "Suddenly Unexpected," a comedy about missionaries. Filming will take place in Houston, Texas in October 2002, for an expected 2003 theatrical release. Open auditions will be held in Houston, Texas on August 3, 2002 from 9 am to 1 pm at 10200 Autumn Meadow and in Provo, Utah on August 5, 2002 from 1pm to 6pm at the Holiday Inn Provo, 1460 S. University Ave. This will be a non-SAG production. SINGLES WARD: "The Singles Ward" will soon be appearing in theaters in Nevada, California, and other locations. The comedy, which cost about $425,000 to make, has already grossed over $803,000 at the box office, having played in Utah, Idaho, Hawaii and Arizona. "The Singles Ward" is scheduled for DVD/video release in November. The DVD will feature a hilarious audio commentary track on which Kurt Hale, the director promised to point out the movie's flaws. (Flaws? What flaws??) THE R.M.: As of this writing, casting is nearly complete for Kurt Hale and Dave Hunter's follow-up film "The R.M." (which is NOT a sequel). The lead actor will be Kirby Heyborne, one of the supporting actors in "The Singles Ward" (he is the roommate who received his mission call to Idaho). The lead actress is a talented newcomer who makes her feature film debut with "The R.M." The Job-like story will feature cameo appearances by Utah Jazz owner (and movie theater mogul) Larry H. Miller and Utah senator Orrin Hatch. THE WORK AND THE STORY: Nathan Smith Jones is now in Utah finishing work on the hilarious mockumentary "The Work and the Story," which tells the mostly fictitious tale of four young Latter-day Saints racing to become the first to make the world's first Great LDS Feature Film. Richard Dutcher stars, along with writer/director Nathan Smith Jones and California-based Latter-day Saint actors Jen Hoskins and Eric Smith. The director points out that although the characters are Latter-day Saints, the humor of the movie will be appreciated by anybody. The film skewers Hollywood and filmmaking, and anybody with some familiarity with movie-making (that includes pretty much EVERYBODY in our media-drenched society) will understand and enjoy "The Work and the Story." VUISSA: Hot off the success of his award-winning short film "Roots & Wings" (which will soon be available on video), Christian Vuissa begins filming this week on his next, and final, student film as a BYU student. Titled "Unfolding", the film is a drama about a young woman coming to terms with the past. The musical score consists of Rachmaninoff music arranged by Latter-day Saint composer (and ldsfilm.com co-webmaster) Thomas C. Baggaley, performed by 4 cellos. LITTLE SECRETS: BYU graduate Blair Treu's feature film "Little Secrets" opens nationwide in just about two weeks. Distributed by Columbia TriStar, the movie is a family-friendly film about young people. "Little Secrets" stars young actors who are prominent from national TV series and movies: Evan Rachel Wood, Michael Angarano, David Gallagher and Vivica A. Fox. The supporting actors are Latter-day Saint/Utah actors, including: Jan Gardner, Rick Macy, Paul Kiernan, Tayva Patch, Micah Schow, Caitlin E.J. Meyer and Danielle Chuchran. The director of photography is Latter-day Saint cinematographer Brian Sullivan, and the composer is Sam Cardon ("Brigham City", "Mysteries of Egypt"). Jerry Stayner ("The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd") is the editor. ALSO OPENING IN AUGUST: Neil LaBute's long-awaited book adaptation "Possession", starring LaBute's fellow BYU graduate Aaron Eckhart; Kels Goodman's historical epic "Handcart," a romantic drama set amidst the Martin Handcart Company pioneer trek; Joseph Osborn's "No Dogs Allowed" starring Dalin Christiansen and a slew of other Utah/LDS actors; and "Serving Sara," starring non-LDS actors Matthew Perry and Elizabeth Hurley, with Latter-day Saint actress Alaina Kalanj in a small role. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 02 Jul 2002 15:16:54 -0600 ___ Jim ___ | 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. ___ Well that "freedom is the foundation of the universe" certainly has a long respectable history in Mormon thought. I think it probably was most clearly presented by the Pratt brothers in what I think was basically a Stoic notion of matters and spirits. (Some people, like Blake Ostler, think I ride the Stoic horse far too much though - so I should add that as a caveat) Anyway even if freedom is the ultimate foundation you still can only choose based upon what is presented to you. Basically your freedom consists of accepting or rejecting a presentation. Given that all you need for a more traditional notion of Satan is that he limit what is presented to you. So I think that what you describe and the view you oppose it to are actually quite similar. The bigger question is whether he could have passed all of us. As many people have pointed out about our education systems, merely passing kids doesn't mean they know how to read. Likewise passing people in the divine test doesn't give them a divine nature. So I'm not sure this really resolves my problem with Satan. However. . . ___ Jim ___ | 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. ____ This is interesting and does possibly suggest a little. However if we are the 2/3 that had the view we don't want to "just pass us" then why would we pick it when the choice was presented again? I should add that I sympathize with the girl who wanted the "force HS." I think that if it is freely chosen there is nothing wrong with a school that forces you to reach your limits. Indeed I've consciously chosen situations for that myself. I guess it depends upon what you want. If you want to progress that being forced to do things you'd prefer not is often helpful. I don't think it really equates to Satan's plan though. Further the very fact that we portray there being a kind of "vote" on Satan's plan is interesting. We have these two mythic views. One is a more traditional war in heaven that I think partakes a bit of traditional Catholic and Jewish angeology. Satan leads a rebellion of some sort to try and take over heaven. The other view is that it was more a war of words and persuasion. I think something like the former is more necessary to seeing Satan cast down the way he is. However even then you have the interesting question of, "how could Satan think he could win a war with God?" There have been interesting stories along these lines. I remember one by Steven Brust called _To Reign in Hell_. And of course the all time classic is Milton, although I don't find his portrayal of "big fish in a small pond" thinking for Satan very persuasive. It seems like the Mormon view of Satan has all sorts of subtle issues that just don't make sense. All of these would be great fodder for an author. Of course a more allegorical use might be a bit more theologically palpable. As I think I said earlier in this thread, I was somewhat disappointed in the Alvin Maker series that Card had such an unbelievable Satan figure. Indeed the Satan figure is but one step removed from a more "platonic essence" and God in his Alvin Maker series never seemed very Mormon either. ___ Jim ___ | 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. ___ Which Etruscan myth is that? One of the Faustus like legends ala the tale of Verbio? I have to admit that I always like the stories of devils that arise through mistaken identity as well. That doesn't fit the Mormon stories but does add a cautionary tale. For instance there is a tale I just found about a someone asking some Gypsies who their creator was. They cry out "duvel" which I gather is from the same root as dues and simply meant God in their language. But of course it sounds like the English "devil" and the poor gypsies got yet more bad press. Apparently this thing goes on quite a bit. And let us not forget the various more pagan beliefs whose thought-systems just didn't even line up with Christianity which were interpreted as diabolical powers in light of Christianity. Perhaps I'm the only one. But I love these stories of how mixing of cultures leads to these interesting religious judgments. I'm enjoying reading various histories of the Renaissance where the influx of Roman and Greek ideas did this and led to renaissance magic and the like. You end up with these syncristic views that make no real sense and then get judged by the main body. Hermeticism which was a syncristic mix of Hellenistic philosophy and Egyptian religion was often attacked by Egyptian priests much as hermeticism was by Christian priests 1500 years later. One the most sensical vies of Satan I've read actually is the Gnostic one. Say what you will about gnosticism, but at least Satan made a little sense. He is almost a competing God who thinks that matter isn't all bad. The Satan figure there is a demiurge who creates all of the material world. Indeed, considering how much I like this world, I have to sympathize with him over the Gnostic true God who views matter as bad. I like the play that the film _The Matrix_ does on this in which the demiurge and idealistic god seem to switch roles in various ways. ___ Jim ___ | 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. ___ The thing is though that Jesus had the veil of forgetfulness just as we did. How much did he know and when did he know it? But you're right, the tempting of Jesus is kind of interesting in its own. Makes you think that if Satan knew what had been done on other planets that the best thing to do was to try and keep Jesus ignorant and happy and make sure Pilot let him go. So Satan's motivations during Christ's mortality don't make much sense to me either. That's what is so interesting about Satan as a literary figure. As with most conspiracy theories, Satan has to be both incredibly smart and well informed while simultaneously stupid and ignorant. That's why I think Satan figures are so hard to pull off for the modern mind. In most literature Satan is just a literary necessity. He's whatever is necessary for the hero to take the next step in his journey. Satan seems always defined in terms of the story of the hero. He's never given any kind of consistent motivation. It's the same with conspiracies and satan figures in literature in general. The bad guys just don't make any sense. They exist purely to allow the hero to move to the next scene. This is somewhat unfortunate since there is so much real evil in the world. Further that evil has lots of interesting stories. Instead we want the "archetypal" "easy" evil that is somehow unbelievable when examined closely. As I mentioned this is why of late "evil" has become "irrational." Madness is the modern form of evil. Of course there is precedence for that - that was pretty much the Stoic view. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] AML's PayPal Services Date: 02 Jul 2002 15:23:21 -0600 We finally got around to setting up the AML on PayPal so people can easily join the AML or subscribe to Irreantum online via credit card. So if you've been meaning to join but haven't gotten around to snail-mailing your order, now you can just click on the links below and use your credit card. Full AML membership, $25. This includes 4 issues of Irreantum, a copy of the book-length AML Annual, and discounted preregistration to AML events. Click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=irreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=AML+ann ual+dues&amount=25.00 Irreantum-only subscription, $16. For those who don't want full AML membership but want to receive 4 issues of Irreantum, click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=irreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=Irreant um+subscription&amount=16.00 Irreantum sample copy, $5. Unless you specify a specific issue, you will receive the current issue. Click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=irreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=Irreant um+sample+copy&amount=5.00 AML donations. Tax deductible! Your donations help us defray the costs of running AML-List and other services. Click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=irreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=AML+don ation Questions? E-mail us at irreantum2@cs.com. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 02 Jul 2002 16:13:08 -0600 ___ Annette ___ | From what we know, it looks like Lucifer didn't really "get" | the plan at all. If he had, he wouldn't have bothered to | tempt Adam and Eve, and instead would have let them sit in | the garden forever, ___ Well he may not have "gotten" the plan. But he at least knew what the plan was. So he knew how he could foil it. So that is why his actions in the garden and with Christ are so interesting. They fit Satan's role as a literary plot device. However as a real person, his motivations must have been much more complex. Further our belief that this is but one of an infinite number of creations suggests that Satan must have had "precedence" in what he did. Perhaps we don't know about it because it would seem to persuasive to us? There's a great urban legend along these lines that is a mix of the Mormon view of Satan with the more Faustus legend. I heard it several times on my mission and its such a great story I'll share it. Basically this AP is pondering the very issues we're asking. "What the heck was Satan thinking?" So unable to curtail his curiosity any more, the AP foolishly prays to Satan to ask him about his side of the story. Satan shows up and has a long discussion going on into the night. The next morning the AP leaves the mission, goes out drinking and partying, having been so persuaded by exactly what Satan's critique of God was. The moral of the story is, "don't try to understand Satan too much - he might convince you!" What is even more interesting isn't the question about whether Satan was lying or not. (If he was, it presumably was a lie that he may have believed himself) It was how believable Satan's position is. It reminds me of that quote by Neitzsche. Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you. Which ties us back into our discussion of the Harris novels about Hannibal Lecter. The first book, _Red Dragon_, was about how a FBI profiler did just that and went a little crazy. In a sense _Hannibal_ (the book, not the film) was about how Hannibal tried to do that to Starling. I'd have to reread the book, but I wonder if there was a sense in which it had happened to Hannibal himself. Ideas as a virus? We see it with forms of abuse. And isn't the madness of a sexual predator a kind of evil we all fear? Yet it is an evil which reproduces itself. ___ Scott ___ | Which is the flip side of the widespread belief that Man is | just another kind of animal. Our reactions may be complex, but | we are just animals after all and don't have true agency; we're | biological machines that must act according to our programming. ___ Of course this view has long been dealt with in the history of ethics. It was, for instance, a major issue for the Greeks. The general response is that we are limited by the various kinds of nature we are in. (The nature of our body, the nature of our circumstance, etc) However despite this nature we can *within* this nature exercise great choice. For instance your cat doesn't *always* play with mice. I've seen cats let mice go - although I'm sure it wasn't for any sense of ethics or altruism. Likewise we have many instincts, circumstances and so forth within which we act. Yet we still are free to a degree. I think you'll find that "absolute freedom" makes no sense at all, even though we tend towards that view in our literature at times. It's always a relative freedom from within the structures that define our existence. The fact is that some humans have more freedom than others. How much freedom does someone with a mental disability have, for instance? (To return us back to our notion of Satan figures - how about psychopaths) Traditionally we like make this separation between humans and animals. However I think what we have is a kind of gradation. ___ Scott ___ | (who is very, very interested in having private discussions | about different people's ideas of an idealized Mormon society | and how it would compare/interact with the rest of the world) ___ What's interesting is that our desire to understand evil and conspiracy theories is really the attempt to understand their utopia. In a sense the quest for utopia is paralleled in terms of both good and evil. Given that, I don't think we can speak of a Utopia without asking about a utopia for whom and in what circumstance. That seems a little beside the point, but if the histories of utopias shows anything, it is that membership is everything. Just look at the various experiments in Utah with the United Order. And we have our own "golden calf" in our history. We were promised Missouri but failed to make our utopia. While historians quibble over the prophecies, the point often is that we failed because *we* weren't ready. As for a utopia interacting with the rest of the world - well Enoch doesn't give much hope. Their interactions consisted mainly of war until the city was removed. For a real practical utopia, excuse my quoting of Pascal. But this does seem the best of all possible worlds to me here in America. We still have enough problems to keep life interesting yet we have enough righteousness to keep life happy. We even have what the utopias of previous centuries never had: toilet paper, air conditioning and indoor plumbing! Three necessities for any utopia I can imagine. You can have Orderville. It didn't sound like any utopia I'd want to have lived in. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 02 Jul 2002 17:17:21 -0600 Annette Lyon wrote: > From what we know, it > looks like Lucifer didn't really "get" the plan at all. If he had, he > wouldn't have bothered to tempt Adam and Eve, and instead would have let > them sit in the garden forever, much like Scott is proposing Lucifer would > have wanted us to. *That* would have messed up the plan. But somehow he > thought that getting rid of their garden paradise would fit into his own > purposes. I tend to side with D. Michael and others who believe that the > force concept was real, for many of the reasons already posted. It's a question that's at least partially irrelevant--whatever the original natures of the two plans the fact is that Satan's plan wasn't implemented. To try to extrapolate what Satan's plan was by looking at how he's trying to mess up God's plan is sort of like trying to guess what a forger's original artwork looks like by examining his fakes. We just don't have enough information. But it is fun to speculate. My thought process works somthing like this--Satan doesn't particularly care whether we progress or not, his only interest is in his own progression. But to become as God he needs followers, and to get followers he has to create an earth where they can dwell. So he tries to come up with a plan that will ensure his own godhood without requiring any of the work (or pain) that would be required to enable others to progress toward theirs. But he has to spin it so he can get it past God so he adds the bit about ensuring that not one soul will be lost--that's what God wants, after all. But as you said, Satan just didn't get it. In his mind the easiest way to ensure correct decision-making is to give people only one choice; you can't go through the wrong door if there's only one door to go through, and you can't fall off the path if it's bordered by sheer cliffs and no other paths exist. Giving people choices, then forcing them to only select one requires much more effort than only giving them one choice. Why create work for yourself when you can just skip that whole nasty choice-thingy in the first place and end up with the same outcome? Since his concern is his own progress, not ours, there's no need to make the effort. In the end, what we choose is essentially irrelevant. When his plan is rejected (along with his entire methodology, assumptions, and special place of honor) he gets more than a little peeved. He doesn't just disagree and commit, he leads a revolution against God. At this point one of two conditions seems reasonable: 1) He believes in his own moral correctness and is going to show God what a stupid idea it was to choose Christ's plan, so he's going to do everything he can to expose its flaws. But he doesn't really understand the foundations of it so he thinks he can derail it early by interfering with Eve in the garden--that's how he'd mess up his own plan, after all. Of course it turns out he was wrong and all he did was progress Christ's plan, which ticks him off even more. Now it's personal and he wants to mess it up as much as possible--whether he gets personal benefit from it or not. 2) He knows that he's messed up and lost his chance to truly become like God. But he knows that if he can get some people to deny God he can get the castoffs from heaven and set up at least a shadow kingdom. Not as good as becoming like God, but the best he can manage under the circumstances. To get castoffs he has to lead people away from a true knowledge of God and get them cast into outer darkness where he has control over them throughout eternity and can function as a bad photocopy of God. To do that, there have to be people with the ability to choose. For there to be people, there has to be a Fall so he willingly does his part to progress the plan--not because it helps God, but because it creates his only opportunity to gain followers. That his goals temporarily coincide with God's is not a surprise because Satan's revised backup plan requires that Christ's plan be in full force. In either case, Satan's original plan was completely scrapped and messing with Eve in the garden makes sense. On the rest of it...what does Satan gain by trying to re-implement his plan by overlaying it on top of Christ's plan? None that I can see. Now his whole effort is either in subverting Christ's plan to prove a point or in subverting it to salvage whatever kingdom he can (or both). Satan isn't trying to create his utopia any more, he's just trying to destroy God's version. The fundamental difference between the common view and my alternate is that in the common view choice exists on this earth and is then taken away; in my alternate the choice never existed--or at least not on this side of the veil. Again, we just don't have enough information to know anything for sure except that Satan wanted to deny us agency. How he intended to do that is anyone's guess; I certainly have no special insight into Satan's thought processes. But I tend to mistrust discussions where only one option is offered because it means that we may have stopped looking carefully at the issue. So I offer a different view primarily to spur discussion and invite contrast. If the opposition doesn't already exist, I sometimes try to create it so that we can choose our beliefs by thought and consideration, not by default--a viewpoint that really annoys some of my quorum and sunday school teachers. I've had a hard time with most of the Mormon apocalyptic literature I've read because it tends to rely so heavily on this police-action idea. All the futures looks pretty much the same--powerful governments oppressing the faithful and no one else. Without denying that such a future is either likely or correct, I'd still like to see versions that question the common assumption and offer alternate possibilities. If enough different possibilities are offered, we have a better chance of preparing ourselves against any eventuality. I'm about 160 pages into Linda Adams' apocalyptic novel and quite enjoying it (book one of her Prodigal Journey series). She has many of the trappings of a traditional oppressive future but she also has a sense of expanded choice as well, and that's made the story far more interesting for me as an individual reader. I make no general comments on the novel yet; there are still over 350 pages to read and she may yet go south on me. But I'm enjoying it so far as a more complex picture of the end days than I've seen yet. I'll post my take on it in a review on this List when I finish it. I will say this, though: Linda writes a much better sentence and tells a far more interesting scene than most LDS writers I've read in the genre; she already gets high marks for writing a book that I find hard to put down. (Sorry, Linda, for taking so long to read it. Frankly, it's a combination of size--well over five hundred pages--and the fact that I've been so disappointed by past efforts from other authors. It sat on my nightstand for a year before I read every other book in the pile. Now I wish I had read it earlier. Remember--Mormons believe in repentence and forgiveness. ) Anyway, this post is long and I can't think of a clever way to end it so I'll just stop. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 02 Jul 2002 18:39:18 -0600 ---Original Message From: Annette Lyon > > From what > we know, it looks like Lucifer didn't really "get" the plan > at all. If he had, he wouldn't have bothered to tempt Adam > and Eve, and instead would have let them sit in the garden > forever, much like Scott is proposing Lucifer would have > wanted us to. *That* would have messed up the plan. Not necessarily. From what I can tell, Adam and Eve had a decision to make--a choice between "don't eat the fruit" and "multiply and replenish" (live forever or have children). Temptation by Satan isn't the only way that can happen--all it really takes is agency and a decision. I sometimes wonder (deep speculation mode) if other worlds don't have more of an advisor than a Satan--someone who explains things rather than advocating actions. Assuming that Satan is aware of how things could go (if, for example, it had already been done on other worlds), then his goal isn't to keep them from eating the fruit (a purely defensive action that could fall apart at literally any time). I'd guess that he'd much rather do as much damage as he can in the process, instead. Like by making sure he approached Adam and Eve separately and getting them to act unilaterally instead of jointly. Get a rift going between the sexes early. That'd be *much* more attractive to him, I'd imagine. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R Seagle" Subject: Re [AML] Satan figures Date: 02 Jul 2002 23:55:29 -0700 Eric Samuelsen wrote: Here's how I think the Council in Heaven worked. (My model requires that = we accept pre-Adamic death.) Lucifer said, 'look at all the other = species we've created. They live by instinct. They fulfill the measure = of their being by killing and being killed, and by eating and being = eaten. They are all intelligences, and they all have spirits, the world = is a marvelous place. Man is another creature, as they are. Let him = live as all creatures live.' And Elohim said, "it won't work. The = intelligences we are about to form into the spirits of men and women = can't live like that. They are intelligent in different ways. They = must have agency. They must be capable of making choices, moral = choices, as we are. Some will be lost, to be sure. But their future = growth depends on it.' =20 Here's another thought. If Satan was a liar from the beginning, then = isn't his promise that not one soul would be lost a lie? Did he really = even have a plan? Or was it so much propaganda aimed at helping him = supplant God? That was his ultimate goal, right? I don't think he = wanted to share the crown. This is my idea of the Council in Heaven. Lucifer wanted God's throne, = and being the politician that he is, he told the people what they wanted = to hear. Elect me and I'll make sure not one soul is lost. He gives no = detail for his plan, how he will accomplish it or what the personal cost = will be because it is a lie. There was no plan. (Sound familiar?) In another thread on this subject, and I'm going to have to paraphrase = here, someone wrote that a third of God's children elected to follow = Lucifer because they were afraid. They wanted to return to God, and so = great was their fear of failure, they were willing to suffer the lash or = force in order to guarantee their success. I have a hard time believing their motivation was fear of not being able = to return to God. In fact, they came out in open rebellion to him and = his plan. By choosing Satan, they, in effect said, "We don't want you = for our God. We now chose Lucifer for our God." Ironically, that's = exactly what they got. =20 I think this is why, for my money, the best villain/ demon/ antagonists = are the intimate enemies. Your protagonist never even sees the knife = until it's sticking out of his/her back. I've been lurking in the background since I joined the AML list a few = months ago, but this thread really pulled me in. =20 Rebecca Seagle -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] _Handcart_ (Film) Premiere Date: 03 Jul 2002 10:31:17 -0500 Kels Goodman has confirmed his previous announcement that the release of his historical epic film "Handcart" will be pushed back from the previously announced date of July 24th. The film will probably be released in August, possibly August 30th. The editing has been completed, and the only thing the filmmakers are working on now is the sound mix, but that should be done by July 24th. The only reason the release was delayed beyond July 24th is that the calender of big studio releases was so busy this year, the theaters have asked the "smaller", independent films to wait until after the busy summer season. Kels has stated there WILL still be a screening of "Handcart" on July 23rd, as part of what will essentially be a wrap party -- complete with entertainment, refreshments, etc. Preston Hunter, ldsfilm.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] AML's PayPal Services Date: 03 Jul 2002 13:47:09 -0600 Hey, those link addresses came through broken. I just joined them again below, but maybe they will break again? Jonathan? [MOD: Here's an attempt to resend. I've tried to take out the line breaks. We'll see if it works.] Full AML membership, $25. This includes 4 issues of Irreantum, a copy of the book-length AML Annual, and discounted preregistration to AML events. Click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=irreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=AML+annual+dues&amount=25.00 Irreantum-only subscription, $16. For those who don't want full AML membership but want to receive 4 issues of Irreantum, click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=irreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=Irreantum+subscription&amount=16.00 Irreantum sample copy, $5. Unless you specify a specific issue, you will receive the current issue. Click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=irreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=Irreantum+sample+copy&amount=5.00 AML donations. Tax deductible! Your donations help us defray the costs of running AML-List and other services. Click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=irreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=AML+donation Questions? E-mail us at irreantum2@cs.com. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------_=_NextPart_001_01C222CA.6AE7F5C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [AML] AML's PayPal Services

Hey, those link addresses came through broken. I just = joined them again below, but maybe they will break again? Jonathan? =

Full AML membership, $25. This includes 4 issues of = Irreantum, a copy of the
book-length AML Annual, and discounted = preregistration to AML events. Click
here:
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=3Dirreantum2%40= cs.com&item_name=3DAML+annual+dues&amount=3D25.00

Irreantum-only subscription, $16. For those who don't = want full AML
membership but want to receive 4 issues of = Irreantum, click here:
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=3Dirreantum2%40= cs.com&item_name=3DIrreantum+subscription&amount=3D16.00

Irreantum sample copy, $5. Unless you specify a = specific issue, you will
receive the current issue. Click here:
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=3Dirreantum2%40= cs.com&item_name=3DIrreantum+sample+copy&amount=3D5.00

AML donations. Tax deductible! Your donations help us = defray the costs of
running AML-List and other services. Click = here:
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=3Dirreantum2%40= cs.com&item_name=3DAML+donation

Questions? E-mail us at irreantum2@cs.com.

Chris Bigelow


--
AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of = Mormon literature
<http://www.aml-online.org/list/index.html>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C222CA.6AE7F5C0-- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 03 Jul 2002 16:09:07 -0500 Thank you, Scott! I'm glad to hear you're finally reading it, *and* that you're sorry you waited. I understand your hesitation and forgive the delay. If I were you, I'd be leery of struggling through a 500-page LDS apocalyptic novel, too. (But--voila!--it is not a struggle after all? I'm glad to hear that.) There *is* an unfortunate precedent that such books are often poorly written, sensational, and illogical (not to mention frequently self-published and in sore need of editing and proofreading...). But that's a major reason I wrote the thing in the first place: to fix that problem and write something actually interesting and realistic. (And, I hope, well-written.) I look forward to your review, good or bad. You've gotten through more of these apocalyptic books than I myself can stomach (I could barely stand flipping through _Ephraim's Seed_ in the bookstore, which you reviewed on AML-List), so I can trust your judgment on how mine compares to the rest. I did try to steer clear of torture-the-righteous scenarios that have zero foundation in logic. There are, I believe, some "cheesy" parts in there anyway, perhaps including my own Satan figure, but where there is oppression it has a logical, human reason. Scott is at the part my "tender" LDS readers call the "hard" part. I took them places they didn't want to go. [There is a sadistic part of me that enjoys that. I also enjoy knowing I've caused people to lose incredible amounts of sleep. I lost enough myself, writing it. Payback!] Linda Adams -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bwoodwor Subject: [AML] Seeking B. Udall Panel Participants Date: 03 Jul 2002 16:50:58 -0500 (EST) Hi, If anyone on this list might be interested in forming with me a panel on Brady Udall's writing for the 2002 AML conference, please email me. Thanks, Brad Woodworth bwoodwor@indiana.edu -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: [AML] Doc Smith Final Days Date: 03 Jul 2002 17:48:48 -0500 [MOD: For those who do not know, Marion K. "Doc" Smith (a nickname given after the legendary E.E. "Doc" Smith, of science fiction fame) was a professor of English at BYU, and was a longtime advisor and mentor to the science fiction and fantasy community at BYU, including _The Leading Edge_ magazine and Life, the Universe, and Everything, BYU's ongoing science fiction and fantasy symposium. Like many others, I owe him a great personal debt for the extensive time and attention he showed me, as well as for the community he helped to foster.] Forwarded by request from Steve and Lee Ann Setzer : It is with heavy heart that I relate to you the news that Marion "Doc" Smith, our long time advisor and mentor, is in the final days of his life. He is at home receiving hospice care. He was somewhat sedated, and the doctors feel there is nothing more they can do. Those of you who have worked with Doc for years know more wonderful things about him than I can possibly put in this email. We loved him because he loved us and trusted us with responsibility for the sf community at BYU. Doc has been quite ill for several years now. Two years back my wife Lee Ann and I asked folks for some personal essays, thank you notes, etc. about Doc. I'm sorry we never finished up that project and delivered it. I have several essays, and I will be delivering those to his home today (Doc lives a mile or so from my house). If you have thoughts or words you wish to share at this time, I would be happy to print them off and take them over this week. I am also willing to consider putting together a TLE/LTUE "Book of Doc" from these things. Please let folks at The Leading Edge and on the various LDS-related sf and literary mailing lists know. Steve Setzer -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cherry Silver" Subject: [AML] re: Call for Papers: Annual AML Conference 2003 Date: 03 Jul 2002 17:12:34 -0600 I sent out a message inviting topic for papers and panelists for next = years AML Annual Conference on "Directions in Mormon Letters." Please = correct the date. That AML Conference will take place on Saturday, = February 22, 2003. I am pleased already to be hearing from some who have topics to explore. Cherry Silver -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] New Issue of Irreantum Date: 03 Jul 2002 11:10:04 -0600 Now available, the AML's spring 2002 Irreantum contains the following. = For ordering information, scroll to the end of this message. CONTENTS AML News Interview: Robert Smith, novelist=20 Novel Excerpt: For Time and All Absurdity, Robert Smith Essays: Serpents in Our Midst: What Brigham City Tells Us about Ourselves, John-Charles Duffy A Response to John-Charles Duffy on Brigham City, Scott R. Parkin Memoir Excerpt: Converting Oneself, Holly Welker Memoir: Dutcher and Me, A. R. Mitchell Stories:=20 Habits, Karen Rosenbaum Room for Solomon, Lisa Torcasso Downing First, Linda Paulson Adams The Salvation of Audrey Johnson, Edward Hogan Harden Times, Susan J. Kroupa Poetry:=20 My Cigarette Vendors, Bessie Soderborg Clark Relief Society Lesson in a Singles Ward, Kevin Peel Metaphors, Leah Bowen Reviews:=20 Bound for Importance, Jeffrey Needle=20 A review of Margaret Blair Young and Darius Aidan Gray's Bound for Canaan=20 "Oh Bear Man of Mine!" Melissa Proffitt=20 A review of Carol Lynch Williams's My Angelica A Fresh-Faced Sequel, Katie Parker=20 A review of Anne Bradshaw's Chamomile Winter A Storyteller with Heart and Humor-Pressed Down and Flowing Over, = Valerie Holladay=20 A review of Kerry Blair's The Heart Only Knows Morality without Clich=E9s, Katie Parker=20 A review of Lisa McKendrick's On a Whim=20 The Elusive Nature of Good and Evil, Jeffrey Needle=20 A review of Marilyn Brown's House on the Sound AML-List Highlights Rameumptom: Empty Temple Bag Stolen from Atop Temple Locker PAYPAL ORDERING LINKS Full AML membership, $25. This includes 4 issues of Irreantum, a copy = of the book-length AML Annual, and discounted preregistration to AML events. = Click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=3Dirreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=3D=AML+annual+dues&amount=3D25.00 Irreantum-only subscription, $16. For those who don't want full AML membership but want to receive 4 issues of Irreantum, click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=3Dirreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=3D=Irreantum+subscription&amount=3D16.00 Irreantum sample copy, $5. Unless you specify a specific issue, you = will receive the current issue. Click here:=20 https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=3Dirreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=3D=Irreantum+sample+copy&amount=3D5.00=20 AML donations. Tax deductible! Your donations help us defray the costs = of running AML-List and other services. Click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=3Dirreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=3D=AML+donation Or mail your order to AML, PO Box 51364, Provo, UT 84605-1364.=20 Visit us at http://www.aml-online.org. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: RE: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 03 Jul 2002 15:12:03 -0500 At 05:13 PM 7/2/02, you wrote: > ___ Annette ___ >| From what we know, it looks like Lucifer didn't really "get" >| the plan at all. If he had, he wouldn't have bothered to >| tempt Adam and Eve, and instead would have let them sit in >| the garden forever, > ___ >Clark: >Well he may not have "gotten" the plan. But he at least knew what the plan >was. So he knew how he could foil it. So that is why his actions in the >garden and with Christ are so interesting. They fit Satan's role as a >literary plot device. However as a real person, his motivations must have >been much more complex. Without going into too much depth outside temple walls, I have another theory which makes more practical sense. What if Satan, by tempting Adam and Eve, thought he could usurp Christ's role? Just food for thought. 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] Satan Figures Date: 03 Jul 2002 14:25:23 -0700 > From: "Annette Lyon" > > Scott said (with snips): > In my version of Lucifer's paradise there would actually be plenty of pretty > much everything . . . The end result being that people simply have no need > to adapt, no need to change. . . . Keep people in paradise, and they're > unmotivated to do much of anything--either good or evil. They never actually > leave the starting line. > > Sounds good at first, but I see a problem with it. From what we know, it > looks like Lucifer didn't really "get" the plan at all. If he had, he > wouldn't have bothered to tempt Adam and Eve, and instead would have let > them sit in the garden forever, much like Scott is proposing Lucifer would > have wanted us to. *That* would have messed up the plan. But somehow he > thought that getting rid of their garden paradise would fit into his own > purposes. I tend to side with D. Michael and others who believe that the > force concept was real, for many of the reasons already posted. I'm torn between the 'force', 'instinct', and 'keep 'em in Eden' models. But, especially tied in with what Scott said, there's a very apropos quote here from a decidedly non-Mormon but yet very (IMHO) accurate source: If there is, in fact, a Heaven and a Hell, all we know for sure is that Hell will be a viciously overcrowded version of Phoenix -- a clean well- lighted place full of sunshine and bromides and fast cars where almost everybody seems vaguely happy, except for the ones who know in their hearts what is missing.... - Hunter S. Thompson, Generation of Swine Ties in well with D&C 76:89, I think. "And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding;" I suspect the 'keep 'em in Eden' model is the least likely of the three. However, I suspect the 'instinct' model is the most likely; that is, that Lucifer's plan would have made us instinctively sinless, much as how animals are. (As I read it, all non-human living things have only one commandment -- 'be fruitful and multiply' -- and sociobiological studies of mating behaviour seem to confirm that indeed, they're all following that commandment to the best of their ability.) That's one way of looking at Thompson's Phoenix metaphor. (ObAML: A planet full of instinctually sinless humans would be a cool setting for a SF/fantasy story. Hmmmmm....) I think Lucifer's convincing Adam and Eve to transgress re: TFOTTOKOGOE* wasn't so much to 'get rid of their garden paradise'. Rather, I think he fundamentally misunderstood the concepts behind the plan of choice, the nature of sin and repentance, and the nature of Jehovah's mission as saviour. If he'd really understood it, I think he would have realised that the transgression was, indeed, part of the plan, rather than a wrench in the works. Much as how many modern criminals just plain don't seem to understand the concepts of 'rule of law', contrition, restitution, etc. However, in the end, all those sinners worthy of telestial glory will indeed inherit a kingdom 'which surpasses all understanding'. They will, though, know *exactly* 'in their hearts what is missing'. Robert ObFootnote: * The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Acronym, anyone? ********************************************************************** 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: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Mod message on Satan Figures thread Date: 05 Jul 2002 16:43:52 -0500 Folks, It's a fairly slow time right now, and I think that this thread started with an interesting literary tie-in--that is, how one depicts either Satan or satanic figures in fiction, and how those different views accord with Mormon thought. Given that focus, it's not too much of a stretch to share our various notions of what Satan's motivations might be, based on clues in scripture etc., as we've been doing. But I think we're starting to get past that point, into scripturally based debate and a discussion that's on the verge of becoming pretty purely theological--not the purpose of AML-List. Since it is a slow time, I'm going to go ahead and post several messages that have come in along these lines, but I'd like to make two requests for moving forward with this thread: * First, do what you can to bring back some connection to literature. * Second, focus on presenting your own ideas, not debating what other people have said. Thanks for your thoughts. Please keep the ideas coming... Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 03 Jul 2002 22:23:11 -0700 on 6/29/02 11:34 AM, D. Michael Martindale at dmichael@wwno.com wrote: > Therefore I stand by Mormon culture's traditional interpretation of what > Lucifer's plan was. One third of the hosts of heaven were terrified of > their own ability (or lack thereof) to succeed at this new project > Father had spelled out. They must have been sure they wouldn't measure > up. Their great brother Lucifer proposed an alternative, and they jumped > at the chance. Force? What did they know of force? It sounded great: > force meant they did not have to be responsible, nor would they have to > endure the painful consequences of failure that Father described as part > of his plan. The lash probably sounded like a cakewalk compared to that. >> From their earliest memories they had lived in the glorious presence of > Father. Losing that for eternity must have been unimaginable--talk about > the ultimate separation anxiety! A few lashes on the back to avoid > that--where do I sign up? The point is not so much that 2/3-1/3 split, but rather that force doesn't exist. The only way to destroy freedom is to remove the consequences of the action. Then and only then is there no choice. If all 10,000 roads lead to the same place and you have to travel to the end then it really doesn't matter which road is taken, does it. The reason that nothing has changed my mind since is because then I believed in force, and now I do not. How can Satan have offered something that we all knew was a lie? It had to be plausible at least. If he was offering to take over ALL of our bodies then we wouldn't have bodies--no spirit=no soul. We would each have to inhabit these bodies and as such there would be independence of thought and action. Power and force are mere lies, but false compassion sells. It's a lie too, but it sounds desirable and has elements of truth in it. Overstating the truth is by far the most effective way to lie. Every example of a police state on earth includes massive complicity by the populace. There are only democracies in the world; people get as much government as they will tolerate. The fact is they CHOOSE to allow themselves to be "forced." They are still responsible. They are still accountable to God. If that was what the Old Scratch was offering then every one of us would've laughed. He still wanted to rule, and no doubt when on earth he probably would've run a overweening state such as our world has never seen. That doesn't mean that he could personally control the actions of every person on every world in the galaxy and leave them no volition of any kind. Especially since many of us were his spiritual equals or betters before we came here. I'm not buying. It may be a traditional belief but it isn't scripture. The father of lies would've lied sweetly, not promised to take away the most valuable thing anyone had. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 03 Jul 2002 22:45:28 -0700 on 7/2/02 2:16 PM, Clark Goble at clark@lextek.com wrote: [snip] > One the most sensical vies of Satan I've read actually is the Gnostic one. > Say what you will about gnosticism, but at least Satan made a little sense. > He is almost a competing God who thinks that matter isn't all bad. The > Satan figure there is a demiurge who creates all of the material world. > Indeed, considering how much I like this world, I have to sympathize with > him over the Gnostic true God who views matter as bad. I like the play that > the film _The Matrix_ does on this in which the demiurge and idealistic god > seem to switch roles in various ways. [snip] I think the Gnostic view of Satan is Satan's own (wishful) view of himself. That wicked Jesus went out and created the material world while he remained pure and spirit. Just turns the truth on its head. The Gnostic scriptures do that a lot. Since the admixture of that stuff has lead to all sorts of wickedness in small 'c' christianity at large I not over fond of it. Old Scratch is 'god' of this world, and I'm sure he can appear amazingly glorious. I think he's behind most of the mystery cults. It's always the god of reason or wisdom or magic back ot it all. The more mortals that think he's THE God the better for him. When Arianism was defeated in the late 4th it was a triumph for the Old Scratch. Traded in the Godhead for the Three-in-one without form and physical being. When other Christians say we don't believe in the same God as they do they're right. Practically all other Christians believe in Trinity-in-Unity. They don't worship Satan, but have confused God's real attributes with the ones Old Nick want's them to believe. Evil really is irrational. Every evil deed harms the doer as much or more than the victim. If one really wishes to be selfish then it's best to act selfless. That's why lassez faire works and socialism doesn't. A man hoping to make a pile of money invents something that benefits everybody. A man working to feed other people endlessly with no benefit to himself does it grudgingly and not well. Though motives matter, so do results. If a rotten bounder with a ego the size of Manhatten invents a new drug that saves millions of lives the fact remains that he saved millions of lives. A greedy old money type who keeps his money to himself still hires servants and spends money, doing good he doesn't intend. Tight fists are never tight enough. This is the reason why so many people die in communist countries. When the new Intellectual Aristocracy discovers that they really don't have any power and people really won't do as they say they have to back up their threats and next thing you know we've got Kampuchea. Man is that he might have joy. Being good makes one happy, even in the midst of horrors. Wickedness never was happiness. So which is rational? The reason why those who worship rational thought murder so many people is because they don't really believe in reason. They think they have the corner on the market. They rationalize, they don't reason. And since the stupid peasants and wicked bourgeoisie won't see what's best for them, they may as well be dead so that the Elect can fix the world for those that remain. Insanity is not necessarily irrational, though its logic may be hard to discover. Evil is always, always irrational, and Old Scratch is the best example of it. He's just spinning his wheels. How does it benefit him to ruin as many people as he can? It doesn't. He won't even rule in the Outer Darkness. He's just wasting his efforts because he can't win. Since we see his same attitude on earth all over the place its not that surprising that he would keep at it. He's the center of the universe after all. It's like that old Russian folktale about a man who hated his neighbor because the neighbor had two cows and he only had one. He goes to a witch for help and she asks what he wants--and he wants one of his neighbor's cows to die. Doesn't help him a bit, but at least now they're "equal." Humph. Equality. Another one of those myths that could do with slaying. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Date: 04 Jul 2002 12:13:54 -0400 Rachel, I understand your feelings. And your theory may actually have some basis. Men with facial hair or an abhorrence of white shirts might also "suffer" from someone else's bias. And what about those that have not been terribly successful in financial pursuits? However, I don't agree that anyone suffers spiritual deprivation from the consequences of such biases unless they choose to. In fact, recognizing such biases and remaining humble, teachable, and faithful can strengthen their relationship with Christ as much as being called into some position of responsibility. It reminds me of a conversation with my adopted brother some years ago. He spent several years attending church with us but somehow didn't grasp much. When my other brother was called as a Bishop he said, "Isn't it great about Kelly's promotion to Bishop!" We really need to be careful about seeing status or opportunity for growth in any calling over another--IMO. Tracie Laulusa PS--I vote with the most-members-will-be-accepting (even if it does cause some struggle) camp ----- Original Message ----- > > 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. > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 05 Jul 2002 10:54:02 -0700 (PDT) --- Scott Parkin wrote: > Scott Parkin > > (who is very, very interested in having private discussions about > different > people's ideas of an idealized Mormon society and how it would > compare/interact with the rest of the world) > Not exactly the same thing as your soliciation above, but I'm fascinated by the way Mormons conceive the Millennial reign of Christ. Specifically, I've met those who see it as an idealized, rightous end point of socialism, and those who see it as an idealized, rightous end point of capitalism. So you get the socialism wouldn't be bad if it was correctly implemented and people actually lived it line. And the reply that socialism is evil and that capitalism is the most correct economic system because it preserves free agency--it's just that once Christ comes everyone will have each others best interests in mind and so everyone will choose to live in harmony and share with those in need. I find it interesting that the "Utopia" that we know the most about--the one in 3 Nephi--came about after a major catastrophe that broke down the existent economic systems. But it sounds like you're talking about a Utopian society that is pre-millennial, so the model would be closer to Enoch's city---which is the same model for many of the collective communities that have been tried in American history---a gathering of like-minded individuals. The problem with this model (and really we don't know much about Enoch and Zion) is that it's too much like a gated community for my taste. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] New Sugar Beet Date: 05 Jul 2002 14:55:52 -0600 "We have laughed at many things, and hope to be able to laugh at all things." http://thesugarbeet.com MTC Now Powered by Its Own Methane New Church Buildings to Include Primary Playplace Church Warns Against Cola-Flavored Sprite Eckhart, Paltrow not Having Sex High Councilman Calls 11th Article of Faith "No Longer Relevant" Study Shows Cheerios May Cause Restlessness and Crying Little Cloud Demands More Exposure Supreme Court Ruling Disappoints Missionaries Area Woman Sacrifices for Her Visiting Teachers Church Leaders Perform Mass Food Blessing Editorial: God Touches the Heathen's Heart Plus our regular departments ----- To make a donation toward Sugar Beet web-hosting fees, click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=chris%40thesugarbeet.com. Want to try your hand at Sugar Beet reporting? Send your story to chris@thesugarbeet.com. Do you draw superhero comics? The Sugar Beet needs your help. Click here: http://www.xmission.com/~thebeet/business/jobs.html Coming July 24: The Sugar Beet Pioneer Issue 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: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 05 Jul 2002 16:14:05 -0600 If anyone's concerned about the Salt Lake newspaper situation, here's an interesting Trib editorial with a call to action at the end. This situation makes me both mad and scared. I would hate to see us lose the Trib as a fully independent voice. Tribune Ownership Matters The Deseret News announced last week that it would attempt to block the repurchase of The Salt Lake Tribune by the Kearns McCarthey family. This is the same family that has owned and controlled The Tribune since 1901. This is the same family that agreed in 1952 to take in the Deseret News when it was on the brink of bankruptcy, creating Newspaper Agency Corporation with the News to handle printing, circulation and advertising sales for both papers. This is the same family that has allowed the News, in order for it to stay competitive, to collect 42 percent of the NAC profits though it only produces 30 percent of them. The News said it would object to the Kearns McCarthey family because of disagreements The Tribune and News have had in the last five years. That is not true. News leaders have concocted complaints about The Tribune's management in the last five years to cover their attempts to initially purchase The Tribune and later, when that didn't work, to find a buyer for The Tribune who would agree to give favorable coverage to their owner, the LDS Church. Documents still kept secret by the federal court make clear that silencing The Tribune's coverage of the church was a driving factor in many of the News decisions of the last five years. Specifically, the News said the Kearns McCarthey family, through its management of The Tribune and NAC, has kept the News from publishing in the morning field. That is also not true. The News publishes every Saturday and Sunday morning, and it published every weekday morning as well during the 2002 Winter Olympics. The Tribune has offered three different plans since 1999 to move the News to full-time morning publication. The News has not developed one, single plan. Not one. The News said The Tribune has objected to "neutral" NAC management. That is also not true. NAC is managed by a four-person board, of which two members are representatives of the Deseret News. Tribune managers offered to hire an independent general manager or add an independent fifth member to the NAC board to address News concerns. News representatives rejected the offer. The News said The Tribune objected to the construction of a new production facility. That is also not true. Tribune representatives signed an agreement to acquire land for a new production facility. Two clarifications were made to the signed contract and News representatives objected to the modifications, but contractors continue to work on the site. News leaders also said Tribune representatives have questioned the value of the agency they have shared with the News for the last 50 years. Those questions have undermined the trust and confidence the News has in the Kearns McCarthey family. Again, that is not true. The Tribune has repeatedly told News leaders The Tribune hopes to move forward peaceably with the News, as long as it is allowed to practice independent journalism. Finally, any News complaint about how the NAC has operated is a grossly unfair insult to the 1,200 professionals who work at the agency. These hard-working men and women have helped grow NAC profits from $24 million in 1990 to $60 million in 2000. It's an insult to those NAC employees who have worked exceptionally hard to make the News one of the fastest growing afternoon newspapers in the country. It's an insult, and it is not true. If the News is successful in its attempt to determine who owns The Tribune, Utah will have lost its independent voice, which speaks not only for the good of the minority but also for the long-term good of the majority. It also would be a violation of the federal Newspaper Preservation Act, which allows an exemption to anti-trust law for two newspapers to form a joint operating agreement like NAC, so long as the editorial policies of the two newspapers remain independent. If the News controls Tribune ownership, particularly with an eye on silencing its traditional voice, there is no independence, nor can there be any under subsequent owners. If you would like to help maintain an independent Tribune, you can. Write to the Department of Justice, 601 D Street NW, Suite 10011, Washington D.C., 20530. Or e-mail them at newcase.atr@usdoj.gov. You can also call toll-free 1-888-647-3258 to register your objection to the Deseret News claiming the right to determine who owns The Salt Lake Tribune. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kari Heber Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 06 Jul 2002 05:03:27 +0900 Annette said [snip] >Sounds good at first, but I see a problem with it. From what we know, it >looks like Lucifer didn't really "get" the plan at all. If he had, he >wouldn't have bothered to tempt Adam and Eve, and instead would have let >them sit in the garden forever, much like Scott is proposing Lucifer would >have wanted us to. *That* would have messed up the plan. But somehow he >thought that getting rid of their garden paradise would fit into his own >purposes. I tend to side with D. Michael and others who believe that the >force concept was real, for many of the reasons already posted. And then Linda said: >Without going into too much depth outside temple walls, I have another >theory which makes more practical sense. What if Satan, by tempting Adam >and Eve, thought he could usurp Christ's role? And Robert added: >Rather, I think he fundamentally misunderstood the concepts behind the >plan of choice, the nature >of sin and repentance, and the nature of Jehovah's mission as saviour. If >he'd really understood it, I think he would have realised that the >transgression was, indeed, part of the plan, rather than a wrench in the >works. I have been thinking a lot recently about the whole Garden of Eden thing and the fact that Adam and Eve were given directly conflicting commandments, namely to "multiply and replenish" and to avoid the fruit of the two trees. Why would God do this? I have never really bought the argument that Elder Oaks has put forward, namely that the partaking of the fruit was something less than a sin, a "transgression" (a paraphrase from memory since I can't find the quote. If anyone has it could you forward it to me? I know it was used in SS this year, at least by my teacher). I think this is Elder Oaks legalizing the situation into misdemeanors and felonies, but both are still wrong. And in my heretical way, I don't believe Lehi's supposition that Adam and Eve would have lived forever in the Garden if they hadn't partaken (any comments on 2 Ne 2:17 and just what Lehi meant to cover in his supposition? Was it just that Satan was a fallen angel, or does it apply to further verses?). If we believe this supposition then God planned to let Adam and Eve succomb to Satan's tempations. I find it hard to believe that God would devise a plan whose outcome was *dependent* on a sin. I don't believe God works that way, He wants us all to be sinless. It is my belief that Adam and Eve would have been tought, "line upon line," while in the garden and that ultimately they would have been allowed (or even directed) to partake of the fruit of the tree in order to progress and keep the commandment to have children. I agree wholeheartedly with Linda, that Lucifer was attempting, *again*, to usurp the power and authority of Christ by enticing Adam and Eve to partake before it was time. Therefore, letting them just sit in the Garden would not have interferred with God's plan for Adam and Eve, he had to act. -Kari Sorry for not finding a literary tie-in for this. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 05 Jul 2002 20:35:00 EDT For those with the fairness to read both sides of the story or the desire to read facts conveniently omitted from the Tribune article, see: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,405015041,00.html and related articles in the Deseret News of 30 June 2002. The same laws that allow the joint operating agreement between the two papers also erect firewalls to prevent either paper from exercising editorial control over the other -- the Tribune resorts to distortions and scare tactics when it asserts that Salt Lake will lose its so-called "independent voice" when the terms of legally binding contracts are carried out. This has a connection to Mormon letters because an "independent voice" does not necessarily equate to a "fair voice" or an "accurate voice" or even guarantee true independence. I cannot give a URL for the article that appeared in the Tribune of 21 April 2002 where the Tribune reported on a then-recent court decision in which ___ Jacobsen is suing Dean Hughes and Deseret Book about the POW plotline in _Children of the Promise_. That article contained not one word to represent Hughes's side of the argument; it did not acknowledge in any way that Hughes's side had any merit, although obviously there WAS merit since a lower court had already ruled in his favor; it did not disclose that Mr. Jacobsen is the father of a prominent Tribune columnist (so much for independence). But the article did manage to juxtapose "plagiarism" and "LDS church" in such a way as to suggest that the church not only condones but endorses plagiarism. That kind of public disservice will not be changed in the slightest by the outcome of the newspaper wars, because neither the Deseret News nor the church will have any control whatsoever on the editorial voice of the Tribune. But it does demonstrate the speciousness of the Tribune's claim to speak for the best interests of the people of Utah. Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 06 Jul 2002 08:37:08 -0600 For those of you on the List not residing in Utah, this Newspaper War has been going on for quite a while. I recall that the Trib sued to block the sale of the NAC just a couple of years ago because the buyer was a Mormon from Colo. or somewhere (they lost). They've been playing the 'religion card' for quite a while. It is true that the Trib does not want a morning competitor, and because the NAC does the printing for both, it is problematic. And it has been nasty. Alan Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Unbiased Presentation (was: S.L. Newspaper Wars) Date: 06 Jul 2002 11:22:12 -0600 [MOD: Note Scott's broader literary tie-in later in this post, which is my reason for retitling this thread. If you want to continue to respond to the specific SL newspaper issue, feel free to do so, but that should probably go under the old thread title.] Christopher Bigelow wrote: > If anyone's concerned about the Salt Lake newspaper situation, here's an > interesting Trib editorial with a call to action at the end. This situation > makes me both mad and scared. I would hate to see us lose the Trib as a > fully independent voice. I guess the question that leaps to mind is to wonder whether anyone is fully independent, least of all a newspaper. What are they independent of? Bias? Slant? The American press has a storied history of outrageous slant by one newspaper against another, and neither Deseret New nor the Salt Lake Tribune are free of that kind of slant, nor have they ever been. Nor should they be. As long as we don't conflate independence with fairness or even factual accuracy, I'm with you. We need a variety of voices and slants and finely honed axes if we want to have any chance of understanding a viewpoint that's not our own. But to suggest that one paper is slanted because it's owned by the Church and the other is not slanted because it's not owned by the Church doesn't seem to match up--at least not to me. If one newspaper's slant happens to match my own bias then from my perspective it appears straight up, but that doesn't make it so to a truly unbiased observer. I had an interesting argument with a friend of mine over this several years ago. He was a reporter with a proudly and aggressively liberal slant. When I expressed my frustration at what I saw as slant in the news media and wished for a news source that provided only facts, not interpretation he got very, very angry with me and accused me of everything from unAmericanism to mindless conservatism. When I reminded him that the conservative press drove me just as crazy as the liberal press (and the "alternative" press, the libertarian, the Christian, etc. etc. etc.) and that my wish was for truly unbiased reporting of fact with no political or social slant, he thought for a moment then shook his head and said something to the effect of "What's interesting about that? How do you sell that?" Is there any such thing as unbiased presentation, as unslanted storytelling? I know that many historians reach for that level of accuracy but I'm not sure it's really possible. My question is: Is it desirable, and why? Isn't it in the slant that we see others' perspectives, and isn't that the best purpose of telling a story? Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 05 Jul 2002 16:03:33 -0600 Linda Adams wrote: > Without going into too much depth outside temple walls, I have another > theory which makes more practical sense. What if Satan, by tempting Adam > and Eve, thought he could usurp Christ's role? Except that I think this is exactly what he didn't want to do in the first place. He wanted the glory that would be accorded to the Savior but he wasn't interested in the actual suffering and atonement part. If he could curtail agency so there would be no fall, there would be no need for an atoning sacrifice and he could get the reward without the paying the price of sin. By the time he worked with Adam and Eve, the choices had all been made and he had already been cast out. In his effort to subvert Christ's plan he may well be trying to replace faith in Christ with faith in himself--conceptually usurping Christ's role in our philosophies, but well aware that he had no power to actually take that role. I think Satan understood the consequences of his actions far more completely than we sometimes give him credit for. But that's a completely different discussion that falls well outside AML-List guidelines as I understand them. Of course if we take the story of Adam and Eve as metaphor and put ourselves in their place, then the core question becomes which voice we will follow with our individual choices--Christ or Satan. A different kind of food for thought. Which is at least part of why I would like to see more stories told that work from different sets of assumptions and present those same core questions in different contexts--not because those contexts might be more accurate or "true" than the common view, but because those new contexts force us to think in different terms about old problems. Unfortunately, Mormons have shown relatively little resiliency to presentations of these core questions in any but the most "orthodox" settings. Or at least they have been up to this point. So the question is, can Mormons read and enjoy a story that addresses basic question in unusual ways. Could one write a last days novel, for example, that didn't feature an oppressive government or a literal gathering to Jackson County? Could the persecution of the Saints be shown as social rather than political? Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] VAN WAGONER, _Dancing Naked_ (Review) Date: 08 Jul 2002 16:14:56 -0600 Van Wagoner, Robert Hodgson. Dancing Naked. Signature Books (Salt Lake City), 1999. Hardcover: 364 pages; $20.95. ISBN: 1-56085-130-9 This book generated a fairly substantial buzz the year it was published, and many thought it was the best book of 1999. But in the six months between reading the last words of _Dancing Naked_ and writing the first words of this review I discovered that I wasn't really sure what I thought of the book. I read the reviews from Terry Jeffress and Cathy Wilson in the AML review archives and found that they both quite liked the book and had nothing but the highest recommendations for it. That made me think that perhaps I should write a less positive review so that there would be some opposition in this thing to help pique readers to discover their own answers. Of course readers should do that anyway, and giving a negative review isn't quite how I feel about this book, either. So here it is, my ambivalent review of _Dancing Naked._ This a very well written book. It has vivid, focused scenes that are as good as anything I've read in the broad Mormon market. The characters are distinct and interesting, and the settings, situations, and conflicts are extremely well realized. This book has style, flair, and something to say, and does so with exceptional skill. In many ways it's all you can ask of a book, especially a book apparently oriented toward the Mormon market. It is direct and unflinching in its approach--something most Mormon writers could learn to do better, whatever audience they're writing for. In fact, that very unflinching quality is what will put this book outside the comfort zone of many Mormon readers. It goes straight at a series of issues--social prejudice, homophobia, eroticism, self-determination, suicide, grief, parental expectation, judmentalism, the quest for safety, and personal acceptance. This is an angry book that attempts to lay bare its subjects, and that uses graphic, explicit language to expose the full impact of its situations. The very violence of its presentation is likely to offend a great many conservative Mormon readers. And I think that's okay with Van Wagoner. This novel is written for a relatively small audience and never apologizes for that fact. It condemns with vigor and it allows for no excuses. If you don't want that aggressive a story, this novel will not work for you. In exposing the foundations of its characters this novel gives all the details and reasons. Which is, I think, part of why I ended up feeling quite ambivalent toward it in the end. The novel may have been too self-aware for my tastes, may have provided too rigid a set of explanations. For my tastes. Early on I became very aware of the author pulling the strings and interpretting the events of the story in psychological terms for the reader. For example, in chapter two we have five-year old Terry offering a fairly complete Freudian interpretation of his own response to his father coming home from the war and replacing him both in daily life and in his mother's bed. Young Terry is quite specific in knowing exactly why he does everything and what personal emotional need he's fulfilling. I understand that Terry's personality is to analyze, but the analyses were so complete in every case that I couldn't help but see the man behind the curtain. For me, the illusion of the story had been violated by too intrusive a storyteller that I think was unncessary. The events were powerful enough to stand on their own without the added interpretations. As an individual reader I hate to be pushed toward one and only one interpretation, so my natural tendency throughout the book was to rebel against the orthodox presentation and seek other answers. But this book didn't seem willing to allow me that personal interpretation, that application of my own experience in deciding what the events of the story meant. Because that orthodox message was so clearly drawn, it pushed me further and further to the edge of the circle of readers the book seemed targeted to as my own ideas conflicted with the book's, eventually making it clear to me that I was not one of the people this book was written for. That's an emotional response, but it's the overwhelming feeling I had as an individual reader when I was done. I felt like I had been told how the world was, and if my interpretation was different I was simply wrong. There was no room for another worldview, no chance to interpret differently but with equal validity. Perhaps that's what the author intended--Terry as the POV character is prone to exactly that kind of narrow acceptance and intepretation, and it's only through difficult experience that he begins to relax and allow for the messy realities of living. But the result of it was that I felt forced to accept the orthodox interpretation or be declared wrong, unacceptable. That pushed me outside the target readership for this novel, and left me feeling rejected by the novel itself. Thus my ambivalence despite how well written and realized this novel is. There is much to admire about _Dancing Naked._ It is quite arguably the best written novel of 1999, and holds its own against all comers in terms of vivid presentation, use of language, and clear voice. It's unflinching in presenting a difficult, messy story with no pat answers. It is unapologetic in how it presents and undermines different mindsets and worldviews. It is a difficult, challenging novel that is very much worth reading--if you can tolerate the levels of detail and brutality that it offers. I wanted to like _Dancing Naked_ better than I did. The fact that I came away feeling ambivalent in no way suggests a flaw in the novel, but rather illustrates how one reader fell outside the target audience for an otherwise excellent book. I recommend it to anyone who appreciates a well-written, aggressive novel that addresses difficult issues and will force you to decide what you believe. I hope more writers in the Mormon market will take lessons from this novel; it has much to offer. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fred C Pinnegar Subject: Re: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 07 Jul 2002 14:46:54 -0600 (MDT) In response to Christopher Bigelow's concern about the loss of the Trib as a "fully independent voice:" In my opinion, the Trib is just as biased as the Deseret News. I don't subscribe to either one. Give me the Provo Daily Herald any day for my daily fix of "Snide Remarks." The term "fully independent" is a current buzz word from the Left in fesponse to the accusation from Conservatives that the mainstream media is a vehicle for Liberalism. Fred Pinnegar -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard C. Russell" Subject: Re: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 08 Jul 2002 10:46:31 -0600 There is already morning competition between the papers two days a week. I don't think that the Trib is worried about competition nearly as much as the loss of its independent editorial voice. Robert Kirby's job is threatened if the deal goes through. Rolly and Wells will not be far behind. They regularly write mild critiques of Mormon culture. ********************************************* Richard C. Russell, SLC UTAH www.leaderlore.com, lderlore@xmission.com "There is never the last word, only the latest." ********************************************* This e-mail is a personal communication sometimes intended merely for the sake of discussion. Its contents represent solely the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of the author's employer nor those of any organization with which the author may be affiliated. It is specifically not intended to be a representation of LDS Church doctrine. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard C. Russell" Subject: Re: [AML] Unbiased Presentation (was: S.L. Newspaper Wars) Date: 08 Jul 2002 10:52:45 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 11:22 AM > Is there any such thing as unbiased presentation, as unslanted storytelling? > I know that many historians reach for that level of accuracy but I'm not > sure it's really possible. My question is: Is it desirable, and why? Isn't > it in the slant that we see others' perspectives, and isn't that the best > purpose of telling a story? > > Scott Parkin I don't believe it is possible to be unbiased or unslanted in any recreation or retelling of any account. It might be desirable (though I can't see why) but it wouldn't be interesting and interest is the lifeblood of storytelling. We don't have to agree with the other viewpoint but it might change and challenge us. Where it gives us a new insight, it is precious. That is good storytelling. ********************************************* Richard C. Russell, SLC UTAH www.leaderlore.com, lderlore@xmission.com "There is never the last word, only the latest." ********************************************* This e-mail is a personal communication sometimes intended merely for the sake of discussion. Its contents represent solely the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of the author's employer nor those of any organization with which the author may be affiliated. It is specifically not intended to be a representation of LDS Church doctrine. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Unbiased Presentation Date: 08 Jul 2002 11:03:55 -0600 ---Original Message From: Scott Parkin > > Is there any such thing as unbiased presentation, as > unslanted storytelling? I know that many historians reach for > that level of accuracy but I'm not sure it's really possible. > My question is: Is it desirable, and why? Isn't it in the > slant that we see others' perspectives, and isn't that the > best purpose of telling a story? I hate it when I get all relativist and all, but I'm not sure unbiased presentation is possible, or even very useful. For one, to be truly unbiased, you'd have to avoid editing or summary (because the very act of editing will emphasize some things and negate others and you have to make choices to do that and your opinion and judgment--i.e. bias--will play a role in that). I'd settle for *stated* bias. If the position of a news source is known, then it is possible to make adjustments based on your knowledge of their position with relation to your own. It's when bias is unstated, or worse denied, that it becomes damaging. I guess that I'm saying I'd settle for honesty if I felt I could find it. An honest bias beats assumed authority (or so-called objectivity) any day. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 08 Jul 2002 11:05:31 -0700 Alan Mitchell wrote: "It is true that the Trib does not want a morning competitor, and because the NAC does the printing for both, it is problematic." The words "it is true" raise a big red flag for me. I don't think either side of this issue has disclosed "the truth" as God sees it. I don't root for either party in this ridiculous business power play that has slopped over into public life, but I thought it only balanced to put out the Trib's response to the Deseret News "20 questions" if anyone's interested. It's obviously a biased editorial, but at least they had the grace to put it on the opinion page and not in a hard news section. Does anyone else feel like they are witnessing a mudslinging contest between two selfish teenagers with their own personal agendas as their only goal? I'm weary of the whole thing. It's only convinced me there is a lack of journalistic integrity on both sides. I'll continue subscribing to the Trib, only to get Robert Kirby's article hot off the press. He's about the only thing worth reading in the paper these days. As for news, I'll have to get it from three or four sources and decide for myself. Most days I feel I'm better of trying to live a life of peace, get along with my neighbors, be kind to my husband and kids, without wallowing in "news". My sister pointed out to me on a recent visit that I was fairly news deprived. I don't watch TV news very often, I can go days without reading the paper, and pick up bits and pieces on the radio as I drive. If something BIG is going down, then I make more effort (Sept 11, local wildfires, etc.)I don't feel deprived, but she couldn't see how I could stand it. Anyway, check out the Tribune's response to the "truthfulness" of the Deseret News' answers to 20 Questions. http://www.sltrib.com/07072002/opinion/751257.htm Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 08 Jul 2002 11:21:51 -0600 I agree with Ardis Parshall and Scott Parkin that "independent" does not necessarily mean fair, balanced, or impartial. However, in the case of the Salt Lake Tribune, I honestly do feel that "independent" means they have the freedom to play the whole spectrum of news coverage related to the LDS Church, and play the full spectrum they do, with overall worthwhile results, I would argue. Our experience publicizing the Sugar Beet has been instructive. Two individual Deseret News reporters contacted us and did interviews, and one even admitted she wasn't sure the editors would let it through. Sure enough, a story never appeared (to my knowledge--did I miss anything?). The Salt Lake Tribune, on the other hand, interviewed us and then let several weeks go by before they ran the story on the front page. The story finally ran during the week after general conference. It is not hard to imagine the Trib editors reasoning that it would be more balanced to run a lighter, less-orthodox piece on Mormons right after running lots of straight general conference coverage. Maybe it was a coincidence, but I know that as an editor I've often done things like that to help maintain balance (for instance, juxtapositioning an Irreantum interview of rebel Brian Evenson with a more orthodox Anne Perry interview). However, at the Deseret News apparently it wasn't even an option, and you can imagine that kind of heavy-handed editorial gatekeeping happening quite often with anything Church-related. Of COURSE the Deseret News and its backers would like to muzzle the Tribune's Church coverage--OF COURSE they would, because that's in the nature of an agenda-heavy, propagandizing institution like the Church. To that end, it's clear they are playing some legal and other kinds of games with ownership issues. But they should not be allowed to, I feel, or we will lose an important counter-balance in our society and be left without a real statewide newspaper. While there are some things I admire about the Deseret News, I think there should be separation between church and press. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Unbiased Presentation Date: 08 Jul 2002 12:11:17 -0700 Scott Parkin wrote: > Is there any such thing as unbiased presentation, as unslanted storytelling? > I know that many historians reach for that level of accuracy but I'm not > sure it's really possible. My question is: Is it desirable, and why? Isn't > it in the slant that we see others' perspectives, and isn't that the best > purpose of telling a story? When I was a young journalism student in high school, my teacher (this was much longer ago than I will admit) taught us strictly unbiased reporting. What has today become common place in all journalism used to be labeled "yellow journalism" in my day. My journalism teacher is no doubt rolling in her grave over today's biased reporting. For us at that time, the challenge was to tell the facts, and only the facts, in a way that was interesting to read. That was hard. Maybe that's why they don't do it any more. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Yeechang Lee Subject: Re: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 08 Jul 2002 11:21:05 -0700 Alan Rex Mitchell says: > I recall that the Trib sued to block the sale of the NAC just a > couple of years ago because the buyer was a Mormon from Colo. or > somewhere (they lost). Dean Singleton, the CEO of MediaNews, is not LDS but Baptist (though I have read one account of how he apparently thought seriously about baptism at one point when much younger). I did find it amusing that when MediaNews emerged out of nowhere to scoop the _Tribune_ up, the _Tribune_ management spent considerable energy trying to paint Singleton and MediaNews as some kind of LDS Church stooge. This was possible, I think, because MediaNews--despite being a substantially-sized newspaper holding company--is relatively obscure compared to Knight-Ridder, Gannett, Tribune, Dow Jones, and the New York Times Company, due to its private ownership. As a result, I recall reading a fair number of _Tribune_ articles on the subject that gave absolutely no sense of how large MediaNews the company was, or what papers it owned. As if the owners of the _Denver Post_ would act as a stalking horse for anyone, let alone the Church! Yeechang "The _Times_ and the _Journal_ for me, thank you" Lee -- Yeechang Lee | I am a child of God | And he has sent me here | Has given me an earthly home "Work?!?" -Maynard G. Krebs | With parents kind and dear -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Unbiased Presentation Date: 08 Jul 2002 11:27:42 -0700 (PDT) --- Scott Parkin wrote: > Is there any such thing as unbiased presentation, as unslanted > storytelling? > I know that many historians reach for that level of accuracy but I'm not > sure it's really possible. My question is: Is it desirable, and why? > Isn't > it in the slant that we see others' perspectives, and isn't that the > best > purpose of telling a story? > I'm don't think it's possible. As I've stated in the past, I believe that decisions on content, tone and form are always ideological (not in the strictly political sense but because presentation always involves choices--and choices inevitably feed on into discourses that carry their own biases, histories and ideologies). But even though I'm a good little post-modernist (okay, with a heretical, moral absolute core because of my Mormon beliefs), that doesn't mean that I don't want historians and newspaper reporters to try and approach the mythical stance of objectivity. Seeing others' perspectives are fine if those perspectives bring value to a discussion (and here my own ideological biases are revealed). So, for instance, with most newspaper stories I want the basic facts. I want as many of the facts as possible. And I want witnesses and/or expert opinions from as many points of view as possible. It's like the difference between the classical freshman comp essays of argument vs. dicussion. If a history or reportage is strictly an argument essay, esp. one that is not well written, that ignores credible sources, it is not very valuable to me. I like discussion: here's what other people think/report and, if appropriate, here's the conclusion I've come to. With 'classic' American reporting that second part (the reporter's conclusion) is missing, and that's why, I think, people get angry about 'so-called' objective reporting---the only way the bias can be shown is in the reporting itself because the reporter cannot insert him or herself into the story. That's one of the reasons that I find the blogging phenomenon so interesting because it combines links to 'conventional' reporting with individual, unabashedly subjective commentary (Jacob Proffitt can speak more authoritatively on this subject because he is a bona fide member of the blogging community). But to get back around to the original question. I think there are degrees to which a slanted perspective can be useful to readers. Just as a so-called un-biased report glosses over its ideological perspective (esp. by what is not included) so too do slanted reports gloss over other perspectives. Some people (how's that for a straw-man?) claim that therefore the best thing is to read multiple perspectives on a particular event and topic. The problem that I find with that approach is that a) some perspectives aren't that useful b) it involves a much larger time investment c) because of the business of publishing there are important perspectives that don't make it out into the realm of public discourse. Literature is an interesting case because no one claims that it should be unbiased. And yet, for some (esp. those who buy into Bakhtin's ideas), the more the work of literature removes itself from the author's bias (i.e. the freer reign characters are given to be 'themselves' instead of simply acting as vehicles to express the author's point of view) the better it is. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] _I Am Jane_ Performance in So. Ca. Date: 08 Jul 2002 12:33:07 -0600 For AML members--_ I Am Jane_, a play about Jane Manning James (who, as Nan mentioned, was referred to in the Nauvoo Temple dedication) will be performed THIS WEEK in Southern California (Friday 11 and Sat 12, I THINK.) If you have family members in that area of friends or acquaintances who would have an interest, please give them this toll-free number so they can get more information. We are especially interested in having African American members or non-members see this play, but you are welcome to come even if you're white. Thanks! The number is: 1-888-495-JANE. If you have further questions, you can e-mail Marvin Perkins at mcperk@concentric.net. The truth is, I don't know all that much about this production. My priority list puts my almost-hear grand-daughter first, my breech-position novel second, and the _Jane_ play a distant fourth or fifth. The cast is good enough that I am quite dispensable at this point. I know they'll do a beautiful job. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 08 Jul 2002 12:45:08 -0700 > Linda Adams wrote: > > > Without going into too much depth outside temple walls, I have another > > theory which makes more practical sense. What if Satan, by tempting Adam > > and Eve, thought he could usurp Christ's role? and Scott Parkin wrote: > Except that I think this is exactly what he didn't want to do in the first > place. He wanted the glory that would be accorded to the Savior but he > wasn't interested in the actual suffering and atonement part. I think these thoughts and the opinions expressed in this area have great literary merit (not just doctrinal, though they are closely related, of course). I'm kind of a theologian myself, and I agree with the thoughts many have expressed here. What's interesting about this (and I'd love to see it depicted in fiction) is Isaiah 14:12-23 in the Old Testament. Note in verse 17 that it suggests Satan did not open the house of his prisoners. That has a great deal of symbolic meaning associated with it, relating to the Savior's plan of salvation for the dead. We are all considered prisoners of our sins, and the opening of our house is through the atonement. The implication is that Satan offered to be our Savior, but it was clear, given his characteristics (as detailed in the preceding and subsequent verses) that he would not accomplish that objective. Interesting scenarios come to mind from all this. I'm thinking that he offered to atone for all the sins anyone would ever commit in such a way that repentance was unnecessary. That would be the PR version anyway. It would certainly be a crowd-pleaser, and when you think about it, it would destroy our agency as well, since it would eliminate the line between good and evil. All behavior being acceptable, we would not have to choose. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 08 Jul 2002 14:54:08 -0600 [MOD: I appreciate Eric's discussion of how this entire question relates to Mormon letters. Some of the comments we've been getting on this thread are focusing on who's right and who's wrong in this dispute, and who is considered more trustworthy and so forth and so on. I don't think that's a terribly profitable direction for us to go on AML-List--but comments like Eric's, and Scott Parkin's broader question on the possibility/desirability of "objective" storytelling, illustrate (in my view) why it's a good idea, for now at least, to keep this discussion open. In other words: I don't think that arguing about the central dispute is really a key function of AML-List, and I'd like to see us move beyond that point. However, the peripheral issues raise some really interesting interesting questions that *are* on-topic for us here.] Okay, I've read this, and I've read other stories from both the Trib and = the News, and I have to say I have no idea who's right. It's deteriorated = to a genuine neener neener neener name calling spat. Read the Trib's = side, and you think the News is wrong; read the New's side and you think = the Trib's wrong. In terms of editorial content and slant, I greatly = prefer the Trib. In terms of the far more important issues (comics and = getting late baseball scores from the West coast), I much prefer the News. = (Apologies to Eric Snider, but I just can't read the Provo Herald. I get = my local news from neighbors). =20 Basically, as far as I can tell, it goes like this; both papers share = ownership of a third company, the NAC, which runs the printing press and = takes care of paper delivery. The Trib has been sold, and that sale = required permission from the NAC, which means, in practical terms, that = the News can block the sale, which they did. The News wants to become a = morning paper, because most readers prefer a morning to an afternoon = paper, but claims that that move has been blocked by the Trib. (I only = take the News because I prefer an afternoon paper, largely because of the = late baseball box scores issue. But I'm in a minority here). So the = Trib says the News is blocking a sale and the News says the Trib is = blocking a move to mornings. And both sides say the other side is all = wet. =20 How does any of this relate to Mormon letters? Well, is journalism part of 'letters?' I think it very much is. So = that's important. Utah culture is reflected in this dispute, and that has = a marginal value to our continuing discussion on the list. So does the = general subject of newspaper reading habits. We could ask questions like = this: are newspapers even relevant anymore, or do we mostly get our news = from television or, increasingly, the internet? Do we prefer an afternoon = or a morning paper? Does the editorial stance of the paper matter, and is = there a disconnect between editorial stance and the larger coverage of the = news? Generally, the editorial stance of the DN is conservative, and the = stance of the Trib is liberal. Both papers, of course, include on their = opinion page guest columns from both liberal and conservative writers. = But can we trust the News to, for example, cover fairly stories that might = tend to show President Bush in a bad light? There's an interesting line = that both papers must walk; objective reporters of the news in some = contexts, while holding strong opinions about the news which surface in = other contexts. These are all very interesting questions. >From a literary point of view, it seems to me we do this all the time. We = create characters, and those characters have opinions, which surface from = time to time in conversations we write for them. But can a character have = an opinion which differs from our own, and if so, how do we handle that? = =20 Me, I'm a liberal but I subscribe to the 'conservative' paper of the two. = I do this for a few reasons: 1) baseball box scores, 2) cartoons, = particularly Sherman's Lagoon, 3) Ann Cannon's weekly column, 4), because = I think it's a good window into a culture that I frequently write about, = and 5) because I think, politically, I'd rather read a paper so I can get = to know the enemy than read it just to have my own opinions reinforced.=20 There is one LDS author whose work regularly appears in the Deseret News = who I absolutely cannot stand. I won't say much about her here, but her = name is Marianne Jennings, she's LDS, she's an editorial columnist, and = she's the most awful writer in creation. So of course, I read her every = week; she's my personal mongoose writer: someone who you loathe, and can't = not read. And it's really bad for me to read her, because my blood = pressure goes up and I'm sure she's going to give me a stroke some day. = Do y'all have mongoose writers of your own? The Star Wars movies have = become mongoose movies for me. Thomas Harris is a mongoose writer. Random thoughts, y'all. About SLC newspaper wars: I have no idea who's = right. Hope it all gets resolved in such a way that both papers survive. = That's as profound as I get, especially when it's 105 out. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] LARSON, _Wake Me When It's Over_ (Performance) Date: 08 Jul 2002 17:45:33 -0600 Fellow AMLers. I'm passing on a press relief from a current BYU student who I think is = really something special as a young LDS writer. I know this play very = well, and I think it's terrific. Anyway, from here on in, an announcement = from Melissa Leilani Larson: >Hello to all my friends, ex-lovers, and the privileged >few who are enemies: >Ben and Grace have been married three years. Problem >is, he's slept through two of them. Intrigued? Good. Then you'll come see WAKE ME WHEN IT'S OVER, written and directed by me. The show is the inaugural performance for the new Center Street Theatre in Orem (50 West Center Street, next door to the dance studio), and performances run 17 - 20 July 2002. Tickets are $6 for general admission and $5 for students (I have to pay the rent for the space, remember) and 2 for 1 coupons are available in the BYU Theatre & Media Arts department office or from me.=20 Let me know if you want one, or several, and I'll set you up. We have a FABULOUS cast, an award-winning script, and a cameo appearance by Billy Joel. Does it get any better than that, I ask you? And hey, if you are wonderful enough to come and be on time, you will be treated to a staged reading of a hilarious new 10-minute play by Amy E. Jensen, VARIATIONS ON A THEME OF CINDERELLA, a Marxist/feminist reshaping of the fairy tale classic.=20 Very funny. Hugely funny. I love you all . . . Please come see my show . . . Please . . . Bring your friends . . . Support me in my directorial debut and I might just love you more than I do now . . . Is that even humanly possible? Let me know if you have any questions . . . Or if you want to donate the cause . . . And if you're so inclined, do forward this message to anyone you've ever met . . . Ever . . . cheers, melissa leilani Passed on to AML from Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Killing your Darlings Date: 08 Jul 2002 17:54:55 -0600 A purely writerly-type question for a change. I'm a big fan of William Goldman, and particularly of his books about = screenwriting, Adventures in the Screen Trade and Which Lie Did I Tell = This Time. Anyway, he's got a phrase that's a real favorite of his, and = which I use all the time teaching writing. The phrase is: 'you've got to = kill your darlings.' In other words, those phrases and words and = sentences and paragraphs and descriptions and snatches of dialogue which = you love the most, and which you're absolutely convinced are genius = personified and which you know are going to win you the Pulitzer/Oscar/AML = Award, are the phrases and words and sentences and paragraphs and = descriptions and snatches of dialogue which don't belong in your story and = which you absolutely must cut. =20 Well, I agree with this . . . in principle. I think he's absolutely = right. But what I want to know is, how do you tell something that's a = darling from something that genuinely does work and is particularly = effective? I'm having this debate with my wife right now. I'm working on an LDS = novel, and I'm well into it, but the first sentence of the novel is this: = "The Church ain't true." This line is spoken by a character who just got = called as bishop. It's supposed to be funny. I like it, I think it = works, and I think that the rest of the novel will, of course, show that = that's not what he really thiniks or means. My wife thinks it's a darling = and that I need to kill it. Kill it daid. So how do you tell? What's a darling? Okay, I'm prone to purplish prose, = and I can usually recognize it when I see it, and I can be quite ruthless = with myself. And I think I know when I'm being just gratuitously preachy. = And I can cut those bits too. I just read the new Stephen Carter novel: = an engrossing read by a terrific writer, and at least half again too long. = He needed to butcher darlings left and right. But what about something = that you really do think is good, but that sort of might not be. What do = y'all think? Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Dorothy Peterson" Subject: [AML] re: Satan Figures Date: 09 Jul 2002 07:29:34 -0700 Kari wrote: > If we believe this supposition then God planned to let Adam and > Eve succomb to Satan's tempations. I find it hard to believe that God would > devise a plan whose outcome was *dependent* on a sin. I don't believe = God > works that way, He wants us all to be sinless. My understanding is that this is exactly what God "worked." He had to separate us from himself in order to test us, to see which of us would freely choose the right--follow his will without a perfect knowledge of = his existence. But being a just God he could not banish us from his = presence until we earned that punishment through our own choice. Here's a good literary tie in--John Milton understood that Eve made the difficult = choice between two good things, the one that was necessary in preference over = the other, which was simply obedient. The implication that we as humans = should be more than "simply obedient" is an interesting one. It embraces the = notion=20 that we need to be thoughtful/introspective with regard to our = stewardships in=20 this life and is a significant part of the gospel. A good example is = implied in=20 Christ's word's to Martha when she complained to him about Mary not = helping. Mary understood what the "one needful thing" was that she was to do = while Martha apparently did not. It seems to me that our task in this life is = to find that "one needful thing" and then do it; it requires thought and = introspection and is easily stated but hard to do. > Lucifer was attempting, *again*, to usurp the power and authority of Christ > by enticing Adam and Eve to partake before it was time. I have a personal (gospel according to Dorothy) response to this. I = think Satan was so devoid of the "light of Christ" that he could not see the = truth of the plan, nor its workings. He simply did not understand the depths = and ins and outs of how it was to work. It seems unlikely that he would not have understood the language of the gospel, but he clearly did not have = a personal testimony of it. How a temporal understanding of things works against a devine conviction is another discussion, but I believe there = is something there that Satan, with all his intelligence, missed. There is = a lesson there too for us. It is what we perceive through our innermost feelings that teaches us devine truth, not what we perceive through intelligence alone. Dorothy W. Peterson LDS-Index.org http://www.lds-index.org dorothy@lds-index.org -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Weekly Box Office Report, Pt 1, July 5 Date: 09 Jul 2002 12:15:17 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of July 5, 2002 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com SUDDENLY UNEXPECTED AUDITIONS: The official website for Mark Potter's upcoming Latter-day Saint-themed feature film "Suddenly Unexpected" is now online (http://www.suddenlyunexpected.com). The site includes a brief plot synopsis, character list, and instructions about when and where the auditions will be held (Houston, Texas on August 3rd; Provo, Utah on August 5th). The comedy about missionaries will be shot entirely in Houston. DANSIE AUDITIONS: Tucker T Dansie's "Quarters & Rocks": Auditions are Saturday, July 13th, 2002, 1:00-5:00 PM. Please call and schedule a time. Call Judy @ 262-0594 or e-mail judy@dansie.com Come prepared to read sides from the script, which can be obtained on Dansie's website (http://www.tuckertdansie.com). NON-UNION/NON-PAY FOR EXPERIENCED ACTORS ONLY NO HEADSHOTS OR RESUMES NECESSARY Parts for: 1 woman 20-30 years old: The Cashier - young, bubbly personality, makes friends with the child. 1 woman 20-40 years old: The Mother (pregnant mothers welcome!) - a good mother, firm, but not mean. 1 child (boy or girl) 4-7 years old: The Child: Loves to play in the rocks! And have fun! ELDER ELIJAH WOOD: Non-Latter-day Saint actor Elijah Wood (the star of "The Lord of the Rings") is set to star as "Justin Cobb" in Mike Mills' feature film adaptation of Walter Kirn's novel THUMBSUCKER. Walter Kirn is a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but is no longer an active churchgoer. His novel is about a young man (to be played by Wood) with an oral fixation who overcomes thumbsucking but replaces the behavior with other habits. In the novel, "Justin" joins the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and serves a mission. "Thumbsucker," currently in development, will be Mike Mills feature film directorial debut. "Thumbsucker" will also star Scarlett Johansson (Eight Legged Freaks; Ghost World; The Man Who Wasn't There; The Horse Whisperer; Home Alone 3; North), as a girl that Justin has a crush on. Tilda Swinton (Vanilla Sky; Orlando) will play Justin's mother (the character is also a Latter-day Saint convert). Mike Mills, whose previous film credits include a Moby music video, should NOT be confused with Latter-day Saint filmmaker "Michael Mills", the producer/writer/director of the videos "He Took My Licking" (2001) and "Bear River Massacre", both sold in Latter-day Saint bookstores. JACK WEYLAND ON CHARLY: Deseret Book's "Mormon Life" online forum has posted a new interview with author Jack Weyland about the upcoming movie adaptation of his novel CHARLY: http://deseretbook.com/mormon-life/entertainment/one-article ?article_id=1896 NEIBAUR'S BIG CATS: Latter-day Saint director Bruce Neibaur's latest IMAX film is now playing in 3 theaters. "India: Kingdom of the Tiger" can currently be seen at the Dr. Philips Cinedome at the Orlando Science Center in Florida, the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Quebec and the IMAX Discovery Theatre in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. It is already scheduled to be shown at 17 other theaters in India, Kentucky, Virginia, Connecticut, Taiwan, Nebraska, British Columbia, Boston, Germany, Washington D.C., Austria, The Netherlands, London, Alberta, California, and Georgia. Big Movie Zone interview with Neibaur: http://www.bigmoviezone.com/articles/?uniq=102 More information about theater locations: http://www.bigmoviezone.com/filmsearch/movies/coming_soon.ht ml?uniq=221 Bruce Neibaur is now working with astrophysicist Stephen Hawking on an IMAX documentary about Hawking's life and discoveries about the cosmos. NEW SLOVER VIDEO? Actor Marvin Payne has announced on his website that BYU has asked him to do a multiple camera shoot of Tim Slover's critically acclaimed stage play "Hancock County", about the courtroom prosecution of the people who killed Joseph Smith. Hopefully this means there will be a video available of the play. Latter-day Saint playwright Tim Slover wrote the documentaries "Minerva Teichert: A Mission in Paint" (PBS; 1988) and the Emmy-nominated "A More Perfect Union: American Becomes A Nation" (PBS; 1989). He is best known for his off-Broadway plays "A Joyful Noise" and "March Tale." Marvin Payne is best known for playing the "dad" in videos such as "Saturday's Warrior", "Man's Search for Happiness" and "Pure Race." Payne has never played the "mom." GWYNETH AND AARON - TRUE LOVE WAITS: We're only reporting this because it's in the national news -- we have no desire to be a seedy (or non-seedy, in this case) gossip column. But here's the news report carried by IMDb and an increasing number of Hollywood news publications. I did some checking on the web. This story has been re-circulated by dozens of sites, and has been translated into at least half a dozen languages. (Source: Celebrity News, 31st May 2002, http://us.imdb.com/WN?20020531#2): [QUOTE] PALTROW'S NEW LOVE BANS HER FROM SEX: Gwyneth Paltrow's new boyfriend Aaron Eckhart is refusing to sleep with the sexy star. The Hollywood babe, who met Aaron on the set of the upcoming movie "Possession", recently confessed she has difficulty keeping lovers because she wears them out in the bedroom. But she appears to have finally met her match in 34-year-old Eckhart--the hunk is very religious and doesn't believe in sex before marriage. A friend of Eckhart says, "Aaron has very strong convictions and doesn't give them up for anyone... He accepts the church's ruling that forbids pre-marital sex." But friends of Oscar-winner Gwyneth say the actress is so besotted with the Mormon actor, she's agreed to go without sex--and is even considering marrying him. Paltrow's pal says, "She's lost her heart to Aaron. We hear big things are planned for late this summer. People thought it was a joke when started dating, but now see the relationship is for real." [END QUOTE] TRIFFO/GOETZ TV SERIES: The award-winning Canadian documentary film team of director Chris Triffo and producer Ron Goetz (both are Latter-day Saints), has several new projecs in the works or arriving on TV sets as we speak. "ExtraOrdinary Lives" will premiere on the Life Network, on date July 12, 2002. Fridays at 10pm, 3:30am, Saturdays at 9:30pm, 2002 EST. More information, from the production company's website (http://www.partnersinmotion.com/partners/opnomination.html) : Emmy-award winning Regina-based film production company Partners In Motion is looking for unsung heroes, tales of strength, triumph and courage, and other extraordinary feats performed by ExtraOrdinary Lives. "ExtraOrdinary Lives" is a 13-part series that will run on the Life Network in Canada, featuring ordinary people who have experienced an extraordinary event during their lives. A documentary format will be used to tell their stories, capturing their emotions and their experiences in their own words. If you know someone who is a quiet hero, mentor, survivor or rescuer, we want to hear from you. We want to tell the stories of these "ExtraOrdinary Lives" who are your neighbours, friends, relatives and co-workers. For example: Dave Rodney is the first person in Canada to climb to the summit of Mount Everest twice, despite losing a teammate on his first attempt. Krista Rempel is an Emergency Medical Technician who was first on the scene of two separate cases of babies who nearly froze to death, but survived with her help. Partners in Motion Inc. produces documentary programs like Disasters of the Century and 13 Seconds: The Kent State Shootings, which won an Emmy in 2001. For more information or interviews on ExtraOrdinary Lives, contact Nova Herman at Partners in Motion. To nominate someone you know (even yourself!) contact Casey Markus at Partners in Motion. The TV series "Disasters of the Century" is already airing: History Television, Mondays at 10pm, 1am, Sundays 7pm, 3am 2002 EST. Official website: http://www.disastershq.com/ The Emmy-winning team of Triffo and Goetz are also working on a new feature-length documentary: "Ghosts of War: Canada and Vietnam." NELEH TV: Neleh Dennis, the Latter-day Saint star of CBS' extremely popular "Survivor: Marquesas" TV series, is the new art and culture correspondent on KUTV's "2-News This Morning." WINNIE THE POOH: BLUTH ON DVD; SANSOM IN THEATERS: The 25th Anniversary DVD of "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" features a trailer for "Piglet's Big Movie," a new Disney animated feature set for theatrical release on April 11th, 2003. Latter-day Saint actor Ken Sansom (the voice of "Rabbit") will reprise his frequent lagomorphic role, with the movie's 3rd or 4th billed role. (Sansom had the 3rd billed role in "The Tigger Movie") and provides the voice of "Rabbit" on the Disney Channel TV series "The Book of Pooh." Sansom did NOT voice "Rabbit" in the "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh", by the way -- he has only had the role since 1988. But legendary Latter-day Saint animator Don Bluth was one of the main animators on that 25-year-old Disney classic. More information about the upcoming Piglet feature can be found at Greg's Movie Previews: http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808413969&intl =us SINGLES WARD COMING TO OTHER THEATERS NEAR YOU: According to the movie's official website (http://www.singleswardthemovie.com/theaterlocs.html), "The Singles Ward" is winding down its run in initial states: It is now playing in only 1 Arizona theater (Gilbert), 2 Idaho theaters (Boise, Idaho Falls), 1 Nevada theater (Boulder), and 3 Utah theaters (Cedar City, Lewiston, Logan). Now, 5 months after its premier in Utah, the "Singles Ward" will be opening soon in New Mexico, Colorado, Montana and California. To date the world's first Latter-day Saint genre feature comedy has earned over $800,000 at the box office. DAY OF DEFENSE: A ton of new behind-the-scenes information about the upcoming Latter-day Saint-themed courtroom drama "Day of Defense" has been posted on the official website at: http://www.dayofdefense.com/bts.asp New revelations include the names of the lead actors, producers, screenwriters, and composer. As far as we know, "Day of Defense" will NOT have a commercial theatrical run, but will be released directly to video. DRAGON'S LAIR, the animated feature to be produced and directed by Latter-day Saint animation legend Don Bluth is being screenwritten by comic book legend Rob McFarlane, of "Spawn" fame. Although his comic books have been adapted to the screen, this will be McFarlane's debut as a screenwriter. LABUTE TO ADAPT VAPOR: It has been reported that Neil LaBute is writing a screenplay adaptation of Amanda Filipacchi's novel VAPOR, which he will direct. The feature film is being produced by Catch 23 Entertainment and Renaissance Films. The story is described as "a love story with a Pygmalion twist... a romance about an artist who helps an aspiring actress find success." LaBute's "Possession" has yet to appear on screens (although we know it is finished, and scheduled to premier in six weeks), and he's probably still working on "The Shape of Things" (which should debut late this year). Other films LaBute has in various places been reported to be working on or intending to work on include: The Wicker Man (starring Nicholas Cage), The Danish Girl, The Burnt Orange Heresy, Blue Angel, Leave Her to Heaven, and Bleeder. KEVIN SHARP ON CNN WITH CHUNG: During the first week of July the new primetime Connie Chung show on CNN featured a great segment about Latter-day Saint counry singer Kevin Sharp. The popular singer discussed how as a teenager his bout with cancer led to the Make-A-Wish Foundation granting his request to meet top music producer David Foster. Afterwards Sharp sent the producer a demo of his music. The producer had planned to break the news to Sharp that he didn't have what it takes to break into music -- until he actually heard the music. He was immensely impressed. Quite a heartwarming story. Sharp sings on the video animated "Annabelle's Wish," but othewise he has not done any film work. Sharp has won numerous country music awards and spots on Billboard's Top 10 lists. He has sung and been interviewed on several national television shows, including "Live with Regis & Kathie Lee," "Entertainment Tonight," CNN, ESPN, "Good Morning America Inside Edition," and the CBS newsmagazine "Coast To Coast." Sharp is now the national spokesman for Make-A-Wish Foundation. And his cancer - which was supposed to be fatal -- is completely in remission. ENDERCON: The "EnderCon" was held in Utah County at Utah Valley Community College, on July 5th and 6th. The convention, celebrating the 25th anniversary of Orson Scott Card's short story "Ender's Game," was unusual in that it was a science fiction built around a purely literary series, and not a TV show or movie franchise. The status of "Ender's Game" as prose-only will change, of course, now that Warner Brothers is developing the "Ender's Game" feature film. WILL ORSON SCOTT CARD MAKE YOUR STORY INTO A MOVIE? Probably not. But it's a possibility. Card's first "Phobos" anthology is going to be published in September 2002: EMPIRE OF DREAMS AND MIRACLES: THE PHOBOS SCIENCE FICTION ANTHOLOGY. This book is the result of an annual contest in which writers could submit science fiction stories. There is no cost or fee. Every eligible story is evaluated. The twelve best stories are chosen by a panel of 12 judges and each writers receives $500. The top 3 stories receive an additional $500. These top stories are then considered for publication in the PHOBOS anthology. More information on Card's official website (http://www.hatrack.com/misc/empire.shtml) and on the Phobos website (http://www.phobosweb.com/). The contest seems remarkable familiar to the renowned Writers of the Future Contest, founded by the late L. Ron Hubbard. Card has written for and judged for WoTF in the past, and Card's friend, fellow writer Dave Wolverton has a frequent editor of the annual WoTF anthologies. Actually, this doesn't have anything to do with movies, except I thought I read somewhere that Card plans to consider Phobos contest winners for possible projects for his film production company. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Warning re: Elijah Able Society Date: 09 Jul 2002 11:35:03 -0600 Several people have asked me about the Elijah Abel Society, which is easily accessible on the internet. (Use a Google search.) BEWARE. Not only is this NOT an official Church site, it incorporates some false doctrine, includes misinformation, and is actually written by a young man who is listed in a group of people who have left the Church. I won't name him on the list (e-mail me individually if you'd like further information). In that "ex-Mormon" list, he announces his departure from Mormonism and his rebirth in the B'Hai faith. As a general rule, it's always a good idea to be suspicious of sites you find on the internet. I've heard many people talk about this particular site (the VERY knowledgeable Armand Mauss even asked me about it) and I've even heard Church members refer others to it. Please be careful. We have had enough of folklore, and this young man is doing nothing more than extending it. Warn others if you hear of this "Society" (which is actually comprised of this one young man.) He does have some nice pictures on the site, though not all are properly identified and some (such as Paul Howell's brief bio) include misinformation. My own preference is to use library books and authors I know I can trust. If a site is supposedly founded by a "society" but lists no authors, I'd get suspicious straight off. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] re: Warning re: Elijah Able Society Date: 09 Jul 2002 12:33:07 -0600 As I've been doing some internet searches looking for particular quotes, I keep coming upon the same document by "The Elijah Abel Society." Sometimes it's called "Are Mormons Racists?" It goes by a variety of names, but is still full of misinformation. A lot of truth and a few, very damaging lies. A CAREFUL path to Hell. I hadn't fully been aware of what risks internet availability can pose until recently. I would love to hear ideas from some of you. HOW can we teach our children, members, everybody to recognize truth and to recognize lies? This "Elijah Abel Society" document is SO crafty and sly. It appears to be even official. And sadly, I'm afraid most Mormons are so ill-informed of the issue that they buy into the arguments presented. I think this links to Mormon literature in unusual ways. Obviously, we're trying to debunk all sorts of folklore in _Standing on the Promises_. But it's a lot easier to just access an internet site than it is to read about the black pioneers. And we are officially "fiction," though we keep as close to fact as we possibly can. Surely some people won't even look at the series because of its genre. We are only in bookstores; the internet is just about everywhere. In my search just a minute ago, I found a Mormon site referring its readers to "The Elijah Abel Society." Such a shame! And I am computer illiterate and could find no way to e-mail that group to warn them that they are moving their readers into a lion's den. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 09 Jul 2002 12:46:46 -0600 ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen > > We could ask questions like this: > are newspapers even relevant anymore, or do we mostly get our > news from television or, increasingly, the internet? Do we > prefer an afternoon or a morning paper? Does the editorial > stance of the paper matter, and is there a disconnect between > editorial stance and the larger coverage of the news? > Generally, the editorial stance of the DN is conservative, > and the stance of the Trib is liberal. These are the interesting questions to me. We subscribed to the SL Trib for a while. I like Kirby. And I despise the provincialism of the Deseret News. But even the Trib is pretty limited so I moved to the Wall Street Journal--much more interesting and more detail about the things that matter to me (business and world news). I got my comics online. But I started feeling guilty about it. I mean, I only had time to read one or two a week. And eventually, I noticed that I could get most of the news online. And I would look at a week worth of papers and think "what a waste of paper". I'd end up with boxes full of used newspapers that had to be taken to the recycler. I just couldn't justify the waste of paper even one I liked where I read most of the stories. I've been newspaper free since the start of the year. Haven't missed it at all and I'm better informed than I ever was before. There's a lot of news online and it tends to be more current to boot. Oh, and I can choose multiple sources for interesting stories and build my own editorial board based on the writing I enjoy. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 09 Jul 2002 15:03:18 -0600 At 02:54 PM 7/8/02 -0600, you wrote: > From a literary point of view, it seems to me we do this all the > time. We create characters, and those characters have opinions, which > surface from time to time in conversations we write for them. But can a > character have an opinion which differs from our own, and if so, how do > we handle that? Easy. We write that character as an obvious blithering idiot. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: [AML] Mongoose Writers (was: S.L. Newspaper Wars) Date: 09 Jul 2002 15:10:02 -0600 >--- "Eric R. Samuelsen" > > There is one LDS author whose work regularly appears >> in the Deseret News who I absolutely cannot stand. >> I won't say much about her here, but her name is >> Marianne Jennings, she's LDS, she's an editorial >> columnist, and she's the most awful writer in >> creation. So of course, I read her every week; >> she's my personal mongoose writer: someone who you >> loathe, and can't not read. And it's really bad for >> me to read her, because my blood pressure goes up >> and I'm sure she's going to give me a stroke some > > day. Do y'all have mongoose writers of your own? I'm unjustifiably proud to say that I am some people's mongoose writer. (Thanks for providing a name for it, by the way. I'd never heard the term before.) We have several people who read my column faithfully, twice a week -- and each time post nasty, negative comments about it on the Herald's free-for-all Web site. They post anonymously, but I recognize the IP addresses and writing styles. They always read me, they always hate me, and they always post negative feedback. I don't get it. I guess I can see consistently reading someone who upsets you, if that's your thing. But to consistently read them AND consistently send angry feedback ... what's the point? Why work yourself into such a lather on a regular basis? More to the point, why expend so much effort on someone you hate? Surely they don't think all the negative feedback is going to get me fired, or if they do, they have no idea how newspapers operate. Basking in the glory of being despised by people with too much free time, Eric D. Snider -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report, Pt 2, July 5 Date: 09 Jul 2002 16:27:27 -0500 Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 4 Minority Report 12,556,624 2,729 17 Gerald Molen (producer) 97,119,723 10 The Divine Secrets of the 2,814,943 1,792 31 Ya-Ya Sisterhood 61,144,497 36 ESPN's Ultimate X 91,455 37 59 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,962,403 54 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 20,712 6 794 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,481,305 55 China: The Panda Adventure 20,151 8 346 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,547,550 62 Galapagos 11,331 4 983 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,487,145 72 The Other Side of Heaven 7,583 10 206 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,620,546 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 73 The Believer 7,137 4 52 Ryan Gosling (lead male actor) 219,403 78 The Singles Ward 4,901 4 157 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 813,019 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, Wally Joyner, Lincoln Hoppe, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, etc. 93 Mark Twain's America 3D 1,014 1 1466 Alan Williams (composer) 2,237,093 THE R.M. LEADS ANNOUNCED: HaleStorm Entertainment has released the names of the leads in their upcoming feature comedy "The R.M.", which began filming on July 8, is scheduled to finish filming August 3, and will be released early in 2003. It was previously announced that the lead actor in "The R.M." will be Kirby Heyborne, as "Jared" (the R.M., i.e., Returned Missionary). Kirby is best known for playing "Dalen" the Idaho-bound missionary in who was the lead character's friend in HaleStorm's first movie "The Singles Ward." Joining Kirby is Will Swenson, as "Kory", Kirby's best friend -- a suave young man who did NOT serve a mission, but seems to have everything in life that Jared the R.M. doesn't have. (Will Swenson played the lead role in "The Singles Ward," but neither he nor Kirby are reprising characters from that movie.) Other cast members in "The R.M.": The part of "Kelly", the female lead role, will be played by newcomer Britani Bateman. Newcomer Merrill Dodge will play "Brigham", Jared's father. Newcomer Tracy Ann Evans has landed what many insiders consider the film's funniest supporting role: the part of Emma, Jared's uber-Relief Society mother. Michael Birkeland, who played "Hyrum" in "The Singles Ward" has a supporting role as "Duey." Finally, music fans will be excited to hear that none other than MAREN ORD, the Canadian pop sensation, has a supporting role in "The R.M." as "Sariah." Maren's songs can be heard on the soundtrack for the movies "crazy/beautiful" and "The Singles Ward," and on the TV shows "Alias" and "Felicity." Maren sings the title song in the movie "Thomas and the Magic Railroad" (starring Alec Baldwin). She also has a track on the "Welcome to Brigham" CD inspired by Richard Dutcher's "Brigham City." But this will be Maren's film debut as an actress. ANXIOUSLY ENGAGED: Cary Derbidge has announced that the title of his upcoming feature film about a temple wedding is "Anxiously Engaged." (We think this is the best title of any Latter-day Saint-themed film announced yet!) Also, a second executive producer has been added to the project: Shane Kester, a graduate of the University of Utah film school. KELS GOODMAN, DIRECTOR OF "HANDCART" HAS AN OFFICE NEXT DOOR TO RICHARD DUTCHER: Center Street, Provo is now the new office home for Kels. "Zion Films" (Richard Dutcher) is also sharing the center street location. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] Juanita Brooks Date: 09 Jul 2002 16:34:00 -0600 When I saw that a new book on the Mountain Meadows massacre was = forthcoming I knew that I needed to read Juanita Brooks as a background = for any further study. My husband said that he wanted to wait for the = new book, but I assured him that he absolutely HAD to read Brooks first = to be able to put many things in proper perspective. How glad we are = that we read Juanita's highly interesting well researched account of the = massacre. Then we found ourselves wanting to know more about Juanita = Brooks. How fortuitous that on my birthday I received a copy of Levi = Peterson's excellent biography of Juanita Brooks. What a marvelous = woman and what a labor of love it must have been for Peterson to write = this comprehensive study of a life very well lived. I love biography = and this is one of the best I have read by a Mormon author. But then, = what's not to like about this woman? She was near the age of my mother = and I knew her daughter Willa Brooks, as we both worked at Zion National = Park the same summer. My mother, also from pioneer stock, came from = Cache Valley, while Brooks spent most of her fruitful life in Utah's = Dixie. The similarities were there, but I enjoyed the cultural = contrasts, as well. Juanita was an intelligent, courageous truth = seeker, while remaining a faithful member of the Mormon church. She = lived her life, fraught with challenges, to the fullest. Though her = passion was pioneer history, her family, church and community came = first. As I read her biography I wondered what this remarkable woman = might have accomplished had it not been for the distractions of her = life. But, the reason I love Juanita is not just her talent as a gifted = historian and respected author, but the depth of character she developed = from loving and serving others and meeting the significant challenges of = her eventful life. My question then for aml-list is: Does an artist = succeed in spite of or because of the challenges that threaten to keep = him/her from fully using their God-given talent? =20 Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Unbiased Presentation Date: 09 Jul 2002 16:53:25 -0600 Scott wondered if there is such a thing as unbiased reporting. I say yes, "If God's doing it." Otherwise, no sir. There is only more or less bias, never none. -- Todd -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Warning re: Elijah Able Society Date: 09 Jul 2002 17:59:23 -0700 Re: Margaret Young's concern about the Elijah Able Society. I know the young man involved. He has a lot of excellent material, some of it very inspiring, really, but as Margaret says, there are some problems too. He is attempting right now to rejoin the Church. I don't know how that will go, but he has published at least one very good LDS book, and he is definitely well meaning, if misguided. So what does one do about misinformation regarding the Church? I belong to an internet group that focuses on that issue intensely, and I can say it is a major, on-going battle. The misinformation on this site is nothing compared to the kind of lies and rumors we see daily from actual enemies of the Church. Given the ubiquious nature of the Internet, my personal opinion on this issue is that we cannot keep people from obtaining misinformation about the Church. The answer lies in more information, not less. We have to fight error with truth and hope the Spirit helps people to discern the difference. There was a time, when I was a kid in the Church, that the tendency was to ignore misinformation. I don't believe that's a viable alternative, and never have. So Margaret, it might be helpful to hear just what information on this site is erroneous. Don't know if this fits AML-list though. Maybe our moderator can clarify. [MOD: I'm tentatively willing, asusming this doesn't lead us down a track into debating details of Church history and/or doctrine. List volume is down a bit at present.] Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Warning -- Internet Lies Ahead Date: 09 Jul 2002 22:55:10 -0500 Margaret Young: As I've been doing some internet searches looking for particular quotes, I keep coming upon the same document ... It goes by a variety of names, but is still full of misinformation. A lot of truth and a few, very damaging lies. A CAREFUL path to Hell. I hadn't fully been aware of what risks internet availability can pose until recently. ... HOW can we teach our children, members, everybody to recognize truth and to recognize lies? This ... document is SO crafty and sly. It appears to be even official. And sadly, I'm afraid most Mormons are so ill-informed of the issue that they buy into the arguments presented. _______________ Welcome to the internet. I put ellipses in because almost any document will do. The story is the same. The internet provides quick and easy access to information. The only true filter of truth, lies, and deceit is between the ears. As parents, we teach our children that everything on the internet is suspect until verified. The internet itself has wonderful examples of plagerism, deception, and sloppiness. With a supervised e-mail account, one of the first things our children learn is that most messages with more than one Fwd: in the subject line can be (and should be) deleted without reading. We show them how to detect and check out hoaxes. We have taken time in our Family Home Evenings and other family discussions to show them how to detect them. We have also taught some basic skills on how the internet works, and tricks that webmasters use to snag browsers into sites that should be avoided. We have shown our children how to find and determine reputable sites, how to parse search results in a meaningful way, and that there is, in fact, much good on the net. We have taught them through examples and practice. It takes time and effort. The reason so much junk flows so successfully from the internet is, IMO, because of either a laziness or lack of desire to know the truth. The same principles we used to teach our children how to obtain testimonies of the gospel works in teaching them about the internet. One of the most successful and fun lessons on the internet came from a high school English teacher who assigned her students to write a paper using information from the internet. She gave them four specific sites to visit and use, and told them they should also search for other sites and information. Because our children do not have the internet access password, I watched as they (three of them, now) completed the assignment. Of the four sites the teacher gave her students, two were completely different from the other two, and both sides could not be correct. She had intentionally given them a direct conflict that could not be resolved without thinking, further research, and additional information. It was a great assignment, and a real eye-opener for our children who have had that teacher. And, heresy of heresies, we have shown our children that there are many books that are not worth the paper they are printed on, either. (But rather than delete them, we do require that they return them to the library.) And, of course, talk show hosts would be off topic. 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: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 09 Jul 2002 22:18:49 -0500 Richard Russell: There is already morning competition between the papers two days a week. I don't think that the Trib is worried about competition nearly as much as the loss of its independent editorial voice. Chris Bigelow: ... However, in the case of the Salt Lake Tribune, I honestly do feel that "independent" means they have the freedom to play the whole spectrum of news coverage related to the LDS Church, and play the full spectrum they do, with overall worthwhile results, I would argue. ... the Deseret News and its backers would like to muzzle the Tribune's Church coverage ... To that end, it's clear they are playing some legal and other kinds of games with ownership issues. But they should not be allowed to, I feel, or we will lose an important counter-balance in our society and be left without a real statewide newspaper. While there are some things I admire about the Deseret News, I think there should be separation between church and press. Eric Samuelsen: It's deteriorated to a genuine ... name calling spat. ... both sides say the other side is all wet. I have no idea who's right. Hope it all gets resolved in such a way that both papers survive. _______________ This has been an entertaining read, and I have followed it for quite some time from a distance. I do not live in Utah, but most of my family is there and I have many fond memories and ties, including the Church. I guess, since the DesNews has purchaser veto power, some feel they are using it to muzzle the SLTrib's Church coverage. I don't buy it. I just think they are being business savvy. If the buyer is competent and capable, (and since this has gone to the courts,) any judge worth his salt will rule against the DesNews if there aren't substantial deficiencies, from a business and management standpoint and according to the law. I also think it important to remember that, in any court case, the worst of the worst of each side of the issue will be blasted in the press. This is why attorneys hate it when legal issues wind up in the papers. Rarely do the facts reported even come close to any legal basis in fact. Facts and findings in law are different from facts and findings in journalism. As for the "letters" aspect of telling the story, there are more than two ways of writing any story. As a journalist, I was taught to accurately determine the facts, present both sides of the story, and, in those rare instances where an editor would allow it, flag any opinion in neon lights with equal measures of the opposing view. For whatever the reason (a whole 'nother thread), I don't believe that happens today. I agree with Eric S. I hope both papers survive. I believe there is a need and a place for both, even though I believe many favoring each paper think the other paper is either hiding the truth or just trying to stir up trouble. The feelings work both ways, and I don't believe the reality is true. I do believe that there is a great risk that the SLTrib will lose readership to the DesNews if the News goes to mornings. And I believe the News needs to go to mornings to survive. I also believe that folks in the area feel that both papers are so biased that losing either one will tip over the table of balance, which in my opinion is really a teeter-totter. For a while, I didn't think either paper knew what balance really was, nor could they find it. It sounds as if that hasn't changed. When I have very strong feelings on a subject, I am always sensitive to the chipping at those feelings by others. I have had to learn over the years the difference between someone who is trying to attack my beliefs and one who is actually interested in learning about them, even though they may have no intention of ever agreeing with them. Being able to deal with this, I suppose, has to do with having a large measure of security within myself and a peace in what I believe. In matters of religion, these sensitivities and feelings are magnified, and if there is any insecurity, any comment becomes perceived as an attack on my beliefs, when in fact, it often is not at all. I believe that these sensitivities are what is driving popular opinion of the so-called Newspaper Wars. I also believe that either paper could take a more balanced position and editorial stance that would draw in readers from the other side and leave the opposing paper wondering what happened. This is also big business. I am reminded of the radio station in Salt Lake that ran an editorial many years ago that ended, "This has been a (call letters) editorial. Responsible persons with differing viewpoints should buy their own radio station." 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: KGrant100@aol.com Subject: [AML] Re:[AML List] Satan Figures Date: 10 Jul 2002 00:30:59 EDT It was interesting to read these posts in light of some thoughts I'd been=20 having recently. All around me I see Satan's attacks on marriages, families= ,=20 and individuals. And it occurred to me that at this point (now that the Fal= l=20 has taken place), his motivation seems to be simply to do everything he can=20 to prove the Father's plan won't work, seeing that his own plan got rejected= .=20 For that reason, he wants to see us fail. In a tape called "Winning our Battles with Satan," Stephen Cramer shares thi= s=20 rather chilling quote: "There is no crime he would not commit, no debaucher= y=20 he would not set up, no plague he would not send, no heart he would not=20 break, no life he would not take, no soul he would not destroy. He comes as=20= a=20 thief in the night; he is a wolf in sheep=E2=80=99s clothing=E2=80=9D (Messa= ges of the First=20 Presidency, comp. James R. Clark, 6 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft,=20 1965-75, 6:179). The hopeful part about this is that a) we have a Savior, and 2) if we are no= t=20 ignorant of Satan's devices, we are less likely to be ensnared. Kathy [Grant] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 10 Jul 2002 00:21:31 -0600 ___ Dorothy ___ | The implication that we as humans should be more than "simply | obedient" is an interesting one. It embraces the notion | that we need to be thoughtful/introspective with regard to our | stewardships in this life and is a significant part of the | gospel. ___ This gets written about *all* the time. Look at discussions about purported "housewife burnout" and you'll see basically a discussion akin to Paul's discussion of the Law in Romans. The metaphors of "liahona" vs. "iron rod" are often made to fit this distinction as well. (Somewhat distastefully in my opinion since I think it distorts the symbols rather drastically) I think that Spielberg's underrated and much maligned film _AI_ deals with this as well. (Indeed I think this is key to its ending) The idea is that two people can do exactly the same thing but not be doing the same thing. That apparent paradox comes down to our intuition that intents count. If you intent is to obey it is different from an intent that matches God's intent. ___ Kari ___ | I have never really bought the argument that Elder Oaks has | put forward, namely that the partaking of the fruit was | something less than a sin, a "transgression" ___ I know we aren't supposed to delve to doctrine. But just a note on this. It was Joseph Fielding Smith who originally made a big deal of this distinction. There are problems with the distinction but it ends up going back to the Book of Mormon. Sins are those acts we have to repent of. Transgressions are automatically taken care of by the Savior and include mistakes done by children or presumably those mentally incapable of proper intention. This goes to Dorothy's point about intentionality. Consider that according to the story Adam and Eve in the garden were innocent and as little children. This is, I think, key for understanding certain elements of Book of Mormon soteriety. As for why God gave contradictory commandments, I think that a closer literary reading of Genesis 2 is rather interesting. I'd written for AML a few years back a kind of decontructive reading of it that I think explains why this was necessary. ___ Jim ___ | I think the Gnostic view of Satan is Satan's own (wishful) view | of himself. ___ Perhaps. However more likely they picked it up from Plato who had a demiurge. Plato for various reasons saw the universal as more real than the particular. Each abstract idea is itself made up of more abstract ideas until we get back to one abstraction: unity. This is equivalent to absolute goodness, the number 1, and so forth. This was what was most real and was pure being. The Gnostics were taking a more platonic view and trying to explain the OT. So they had to make some evil creature create the world to explain it. (Otherwise how can you explain creation?) While I'm sure Satan made use of gnosticism to attack the early church, there also are historical reasons for what happen. It's important to keep in mind if you read Gnostic writings that many of the things discussed are meant more allegorical. Many Mormons tend to read them more literally than they were intended. This becomes important since in many ways the notion of Virtual Reality raises all these issues again. We can have a "reality" which isn't "real" in our normal sense of materialism. How do we distinguish it? _The Matrix_ played with this a bit, albeit in a somewhat superficial way. It mixed gnosticism and Platonism with a bit of postmodern musings on VR. Other shows have sometimes done the same thing. Star Trek had its holodeck. Even in film we have the ever popular "it was all a dream" which places a "reality" as really ideas. (David Lynch plays with this a great deal where the dream-world imposes on "reality") How these works portray Satan is always interesting. In the Matrix we have a kind of inverted gnosticism. (Postmodernists, largely following Nietzsche, often consider their views a kind of inverted Platonism and gnosticism came from Platonism) The structure of the film requires a real God out in the real world. The "fake" God is the God of ideas who exists in the Matrix and controls it. Even in our own religion we sometimes call Satan the "God" of this world. (Although we don't grant him the power the Matrix gives him) An other great (and rather chilling) Satan figure is in David Lynch's _Lost Highway_. It is a kind of "fugue" or mobius strip. The whole film turns out to be the dream of a convict on death row trying to "remember things the way he wants to remember them." The Satan figure, who honestly scares the heck out me in it, is both the character's evil desires but also his conscience trying to wake him up from his delusion. I always found this interesting since in the OT the notion of Satan isn't so much the devil but adversary. AS an adversary he can be both good and bad. Good, in that he accuses us of our guilt (which Christ must answer for if we've repented) He's a figure like the Grim Reaper. We fear him, but his "evilness" is more complex than it first appears. Even our notion of the devil proper is interesting since he does have such an important role in the plan of salvation. As the Book of Mormon tells us, we couldn't have freedom unless we were enticed by both the good and bad. Further he's the one that started things rolling in the garden. It is interesting how good requires evil. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: Killing Your Darlings (comp 1) Date: 10 Jul 2002 15:42:54 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From gtaggart@fiber.net Tue Jul 09 11:24:08 2002 Eric, "The Church ain't true" is a darling that should be allowed to sleep peacefully in his crib. Sharpen your knife for some other darling word or phrase. Surely there must me something left in your novel more deserving of your blood lust. Greg Taggart >From cornerstonepublishing@attbi.com Tue Jul 09 12:21:23 2002 Eric R. Samuelsen asks: > What's a darling? Here's a thought: If you can reword it a number of different ways and they all work about the same, it's not a darling. If you have to say just so, and no other wording will work, it's probably a darling. Richard Hopkins >From kcmadsen@utah-inter.net Tue Jul 09 13:19:40 2002 Eric, It doesn't sound like a "darling" to me, but rather a good hook, given the fact that it's a novel, and it's a line of dialogue. Particularly intriguing when you quickly (emphasize QUICKLY) find out it's spoken by some kind of backwoods type who's just been called as bishop. Makes me want to know if there are any others in his congregation who, deep inside, agree with Backwoods Bishop's self-effacement and what kind of conflict arises when they (passively-aggressively?) try to prove he "ain't" fit to be bishop. So from one reader's POV, you've got a hook, not a darling. Now I've supposed a lot there from one line of dialogue, but I can hear a world of inflection in that poor English. Kim Madsen >From rareyellow@yahoo.com Tue Jul 09 13:55:36 2002 --- "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > > Well, I agree with this . . . in principle. I think he's absolutely > right. But what I want to know is, how do you tell something that's a > darling from something that genuinely does work and is particularly > effective? > I have no idea. I guess you could have more readers you trust give you feedback. But on the more general subject of darlings... I understand the need for transparent prose, but some of the best lines in literature are these 'darlings.' So if a line is a little on the precocious (maybe even precious) side, don't automatically reject it, I say. I mean what would _Pride & Prejudice_ be without the opening line: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." That's a total darling. But it works. Or even Dicken's 'best of times/worst of times' thing that get's way over-quoted. Or what about one of last lines in James Joyce's best work (imo), the novelette "The Dead": "Yes, the newspapers were right: snow was general all over Ireland." Or the beginning of Kafka's "Matamorphosis": "One morning, when Gregor Samsa woke from troubled dreams, he found himself transformed in his bed into a horrible vermin." These lines are effective because they encapsulate much of the theme and tone of the work (and most of them are pretty funny). They work because the story supports them--the story is powerful enough, the prose good enough to allow the conceit of using a 'darling.' "The Church ain't true." Sounds like a great line to me. So I'd say the onus isn't on the darling, but on you, Eric, to make the novel itself be able to support the line. How's that for pressure? ~~William Morris, who was pleased to open this message and discover that it wasn't about a new, po-mo, post-colonial version of _Peter Pan_. >From Melissa@proffitt.com Tue Jul 09 15:27:37 2002 As another big fan of Goldman's, I'm working on this principle myself, because I think he's right. My gut feeling about the kind of lines he considers "darlings" is that they are the ones that, in *isolation* from = the rest of the story or play or song, make you believe you are the greatest writer in the world. The ones that you notice, as you're reading along, because they stand out like little jewels on the page. Such a clever = turn of phrase, such wit, such intelligence! I think that's why you have to kill them. It's the book/story/song/play that you want to be sparkling with wit, not its individual pieces. So, yeah, sometimes you get lines that just work perfectly and are also beautiful by themselves, and I don't think you cut those. But I'm also = not entirely sure how to tell the difference. If a lot of pre-readers = comment on the same line (good or bad), that's a warning sign for me. If every = time I read the passage I notice the same beautiful line, that's another. My = one hard-and-fast rule for myself is, if I wrote a line because it's just so darn impressive, it comes out. Period. (This rule is easy for me to follow, no matter how beautiful the phrase, because the second time I = read it, I realize what I was doing, and I'm so embarrassed that the pain of excising it is nothing by comparison.) I guess what it comes down to is, are you using that line in that place because it's genuinely integral to the story, or because it makes a good opening line? Is it there to startle the reader, to set the tone for the novel, or because it's so pretty? You probably already know the answer, either way. Melissa Proffitt >From petersent@suu.edu Tue Jul 09 16:52:04 2002 Leave that line until you finish a draft. That said, I think that if you have an elaborately drawn set of reasons for wanting to keep something, you should axe it. In most cases a person is sold on the reasons and not the passage itself. If the novel is going to bear out and explain the statement, then how necessary is the statement in the first place? Goldman pinched that saying from Faulkner, by the way. A darling is anything writers become overly attached to, something that they instantly rebel against changing. A darling is something a writer has worked and overworked and, like a pot that has been thrown for too long, slumps and wings off the wheel. A darling is something that the writer completely understands, but others don't. Also when you axe things out use a big fat black marker. Computers have turned us all into ninnies -- we can now delicately traipse around our writing and peck here and peck there. It makes for all kinds of problems. When in doubt, cross it out. People who won't kill darlings, are, I think, scared they'll never write something wonderful again. On the other hand, William Kittredge once told me that if writers aren't "risking" sentimentality, they aren't really writing. And when you're LDS, sentimentality is around every stinking corner. It's also good to remember that if your characters cry, your reader won't. Todd Petersen >From debbro@voyager.net Wed Jul 10 10:27:07 2002 Now I have the name for what I do when I read and skip over entire paragraphs and dialogue! I am killing other writer's darlings. Wow. Seriously, I do this. I will get to a paragraph, read the first few words, and its like "been there, read that" and I will keep skipping till I find something new. Maybe this is why I can't read the Book of Mormon? I wonder if each one of us experimented with killing the darlings in the next book we read, and XXX them out, I wonder how much of the book would actually be left. As a writer, I am sparse, and I probably don't have a whole lot of little darlings I use, which may be why I don't have patience for them as a reader. Debbie Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] _The Other Side of Heaven_ (Review) Date: 09 Jul 2002 15:15:39 -0600 [MOD: This isn't a formal review, and in fact Michael talks about how this isn't really a review at all. I've added "Review" to the thread title, though, because it seems to me that in addition to focusing on a few specific points, it makes the kind of summary evaluation of the film that--for me--makes this a review, rather than not. (If Michael strenuously disagrees he can have Terry Jeffress not include this in the review archives on the AML-List Web site, I guess...)] Having now finally seen _Other Side of Heaven_, I can react to Eric Samuelsen's earlier comments about the film. Eric said the main character, John Groberg, was weak and nonvolitional--weak _because_ he was nonvolitional. Groberg had one (made up) scene where he showed great heroicism trying to learn the language. But a later (also made up) scene ruined that perception and the whole film: the one where the minister and the branch president stand up to some girl-trolling heavies and get beat up. Groberg just stands by and does nothing. Eric said this was a missed opportunity, a great deal of talent agtehred together to tell a fascinating story, but with a script that blew it big time--with the usual results. The easily "inspired" Mormon audience loved it, and the rest of the world's audience saw the film for what it was: a failure of mediocrity. This, in summary, is what Eric said. Everyone take note: this doesn't happen often. I agree with Eric 100 percent. I had planned on writing a review of the film, but Eric said it much better, so I won't bother. After hearing others' reactions to the film and before I'd seen it, I had already picked out a title for my pending review, assuming I agreed with the prevailing opinion: "Seminary Film, Hollywood Style." Were I to write that review today, I wouldn't use that title. _Other Side_ doesn't even make a good seminary film. Where are the conversions? We hear about them, but never see them. Barely any teaching happens on screen at all--in a missionary movie no less. Where are the blessings for the sick? There were ample opportunities to anoint afflicted people--did Groberg keep forgetting his consecrated oil or what? Instead he massages a boy as he chants the ridiculous: "in with the good air; out with the bad," and this saves his life. Maybe I should name the review "Loony Tunes, Mormon Style." At least we had a baptism. The film was very episodic. This is okay, unless each episode is shortchanged. Every episode in _Other Side_ was. Well, except for the rat-chewed feet. That tribulation seemed to go on forever. But for months I'd been hearing about and seeing clips of this big hurricane Groberg had lived through. How many minutes of play did that exciting climax get? Precious few. A couple big waves thrashing Groberg about, then voila! He's lying prone on the beach like every other castaway film ever made. As so many others have said, the characterization was pretty much nonexistent. Groberg just did stuff as the script needed. As Eric pointed out, everyone cried when he left and said what a great guy he was. I didn't cry. I didn't care. He was a weenie missionary who never seemed to do anything useful except let rats chew his feet (useful for a good laugh for the audience and the natives) At one point he handed his mission president a stack of documents to prove all the things he had been hard at work doing. Maybe he forged them overnight, because we sure never see any of those alleged good deeds in action. How does someone sleep through rats chewing one's feet anyway? And how does lying in the Western natal delivery position with one's feet pointed at the sky heal them? And why is that such an inspiring scene when he finally walks for the preacher, proving he's the messenger of Jesus or whatever? Why did the filmmakers seem to think sun-healing was more inspiring than a blessing? This is a missionary film, isn't it? No one among all the Saints of the island thought to administer to Groberg and his bloody feet? _Other Side_ can be summed up in one word: bland. Nothing especially enjoyable about it. Nothing so terrible as to hate it. It's just there taking up space where a good LDS film should have been, sapping energy that should have gone to something that could have advanced LDS cinema. Perhaps that's more than ample reason to hate it after all. -- 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] _Handcart_ Release Date Changes Date: 10 Jul 2002 10:53:07 -0500 Kels Goodman's historical epic "Handcart" will be first shown publicly on July 23rd at 10:30 p.m. at Scera Theater in Orem. The late time is due to trying to get space in a real theater during the busy summer movie blockbuster season. There will be a reception afterwards. Industry people and journalists who haven't already received an invite can write to me and I'll forward the request to Kels. The new release date for "Handcart" will be October 11th, pushed back from July 24th. The record number of summer blockbusters has pushed independent films like "Handcart" out of the summer release cycle. Theater chains wanted "Handcart" to open in Fall. But Adam Anderegg's movie "Jack Weyland's Charly" opens September 20, so "Handcart" is staggering its release date past that, to October. The Wednesday before October 11, there will be another premiere at the Scera officially for the opening. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: [AML] Thoughts on Art and Literature Date: 10 Jul 2002 09:06:56 -0700 A few interesting questions have been posed in the last few months on some of my favorite websites. It's a debate that has gone on for centuries, and is probably no nearer a conclusion now than ever, but it appears that a swing is in progress. The concept of "Art," in caps, as an abstract perfection is losing ground at last. Art and classical liberalism have always gone hand in glove. It can be argued that many of the concepts of the classical liberal enlightenment were created by artists. Everything from the scientific method to economics can be traced back to the artistry of pen, brush and chisel in the renaissance. The quest for excellence and the love of beauty for its own sake broke down the closed socialistic guilds as well as knocked "nobles" from their overlordship. So effective was literature that the printing press was banned in many countries and licensed very tightly in every other. While many or even most artists were lapdogs of the great nobles, they quietly subverted everything they touched, as if by accident. Great art was paid for by the nobility, but it was created almost exclusively by the middle class. The impact can be overstated, but I personally think that art and particularly literature had a larger impact than gunpowder. A sad outgrowth of the renaissance was the French school of philosophy, which has ruined everything it has touched, and especially art. The idea that perfection could be easily attained here and now and the ridiculous noble savage theory have had enormous impact on the world of art. The quest for excellence became a quest for essence. Painting, sculpture and literature have gone through phases and fads that produced nothing of import or beauty. The sculpture thrown out by an English janitor a few months ago is a perfect example. He had no inkling that a pile of rubbish was "art," even though there were similar works nearby. Art as a whole has become more and more denigrated as it has become more and more pure. Even literature, which ought to be the most communicative art form, has suffered from this intolerant arrogance of puritanism. I won't mention any by name since that might offend; but there are very many books written in the last century that were without merit of any kind yet were hailed only by the "artsy" crowd. Indeed the very fact that there is such a thing as an artsy crowd is a bad omen, but there are at long last glimmerings of change. My own theory of art is very simple: art is science transcended. Painting, sculpture, literature both poetry and prose, music, dance, and every other possible form of art are all based on a science. A good piano player has skills that can be practiced until they become second nature. The science becomse art when innovation or even extraordinary expression. In writing a good writer can tug at heart-strings or get a laugh without deviating from the basic science of writing, but creating a character that becomes real to the reader is an achievement of art. I read almost exactly the same concept on the Arts & Letters website a couple of months ago, and more and more I've been hearing and reading little snippets of the same ideas. Art should communicate, and great art communicates with broad audiences. Mozart is still performed and admired though he is centuries dead; he defeated time and speaks to audiences that are divided from him by a gulf of time and culture. He did not achieve a quientessence, however; he used his talents and skills to create beauty that is recognized by anyone willing to listen. Art is in its essence communication. The narrowing of art to so many little genres has harmed both the science and the art; I once bought the same belief, and told my english teacher in High School that I didn't need to learn much about grammar or diction or read great books to learn from the masters. (Or mistresses--Jane Austen is my favorite.) I wanted to break the rules, write purely, and when I read the stuff I wrote then I am embarrassed and annoyed that I was ever so stupid. Instead of writing poetry any way I chose I took to writing sonnets and copied the "an thenath" form from Tolkien. I wrote short stories with a predetermined word limit and a ban on words of more than two syllables. These things didn't necessarily make me an artist, but they did improve my mastery of the science of writing. Now when I break a rule I do it deliberately, rather than carelessly. It's much more fun to break rules when you know what they are. Almost all great art came about while there were more rules than grammar or punctuation. Shakespeare was subject to the whims of a very whimsical queen. Cervantes was dodging the Spanish Inquisition. Limitations and censors do not necessarily hold back art, they often make it more clever, innovative and creative. Euphemism, irony, and satire are all products not of free expression but of violent repression. A free society does not necessarily produce the best artists. The puritan form of art still exists, and still holds far more sway than it deserves, but the signs are all in. The utter ridiculousness of some of the latest art scandals are one of the best indicators. The shrillest complaints come when the problem is nearing resolution. In my own genre the nine thousandth recycling of King Arthur is another good sign. Stagnation is often the forerunner of innovation. I may be too optimistic but I think I see the glimmerings of dawn despite the darkness of the hour. I believe this is due in no small part to the breaking of the dam. All the various media are slipping from the hands of the few. Excellence may become the object of the quest again, and that is all to the good. Art could begin to drive civilization again, instead of being an ugly toy for idlers. I'm definitely too optimistic. So be it. With all that manure there's GOT to be a pony in here somewhere. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] "Possession" Trailers Online Date: 10 Jul 2002 17:00:08 -0500 Trailers are finally available online for "Possession", directed by Neil LaBute and starring fellow BYU-grad Aaron Eckhart (also starring Gwyneth Paltrow). Check it out: http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/p/possession.php -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 10 Jul 2002 15:50:50 -0600 [MOD: I want to allow discussion as Scott has outlined it. So please, do go ahead and respond--but do it from the perspective of sharing (as opposed to arguing for) your view, keeping in mind that this is intended as a springboard for literature, rather than vice versa.] William Morris wrote: > I'm fascinated > by the way Mormons conceive the Millennial reign of Christ. > Specifically, > I've met those who see it as an idealized, rightous end point of > socialism, and those who see it as an idealized, rightous end point of > capitalism. > > So you get the socialism wouldn't be bad if it was correctly > implemented > and people actually lived it line. And the reply that socialism is evil > and that capitalism is the most correct economic system because it > preserves free agency--it's just that once Christ comes everyone will > have > each others best interests in mind and so everyone will choose to live > in > harmony and share with those in need. I know this may be a mild abuse of List guidelines, but would you be willing to offer a more detailed list of the reasons why capitalism/socialism allegedly denies/reflects gospel truth as we know it? I ask, because I want to hear the reasonings behind both mindsets so that I can address them to some degree in my proposed near-future, pre-Millenial, pseudo-utopic, speculative novel. One of the reasons I ask is that it seems to me that economic systems have little or no bearing on moral agency. The ability to choose among many brands of canned peas (or not) seems far less important a gospel question than what moral/social good is enabled with that can of peas. That choice seems to me to be independent of the economic system that made the peas available to consumers. Over the years, the body of the Church has participated in any number of economic experiments, including the socialized United Order and the aggressively capitalistic modern American free market economy--with little or no impact on the fundamental doctrines and ordinances. Religion and economics address different fundamental questions. Or so it seems to me. > But it sounds like you're talking about a Utopian society that is > pre-millennial, so the model would be closer to Enoch's city---which is > the > same model for many of the collective communities that have been tried > in > American history---a gathering of like-minded individuals. The problem > with this model (and really we don't know much about Enoch and Zion) is > that it's too much like a gated community for my taste. That's certainly how it's been portrayed in the vast majority of Mormon fiction--the Saints go off to their own separate place, close the doors, and exist fully independent of the rest of the world. Or at least they try. Is that gated community concept of the Mormon utopia a reflection Mormon doctrine? It certainly reflects our previous experiments, but that was in an age of the subsistence farm where one could close the gates; I'm not sure it would be possible to do that now without colossal technological and social regression, and I see few reasons to try. Yet we regularly see Mormon apocalyptic fiction that forces Mormons into exactly that--a social/economic/political separation from the rest of society, or at least from a corrupt American society (oddly we rarely see apocalyptic stories set outside of the U.S.). But doesn't this violate the whole idea of building Zion wherever we are? And yes, I'm trying to write a pre-apocalyptic, pre-Millenial novel that postulate some level of Mormon social or economic or political pseudo-utopia. While I have no intention of getting apocalyptic in my story, that certainly is a direction I could go if I chose. I look forward to any and all thoughts that you (or anyone else) have to offer. I just hope the request doesn't fall too far outside List guidelines, because I would like to hear as many arguments and opinions as possible. Thanks. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: PinkDiva@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Killing your Darlings Date: 10 Jul 2002 17:56:17 EDT So how do you tell? What's a darling? I think this is a great question. It's difficult to find darlings in your own work, which is why objective readers are important. If several objective readers identify the same darling, they're probably right. Otherwise, it's tough to know, unless it's the obvious wordy passages with tons of adjectives and adverbs or repetitive sections, etc. I find when reading my own work, time is almost as good as an objective reader. It's amazing how a passage can be wonderful when I write it, and flat and/or awful a mere week later. Lisa Turner -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Killing Your Darlings Date: 10 Jul 2002 16:36:22 -0600 At 03:42 PM 7/10/02 -0500, you wrote: >Computers have >turned us all into ninnies -- we can now delicately traipse around our >writing and peck here and peck there. I LOVE this image. It made me put down my Diet Coke and read it again. Does that make it a darling? Nope. It's clever and memorable. And true. I say keep those memorable phrases that people will quote to each other and say, "Isn't this great?" or "Isn't this beautiful?" or "Isn't this just the way you feel?" and dump the phrases that people will quote to each other and say, "Can you believe this person gets paid to write?" barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] LUND, _The Freedom Factor_ (Review) Date: 10 Jul 2002 18:53:15 -0600 Lund, Gerald. _The Freedom Factor._ 1987: Bookcraft (an imprint of Deseret Book), Salt Lake City. Trade paperback: 295 pages; $14.95. ISBN: 0-87579-961-2 Why would anyone bother to read a Gerald Lund book writter prior to his popular _The Work and the Glory_ series? Yet I have now done it twice (without actually reading TWG), with this book and with _The Alliance._ The short reason is that it was an impulse read. I've been reading up on Mormon apocalyptic fiction recently and this book promises a form of that. I've been fascinated with Mormon ideas of social/political utopias, and this book addresses that to some degree. In the end, though, it was sitting right there on the counter of my local library as I was renewing a couple of other books and I just tossed it on the pile. A Synopsis ============ _The Freedom Factor_ is a near-future alternate history thriller set in the United States. Young Bryce Sherwood, a senior aide to the senior senator from Massachusetts, authors a bill to add an amendment to the constitution that would enable congress to dissolve the government with a vote of no-confidence, forcing immediate re-elections of both the congress and the president. The amendment is designed to reduce gridlock and force cooperation between the president and the congress, putting pressure on all parties to work it out or risk being put out of power. The proposed amendment is very popular with a citizenry tired of empty rhetoric, and it appears that the bill will pass. But others are not as happy with this proposed change to the Constitution, including a fiery young woman named Leslie Adams who opposes Bryce Sherwood's efforts. Of course these two young people come together and a star-crossed romance ensues. Leslie tries to convince Bryce that his amendment will destroy the checks and balances set up by the original framers of the Constitution. When Bryce refuses to be convinced, a series of mystical events ensues and the ghost of Nathaniel Gorham, one of the original framers of the Constitution appears and transports Bryce into an alternate timeline where the Constitution was never ratified. In this fragmented United States small confederations of states are dominated by a despotic tyrant, the people suffer under the rule of a police state, and technology is limited. The different nations of North America are at cold war with each other, and armed borders separate them. As Bryce interacts in this nightmarish alternate America he comes to understand why his amendment is a bad idea and joins freedom fighters out to overthrow the government while he tries to woo an alternate Leslie Adams, all hope of returning to his own timeline lost. A Quick Review ================ This is a competent thriller with interesting twists and surprises. Lund's writing style is easy to read and rarely interferes with a solidly paced story of political intrigue. I found the love story a little forced, but the overall movement was good enough that I forgave it that weak spot. This novel is at its best when the characters are firmly situated in the alternate history and trying to solve immediate problems. Yet this novel also claims to be an argument on the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution, and that's where I thought it came up a little bit short. Lund raises a fascinating core question and conflict--can a two hundred year old document really address the needs of a modern, global nation dominated by technology unimagined by the founding fathers? This is a fundamental question, and one that I expected Lund to argue directly. But most of the arguments among characters happen offstage; onstage the characters only reiterate the conclusions of arguments past. And while Lund argues that Bryce's amendment will eliminate checks and balances in the government--thus enabling evil people to seize power and institute despotic rule--he never quite address *how* that will occur. We see the results, but not the reasoning, and that annoyed me throughout. Perhaps he thought that all his readers would already know those arguments. If so, I think he overestimates his readers' foundations in government and history. I suspect Lund just wanted to avoid talking heads and let his dramatization carry the argument--a noble goal and one that I would ordinarily applaud. But I wanted to hear the arguments directly, not just through dramatization in an alternate timeline (more on that below). The lack of that direct argumentation left me feeling unsatisfied and feeling like the author had made a promise he never fulfilled. This is not a slick international spy thriller of the Robert Ludlum ilk. But it is a solid, well-paced story of political intrigue and how one man comes to appreciate freedoms he has taken for granted. The novel really shines when it stops trying to set up its larger argument and just tells an adventure story. If you're looking for a strong argument about the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution that explores both argument and counter-argument, you will be disappointed. If you want a competently written, well-paced thriller set in an alternate America, the last two-thirds of this novel will fit the bill nicely (no pun intended). An Alternate Argument ======================= I found Lund's alternate-history-as-argument unconvincing for a number of reasons. First, he piled every nightmare possibility into one package, apparently implying that if our Constitution had not been ratified, no constitution would have been ratified and the fragile new nation would have fragmented into the worst of all possible configurations. The only way for this nation to succeed was exactly the way it did, and any other answer would have led to complete disaster. In other words he piled it on just a little too heavy, in the process undermining his own dramatized argument with an obviously precarious strawman with little power to sway those not already converted. Second, the obviously Soviet-style socialism he offers as the replacement in this alternate America reads just a little too much like a right-wing political tract for my tastes. Rather than creating a new and unique alternate history that mixed some good in with a lot of bad in a partially implemented American Dream, he chose to simply appropriate the Ghost of Communists Past--ignoring all the other successful governmental types that have been implemented in the last several hundred years. Again, the premise appears to have been all or nothing, and I just had a hard time with that. Third, though this book was written by a Mormon author for a Mormon audience there is no mention of what this alternate America meant in terms of the restoration of the gospel. There's nothing that says a Mormon author has to deal with that question in his work, but in the case of any book published by Bookcraft it just felt like an obvious omission of a question of relatively strong interest to the intended audience. In the end, I think Lund tried to do either too much or too little. He didn't offer a strong enough direct argument, and his dramatization was so skewed and politically lopsided that it failed to carry the weight it should have--at least for me. If this had been limited to an alternate history where the Constitution hadn't been ratified--and where the characters had no concept of some other possible history--I think this could have been a good, punchy thriller. But in up-leveling to the Big Question I think Lund bit off more than he really knew how to chew. Mormon Political Theory ========================= The recurring political story in this novel is so aggressively right-wing that it begs a question--is this emphasis of the political right a core element of Mormon doctrine, or is it an artifact of the heavy Utah influence on Mormon literature? Because I can't recall a single Mormon political thriller that doesn't proclaim an aggressively right-wing agenda--along with its black-helicopters/despotic-overlord as the only apparent alternative to that agenda. Once again, it seems like all or nothing--either glorious Americanism in all its Republican/Libertarian glory, or utter social chaos and destruction of individual rights. There's nothing in between, and it seems like no other alternative is offered as valid. Apparently the Brits and (East) Indians and Germans and Japanese and Australians and Norwegians and Brazilians and Canadians et al are all living under utterly failed political systems completely incapable of providing basic freedoms to its citizens, and as a result all of their lives really suck and they're totally miserable. I know, no one said that. But in offering only this one horrific political alternative to 1950s Americana, it seems like we are begging exactly that question. Of course American Mormons think it's pretty cool to live under the American system, and we believe that the American Constitution was inspired of God. But we also believe that God inspires many people to many works--even political works that take place outside the United States. The last time I checked, we were still building Zion wherever the people were, even if it wasn't in the U.S. I can't fault Lund for having his own vision and for presenting it, though I can and do disagree with parts of it. He wrote his book and he sold it. He has exercised his right to speak freely according to the dictates of his own conscience, and I can only applaud that effort. What I'm concerned about is the rest of us. Where are the other kinds of stories? Where's the political dialog through literature that dares to question American Jingoism as a gospel principle? Where are the stories of how Mormon culture sometimes comes into conflict with American political culture? It does happen, doesn't it? Is there another political stance in Mormon culture? I have to wonder, because I can't recall seeing it presented in literature. I hope it's because we haven't written those stories, not because the Mormon publishing establishment refuses to publish those other visions. Winding Down ============== Maybe a review isn't the place to rabble-rouse or question the political/social/artistic vision that Mormons present through literature. Then again, after reading a book like _The Freedom Factor_ I can't help but think about the relationship between Mormon doctrine and political theory and social vision. Because literature does raise these questions--or at least it should. As much as I want to resist the claim that Mormons are a homogeneous lot, the lack of other political (or social, economic, or environmental) visions in our literature certainly seems to beg the issue. And isn't that part of what a review allows? If I'm lucky, someone will write a book and prove that there is more than one Mormon vision on politics, and that's the best a reviewer can hope for. If I'm lucky... Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard C. Russell" Subject: Re: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 10 Jul 2002 20:08:35 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:18 PM > I also believe that folks in the area > feel that both papers are so biased that losing either one > will tip over the table of balance, which in my opinion is > really a teeter-totter. For a while, I didn't think either > paper knew what balance really was, nor could they find > it. It sounds as if that hasn't changed. There are times when the coverage of the same story is quite different, not from an editorial POV but in terms of writing quality as well as both breadth and depth of the report. For example, the Trib's report of the discovery of lead plates at Lee's Ferry was brief enough to leave a lot of questions and some suspicion about BY's involvement in the MMM while still doubting the authenticity of the plates themselve. The News' version was twice as long giving more complete background of the issue which left the impression that allegations of BY's involvement were unfounded. The Trib will very often cover a story that the News will not report at all, however. There is balance if there are two papers. I believe that when it comes to some sensitive matters concerning the Church's activities the News could not possibly be balanced. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that, either. The Church is the subject of many many articles in this state. ********************************************* Richard C. Russell, SLC UTAH www.leaderlore.com, lderlore@xmission.com "There is never the last word, only the latest." ********************************************* This e-mail is a personal communication sometimes intended merely for the sake of discussion. Its contents represent solely the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of the author's employer nor those of any organization with which the author may be affiliated. It is specifically not intended to be a representation of LDS Church doctrine. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Unbiased Presentation Date: 11 Jul 2002 04:53:25 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- > Scott wondered if there is such a thing as unbiased reporting. I say > yes, "If God's doing it." Otherwise, no sir. There is only more or less > bias, never none. > -- > Todd I wouldn't even go that far. God, to my knowledge, has never written anything, without the intervention of man (the Ten Commandments being the notable exception). All else is, at best, the interpretation of God's will through a human prophet who may or may not get everything right, or more accurately, who may or may not be ABLE to describe God's will in terms that are universally understandable. I would be willing to change my opinion if anyone can present any concept of the Restored Gospel that has been universally taught by all GAs, prophets, and Seminary teachers without alteration from its first revelation. Even the Word of God is biased. That's why we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost, imo, so as to be able to differentiate the Word of God from the teachings of men intermingled with Scripture. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DCHuls" Subject: Re: [AML] _The Other Side of Heaven_ (Review) Date: 11 Jul 2002 07:35:18 -0500 > Eric said this was a missed opportunity, a great deal of talent agtehred > together to tell a fascinating story, but with a script that blew it big > time--with the usual results. The easily "inspired" Mormon audience > loved it, and the rest of the world's audience saw the film for what it > was: a failure of mediocrity. This, in summary, is what Eric said. > > Everyone take note: this doesn't happen often. I agree with Eric 100 > percent. My impression of this movie, having read the books some time ago, was it was true to what Groberg wrote. I suspect that John G. wishes he had done some things differently as a green missionary too. His life as I have read about it makes the point that he did do a lot of growing up and did follow through and has done much good for the people of the Islands because of what he learned as a green kid from Idaho. I once was a green kid from Idaho. Believe me for every Harold B. Lee and Ezra Taft Benson there are many more like me who have made small waves not Tsunamis in life. But our small waves have impacted the lives of others and I apologize to no one for the height of the wave. I can tell you that what I know now and what I knew at 19 are vastly different. So the movie rang "true" to me. I also believe there are some experiences in life that we treat as personal and private, administering to the sick may be one of those. I had to learn how to do that on my own. It was not something that my father taught me. I want to hope that our missionary preparation is better now than it was in Grobergs day. There are many ways to embellish. We have seen one Brother get in trouble for doing so. I recently had a garage sale and my Paul.Dunn. books were for the most part left in the boxes. I enjoyed his books and his embellishments. However, when I learned that had been his style I lost some respect for a good story teller. Had he simply indicated on the flyleaf these stories are inspirational and may be motivational if not altogether true perhaps we would feel better. On the other hand if what we want to sell is how it should have gone as opposed to how it went, then I would say that Brothers Samuelson and Martindale both have made excellent points. Perhaps John Groberg wanted the film to be what happened without embellishment. I have no way of knowing I am just one old guy saying that I enjoyed the film. Saw it twice. Cried both times! I recently saw the latest Tom Cruise movie and if I could get my money back I would! I do not need all this violence and high tech explosions, eyeballs being carried around in a plastic baggie and on and on. I yearn for the sweet powerful story by Mel Gibson in "The Man without a Face" as opposed to "Brave Heart". Verbose as usual I now retire back into my corner! Craig Huls -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Lee NELSON, _A Thousand Souls_ (Review) Date: 11 Jul 2002 06:39:34 -0700 Review ====== Title: A Thousand Souls Author: Lee Nelson Publisher: Council Press Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 167 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 1-55517-653-4 Price: $18.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle Most of you will be familiar with Lee Nelson from his many fiction titles, including the Storm Testament series. He has written widely on topics concerning the West and the history of the LDS Church. "A Thousand Souls" is a departure for Nelson. In this small book, Nelson relates some of the highlights of his mission call to Germany. Sent to Europe in the 1960's, and given a blessing by Spencer W. Kimball, Nelson begins a two-year journey from uncertainty to a sure testimony of the Gospel. The title comes from Spencer W. Kimball's blessing, which included a prophecy that he would bring "a thousand souls" to Christ. Given the sparsity of conversions in the German field, this seemed highly unlikely. And with each failure, each slip, Nelson wonders how this vision could possibly come to pass. After a rocky start, Nelson eventually becomes comfortable with the German language, and finds himself enjoying his mission as he and his various companions explore innovative ways of tracting and presenting the Gospel. Beneath the text of this book is a surprising ambiguity about the role of deceit in the methods used to open doors. He is taught to begin his conversation by saying he is "taking a survey," when in fact it isn't a survey at all, just a pretext to get in the door. He questions this tactic, but finally pushes his doubts to the background. (Later, when he and a companion engage in a massive program of deceit -- constituting, by the way, a hilarious and highly entertaining narrative of misguided missionary work, in my mind the best part of the book -- he uses as his excuse the idea that deceit was practiced on a smaller scale, why not on a larger scale? Sadly, his Mission President cannot parse this argument, and takes corrective action.) The characters that populate this story include nuns and a priest, missionaries and their prospects (including some rather distasteful individuals), and mission leaders of all stripes and competencies. So, does he eventually resolve the "thousand souls" problem? Well, in a way. Frankly, I didn't buy his resolution. Suffice it to say that it sounds a bit as if he tried to fit the facts into his prophetic expectation. Having never served a mission, I cannot attest to the accuracy of the way Nelson portrays the process. I suspect much of it is accurate. This is tough work, it seems. It requires dedication, stamina and real belief. Falling short on any count can result in a failed mission. We must get to the end of the book, to the Author's Note, to learn that Nelson isn't at all sure that everything happened exactly as he relates it in the text of the book. He admits that, with the passing of time, sequencing and attribution can be mistaken. But he insists that the broad outline is correct. As stated, this is a real departure from Nelson's previous works. Thematically, I don't think he's ever done anything like this before. Also, the cosmetic appearance of the book is much better than anything I've ever seen from Council Press (an imprint of CFI). Readers who own any of his previous works will remember the rough appearance of the book covers. "A Thousand Souls" has a slick, thoroughly professional look that previous volumes lacked. Sadly, one feature of Nelson's writing persists. Homonym confusion is rampant -- "alter" when it should be "altar," "pour" when it should be "pore," etc. Grammatical blunders are also there, including his famous confusion between "I" and "me" that, at least in my own case, causes a jolt whenever I encounter it. And, my most famous rant, the last book of the Bible is "Revelations" on page 111, but he gets it right on page 112. In previous reviews of Nelson's books, I wondered aloud why a simple editing process isn't performed, to purge the book of such obvious blunders. It seems like such a simple issue. My wonderment remains. Despite the flaws, I really enjoyed this book. I read it in two sittings, laughing out loud in places, scratching my head in others. Nelson terms his work an "autobiographical novel," and should be read as such. It is entertainment, and it works well, although some might feel as if his resolution of the "thousand souls" prophecy is a bit contrived. The price is, I think, a bit steep. Most LDS readers will not be willing to spend nearly 20 bucks for such a book, and will likely wait for the volumes to reach the remainder table. If you can find a copy, locate a comfortable chair, sit back, and enjoy one of the better missionary tales. I think you'll have a good time with it. ----------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] TELFORD et al., _Nauvoo, The City Beautiful_ (Review) Date: 11 Jul 2002 07:20:44 -0700 Review ====== Title: Nauvoo, The City Beautiful Author: John Telford, Susan Easton Black and Kim C. Averett Publisher: Eagle Gate (imprint of Deseret Book) Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 54 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 1-57008-798-9 Price: $19.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle Books for review are often accompanied by a press release from the publisher. Deseret Book included the following note with this book: For every person who will be able to travel to Nauvoo this spring there will be a hundred who want to, but will not be able to make the trip. John Telford, Susan Easton Black, and Kim C. Averett have created a book for the armchair traveler to Nauvoo. First published in 1997, "Nauvoo" contains beautiful, full-color photographs by Telford and text by Black and Averett; re-released in 2002, the book has been updated to feature photographs of the new Nauvoo Temple from construction to completion. Okay. So one would expect this book to be larger than its predecessor. Wrong. The previous volume, titled simply "Nauvoo," is physically larger (nearly coffee-table size), goes to 96 pages (including an index and notes, missing from the current volume), and sold for a whopping $34.95. So how is this volume an "update"? Most obviously, photos of the Nauvoo Temple are now included, photos not available, for obvious reasons, in the 1997 edition. So how do you accomplish the smaller size? Sadly, the current volume lacks an extensive running commentary on the historical events that surround the photographs, so nicely provided in the earlier book. This text provided background that I think is essential to understanding the flow of Mormon history in Nauvoo. A simple caption helps, but is not as useful. Why not retain the text of the older edition, and simply add the updated Nauvoo Temple material? I suspect they needed to find a way to shrink the book down a bit so that they could sell it at a more reasonable price. (I tried to determine whether photos were omitted, but the lack of an index in the new volume made this an awful task I decided to abandon.) Pages 57-64 of the earlier edition are dedicated to "The Nauvoo Temple," a brief but informative history of the Temple and its impact on the city. I regret that the publishers omitted this strong narrative from the new edition. Given the stated reason for the new volume -- the inclusion of the rebuilt Temple -- it would have made this a better book. My naturally cynical nature also suspects that the publisher has decided that background text isn't nearly as important as beautiful pictures, that people may be willing to give up text in favor of more pictures and reduced price. This is not a particularly Mormon trait; society as a whole seems to be favoring visual delight over serious text. It's too bad. Together, the two books make for a pleasant journey through Nauvoo. Having never visited the city, I appreciated the opportunity to see how the early Church built a major city in a most unlikely place. Despite its lack of background text, "Nauvoo, The City Beautiful" does offer brief captions with the photos, helping the reader to identify the time and place. Those interested in further information, however, will have to look elsewhere. "Nauvoo, The City Beautiful" does not constitute a major contribution to Nauvoo studies. But it does provide a fairly low-cost alternative to previous display volumes, and may be of interest to Church members who want to view the city, then and now, and perhaps develop a deeper interest in historical study. Those who can obtain both volumes should do so, as the current volume, despite the press release, really isn't a re-release at all, but a reduced, and less detailed, version. ----------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Juanita Brooks Date: 11 Jul 2002 11:21:27 EDT What is a successful writer or book? It seems (as with many either or questions) that authors, artist, and people in general "succeed" both because and in spite of their individual collection of challenges. All of us in mortality have challenges, we all have "weakness" that goes with life on this side of the veil. Though we differ in individual challenges and "weaknesses" (not given to us by God according to the Book of Mormon) we are all on a level playing field when it comes to being mortal and in a condition of living by faith. (Success is best measured internally not by others measurements.) But in regard to the success of a book in my judgment obviously many factors contribute to a successful read. I feel that every person has a story that if told well enough could be a successful work even in the market place. Many also have a message, fiction, nonfiction or even scriptural that if well told would be a grand reading experience to many and maybe even most readers. But it appears that even with a great message, and grand delivery many works are not even "successful" enough to pay for the printing costs. So in spite of the common learning on this mortal stage and the yearning desire to share with others most messages and life stories are not widely read. Are they then not successful? Maybe we look at success too narrowly if we like many CPA's, who are said to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, measure the success of books, or any other "art" in terms of money or how many liked it. Often the success or failure in any field of life's work is effective advertising or even luck. Even the Book of Mormon was, and still is, a tough sell. Parley P. Pratt, for example, published 40,000 copies of A Voice of Warning on an early mission to New York to try and get people into the restoration message and "the most correct book ever written." To further this question about why the Book of Mormon was not immediately successful for more people and why it still is such a tough sell: I've wondered since my mission to Texas many years ago, why with over 1,700 hours of tracting in 9 months in Del Rio we were only able to find one 14 year old boy who was interested in our message, the Prophet Joseph Smith's story, or the Book of Mormon. At only $10 per hour it cost $34,000 to find Bennie. Why so "unsuccessful" as the world measures success? Are money, best seller, and how many people like it the only or best ways to measure a successful book? Glen Sudbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BroHam000@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] _The Other Side of Heaven_ (Review) Date: 11 Jul 2002 12:24:19 EDT I enjoyed the film. I was inspired, uplifted, and encouraged to greater spirituality and obedience by the book. If I hadn't seen the film I probably wouldn't have read the book. Linda Hyde -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: [AML] Update to the Nauvoo Theatrical Society - 3 Date: 11 Jul 2002 11:39:13 -0600 Well, we incorporated this week. When the paper work gets back from the state gummit, Nauvoo Theatrical Society will be a bonified Utah non-profit corporation. We're excited about that for several reasons: we can get a business license, a bank account in the name of the group -- plus it also puts us on the road toward being able to apply for Arts grants, etc. Our lawyer set us up also with a DBA whereby we can operate the Center Street Theatre Company as one of our producing venues. On the physical front, this last week, we finished raising the last wall in the theatre, so that our Black Box is fully enclosed now. In what was before a wide-open empty space, we've succeeded in carving a certain amount of space which we will soon paint black and which will receive the plays on our first season. I found some interesting irony (is that the right word?) as we lifted the last wall into place. With regard to human personal relations, lifting walls is generally considered a bad thing. Husbands and wives, for instance, who have walls to their communications are in for some rough times. Yet with our theatre, our walls are meant to open communication in a way it never has been opened before. We hope that our walls broaden our ability to share creatively with others, rather than stifle it. And then there's this issue of the walls being painted black. Isn't it interesting that black generally is thought of in the Western culture at least, as a symbol of death. We hope, of course, that life is what emanates from our black box -- new exciting and uplifting ways of looking at our lives as LDS. While our black walls absorb light, we hope that the audience absorbs the spirit of our productions. Our black walls show no variety -- yet we know our future audience will come to appreciate the variety in LDS theatrical expression, of which our first season is a perfect example. This week, there are several magicians in our building doing things with electricity and conduit and other mystical things so we can soon put in our light system. We've built walls to open communications, painted everything black to represent life, and soon we'll have physical light that we hope will eventually help share the artistic light inherent in each of the original LDS plays of our first season. ---- 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: Cathy Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Killing your Darlings Date: 11 Jul 2002 14:02:14 -0600 Eric asks, how do you tell something that's a darling from something that genuinely does work and is particularly effective? I use the (probably unhelpful) terms of gong and clunk. It's a feeling thing. A clunk feels like you've stubbed your toe on a brick. A gong--well, I have a cool book I'm reading and trying to learn from, The Tao of Watercolor by Jeanne Carbonetti. From page 48: . . .The surest way to make your brushstroke clear, strong and essential is to wait for a moment and breathe deeply. Step back and look at your painting as a whole. Then wait for your tummy to jump. When it jumps, it's a "yes" and you feel it. You know the brushstroke goes there, not here. Now you can be deliberate. Of course I'm trying to cross mediums here (not to make a bad pun), but eliminating those darlings and keeping the treasures is just that process. When it gongs, you feel it and when it clunks, you feel it too. All the best, Cathy Wilson Editing Etc -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Warning re: Elijah Able Society Date: 11 Jul 2002 14:35:26 -0600 Happy to comply--when I have time. I can only access the list from my office and am hesitant to even come up here because my grandbaby is due so soon. (The doctor told us yesterday he thinks it'll be within 48 hours.) I'll copy this to Darius, just in case he has time--though I think he's headed to California this week. I'll also get Jacob Profitt the info he requested as soon as I can. Right now, I am on fast forward. Oh, one more thing for Michael Martindale--read John Groberg's book. It's better than the movie. And John really did say, "In goes the good air; out goes the bad" when he was working with the boy who had fallen from the mango tree. It's all explained in the chapter about that miraculous healing. That's it for now, folks. I hope the next time you hear from me, I will officially be a grandmother. [Margaret Young] "Richard R. Hopkins" wrote: > > So Margaret, it might be helpful to hear just what information on this site > is erroneous. Don't know if this fits AML-list though. Maybe our moderator > can clarify. > > [MOD: I'm tentatively willing, asusming this doesn't lead us down a track > into debating details of Church history and/or doctrine. List volume is down > a bit at present.] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Unbiased Presentation Date: 11 Jul 2002 15:54:50 -0600 Gather round kiddies, and let an old journalist tell a war story or two. Well, okay, I wasn't actually much of a journalist. I worked for awhile = for a public radio station. I announced classical music, I read the news, = then I branched out, hosted and wrote a classical music call-in game show, = then also hosted a sports talk show, and on the side, was one of three = part-timers doing news, under the direction of our full-time news = director. She was an amazing woman; half crusading journalist, half = Scarlett O'Hara, and pretty much nuts to boot. But one story I did get to = cover was the story of the '88 Indiana 8th District race for Congress. = ('86 or '88; I'm getting old and feeble). =20 In that race, the incumbant, Frank McCloskey, a Democrat, was opposed by a = young Repubican attorney named Rick McIntyre. McCloskey was a kind of = policy wonk, techocrat liberal, as charismatic as spackle, but an = effective and intelligent behind the scenes legislator. McIntyre was a = young Reaganite conservative, also a good deal more charming and articulate= than McCloskey. Plus he had Bush's coattails to ride. Now, we had a = news director, an assistant news director and three part-timers, all = liberals, all Democrats. We were all rooting for McCloskey and we all = voted for him, and, off mic during our election night coverage, faces grew = long indeed as we became increasingly aware that McCloskey might lose. Well, the race was like Florida in '00. Too close to call. Election = results showed McIntyre winning by some forty votes. A recount showed = McIntyre winning by a little over hundred. A really skewed and partisan = recount by McCloskey's people showed him winning by a dozen or so. And so = the disputed election went to the House of Representatives. I was covering the story all the while, and learned all about hanging = chads and disputed absentee ballots and all that fun stuff we got to read = about endlessly in Florida. And of course, I was biased. But as it = played out, two things became increasingly clear: the election was = actually going to be decided by the Democratic House leadership, who were = working a deal, and McIntyre, who really actually won, was going to get = screwed. =20 Well, that's what happened. The supposedly non-partisan House committee = that looked at the disputed election results ruled that McCloskey had = actually won by two votes. (My wife's and mine, we've always said.) Now, = the news staff at our station were all pleased with the result. But his = win was not the story. The story was McIntyre getting shafted. And = that's the story we did and the angle we took. (It worked out okay; Bush = Sr. made McIntyre a federal judge, where he serves with distinction = today). Our story made McCloskey look bad, not that it was really his = fault. Our story also made the House Democrats look bad, which is okay = because they shoulda looked bad. We may have been biased in their favor, = but that wasn't the story. We covered the story. When it comes to journalism, of course objectivity isn't possible, and of = course journalists have a bias, and probably more journalists are liberals = than conservatives. But there do exist professional standards of ethics = and integrity which trump ideology a thousand-fold; I guess I think that's = true even today. Any decent newspaper or news magazine employs fact-checke= rs to make sure that its reporters get the story right, and any decent = reporter (and they do exist) has a good nose for news, for malfeasance and = corruption, for stories that really do expose misdeeds that need exposing = and that thus serve the public good. There really is a difference between = opinion and journalism, not that both aren't needed and valuable. =20 Having said that, I should also acknowledge that there are serious = problems in journalism today. I don't think this is the forum to list = them, but let me just say 'OJ Simpson' and leave it at that. Still, I = think that for fiction writers too, there's an ethical issue. Are we fair = to our characters? Do we really try to depict, you know, life? Or are we = lost in our ideology, lost enough we can't play fair anymore? Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Update to the Nauvoo Theatrical Society Date: 11 Jul 2002 14:58:27 -0700 Thom, et al, A hearty congratulations! And a well said post. I hope we your fellow AMLers will feel it our pleasure and duty to patronize your theater and continue to help LDS theater grow and mature. We'll try and see what's playing at the theater whenever we're in Utah. Again, good luck and God Speed! Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Thoughts on Art and Literature Date: 11 Jul 2002 16:07:15 -0700 The Laird Jim, Jim Wilson, wrote: > Now when I break a rule I do it deliberately, rather > than carelessly. It's much more fun to break rules when you know what they > are. Do you know of any book that attempts to identify these rules and sets them forth fully and intelligently? I haven't found one. Just bits here and there. It's almost as though the rules or tricks that produce good prose are hidden secrets of the trade, learned by the few and passed on in bits and pieces to the fortunate (well outside the boundaries of any class in English composition). If, as you say, writing is a science, and I believe it is, there should be something like this available to those who would like to advance their knowledge of the subject. Perhaps we do so only through careful observation of good writing, but one would think there is more than the weak and mostly useless works I've been able to find. Come to think of it, this might be a book for you to write, Laird Jim! (Though I have to tell you that the best I've found so far was written by Orson Scott Card, and he's a tough act to follow.) Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] LUND, _The Freedom Factor_ (Review) Date: 11 Jul 2002 15:17:39 -0700 Scott raises some interesting points in his review that I'd like to examine. And Scott, perhaps I'll be able to improve your luck by the end of it.... %-) > Second, the obviously Soviet-style socialism he offers as the replacement in > this alternate America reads just a little too much like a right-wing > political tract for my tastes. Rather than creating a new and unique > alternate history that mixed some good in with a lot of bad in a partially > implemented American Dream, he chose to simply appropriate the Ghost of > Communists Past--ignoring all the other successful governmental types that > have been implemented in the last several hundred years. Again, the premise > appears to have been all or nothing, and I just had a hard time with that. I am of the firm belief that the 'whore of Babylon' in Revelation is unfettered capitalism. Communism per se is dead. Totalitarianism is alive and well, from the tinpots like Mugabe to the bigwigs as in China to the growing 'rule by dollar' exerted by large (generally American) corporations. The Chinese, IMHO, aren't so much 'communist' as they are 'Confucianist oligarchical rulers who happen to have Communist roots'. Mugabe used to call himself a Marxist, but that was only because the Soviets were willing to help him out against Ian Smith when no-one else was. So using Communism as 'the devil' wears badly on me. (Granted, Lund wrote this in 1987, but still.... Even allowing for the fact that Ezra Taft Benson wrote 'The Red Carpet' in the 1950's, I find it terribly embarrassing to read. It reminds me of much anti-Mormon literature in its half-truths, wild extrapolations, and just plain irrational ranting. But I digress....) > The recurring political story in this novel is so aggressively right-wing > that it begs a question--is this emphasis of the political right a core > element of Mormon doctrine, or is it an artifact of the heavy Utah influence > on Mormon literature? Because I can't recall a single Mormon political > thriller that doesn't proclaim an aggressively right-wing agenda--along with > its black-helicopters/despotic-overlord as the only apparent alternative to > that agenda. AFAIK, most US Mormons are very, very right-wing. Much of that, of course, is tied in with the desire to avoid the 'pro-abortion/pro-gay/pro-immorality' crowd, as many of them would put it. Much of that is also tied in to, as Scott points out, the deification of the Constitution. I think the 'Constitution inspired by God' thing doesn't mean that 'the Constitution is inerrant', the way Baptists would refer to the Bible. I think it just means that God inspired those men to put down on paper, for the first time in history, a set of rules for a country that got away from the 'divine right of kings' crap and actually recognised the *people* as the sovereign force of the country. That idea has since been copied all around the world, with varying degrees of success. (Read some of the old USSR constitutions some time; beautiful language, impressive documents, but, of course, not particularly well-implemented....) As well, a nation such as that was likely the only place where someone like Joseph Smith would go and pray about which church was right. (Fancy a French farmboy doing the same thing anytime in the 19th century....) Anyhow, most US Mormons, when they see political enemies, see Communists, 'big government' types, pro-choice etc. types, and (lately) anyone with a turban and/or who speaks Arabic. Unlike myself, they don't see the right itself as a potential threat. > What I'm concerned about is the rest of us. Where are the other kinds of > stories? Where's the political dialog through literature that dares to > question American Jingoism as a gospel principle? Where are the stories of > how Mormon culture sometimes comes into conflict with American political > culture? It does happen, doesn't it? > > Is there another political stance in Mormon culture? I have to wonder, > because I can't recall seeing it presented in literature. I hope it's > because we haven't written those stories, not because the Mormon publishing > establishment refuses to publish those other visions. I'm only getting into writing just now, having churned out three SF stories last month and currently peddling them. (Well, one's at the Writers of the Future contest, one got a very nice rejection slip from F&SF and is now at Asimov's, and the third is waiting for some lyrics permissions from Elton John.) I'm now on the lookout for more story ideas, perhaps leading to a novel or two (I see one of my short stories leading to a novel which conflates the sex trade with diamond smuggling in the NWT, all tied together by the Russian mafia, for example.) And one vague story idea I have would interest you. It's triggered partly by Orson Scott Card's story 'West', found in _Folk of the Fringe_. At the beginning, a few Mormon refugees are fleeing Greensboro NC (Card's hometown for the last two decades) after most of the white Mormons in town have been massacred by the Baptists. I see Mormons growing in number and power, both in the US and elsewhere. (Where did I see a story saying LDS were way over-represented -- more than their less-than-2% of the population -- in places like Congress and big business?) I then see a backlash; as the world continues to go to hell in a handcart (not just in the traditional 'family/moral' issues that we all get on about, but also with stuff like Enron/Tyco/Worldcom et al.), some Mormons will get caught up in it. (I especially worry about business types who equate wealth with righteousness.) Others will try to stand true, and get flak for it. The 'gathering to Zion' will be more an issue of faithful Mormons trying to huddle together to minimise the persecutions, and eventually gravitating together in Utah and/or Missouri. I see most non-Mormons not noticing anything. They'll just keep right on watching MTV, shopping at Wal-Mart, and so on, and when the medical chips that we'll all have in 20 years are upgraded to allow the storage of credit information on them, they'll all just shrug and be glad they don't have to carry around little plastic cards anymore. I see 'traditional right-wing' Mormons being very, very, *very* confused by everything. I see them in favour of 'the war on terrorism', until the continuing restrictions on civil liberties make them wake up to realise what's happened. I see some Mormon Timothy McVeighs. I see Mormons gathering into communities trying to implement the United Order and the materialistic ones having a real hard time with the idea of signing *everything* over to the bishop, even if one does get to keep it all as a stewardship. I see the few Mormons with a more balanced -- or even more socialist -- world view being among the only ones who can make some sense of it all. I see Mormons slowly becoming more and more anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist. I see the great battle as being between the forces of corporate oligarchy and the Mormon forces of charity/sharing and individualism. > Maybe a review isn't the place to rabble-rouse or question the > political/social/artistic vision that Mormons present through literature. > Then again, after reading a book like _The Freedom Factor_ I can't help but > think about the relationship between Mormon doctrine and political theory > and social vision. Because literature does raise these questions--or at > least it should. > > As much as I want to resist the claim that Mormons are a homogeneous lot, > the lack of other political (or social, economic, or environmental) visions > in our literature certainly seems to beg the issue. And isn't that part of > what a review allows? If I'm lucky, someone will write a book and prove that > there is more than one Mormon vision on politics, and that's the best a > reviewer can hope for. > > If I'm lucky... > Scott, for you, I'll do my best. Now, let's see if I can get one of them there socialistic Canada Council grants, and I'll be off. %-) 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: "Richard Johnson" Subject: [AML] Replies Date: 11 Jul 2002 21:26:39 -0400 This is a painful time for me. I have saved more messages from the list in the past 24 hours than any time in recent memory. I have learned much. The Laird Jim dealt with art in a way that resonated with me intensely. I have responded to Thom with occasional vitriol, usually eliminated by the moderator, but I respond to his message re: the Nauvoo Theatrical Society with nothing but envy, joy, wonder, I loved the exposition on Black. I wish I could have been as clear with the administration at GA. Southern the last time they (mimimally) refurbished our auditorium/theatre and it might not have been painted in reflective institutional very light beige. You spurred all kinds of replies. I have moved to DSL at my house and still haven't figured out how to get Eudora to reply to the list (I get violent error messages). Thank you all any hoo. I had to go to all kinds of permutations in Outlook to just send a new message. Richard Johnson 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: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 11 Jul 2002 21:25:34 -0600 You *had* to know I'd respond on this one :). ---Original Message From: Scott Parkin > > I know this may be a mild abuse of List guidelines, but would > you be willing to offer a more detailed list of the reasons > why capitalism/socialism allegedly denies/reflects gospel > truth as we know it? I ask, because I want to hear the > reasonings behind both mindsets so that I can address them to > some degree in my proposed near-future, pre-Millenial, > pseudo-utopic, speculative novel. I'll bite. I don't think either capitalism *or* socialism bears much resemblance to the way things will work in the millennium. But that's just me. Socialism denies too much agency and capitalism allows too much conflict and duplication of effort. Of the two, I think that capitalism, assuming a foundation of freedom and the rule of law, is more useful for the world as it is right now. But that's in the same way that a representative democracy is the most useful for the world as it is now--i.e. damage control for a world in a fallen state. Neither is the way things will actually work once we're ruled by God. I once spent a lot of time considering how goods and services would be allocated in the millennium. I was drawn to capitalism because it is relatively efficient because prices are such an excellent way to communicate relative need. But I kept finding that the few scriptures about millennial society pretty much all talk about how buying things isn't how it works. Eventually, I found a better way that would work with millennial-type people. The better model for the millennial distribution of goods is to take the way the church is structured as a model--decisive power is put on the lowest level possible (bishops) with broad outlines and communication flowing from a central source. Given that technology doesn't disappear for the millennium, we have excellent capabilities to implement such a system for goods and services if we can safely make the assumption that fraud will be pretty rare. Needs can be communicated, work can be distributed, and each individual can volunteer for work that needs doing with the local needs filled first and left-over capability given to support larger or more aggregated requirements. This gives a lot of power to Bishops, but then, spiritually speaking, they already have that. Technology allows us to keep the whole structure relatively flat and the lack of central planning avoids the mess that is socialism (or communism)--i.e. where decisions are made centrally and communicated from on high with little first-hand knowledge of life in the trenches. The trick is to keep the bottom level groups small (100 to 300 people) and make sure that communication is adequately facilitated so that large projects can be undertaken without a lot of duplication of effort. > One of the reasons I ask is that it seems to me that economic > systems have little or no bearing on moral agency. The > ability to choose among many brands of canned peas (or not) > seems far less important a gospel question than what > moral/social good is enabled with that can of peas. That > choice seems to me to be independent of the economic system > that made the peas available to consumers. Well, with the problem that restrictive economies tend to restrict other freedoms as well. Systems that centralize a lot of power are easier to abuse and can change direction very quickly--meaning that you can't very well trust the way things are because a small shift of power can have wide-ranging shifts in policy. > Over the years, the body of the Church has participated in > any number of economic experiments, including the socialized > United Order and the aggressively capitalistic modern > American free market economy--with little or no impact on the > fundamental doctrines and ordinances. Religion and economics > address different fundamental questions. Or so it seems to me. Very true. And if you can keep them separated then the economic parts don't much matter. The trick is to keep them separated. A central power means that any group (including religious groups) can exert a lot of control if only they can influence the central power. As our ancestors found in Europe when the national church was chosen by the king. And as anyone in Saudi Arabia today finds if they try to be anything except Muslim. > That's certainly how it's been portrayed in the vast majority > of Mormon fiction--the Saints go off to their own separate > place, close the doors, and exist fully independent of the > rest of the world. Or at least they try. > > Is that gated community concept of the Mormon utopia a > reflection Mormon doctrine? It certainly reflects our > previous experiments, but that was in an age of the > subsistence farm where one could close the gates; I'm not > sure it would be possible to do that now without colossal > technological and social regression, and I see few reasons to try. > > Yet we regularly see Mormon apocalyptic fiction that forces > Mormons into exactly that--a social/economic/political > separation from the rest of society, or at least from a > corrupt American society (oddly we rarely see apocalyptic > stories set outside of the U.S.). But doesn't this violate > the whole idea of building Zion wherever we are? > > And yes, I'm trying to write a pre-apocalyptic, pre-Millennial > novel that postulate some level of Mormon social or economic > or political pseudo-utopia. While I have no intention of > getting apocalyptic in my story, that certainly is a > direction I could go if I chose. One of the things I find interesting about having a millennial government that operates similar to how the church does now, is that it points out that we probably *could* practice something of an LDS utopia and still remain *in* society. One of the things that Brigham Young was *very* good at was to recognize the power of people pulling together. Group negotiations and group effort are very powerful. He had an innate grasp of co-op power. Given modern communication techniques, we could unify our efforts in interesting ways right now. Group insurance? Group purchases of supplies and collective distribution along already proven channels. Intriguing possibilities there. This system has the appeal that the scriptures that *seem* to have us isolating ourselves *can* be interpreted to mean that we work together wherever we are. We cooperate economically and none can stand against us. You can see a glimmer of that happening with the Perpetual Education Fund. It wouldn't be too hard to map a line from that to other collective action that doesn't require us to band together physically. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Hansen Subject: [AML] Faith-Building Literature? Date: 11 Jul 2002 18:30:02 -0600 A novel to help me believe in God? At least that's what the inside cover said. I picked up the book "Life of Pi" by Yann Martel in the bookstore and ended up buying it because of the inside cover leaf. It read, "This is a novel of such rare and wondrous storytelling that it may, as one character claims, make you believe in God." Being the curious sort, and the book not seeming overtly didactic, I thought I'd give it a try. I was not disappointed. After finishing in less than 24 hours (yes, it's one of those hard to put down books), I would unequivically recommend this book to anyone. Not only is it well written, but fast paced and thrilling. (It doesn't even contain many of the evils some complain of language and sex - there is some violence however.) The story concerns Piscine Molitor Patel or "Pi", a young Indian (India, not Native American) boy who was born a Hindu, and then simultaneously becomes a Christian and a Muslim. His father runs a zoo in India, and in an effort to make a better life, determines to sell the zoo and move to Canada. On the journey to the Americas with the animals, the boat sinks and Pi is saved inside a lifeboat with four of the animals - a wounded zebra, a hyena, an orangatang, and a 450 pound bengal tiger named Richard Parker. The story concerns his story of survival for 227 days at sea, and his eventual rescue in Mexico. (it's not any mystery at the beginning of the book that he's rescued.) The ending has kept my wife and I thinking for several days about what we really believe about this story. But, in reflecting back, I don't know if at the end of the book it really helped me to increase my faith in God. Since then, I've thought - does any literature really help me to believe in God? Perhaps the closest I can come in my mind to faith building literature is Hugo's Les Miserables. But faith in Hugo comes more when he's being irreligious than religious. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is a great story, but unconvincing as truth by itself. Are there any overtly LDS books or stories, outside of scripture, that have helped increase your faith in God? (Do they have to be true to increase faith - like the pioneer stories we hear so often?) Dave Hansen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 11 Jul 2002 14:23:54 -0600 I can't accept that Satan didn't "get" the plan of salvation. He was one of the brightest spirits among us--his name Lucifer verifies that. He got it just fine, thank you. I think you need to look in darker places to find a motivation for him. To become a son of perdition, one has to "get" the plan of salvation to a high degree, then deliberately choose to reject it and fight against it. Surely the lord of the sons of perdition didn't come by that position through a lesser process of not "getting" it. -- 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] S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 11 Jul 2002 14:52:56 -0600 Christopher Bigelow wrote: > > If anyone's concerned about the Salt Lake newspaper situation, here's an > interesting Trib editorial with a call to action at the end. This situation > makes me both mad and scared. I would hate to see us lose the Trib as a > fully independent voice. I think this whole situation is overblown. Once in a Tribune article, the reporter listed several possible actions the Trib managers could take if they lost in court and the Deseret News took over. One of those actions was that the Trib managers could go start another paper. They should keep trying to win in court. But if they lose, this would be a fairly straightforward alternative. And considering the feedback from many Trib readers over this whole thing, I suspect the new paper would get a lot of subscriptions. This whole mess shows the shortsightedness of certain Mormon thought processes. The Deseret News is supposedly trying to get control of the Trib to censor out stories critical of the church. Yet all the Trib managers have to do is go start another paper. Then the News has absolutely no influence in how that paper runs. The whole thing will have been a waste of time. -- 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] Unbiased Presentation Date: 11 Jul 2002 15:12:05 -0600 "Richard C. Russell" wrote: > I don't believe it is possible to be unbiased or unslanted in any recreation > or retelling of any account. It might be desirable (though I can't see why) > but it wouldn't be interesting and interest is the lifeblood of > storytelling. We don't have to agree with the other viewpoint but it might > change and challenge us. Where it gives us a new insight, it is precious. > That is good storytelling. Since when is news reporting equivalent to storytelling? -- 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] _The Other Side of Heaven_ (Review) Date: 11 Jul 2002 15:44:28 -0600 Moderator wrote: > > (If Michael strenuously > disagrees he can have Terry Jeffress not include this in the review archives > on the AML-List Web site, I guess...)] I've yet to strenuously disagree with having my words displayed for people to admire. -- 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: [AML] DUTCHER, _Prophet_ (Status) Date: 11 Jul 2002 17:36:59 -0600 There have been some rumors floating around that Richard Dutcher's next film project "Prophet" has run aground. I took it upon myself to verify them from a reliable source. "Prophet" has not been cancelled. In fact, the project's in better shape now than it ever was. There was a withdrawal of some funding for a while, but that's been restored and added to. In fact, the film has become a pretty substantial project and is expected to make a big splash. I was also made privy to some casting information, which I am not allowed to reveal. Just had to throw that in for a little ego trip. -- 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: Kimheuston@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Thoughts on Art and Literature Date: 12 Jul 2002 11:17:58 EDT "Almost all great art came about while there were more rules than grammar or punctuation." You might be interested in Frederick Jackson's book _The Culture of Hope_. It is a challenging but very rewarding read. Kimberley (Heuston) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 12 Jul 2002 09:41:40 -0700 (PDT) --- Scott Parkin wrote: > I know this may be a mild abuse of List guidelines, but would you be > willing > to offer a more detailed list of the reasons why capitalism/socialism > allegedly denies/reflects gospel truth as we know it? I ask, because I > want > to hear the reasonings behind both mindsets so that I can address them > to > some degree in my proposed near-future, pre-Millenial, pseudo-utopic, > speculative novel. > I make no claims to the validity of the (mis)characerizations that follow. I realize that those who feel strongly about either system (either in the positive or negative) can make good arguments to support their feelings about them. These are incredibly broad brush strokes meant to tease out the implications of theorizing about a concept (the Millennial reign) that we don't know much about. So here it goes: 1. The basic ideas of socialism are similar to the United Order and to accounts of Utopian societies in scripture, esp. the idea of having all things in common. There's no doubt that communism as it was practiced during the 20th century was an evil ideology, but communism never actually was put into practice and the redistribution of property and resources happened under threat of force. Capitalism creates greed and waste and poverty. When people are righteous enough to actually make a Utopian society work (i.e. live the law of consecration) it will resemble the ideal forms of socialism. This is what will happen at the Millennium. 2. Communism is one of the greatest evils ever created by man/Satan. It destroys free agency, supressess vital freedoms, wastes resources and creates lazy, mistrustful people. To even discuss the merits of communism is heretical because Church leaders have spoken out against it. Capitalism is the best economic system because it creates incentive to work and innovate. Products and ideas that aren't valuable don't survive. When the Millennium comes, the Church isn't going to force everyone to turn their property over to their bishops, but people will want to live the law of consecration so they will. It will be the ultimate expression of capitalism because it will represent what the people and thus the markets want. Just like the markets now are driven by what people need and want. Now you can temper both of the arguments and add nuance, acknowledge the problems with both systems. And some Mormons see clear distinctions between socialism and communism (and, many don't, in my experience). But what is above represents the visceral, emotional responses to the concepts. The emotions that arise when someone pushes that button. I think the specific gospel reasonings behind supporting either system are fairly obvious and probably most easily expressed in the negative. Communism suppresses free ageny; capitalism creates greed and too often violates the principle and practice of charity and love. But I don't think the key to this discussion revolves around the realtive merits of either system---you don't find many hard-core socialists in the Church. The key is in how you characterize the economic system that will be ushered in at the Millennium. Both sides tend to agree that the law of consecration will be lived and will work because of the righteousness of the people and because economic functions will center in the Church. Those who talk about socialism are viewing things from a broader historical and more abstract perspective. Since communism has been discredited as a viable system in practice, those who can see its merits must separate out the principles from the way it was implemented. Thus their arguments rest mainly on scriptural and doctrinal ground. Those who advocate the capitalist view also do so on abstract terms (esp. the free agency thing) but their arguments are also more grounded in immediate history and in the attitudes of Church leaders during the cold war. They refuse to abstract socialist principles from the way they were (mis)applied in the Soviet Union and China because to do so would be to condone/validate those regimes. This leads to cross-talk and mischaracterizations of the others position that range from the abstract to the historical to the emotional. > One of the reasons I ask is that it seems to me that economic systems > have > little or no bearing on moral agency. The ability to choose among many > brands of canned peas (or not) seems far less important a gospel > question > than what moral/social good is enabled with that can of peas. That > choice > seems to me to be independent of the economic system that made the peas > available to consumers. > Here you are critiquing capitalism because your example is based on consumer choice. In socialism, there is no such thing as consumer choice. It was interesting to go in to the government stores in Romania (where I served my mission) and find only one brand of everything. Of course, on a fundamental level you still could exercise some choices (color, type of fabric, pattern). I would be interesting in hearing how others link moral agency to economic systems. Do consumer choices aid, hinder, or have no affect on moral ones? > Over the years, the body of the Church has participated in any number of > economic experiments, including the socialized United Order and the > aggressively capitalistic modern American free market economy--with > little > or no impact on the fundamental doctrines and ordinances. Religion and > economics address different fundamental questions. Or so it seems to me. > I think this is a place where (and it looks like you are going to be doing this Scott) literature can really help us define and address these 'fundamental questions.' Right now we're caught in this idea that a combination of democracy and capitalism is the 'best possible system.' I don't think that's a bad place to be caught in, but it's also not completely unproblematic. If the doctrines don't change under different economic systems, then what changes is the way that the systems impact how doctrine is lived and religion is exercised. How do the stories of individual salvation change (what experiences cause growth/pain/hard choices) when the economic systems change? > Is that gated community concept of the Mormon utopia a reflection Mormon > doctrine? It certainly reflects our previous experiments, but that was > in an > age of the subsistence farm where one could close the gates; I'm not > sure it > would be possible to do that now without colossal technological and > social > regression, and I see few reasons to try. > It's not doctrine, but it's built into our scripture, our immediate history and our thinking of ourselves as an ethnos (a peculiar people). It's not the only way to conceive of a Mormon utopia, but it's easy for me to see why it would be the dominant one. > And yes, I'm trying to write a pre-apocalyptic, pre-Millenial novel that > postulate some level of Mormon social or economic or political > pseudo-utopia. While I have no intention of getting apocalyptic in my > story, > that certainly is a direction I could go if I chose. > I think this would be an awesome achievement. Do it. One of the things that disappointed me most about Orson Scott Card's post-apocalyptic Mormon society in _Folk of the Fringe_ is that it reverted to provincialism. This makes sense (duh! what else is going to happen after major destruction---there's no infrastructure for anything but a provincial society), but I'd like to see more cosmopolitan forms of Mormonism explored in literature. I myself am working on a short story that takes place in an America where there's been sort of an apocalypse (at least there's been major destruction to the nation's infrastructure and mass migration---the Church has moved to South America, in fact) but then a quick rebuild with new, slightly different and slightly more advanced technology laid over the previous infrastructure---kind of like the ancient cities that would build (or rebuild)on top of a previously destroyed one, using the old city walls as a foundation for new walls. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 12 Jul 2002 13:20:27 -0500 On a theoretical basis, it would seem easier to institute a United Order-type institution under a free market system than under a socialist system--in part because the United Order is, in a sense, in competition with what a socialist government would be doing, in that it is attempting to coordinate the economic efforts of people. Such an effort could be seen as a threat to the government. On the other hand, we have antitrust legislation in this country which, it seems to me, could be interpreted as a barrier to widespread implementation of a United Order. That could be a lot of fun for the type of novel Scott's suggesting, set in a time when the United States *hasn't* completely deteriorated but the Saints are trying to live by some kind of United Order. Just imagine the lawsuits if the Saints tried to start living in economic agreement with each other! There are already plenty of anticompetition accusations around, as the whole Deseret News/SL Tribune dispute seems to attest. >From a practical perspective, if the Church (or its units in various areas) were trying to live the United Order, I could see some sharp negotiation with socialist countries that would allow the Saints to "do their thing" within the context of the types of guidelines the government was trying to establish. In other words, you could have a United Order that was part of a socialist system--not because the Church favored such a system, but as a practical way of doing something the Church leaders felt it was time to try to do. This could create some real internal conflict for Church members who feel that socialism is an inherently evil system because it denies freedom. I could see some very good conflicts arising out of this. I mentioned something above about individual Church units attempting to live the United Order. Rather than some broad centrally-driven movement, what I think would be fun to see is conditions of disruption (but not universal disaster) that led Church leaders to authorize leaders in local areas to set up United Orders as desired. Probably (given current Church organization) this would make most sense on a regional level (where welfare services are often coordinated), but I think it would be more fun if the actual decision-making were on a stake level (with coordination, perhaps, on a regional level). I'd love to see a fictional depiction of a stake presidency/high council/bishops' council struggling to decide whether it's better or worse for them to institute a United Order in the stake. Presenting the discussion at stake conference (or stake priesthood meeting) for a sustaining vote. And so forth and so on. Local bishops--*not* yet relieved of their full-time jobs--trying to implement the thing. (There would of course be guidelines from the Church, but assuming a wide variety of local circumstances necessiting decision-making at a local level, there would inevitably have to be a lot of room for adaptation at the local level.) Hey! Deicion-making and administration at the local level could be the federal government's price for allowing it to go forward without antitrust interference. And then you'd have some interesting conflicts as different United Orders had to *compete* with each other, in ways that seem very different from what the Lord had in mind for the system. Anyway. Sorry for getting carried away with my ideas... Jonathan Langford speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kathy Fowkes" Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 12 Jul 2002 13:43:41 -0700 Clark said: >It is interesting how good requires evil. It does -- most of the time. But it isn't always necessary, nor will it be. Take into account the City of Enoch. Enoch was able to teach and serve and thereby lead a people to a point of righteousness where Satan was essentially bound. They had become so refined and pure that they could only look on sin with abhorrence and turn from it without being tempted in the least bit. The evil no longer served a purpose in their lives. They'd grown far beyond needing any outside "spur" to do good or be good, to choose right and be righteous. This is also the place the Nephite's had grown to at various times in the Book of Mormon, and is where we as a people, a Zion people, need to grow to again if we are to be ready to meet Christ when he comes again. The Celestial Kingdom also has no need of evil. Evil was cast out, and no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God and remain there. It is mind-boggling to me to think that if I make good choices here, I may get to live in a world and existence that does not require conflict to grow and progress. The motivation becomes love instead of the courseness of pain and fear. In fact, we are told with great certainty in every book of scripture we have that love is supposed to be our motivation even here and now, while still subject to the adversity inherent in this mortal existence. Love God, love thy neighbor, love thyself, love thine enemies. Lose ourselves in service to others so we can then find our true selves, and grow that spark of divinity into an inferno of light powerful enough to create universes and children. If this (and I have no doubt of it) is the destiny of man, if he so chooses, is it possible in the here and now to write a novel without a satan figure, whether that figure be oneself or any of the other three traditional adversaries that make a story a story, and make it compelling enough? If there will come a time when conflict will no longer be necessary for growth, what kind of literature will then be produced? Will fiction still be wanted? Needed? Will it have a place? What form can it possibly take? Just something I've often wondered. Kathy Fowkes -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] LUND, _The Freedom Factor_ (Review) Date: 12 Jul 2002 18:41:51 -0400 Hmmm, after realizing I more than likely deleted this review without having read it, the only two cents I can add is that I found the book boring, the characters boring and one dimensial (sp) and the dialogue very painful to read. I didn't even realize the book was considered SF until I joined the list. I thought maybe the publisher was just desperate to put another book out that year. His writing has improved, IMHO, round volume 3 of TWTG series. Debbie Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Thoughts on Art and Literature Date: 12 Jul 2002 17:15:54 -0700 Richard Hopkins asked: "Do you know of any book that attempts to identify these rules [of good writing] and sets them forth fully and intelligently?" One of the most simple, straightforward books about the "rules" of writing I have ever seen is A.B. Guthrie's A FIELD GUIDE TO WRITING FICTION. A Pulitzer prize winning novelist (for THE WAY WEST), Guthrie knows what he's talking about. It's published by Harper Collins. I don't know how academia feels about it, but as a practical help complete with "show me" type illustrations, I haven't found anything better. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] BYU Writing for Young Readers Workshop Date: 12 Jul 2002 18:52:48 -0600 For those of you who would like to go to the BYU Writing for Young Readers Workshop but can't go the full day or can't afford the whole conference, BYU is making another option available. For $100 you can attend the afternoon sessions, M-TH from 1:30-4:30 and listen to all of the faculty, including editors and agent, speak. There are several other guests who are speaking just in the afternoon sessions. And it's not too late to sign up for the full workshop. Eve Bunting's and Tony Johnston's classes are full, but there are plenty of other great faculty members you can learn from. WRITING YOUR WAY INTO PRINT The third annual Writing for Young Readers Workshop will be held July 15-18, 2002, on the BYU campus. At the Workshop writers of both fiction and nonfiction, picture book and novel, will workshop their writing with an award-winning faculty and listening to a variety of experts discuss the business and craft of writing for publication. Picture book writers can work with Eve Bunting, Eve Bunting, winner of the PEN Special Achievement Award for her contribution to children's literature, or Tony Johnston, author of more than 70 books for children. Writers interested in getting a start can study and practice their craft under the direction of Gloria Skurzynski, who has written more than three dozen books for young readers and has been a regular on the ALA's list of Best Books for Young Readers, or Laura Torres, who has sold more than 6 million copies of her craft, non-fiction, and fiction books. Workshop participants interested in book-length fiction will be taught by John H. Ritter, author of the International Reading Association's 1999 Children's Book Award winner, _Choosing Up Sides_, and more recently _Over the Wall_; Alane Ferguson, winner of the Edgar Award for her mystery _Show Me the Evidence!_; Lael Littke, author of more than 35 books; and Tim Wynne-Jones, winner of Canada's Governor-General Award, the Canadian Library Association for Children's Book Award, and the Seal First Novel Award. Participants will also hear from two editors, both of whom are on the look out for productive, new talent: Tracy Gates, executive editor at Viking Children's Books, and Nancy Hinkel, editor at Random House. Each morning will begin with a four-hour workshop, led by one of the author/faculty, in their specialty. After lunch, the format changes to concurrent conference sessions where participants will hear from all of the workshop faculty on a variety of writing and publishing topics. Registering is as simple as logging onto the Internet at http://ce.byu.edu/cw/writing/ or picking up the phone and calling (801)422-2568 and ask how to register for the Writing for Young Readers Workshop. For those who are interested, university credit is also available. Workshop enrollment is limited to the first 100 registrants. (There is no limit to the number of people who can attend just the afternoon sessions.) Marny -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Faith-Building Literature? Date: 12 Jul 2002 19:32:46 EDT In regards to your question on faith building literature in general and specificially in my experience I would respond: First generally speaking: Scripture, history (non-fiction), and fiction all build my faith and help keep it it at a higher level than if I don't read. I have noticed in my current reading of the Book of Mormon many examples of rembering being assisted by reading of scriptures that to them were often history but not scripture in the same sense as we consider the standard works and were often records made by "many" of good talks given by peers and such. All "good books" that I read assist me in remembering what I am prone to forget if I don't read. I, like many others I have read comment from, have received more revelation by and while reading than any other way. Revelation certainly increases fatih in God for it is communication from Him through various avenues. See Helaman 10 for a dramatic example of Nephi moving to "level 3 faith" because of a revelation in a discouraged moment in his life. His reading of "the word" and declaring of it was the key reason God gave for increased power or faith in his life. So generally speaking any good literature can increase faith and indeed does so for me. A line by a father of one of C. S. Lewis' students in the movie Shadowlands comes to mind, "We read to know we're not alone." Specificially a book that I have read several times has greatly increased my faith in the "unseen worlds". The Keystone Series beginning with the Premier Volume The Day Alma Died was in fact written with the express purpose of increasing faith in God and understanding of how to keep our committment high to things that matter most. Glen Sudbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 12 Jul 2002 17:42:35 -0600 ___ Kathy ___ | The evil no longer served a purpose in their lives. They'd | grown far beyond needing any outside "spur" to do good or | be good, to choose right and be righteous. ___ A couple more thoughts to go along with my post on utopias. While God doesn't need a Satan as a spur to himself, he may need it for freedom of the sort the Book of Mormon describes. (2 Ne 2) I don't want to get into a theological discussion, given the list guidelines. I'd simply point out that the kind of freedom the Book of Mormon describes requires there *exist* both good and evil for a being to be free. If God is free then that suggests that he be exposed to evil. So I'd reject your assertion about there being no need. Further God "needs" evil so as to aid his children. So while he may not need it for himself, that doesn't entail his not needing it. Finally, as I discussed in my utopia post, *needing* evil doesn't seem to be the determining factor for whether evil is present. This then gets us the debate about evil in this life. Does evil exist because we need it to grow or does it exist because we have the freedom to choose? One choice tends to put God as picking out all our trials for us and eliminates peoples ability to choose. The other choice puts freedom first, but downplays evil as a "spur" as you call it. I suspect that the reality is somewhere in the middle. ___ Kathy ___ | If this (and I have no doubt of it) is the destiny of man, if | he so chooses, is it possible in the here and now to write a | novel without a satan figure, whether that figure be oneself or | any of the other three traditional adversaries that make a | story a story, and make it compelling enough? ___ Is there a book without conflict that is interesting? Yeah we can read poetry about how pretty things are or praising God. But personally I think if that were our entirely diet of art I'd get bored fast. I could only sing so many hymns of praise before I'd be left wanting more. Which gets us back to Brigham Young's insistence that God is progressing in some way. I like the old Jewish notion that God is eternally holding back the waters of chaos in an endlessly repeated battle of creative power. The problem is literature is that even when you eliminate the Satan figure as a formal Satan figure you simply recreate him as a psychological dynamic, a metaphoric presence in the conflict against nature, or so forth. The very *structure* of narrative requires this repetition of the archetypal myth of the battle of good and evil. We have a conflict of some sort in which the hero is at risk, reach a climax of the battle and then find the hero either triumphant or conquered. That *is* narrative. There is no other form that I'm aware of. Break that mold and suddenly it really isn't a novel anymore. I obviously have my doubts about the utopia you describe. (I like the notion of a utopia endlessly deferred - sought for but always undercut before it is fully achieved) But in asking the question of literature you really are asking the same sort of question Plato asked in _The Republic_. While he excluded poets because they created a secondary "imitation" or reality, I think that is but one nuance of what he was doing. Perhaps any real ideal utopia must exclude the poets because literature itself inherently deals with evil? As such it too is the "serpent finding its way into the garden." -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Date: 12 Jul 2002 19:50:51 EDT Kathy, As writters, my partner and I have also pondered the question of how stories, especialy fiction, will be written in a time without conflict, pain, sorrow, and death. Since we suppose, hopefully so, that we will be living and maybe writting stories during the Millennium the question is more than theoretical. And if writting will change then, should we change it now to less model the high action, revenge plots of much writing and most movie making? I wonder too if Mormon left out much detail on the Golden Years following Christ's appearance to them knowing us well enough to understand that we would find descriptions of peace, joy, happiness for hundreds of years a boring read. Glen Sudbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 12 Jul 2002 17:26:06 -0600 The problem with Utopias is that they have to confront the issue of "utopia for whom?" This was a problem even in the practical "trying things out" attempts at utopias in 19th century Utah. They wisely tried many variations on the theme of the United Order. One frequent problem was how to deal with "cheaters" or people who wanted out. Most presentations of utopias leave that part out. Of course Utopia literature has been around with us for thousands of years - going back at least to Plato's Rebublic. Plato famously excluded the poets from his utopia and various inclusions and exclusions have been thrown around ever since. Utopia schemes continued through such famous works as Augustine's _City of God_. We have the start of modern Utopia schemes in More's _Utopia_ and they have gone on non-stop ever since. (Often becoming the subject of religious communities theology) I must admit though that for me the satires of utopias are much more interesting than any particular utopian scheme. Who can miss out the critique of the utopia movement by Swift in _Gulliver's Travels_? Of course in saying that we must point out that More's _Utopia_ is itself highly ironic. It is akind of Augustine inspired theological critique of Plato's _Republic_. But in doing so it takes a somewhat pessimistic view of man - much like I think the debates between communism and capitalism as "utopias" often debate. The problem of this utopia as an ironic literary critique is that it quite naturally leads us into more pessimistic utopias and even the nihilistic anti-utopias such as Orwell's _1984_. Huxley's _A Brave New World_ is an other. Suddenly the very notion of utopia seems to entail the notion of its doppleganger the anti-utopia. And, as the Leninist form of "utopia" shows us, one man's utopia is an other man's hell. It is often interesting me (to make reference to Kathy's post) how little of the real utopias we learn. The city of Enoch gets a few brief verses with little about its real practical workings. 4th Nephi, which ought to be the most interesting and informative is a brief summary instead that they made it and then lost it. It is almost the Cliff notes version of _Paradise Regained_ done in reverse. Kathy says of the City of Enoch had not evil in it. Well, that's true to a degree. But how? Does this mean they all practiced birth control so that no evil little brats got born? She says that the Celestial Kingdom had not evil but immediately followed up this comment with "they were all cast out." That seems to suggest that the Celestial Kingdom *did* have evil in it. So how was this resolved? We speak of a war in heaven, which seems pretty intrinsically related to both utopias and our notion of "Satan figures." The very notion of a war says something rather profound about utopia and their possibilities. Does a "celestial" utopia always require violence to maintain itself? I'd note that with the City of Enoch it seems to have been incessantly involved in wars. (A post-deluge version of the cold war? A competition between "utopias?" A second kind of "war in utopia"?) One can't help but wonder what the folks *outside* the city of Enoch thought about Enoch and his city. I bring that up because while young I'd always heard of 19th century Utah as a kind of utopia which outsiders kept trying to destroy. Indeed the presentation of na=EFve Utah history sounded very similar to the story of= the City of Enoch. The only difference is that there seems to be a mixing of moral failure (we couldn't live the laws and they were taken away) and outside interference (OD-1 in the D&C). But once you start reading a less "eschatological" oriented telling of the history things get rather murky. We discussed Bigler's _Forgotten Kingdom_ here a few weeks ago along with the various books on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It makes one wonder whether Enoch's war had collateral casualties as well. Of course we don't want to think about all those details. And that tends to be part and parcel of the "pure" utopia literature. No messes. The dirty little questions of actual implementation and how to deal with conflict somehow never pop up. Yet our own theology of the war in heaven suggests that even God couldn't avoid those issues. There always seems to be a serpent in the garden, no matter what we do about it. So, casting evil "out" of the utopia - whether the celestial kingdom, the city of Enoch, the post-advent Bountiful or whatever never really lasts long. And if it is like that, can we really say that they are completely pure? How can we say that heaven was without evil if 1/3 of its inhabitants had to be cast out. Color me doubtful, but that is a lot of exclusions to retain ones attempted purity. Which brings me back to the literature again. More's _Utopia_ was a word coined as a pun. The pun's irony has largely been forgotten by the modern audience. The word can me both "no place" or "good place." We focus on the meaning of "good place" to the exclusion of the "no place." That sense of "can it *permanently* be achieved" still is present. Yet I think More's view that it must remain an ideal is lost. I don't want to prattle on too long about the interesting undertones of Utopia schemes, especially Mormon ones, so I'll just add a link that hopefully some will read. This is a nice collection of discussions about Utopian writing. Perhaps some others can take the literature and see how the Mormon place in it arises. http://osu.orst.edu/Dept/philosophy/club/utopia/utopian-visions/ Of especially interest ought to be the uniquely American utopians. I don't mean simply the religious movements that started here, such as the Amish. I am thinking of perhaps Emerson and Thoreau who were of the same general period as Joseph. Indeed the early Mormon quest for utopia was but one of many movements at the time seeking the same thing. Some Utopias are a looking back - trying to regain what was lost. Some reject modern advances, such as the Amish. Such Luddite utopias remain with us. Others are place faith in a technological utopia, such as were very popular at the beginning of the 20th century. All of these have their anti-utopian literary critiques, as I mentioned. And all, I believe, have the seeds of their own destruction in their roots. I'll be up in the Canadian rockies for a week. So I fear I'll miss the discussion. But hopefully the above will inform our discussion. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 12 Jul 2002 18:00:18 -0600 ---Original Message From: William Morris > > When people are righteous enough > to actually make a Utopian society work (i.e. live the law of > consecration) it will resemble the ideal forms of socialism. > This is what will happen at the Millennium. I disagree. Once we're righteous enough to form a Utopian society, the government will *be* a kingdom and the economics, in my opinion, will resemble the church with distributed power (i.e. no central distribution of goods and services). Neither of which is much like socialism, even it its ideal forms. > Communism suppresses free ageny; Well, communism gives a lot of power to those who can suppress free agency. Communism isn't *itself* responsible for the suppression. I'd say that communism, by creating a central source with a lot of power, makes bad behavior very rewarding. > capitalism creates greed and too often violates the principle > and practice of charity and love. I really dislike the whole capitalism = greed trope. I went so far as to pen an essay describing why that is just not so (http://www.jacob.proffitt.com/Greed.html). Capitalism doesn't *create* greed, it cripples it. And capitalism can't violate the principles of charity and love, that requires agency. Capitalism makes charity less *necessary*, but it doesn't stand in the way at *all* if people want to practice charity and love. Not sure what you meant on that one. > But I don't think the key to this discussion revolves around > the realtive merits of either system---you don't find many > hard-core socialists in the Church. The key is in how you > characterize the economic system that will be ushered in at > the Millennium. Both sides tend to agree that the law of > consecration will be lived and will work because of the > righteousness of the people and because economic functions > will center in the Church. Those who talk about socialism are > viewing things from a broader historical and more abstract > perspective. Since communism has been discredited as a viable > system in practice, those who can see its merits must > separate out the principles from the way it was implemented. And I disagree with that impulse. The problems of socialism are not a manifestation of poor implementation. The problem with socialism is structural--socialism fails because power is centrally concentrated. It, too, makes bad behavior rewarding, just not as rewarding as communism. If you want socialism to actually have a shot at achieving its purported goals, you'll have to look at the church as a model and devolve power to the point of actual contact with those needing services. And you'll need to find a different name for it because at that point, it isn't socialism any more. But of course that structural change also cripples agendized lobbying--those who have an eye on changing the system--because they have to diversify their efforts and their costs go up. Which is why I don't expect to see it happen until people aren't so interested in dictating the social actions of others. > Those who advocate the capitalist view also do so on > abstract terms (esp. the free agency thing) but their > arguments are also more grounded in immediate history and in > the attitudes of Church leaders during the cold war. They > refuse to abstract socialist principles from the way they > were (mis)applied in the Soviet Union and China because to do > so would be to condone/validate those regimes. As a capitalist, I don't refuse to abstract socialist principles from their misapplication in China and the Soviet Union. I'm more than happy to consider the abstract principles of socialism. But then, my actions look the same as if I had refused because I don't think it's a system I want anything to do with. I'm not a fan of the abstract principles even in their pristine condition. > I think this is a place where (and it looks like you are > going to be doing this Scott) literature can really help us > define and address these 'fundamental questions.' Right now > we're caught in this idea that a combination of democracy and > capitalism is the 'best possible system.' I'm not sure what you mean, here. Voltaire-ism aside, I don't know of anyone in my circle of LDS acquaintance who claims that a combination of democracy and capitalism is the 'best possible system.' I certainly don't. 'Best for our current fallen state' I might go along with, though I'll probably concede 'best for our current fallen state that we know of' if pressed. On the subject, I personally suspect that the 'best possible system' is a kingdom ruled by a righteous king and a support/economic system similar to our current church structure (which, I should explicitly add, I suspect might contain imperfect implementations and need some millennial modifications as well). Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 12 Jul 2002 17:18:35 -0600 D. Micheal wrote: I suspect the new paper would get a lot of subscriptions. But would they get advertisers? Advertising Keeps a newspaper alive. And how many subscribers would go out of their way to find this new newspaper? Editors from the tribune couldn't take list of old subscribers to the tribune with them when they start a new paper. Those list would belong to the new owners of the tribune. That would be theft, and that a bad thing to have on your record if you're trying to establish a relationship of trust with the public. Yes, the editor could go start a new newpaper, but it would be at least ten years before it would have any impact on public thought. An I bet such a newspaper would be bankrupt in three years. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Unbiased Presentation Date: 12 Jul 2002 18:01:26 -0600 Of course there is bais in news reporting. There has to be. The first bias occurres when deciding which story to cover. Paris Anderson (My computer was in the shop last week and I'm just trying to fill my quota.) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 12 Jul 2002 18:35:03 -0700 (PDT) There is an interesting article by Rebecca Vernon in this week's Salt Lake "City Weekly" about young Mormon rockers. It examines the perceived contradictions between so-called Mormon culture and the rock 'n roll world. The kids in this piece aren't squishy soft musicians like Jericho Road; they look to LDS people like Randy Bachman and Mick Ronson (David Bowie's late guitarist) for inspiration. The link is at: http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2002/feat_2002-07-11.cfm# (Rock is evil, of course. Lex De Azevedo, Jack Christianson, Ernest Wilkinson, and a thousand seminary teachers have said it, so it must be true. Elvis was in training to be the antichrist but he got fat; Madonna has just handed off the official title of The Whore of Babylon to Britney Spears; and Michael Jackson is surely on of those bizarre creatures mentioned in the Book of Revelation, like the one with the head of a bumblebee and the body of a West Valley City used-car salesman.) ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 12 Jul 2002 16:37:58 -0700 Fascinating topic for discussion and for trying to figure it's literary possibilities. A United Order or combo of such with capitalism sounds plausible, but here's some more food for thought: We won't be the only ones around during the Millenium. The righteous of all nations, kindreds, tongues and creeds will be preserved to live during that time. Thus, you will have plenty of Mormons, Muslims, Baptists, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, Lutherans, Taoists, Amish, and, (big gasp), Atheists, Agnostics and Practioners of Dahnhak, (and anyone else I left out), who will be here on earth. How will their economic needs be served? After all, they will still have their agency. Will they just fall in line, 'cause gosh darn it, those Mormons seemed to have gotten this whole Second Coming right, or will there be a separate system they will paricipate in? Will the two systems eventually out of choice of both groups merge together? Might make an interesting topic as part of a whole plot in a Millenial short story or novel. But whatever direction it might take, I think that people being able to make choices and not be coerced is an essential part of how things will work. I obviously believe people who would convice by flattery, force or artiface would have already been removed from earth, so the question also becomes how will these things be decided? Another good component of the plot I'm envisioning for such a tale. How might good people come together and decide such things in peace and harmony and still possibly differ in the method and systems chosen? Ah, the possibilities...... Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: Re: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars Date: 13 Jul 2002 11:08:53 -0600 >>> dmichael@wwno.com 07/11/02 02:52PM >>> > >This whole mess shows the shortsightedness of certain Mormon thought >processes. The Deseret News is supposedly trying to get control of the >Trib to censor out stories critical of the church. Yet all the Trib >managers have to do is go start another paper. Then the News has >absolutely no influence in how that paper runs. The whole thing will >have been a waste of time. Starting a newspaper is not that simple. Newspaper subscriptions are down all over the country. Few cities can support two daily papers, and it's mostly the afternoon papers that are dying out. The DesNews is not motivated so much by a desire to censor, but a desire to survive. Without the Trib, there are still the Denver Post and Arizona Republic that will publish articles critical of the Church. The Church wants to assure that it has *a* voice through the DesNews; it's aware that there will be other voices. MBA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Samuel TAYLOR, _Heaven Knows Why!_ (Review) Date: 13 Jul 2002 00:03:07 -0600 Taylor, Samuel W. _Heaven Knows Why!_ Aspen Books (Murray, Utah), 1994. Trade paperback: 256 pages; $7.95. ISBN: 1-56236-217-8 Samuel Taylor wrote this book in 1948 before going on to a successful career in Hollywood where he was the brainchild behind _The Absent Minded Professor_ and the films that derived from it, including the recent film _Flubber_ starring Robin Williams. Though this book revolves around distinctly Mormon characters and situations, it was written for a general audience. The setting is a generic desert valley somewhere in Utah, set in a post-WWII timeframe. The characters are a vivid assortment of rural Utah types. This is a farce, a comedy of errors revolving around the misadventures that follow a poorly planned visitation from beyond the grave by proud old Moroni Skinner to his shiftless, lazy (but good-hearted) grandson, Jackson Whitetop. Moroni Skinner prompts young Jackson to seek after his love, the bishop's daughter, and before it's over Jackson ends up dealing directly with The Trouble, a long-standing feud between those who live at the north end of the valley and those who live at the south end over how (and where) the Mormon chapel should be built. This is a fun, energetic story that's an absolute joy to read. It pokes good-natured fun at rural Utah Mormons while telling an engaging, entertaining story about young Jackson Whitetop's misaadventures while trying to do the right thing as he understands it. The writing is smooth and vivid, and the situations are just plain fun. The venerable Richard Cracroft once declared it "The funniest Mormon novel," and I'm not sure I can argue with him. Though originally written over fifty years ago, the humor stands the test of time. If you can get a copy of this book, read it. It's a roaring success at everthing it attempts to do and a prime example of what Mormon authors are capable of when they relax a little and are willing to recognize the foibles and oddities of Mormon culture. Normally this is where I would end my review because there isn't much else to say about the novel--it's a great read for anyone, but especially for Utah Mormons. The book succeeds on its own terms and deserves to be read. But in the author's introduction he asks some questions that I think ought to be addressed. He generally opines the often negative response he received from Mormons when this novel was first serialized in Colliers and expresses some frustration at the Mormons' apparent inability to laugh at themselves. He says: "This was my first novel, and one thing I've learned since then is that Mormons are passionately proud of being the Peculiar people, but heaven help the author who points out the peculiarities. ...We can sit around all night howling about Word of Wisdom stories--but should we put them in print? ...[perhaps] in the intervening decades the Mormons have matured to the point where we can now chuckle rather than bristle at some of the foibles and conceits of our culture. If not, heaven help me." Since this novel was originally published Mormons apparently have gained something of a sense of humor about themselves. Books like "Paradise Vue" and others have succeeded in the last two decades where they did not succeed earlier. We may not have a lot of humor about ourselves, but we do have some. So why did the author apparently receive so much resistance to this novel when it was first published? While it's clearly out of date now and falls into a category of novel that can be wistful and humorous about the distant past (thus making it less immediate, relevant, and telling), when this novel was first serialized in 1948 it was quite timely. One always hates to get too serious about a comedy, but I think there are some aspects of this novel that would have made it hard for Mormons to accept when it was first published. Everyone had a problem with the Word of Wisdom and was a closet coffee drinker, from the bishop to Jackson Whitetop to the bishop's daughter. Everyone. While their faith was very pragmatic and sensible, not a single character expressed a strong testimony in the literal truth of the restored Church--something that sounds like an apology for our beliefs. This attitude is exemplified by the bishop's wife, Beryl Jensen, who said: "Beryl Jensen had lived the gospel, and she felt it was a way of life that made people better. But she'd never put too much stock in it as the word of God. That business of Joseph Smith and the golden plates had always been just a bit too much to swallow. It seemed to her that Joseph made entirely too many mistakes to have been guided by the Lord. ...She defended the gospel. But she didn't really have the faith." (49-50) The result is a story that *only* reveals the foibles and conceits of Mormon culture without showing any of the more intimate things that also characterize what it means to be Mormon. The story *only* shows those who are silly or arrogant or dishonest or narrow minded without allowing a single Mormon to be an ordinary human. Of course that's a feature of the screwball comedy--everyone's goofy, and for there to be a comedy of errors there have to be a lot of errors. Such stories are not intended to show anyone as normal, but rather to expose all of the potential silliness inherent in the situation. It's comedy, not history. And certainly not realism. But the author asked, and I think this is part of the answer. When all you show are the warts--albeit with humor and style--a people who already feel besieged by negative public opinion will tend to see only an exaggeration of their faults, not the humor that should be taking the sting out of those faults. To learn to laugh at oneself is hard; it requires that defensiveness be set aside so that we can laugh together. As long as that defensiveness remains, the target of humor will feel laughed at and demeaned. Regardless of the author's harmless intent. If Taylor had included fully believing, normal Mormon characters would it have appealed more to Mormon readers? Maybe. But it probably wouldn't have been nearly as funny, and would have enjoyed less general success. Should the Mormons have accepted it more than they apparently did? Probably. But in 1948 Mormons weren't known for their ability to laugh at their own errors; they wanted general acceptance so bad that they saw any pratfall as a blemish on their good name. Their beliefs were not a joke and they didn't care for any portrayal of them as such. Samuel Taylor wrote a very funny book that deserves to be read and appreciated by Mormons everywhere. It's slick, well plotted, fast paced, and is generally everything that any reader could hope for in a comedy of errors. The author was clearly stung by its limited acceptance when it was first released. I hope Mormons have learned more of a sense of humor since then, because it would be a shame if people couldn't appreciate the quality of this fine comedy by one of Mormondom's first successful general market writers. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: [AML] Millennial Economics Date: 13 Jul 2002 12:33:53 -0700 The threads on the subject of Mormon Utopias and Lund's, _The Freedom Factor_, present a challenge for writers like Scott who are interested in trying to predict the future in a realistic way. Thought I'd give you a few perspectives that might help in the analysis. 1. Corporations are just a way for a group of people to do business together. I was a corporate lawyer, and found partnerships to be a real problem. That's because there are so many things that come up while your doing business that you never expect, and partnerships are basically ways for people to do business together under their own set of rules. The problem is that they rarely sit down and actually agree on all the rules before they start doing business. Corporations, on the other hand, have all the rules specified in advance. These are based on centuries of business experience and usually represent what you would have decided to do if you had known you were going to run into that particular problem in the first place. I much prefer corporations to partnerships for doing business together. There's nothing really evil about corporations, per se. It's just when you behave unrighteously, cheating on the corporate rules or the accounting conventions, that you run into problems. There is, of course, the problem of anti-trust, but that, again is intended to curb unrighteous abuse. Therefore, I think you could find corporations in the millennium. 2. The United Order seems to be the economic system that God has established as an ideal. But it is far more capitalistic than most members of the Church realize. For example, every member of the United Order was entitled to borrow money from the Order once--interest free! You could do it again only if you faithfully repaid the first loan. That's a fabulous way to create wealth and make a society grow rich fast. It obviously works well in a capitalistic system. 3. Communism doesn't work for the following reason: An individual has no perception of ownership without possession. Possession is the right to exclude others from using, possessing, or consuming of the thing in question. If I possess nothing (as I do when we all own it in common), I do not perceive that I have anything. This is often true in a capitalistic society, e.g., when I own some kind of intangible interest in something of value that I can't use. That's why Bill Gates thinks he's not nearly as rich as we all say he is. He owns stock in his own company that IF he sold it would be worth a great deal, but that's not the same as having that money in the bank, especially since he would not sell it because he doesn't want to lose control. So he doesn't perceive that this stock has value outside the control it gives him. Anyway, given this aspect of human nature, communism is doomed to failure because the only way to possess anything in a communist system is to consume it. That is, if we all own a piece of fish, the only way I can exclude your use, possession, or consumption of that piece of fish is to grab it before you do and consume it. Thus, all economic systems that strictly adhere to ownership in common are doomed to overconsumption. 4. The United Order is a capitalistic, private ownership, system of economics that places upon the individual the responsibility of making all things in common. Those who participate actually own (as a stewardship) their property. Thus, they can possess things (an exclusionary right, remember) without consuming them. What they do voluntarily is to give back to the community anything that exceeds their needs (and righteous wants?). 5. This results in a unique disincentive. Normally, in a corporate world, the incentive is to increase stock value and profits (that is, to make more than the officers and shareholders need). In the United Order, that incentive would not exist. This would change the objective of greed that has resulted in so many problems of late. You would just give the excess back to the community anyway. So what exactly would the incentive be? This would be a fascinating issue to explore in a book such as Scott is working on. 6. The law of tithing was given to the Church to replace the United Order. There is some scriptural indication that a tithe (10%) represents the average amount that we would give back to the community (the excess over our needs) if we were in the United Order. It may be that it is the only effective way to operate the United Order in large scale economies. That's another interesting thought to project in Scott's story. What if everyone in the world paid tithing and it was all administered for the benefit of the poor? Interesting thoughts, I hope. Tough assignment. Good luck Scott Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Thoughts on Art and Literature Date: 13 Jul 2002 20:12:53 -0700 I like Strunk and White: _Elements of Style_. Strunk's philsophy is one I have a hard time actually putting into practice but it's worth a try. His rules are three: Be concise, be concise, be concise. It's a very short and very excellent book. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 13 Jul 2002 20:36:46 -0700 The best explanation I've ever read for socialism is in _Starship Troopers_ by Heinlein. It's a kitchen parable: I take apples, sugar and flour and make a passable pie that neither decreases nor increases the value of what I started with. It's still worth $5. A worse cook takes the same material and renders it inedible--burnt to a crisp. Now $5 is $0. Hand the same material to a great chef and he could sell the thing for $25. Value is quintupled through skill and knowledge, and it didn't take him nearly as much time and effort as my mediocre pie. This is one of the reasons the original United Order had problems. Some of my ancestors were involved, incidentally. They were too rigid about everybody taking turns. Specialization is really the essence of "capitalism." Socialism promised that we could all be butcher, baker and candlestick maker every day, wander from job to job and thus get all the work done. As knowledge continues to double every few years that hope grows ever fainter. The United Order designed under the Law of Consecration could work even so, since it's voluntary, allows for specialization and does not have to be communal. I think that was the principal mistake in the original UO. Too much community. It's the same mistake made by the Pilgrims at Plymouth. I wrote up my own perfect communism a number of years ago. It was before Star Trek: The Next Generation came out but it includes a number of concepts that were duplicated in TNG. Essentially its like an anthill of Holodecks, where everybody's equal and can do any kind of simulation that they want, but have no contact with anyone else. Labor is robotic; people live for fantasy. The story is really about a group of hacker/rescuers that subtly alter the programs to snap people with the proper mental profiles out of their simulations and then eventually they teleport them out and bring them into a real world society. Incidentally the Bible and particularly St. James play a role in convincing people there's more to the world than simulations. Annoyingly enough _The Matrix_ came out and now my whole idea is useless. It may have been written in 1986 but nobody will believe it now. Talk about back burner. SF was never my strong suit anyway but since the same idea has been developed a dozen times since it was once marketable. Amazing. Whenever I read one of those bumper stickers with "Visualize World Peace" on it I have to shudder. I can visualize world peace--a vast dictatorial police state where nobody DARES do anything that is unapproved. _1984_ is the only utopia available to mere mortals. Thanks but no thanks. The Mormon kind of Utopia will have to wait for a different type of universal dictator. Once every knee bows and every tongue confesses I don't think anybody will think of rebelling. Then the whole concept of "Noplace" will be gone, and good riddance. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 14 Jul 2002 19:58:45 -0600 Must "Mormon utopia" and "United Order" be synonymous? I hope not. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathy Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 15 Jul 2002 11:55:34 -0600 It is interesting to read this discussion from the POV of systems--in other words, externals. The internal realities are what have always baffled me. We often make *huge* assumptions that as a group--large or small--we share basic mindset, spiritset, heartset. Then when we actually get down to problem solving or even just plain communication, we think, "Who *are* you and what planet did you come from?" This has happened to me in neighborhood reading groups, homeschool groups, ward committees, and so on--and I acknowledge that I'm certainly not the only one thinking "Who are you?" Others are no doubt equally nonplussed by *me.* So I always shrug and think, "Well, God is going to have to work a mighty miracle to establish Zion." Cathy Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Unbiased Presentation Date: 15 Jul 2002 13:11:22 -0600 D Michael wrote: Since when is news reporting equivalent to storytelling? Answer: ever since they started calling them "news stories." -- Todd Robert Petersen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Thoughts on Art and Literature Date: 15 Jul 2002 13:15:58 -0600 Writing is not a science. Science is a science. Writing is a craft, it's an art, but it's not a science. Some have thought literature followed some kind of algorithm and have written about it, but it doesn't. People put this idea forth in the late 19th century, when Johns Hopkins was really pushing graduate studies in American. Literature departments didn't want to look like book clubs, they wanted hard results like the chemists, so they wouldn't look like namby-pambies. Some modernists thought there could be a science of sorts connected with literature, but that didn't really pan out. -- Todd Robert Petersen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 15 Jul 2002 12:53:21 -0600 Adams, Linda Paulson. _Prodigal Journey_ (volume 1 of Thy Kingdom Come series). 2000: Cornerstone (Salt Lake City). Trade paperback: 517 pages; $14.95. ISBN: 1-929281-05-6 A Rambling Intro ================== The lore of the Apocalypse has become popular recently in both film and literature, most notably in the evangelical Christian _Left Behind_ series. A staple of science fiction over the last forty years, this new crop of apocalyptic stories revolves around not just a technological devastation, but a religious one--*the* religious one--that ushers in the Millennium. Mormondom has its own apocalyptic movement that, while similar to the generalized Christian vision in most of the broad strokes, is decidedly different in many of the details. Both portray society as corrupt, with religious freedoms substantially curtailed by force of law. Both assume a general decline of both social and economic opportunity with increase in war as its inevitable result, often resulting in a cataclysmic doomsday scenario. Both describe a charismatic anti-Christ who leads the peoples' hearts astray just before taking their freedoms away and establishing Satan's kingdom on the earth. Both assume a small group of faithful who will suffer ultimate privation but survive with their religious hope intact. Both end with the heavens opened and Christ revealing himself in glory. But the Mormon apocalyptic vision adds a relatively unique element--a gathering of the faithful and the building of the literal foundations of the New Jerusalem, the city of God that will be restored to the earth at the Millennium. The Saints do not stand helplessly by as the world goes slowly down to hell, they actively combat that decline and establish a community of extreme righteousness in the midst of the chaos. Of course this Mormon utopia is built in Jackson County, Missouri in fulfillment of modern prophecy that the New Jerusalem will be built there. Add the uniquely Mormon belief that the Garden of Eden was originally founded in Jackson County, and the circle is completed--the faithful return to the paradise from which Man was first cast out, returning to live in the literal presence of their God after their difficult odyssey. While a few Mormons have dealt with a science fiction style apocalypse (Orson Scott Card's _Folk of the Fringe_ comes to mind), most of the Mormon apocalyptic novels have been end-times scenarios, speculations on the events that will presage the Second Coming. Most focus on political and social upheavals with characters used only as the links between scenes, usually offering a smug back-pat to the Mormons who know so much more than the rest of the world. In other words, they spend so much time rehashing the same paint-by-numbers, sef-congratulatory, event-driven, obvious, and politically right-wing doomsday scenarios that they forget to tell stories about real characters dealing with very difficult and uncertain times. By and large they're bad books. In my opinion. The Review Begins: Synopsis ============================= Which is why I approached Linda Adams' book _Prodigal Journey_ with a great deal of trepidation. I like Linda. I've read a few of her short stories and have quite enjoyed them. I've heard some of her thoughts on AML-List and have been intrigued. I've generally found her to be thoughtful and intelligent and I've come to respect her as both a person and a writer. So the fear that she had written just another wacky, right-wing politico-religious diatribe against the New World Order kept me from reading her book for a very long time. That and its substantial heft--517 pages in volume one alone. I didn't want to lose my respect for an otherwise really nice person. It turns out my fears were completely unfounded. I really liked this book, despite my strong inclination not to. _Prodigal Journey_ is a well-written, thoughfully presented, character-oriented exploration of how the hearts of men have turned cold in a future America. It is generally free of the easy moralizing and simplistic dismissals that characterize so many books in the apocalptic category, and takes a clean look at Mormon end-times lore through the viewpoint of a good-hearted young woman who comes from outside the Mormon community. Alyssa Stark is a child of a radically altered future America that has been devastated by both natural and man-made disasters that left Southern California a radioactive wasteland and utterly destroyed the eastern seaboard, causing the government to establish itself in the midwest under the direction of a powerful and charismatic president who uses the peoples' fear of further devastation to rewrite the Constitution. The new America created out of peoples' fears has made religion an ugly word and recast both policies and practices with few of the moral constraints that religion formerly imposed. Most drugs are legalized (and heavily taxed), public sexual experimentation is considered a basic human right, and young people are legally emancipated at age seventeen. Life seems generally good, though continuing mistrust of those with strong religious beliefs has caused many to renounce religion in favor of a sort of secular humanism. Alyssa Stark is part of the first generation to grow up in this new America that celebrates individual expression over communal good. She is a good-hearted child of a viciously controlling mother and an absentee father. She is the ultimate loner, intelligent and likable but cut off from loving relationships--with a fiercely independent mindset as its result. The novel follows Alyssa as she escapes her loveless home to go into the wide world, discovering that what she wants and what the world has to offer are largely different. As she deals with a series of difficult challenges she finds her heart changed, her expectations altered. As her situation worsens she feels completely cut off from any source of support until she feels utterly alone and abandoned. As she literally teeters on the brink of death she finds that her life has prepared her for powerful work, though she has no idea what that work might be. That her path should lead Alyssa to a suppressed Mormon community and a discovery that many of her friends are Mormons should be no surprise--this book is specifically intended for Mormon readers and is founded around speculation on how the uniquely Mormon Zion might come to be. Though this first volume focuses on the world in general through the viewpoint of a non-Mormon character, it also sets the stage (and begins the process) for a final gathering to Jackson County. It appears that the next volume in the series will bring Alyssa more directly into the center of this Mormon community--and, presumably, more directly speculate on what that community might look like. What I Liked ============== As I said before, this is a very well-written book. The author's style is smooth and readable and never interfered with my enjoyment of the story. Adams' prose ranges from unadorned and direct to vividly detailed and beautiful depending on the situation. The result was that the story never had to fight the author's excesses or deficiencies. This book is also deceptively engaging. Adams engages the reader by creating a thoroughly likable character then putting her through trials, with the result that I found it hard to put the book down. Though there are few "Wow!" moments, I found myself quite disappointed when midnight rolled around and I had to put the book down so I could go to bed. Despite its heft, I read the book in about three days, staying up quite late to finish it. Adams' use of a non-Mormon protagonist was a perfect choice, and gave her the ability to create a richly detailed socially decadent world with little of the judgment and moralizing that one would expect from a character with any kind of strongly religious background, and especially with a Mormon one. This kept the focus on the core issues of morality, social choice, and political expedience rather than on explicating a Mormon culture to those who are already familiar with it. That clean focus gave this a fresh, uncluttered feel. Though Adams would eventually draw a very familiar picture of a standard Mormon apocalyptic political sitution, she did so honestly and with an attention to details and reasons that made the storm-trooper/despotic overlord scenario far less interesting than its effects on Alyssa. By entering the Mormon community from outside, Alyssa is able to observe and comment in ways that an insider voice could not. That I kept interest in this novel despite its portrayal of a social/political vision that actively tires me is a testament to the overall skill and quality of Adams writing and storytelling. If you're inclined to accept that vision of the future then there is little in this novel to distract from its thoughtful, interesting, well-earned speculations. What Jarred Me ================ Which is not to say that this is a perfect novel. I was jarred fairly strongly, and found myself cringing at a number of the author's choices. This volume is divided into three sections (books). Where the first and third books are essentially a mainstream story set forty years in the future, the second book opens up with a huge amount of both scientific and political speculation that really jarred me, and that featured some of the least believable speculations in the novel--for me at least. I won't go into the details because I don't want to give away the plot, but I do want to warn you that this is a science fiction book--at least through the middle third. There is speculation on social science, political science, and medical technology, and once it starts it flows fast and heavy. Just be aware. The science fictional content kind of blindsided me. I commented already on the heft of this novel, and though this is an engaging read that kept me turning pages, it also could have been improved with a ruthless reduction edit that cut somewhere over a hundred pages from the final text. The author has a tendency to reiterate points several times when once would have been enough. It's the normal first-draft hesitancy that a good editor should have worked with the author to excise. Not a big problem, but it made an already substantial novel longer than it needed to be. Perhaps my only big disappointment with the novel was that it didn't feature a strong internal story arc. Alyssa didn't have a strong overarching goal that she was working toward; basically, her goal is to survive until the next day. She starts out trying to survive home life, then college life, then life in the slums, but she isn't really trying to accomplish anything substantial. I would very much have liked to see a unifying goal, a quest of sorts, to give more context and tension to how well she addresses the struggles that befall her. Remembering that this is the first of a three volume set, I suspect the big story arc will be introduced in volume 2--the character has now been set fully in context with a problem, and the next installment will help define the limits of that problem and the consequences of failure. Unfortunately, her placement at the heart of a series of epic events came so late in this first volume that it didn't serve as the strong unifying thread that I wanted earlier on. Not a critical flaw, but an element that left me just a little flat at the end. I liked Alyssa enough that I am still anxiously awaiting the next book in the series. Scott's Mormo-Political Rage ============================== I ranted about what I see as a limited Mormon social/political creative vision in my review of Gerald Lund's _The Freedom Factor_ so I won't do it again here. But this novel raised many of the same frustrations for me. I would really like to see a more varied speculation on social and political conditions. It can be argued, for example, that the Mormon tendency to rush to Jackson County and build a New Jerusalem isn't really supported in scripture. Both the Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants talk about that city coming down from heaven at the Millennium rather than being built before the Second Coming. And while I admit that I haven't researched modern revelation, the idea of the gathering to Jackson County seems more folklore than doctrine--yet that gathering in that place is a consistent element of Mormon apocalyptics. (If I got that wrong, I apologize. It may well be that we have explicit revelation saying that the Saints *will* gather to Jackson County prior to the Second Coming, but the majority of what appears in the D&C is at best vague on that notion and seemed oriented toward the specific community of Saints in the late 1830s. In either case my frustration is not with interpretation of scripture but rather with what I perceive as a narrow creative vision relative to how we tell stories about that speculation, and which details we choose to emphasize. I know--I'm building a list of angry people who will come back on me with a giant "So what?" when I eventually write my own novel of speculative apocalyptics, but I defend myself on the basis that whether I succeed at meeting my own goal or not, I'd still like to see a more varied set of stories that rely less on a commonly accepted set of events.) Part of this, I think, is the vast sense of incompletion that dominates the Mormon mindset as regards Missouri and Illinois. In both places we had nearly built our Mormon utopias, only to have them snatched from us by angry mobs and corrupt politicians. In both places we had established communities that were both socially progressive and politically powerful, yet both communities failed--largely due to circumstances beyond our control. Those stories were never completed, they just stopped. And I think that sense of a job left undone is part of what drives our desire to complete in fiction what we were unable to do in history. I hope the recent dedication of the temple in Nauvoo will ease that sense of incompletion somewhat. I know it does for me. After visiting Nauvoo in 2000 I was left with a sense of emptiness at our last great social failure that was largely assuaged when the new temple was dedicated. I'm not saying Mormons should move on, but I would like to see a more varied basis (or at least geography) for our utopias. Of course I also can't help but note that the Jackson County obsession specifically challenges the Salt Lake Valley obsession, and the prankster in me can't help but giggle a bit at anything that makes that socially overbearing Zion in the tops of Utah's mountains into a temporary stop on the way to the real Zion somewhere else--maybe in South Dakota or near Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Conclusions ============= In terms of Mormon apocalyptic lore, Linda Adams goes over a lot of familiar ground in _Prodigal Journey._ But she does so with more style, thoughtfulness, creativity, and freshness of vision than any other author I'm aware of in the category. Her emphasis on character and spiritual discovery makes her story unique and very much worth reading. It gets past most of the cultural noise to the core issues of individual hope and belief that should dominate our own thoughts. I heartily recommend it not only as the best in its class, but a worthy book in any class. Good stuff. I very much look forward to the next installment, and so should you. Linda Adams is a Mormon author to pay attention to. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 15 Jul 2002 13:39:58 -0600 > From: Jacob Proffitt > > On the subject, I personally suspect that the 'best possible system' is > a kingdom ruled by a righteous king and a support/economic system > similar to our current church structure (which, I should explicitly add, > I suspect might contain imperfect implementations and need some > millennial modifications as well). > I was wondering when someone would point this out. The scripture even say that a kingdom, as long as their is a righteous king, is the best political system. The problem is, even a good a man as David had trouble staying a righteous king. That sort of power easily corrupts. But if we assume righteous people throughout the system---well, let's just say it's called the Kingdom of God for a reason. > I really dislike the whole capitalism = greed trope. I went so far > as > to pen an essay describing why that is just not so > (http://www.jacob.proffitt.com/Greed.html). Capitalism doesn't > *create* > greed, it cripples it. And capitalism can't violate the principles > of > charity and love, that requires agency. > I think you are on to something in the capitalism actually keeps a check on greed. I think that is the beauty of the American political/economic system--it provides buffers to our evil influences, and insures our power to choose righteous activity. At the same time, I have problems with capitalism, not because it is based on greed, but because it is based on scarcity. That is, in order to maximize profits it is necessary to _not_ supply everyone with what they need. When that product is VCR's that's not to big of an issue, but when you are dealing with cancer drugs their comes a point where you are saying the profit is worth letting some people die. That doesn't seem like an ideal situation to me. I think a utopian society would have something that looked like free markets, but without the reliance on scarcity and maximizing profits. Then again, I was born Canadian and may have some leftist leanings. 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: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 15 Jul 2002 14:03:21 -0600 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > You *had* to know I'd respond on this one :). I hoped you would, and I admit freely that I trolled specifically for your response (among others, not all of whom have responded yet...darn). > I'll bite. I don't think either capitalism *or* socialism bears much > resemblance to the way things will work in the millennium. But that's > just me. Socialism denies too much agency and capitalism allows too > much conflict and duplication of effort. Of the two, I think that > capitalism, assuming a foundation of freedom and the rule of law, is > more useful for the world as it is right now. But that's in the same > way that a representative democracy is the most useful for the world as > it is now--i.e. damage control for a world in a fallen state. Neither > is the way things will actually work once we're ruled by God. For my purposes, I actually was looking for a pre-Millennial sort of semi-utopic system created by Mormons well before any direct divine intervention occurs. In other words, what system might we build *right now* if conditions allowed, with Millennial reign as a future hope but not an immediate consideration? The Mormon mindset was once very interested in creating political/economic utopias, but that drive was mostly fueled by a desire to become independent of others, thus giving others less social/political power over how we governed ourselves. Then the goal changed from separation to assimilation, and we haven't seen much in the way of mainstream Mormon utopic vision since then. We've talked before about the various topics that different people are squeamish about, and one that I have no interest in speculating on is exactly how prophecy could be fulfilled (general timelines or specific events) or how government/economics/law might be run during the Millennium. Part of the reason I think the "end times" are so dominated by war is that whatever system is implemented by Christ will essentially require the ultimate failure of all other systems so that people are willing and able to scrap what went before to establish a new framework. But that's just my speculation. > The better model for the millennial > distribution of goods is to take the way the church is structured as a > model--decisive power is put on the lowest level possible (bishops) with > broad outlines and communication flowing from a central source. It seems like the biggest limitation of any system is not how the products are distributed, but rather the idea of policing fairness or equity. That's why prior experiments required the large central authority--the individuals can't be trusted to stick with the vision long enough to implement the benefits unless Big Brother constantly looks over their shoulders and makes sure they comply until the benefits of the system become self-evident and people see the importance of honest participation and do the right thing because it's right, not because they're afraid of consequence. Which is an interesting problem in creating a Mormon economic utopia. Given Clark Goble's comments on how the very term "utopia" is intended as a conceptual double-entendre that carries within its name the very impossibility of implementing itself, the vision still remains important. What if we could implement a near-perfect system? What would we have to do differently, and how would we need to think differently? How would we convince people to take a chance and participate. Because the Church is already seen by many as a social Big Brother who looks over our shoulders and attempts to coerce us into specific behaviors. Add economic (or political) coersion into that mix and it becomes exactly the anti-utopia that has become so popular recently. The Church becomes exactly the police that most of us are trying to avoid, and that changes our fundamental relationship. Can any egalitarian distribution system be set up that doesn't require a police force to ensure that it works as planned? If not, what limits does the system impose on its own police force to ensure that oppression does not take place--an absolute requirement in a system run by the Church and intended for the benefit of the people. Making the Church and the civil police the same thing seems like a formula for systematized abuse--unless we actually trust the system not to be abusive; a completely alien concept in modern times. > Well, with the problem that restrictive economies tend to restrict other > freedoms as well. Systems that centralize a lot of power are easier to > abuse and can change direction very quickly--meaning that you can't very > well trust the way things are because a small shift of power can have > wide-ranging shifts in policy. But if the only centralized power is economic, what's the potential for abuse? It seems like part of the failure of prior experiments was the all-or-nothing approach. All political, religious, and economic power was concentrated into the same central management agency. What if it were possible to create a separation of powers, such that the only purpose--and power--of the central distribution system was to get goods from one place to another to maximize cost to benefit while also ensuring complete distribution? No social police; no moral police; no political police. Just an agency designed to provide goods. Is such a thing even possible? I'm not sure it is, but I'm interested in speculations on why or why not. > One of the things I find interesting about having a millennial > government that operates similar to how the church does now, is that it > points out that we probably *could* practice something of an LDS utopia > and still remain *in* society. One of the things that Brigham Young was > *very* good at was to recognize the power of people pulling together. > Group negotiations and group effort are very powerful. He had an innate > grasp of co-op power. Given modern communication techniques, we could > unify our efforts in interesting ways right now. Group insurance? > Group purchases of supplies and collective distribution along already > proven channels. Intriguing possibilities there. > > This system has the appeal that the scriptures that *seem* to have us > isolating ourselves *can* be interpreted to mean that we work together > wherever we are. We cooperate economically and none can stand against > us. You can see a glimmer of that happening with the Perpetual > Education Fund. It wouldn't be too hard to map a line from that to > other collective action that doesn't require us to band together > physically. In fact the Perpetual Education Fund is one of the very things I've been looking at as a concept of a centrally managed agency designed to provide service to the broad body of the Church--wherever it is. It may not be possible to map a clear line between here and there, but the promise is so intriguing that I can't help but try. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: daryoung@juno.com Subject: [AML] Education Week Get-Together Date: 15 Jul 2002 20:41:56 GMT Anyone up for an AML dinner outing the week of Education Week (August 19-23)? I think (selfishly) that that would be a great week to get together since some of us (well, me, anyway) will be in town. And by the way, is Thom (and company)'s new theater up and running yet? Will you be performing anything that week that I should plan on seeing? I saw Marvin Payne's and Steve Perry's _Wedlocked_ at Ed. Week a few years ago and really enjoyed it. I'm sad to see they won't be doing another this year. -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: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] Conflict in Fiction (was: Satan Figures) Date: 15 Jul 2002 16:42:11 -0600 ---Original Message From: gkeystone@aol.com > > As writters, my partner and I have also pondered the question > of how stories, > especialy fiction, will be written in a time without > conflict, pain, sorrow, > and death. Since we suppose, hopefully so, that we will be > living and maybe > writting stories during the Millennium the question is more > than theoretical. Just because there's no conflict between people doesn't mean there won't be interesting things to write about--I think it was Jr. High English class where we discussed man vs. environment and man vs. himself. And there most assuredly *will* be pain and sorrow. Or do you think even Heavenly Father has no sorrow and pain? If nothing else, he has a passel of children that provide no end of anxiety--even the ostensibly good ones! (I've obviously been reading too much Georgette Heyer if I can stand to leave a stray exclamation mark or three in my posts!) And even if there's no *active* conflict, we'll have misunderstandings and limitations of ability and organization. Until we're omniscient we'll have plenty of things to set us on edge and provide juicy conflict. And personally, I have a lot of respect for a good-natured rivalry and would hate to have that disappear on me just because we're all working together. > And if writting will change then, should we change it now to > less model the > high action, revenge plots of much writing and most movie making? I'd certainly welcome a bit of exploration of good people honestly working together and the conflicts they experience. This world is built to provide us an uneasy existence and no matter how well-intentioned (or even well-unified) we are, it's going to take some work to get stuff done (darned entropy!). > I wonder too if Mormon left out much detail on the Golden > Years following > Christ's appearance to them knowing us well enough to > understand that we > would find descriptions of peace, joy, happiness for hundreds > of years a > boring read. Personally, I'm guessing that Mormon was thinking on a pedagogical level when making his editing choices. Not in a bad way, mind. He certainly had instruction in mind, at any rate, and there isn't a lot of information from a detailed description of utopian society that will be beneficial to us. I mean, their lives just aren't terribly applicable to us. Which would also explain why we *do* get so much detail for the couple hundred years of warfare and conflict immediately pre-Christ's visitation. Once we're actually *in* the Millennium, I'm sure we'll find out more. Although, come to think of it, a Millennial society doesn't really need a ton of guidance because most problems will be solvable with earnest and non-self-interested consideration and counsel. At least, I *think* they will be--haven't an first-hand experience you know. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Samuel TAYLOR, _Heaven Knows Why!_ (Review) Date: 15 Jul 2002 19:18:18 -0700 Scott Parkin If you enjoyed Heaven Knows Why by Sam W. Taylor, you might want to read some of his non-fiction, non-mainstream works. Sam Taylor was the sixth child of the sixth wife of John Taylor the Mormon apostle who took four wives after the Manifesto. Sam Taylor has 35 siblings who were all the children of his father. The subject matter of his non-mainstream work was polygamy. Samuel Woolley Taylor spent much of his adult life trying to get his father's blessings restored. This feat he finally accomplished in the last decade of his life. The other books he wrote, besides those you mentioned, are: I Have Six Wives - 1956 Family Kingdom - 1974 The Kingdom Or Nothing - 1976 He also wrote an interesting book about the Uranium Rush, called Uranium Fever, I haven't read this one however, I have it somewhere amongst my books. When I was young, before I had ever met a Mormon, I read The Absent Minded Professor. This was a very fun book to read. Although he is not my favorite author, I do think he was a very fine writer, and his books have done much to help me understand the "Principle" and why some people on either side of the issue have felt so strongly about it. Sam Taylor was a wonderfully honest and down to earth human being. He was a personal friend of my wife's mother, and I have all of his LDS flavored books, three of which he autographed. One time, right after my wife and I were married, he came to our home for dinner. On another occasion he came to a book-club meeting at my mother-in-law's home and I had a chance to visit with him. Regards, Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Millennial Economics Date: 15 Jul 2002 23:21:40 -0400 At 12:33 PM 7/13/02 -0700, you wrote: 6. The law of tithing was given to the Church to replace the United Order. >There is some scriptural indication that a tithe (10%) represents the >average amount that we would give back to the community (the excess over our >needs) if we were in the United Order. It may be that it is the only >effective way to operate the United Order in large scale economies. That's >another interesting thought to project in Scott's story. What if everyone in >the world paid tithing and it was all administered for the benefit of the >poor? > >Interesting thoughts, I hope. Tough assignment. Good luck Scott > >Richard Hopkins > Richard, what a lovely thoughtful alternative to hyperbole and generalization. This was somewhat the way I sensed the situation, but I lacked the knowledge and experience to really state it. Thank you and Amen. 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: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 15 Jul 2002 23:01:49 -0700 Great article. Thanks to R.W. for sharing it. As the article says it is possible to be both a rocker and an active, faithful member. In our Northiridge, California ward our Elder's Quorum Pres. belonged to a rock group called "Spaghetti Western" that we saw perform at The House of Blues on the Sunset Strip a few years ago. He is now Bishop Hollister of the Northridge 1st Ward, a rocker AND a Bishop, wow. BTW, Elvis gets a pass. He accepted, read and even made notes in the margins of the Book of Mormon that the Osmond family gave him as noted in Donny Osmond's autobiography, "Life Is What You Make It." After Elvis died, his father Vernon returned the BOM and eventually the Osmonds gave it to the Church. Yes, just imagine-Elvis was so close to accepting the Gospel and then he up and dies on us! He'd have been a bigger catch, then say, Steve Martin. ;-) Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 16 Jul 2002 12:12:10 -0500 Thank you, Scott, your review was kind, and I am refreshed to know you did like the book. This is a big plus for me! I do want to comment on this aspect, briefly: >I would really like to see a more varied speculation on social and political >conditions. [genre-wide] > >It can be argued, for example, that the Mormon tendency to rush to Jackson >County and build a New Jerusalem isn't really supported in scripture. Both >the Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants talk about that city coming down >from heaven at the Millennium rather than being built before the Second >Coming. And while I admit that I haven't researched modern revelation, the >idea of the gathering to Jackson County seems more folklore than >doctrine--yet that gathering in that place is a consistent element of Mormon >apocalyptics. Yes, Scott, you are absolutely right on all points. Scott also wrote in an earlier post: <> Right again! Yet while I agree with you, here I have written this book that does eventually follow down the same pathways as many others. I am glad to hear I win the "Best in Show" award. I *do* use a good deal of folklore in this series. I am sorry to say that when I began, I was unaware how much of it was folklore, but research quickly proved this point. It amazes me how, for a people who believe "the glory of God is intelligence," how little the general membership understands about the Last Days, and how few people actually do enough studying to find out the scriptural facts. I am first to state that I have no belief that what I have written/am writing in this series has any basis in fact or "what's really going to happen." I did try (fairly hard) to come up with a basic scenario that at least made much of the folklore tales and beliefs make a little *sense.* And yes, it is science fiction. Like you, I also found the existing apocalyptic literature severely lacking in imagination and hoped to present these things in a fresh, more logical light with focus on character. But the series still focuses on the folkloric gathering to Independence and establishing an earthly Zion/New Jerusalem (YES, I said "folkloric"). I think by the end, you'll like where I'm going. This was/is intended to be a trilogy with the story arc of a trilogy (a Mormon Star Wars? only better written I hope?). But I also believe that things are going to shake down much more simply than any of the literature suggests, and when it's all said and done we will re-read Revelation and go, "Oh. *That* was when such-and-so... okay, I see that now." If there is any mass gathering to Independence (15 minutes from my house), most of us who live here believe it will be due to the Prophet announcing our Temple, whereupon all the Utah crazies who *believe* in this Gathering will move here en masse. We locals also tend to believe this is one major reason that although we have 6 stakes in our metropolitan area, and St. Louis (and Nauvoo, and Winter Quarters) only have two (each), WE still don't have a local temple, even though we have enough membership to support one. We drive between 3-5 hours to get to any of these three closest temples. Perhaps I am wrong to perpetuate these "false" beliefs (I could be wrong about the "false" part, anything is possible) by writing a series that continues down the same path, but in many other ways there is such a thing as "giving the people what they want." Maybe my series can pave the way for yours, Scott. I'd very much like reading something that was completely different. Yet it is also my hope that by writing an LDS series that is compelling and well-done, I can encourage more Saints to think forward, beyond the basics of storing wheat, to purifying their hearts and creating a Zion on earth, right where we are, in each individual home. We are not studying enough. We (as a whole, culturally, etc.) are too concerned with the specifics of what may happen that we tend to forget the spiritual preparation necessary *today.* Are we ready? Are you ready? Am *I* ready? These are the things I hope my readers will think about. By the way, publication of Volume 2 is at a standstill. I am not sure how much detail I can or should go into here. (Richard? I'll leave that to you.) Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Mary Jane Jones" Subject: [AML] Bulwar-Lytton Bad Writing Contest Date: 16 Jul 2002 11:44:04 -0600 http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/2002.htm The above link is to this year's winners and runner-ups in the annual = Bulwar-Lytton Bad Writing Contest. The winner is a woman from California. = Enjoy.... Mary Jane Ungrangsee -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report July 12 Date: 16 Jul 2002 11:37:26 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of July 12, 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 --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 9 Minority Report 7,216,069 2,419 24 Gerald Molen (producer) 110,137,457 15 The Divine Secrets of the 1,503,373 1,107 38 Ya-Ya Sisterhood 64,707,667 36 ESPN's Ultimate X 83,487 36 66 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,126,173 56 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 20,994 7 801 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,525,860 60 China: The Panda Adventure 20,355 7 353 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,589,185 69 Galapagos 8,648 4 990 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,507,223 72 The Believer 7,326 7 59 Ryan Gosling (lead male actor) 230,913 76 The Other Side of Heaven 6,221 9 213 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,635,304 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 78 Mark Twain's America 3D 5,346 2 1473 Alan Williams (composer) 2,244,712 83 The Singles Ward 4,185 4 164 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 821,138 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, Wally Joyner, Lincoln Hoppe, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, etc. SUDDENLY UNEXPECTED AUDITIONS: The official website for the Houston-based movie production "Suddenly Unexpected" now has more details about the lead and supporting characters, brief descriptions of featured extras that will be needed, and lines that actors should prepare to perform before coming to the audition. Remember, the Houston auditions are on August 3rd and the Provo auditions are on August 5th. "MINORITY REPORT" dropped to #9 this week and is in danger of dropping out of the top ten next weekend. The film, produced by Latter-day Saint movie producer Jerry Molen (who also produced "The Other Side of Heaven") has not performed quite as well at the box office as expected, although it has grossed over $110 million to date. HANDCART RELEASE PUSHED BACK, PLACING CHARLY NEXT UP AT BAT: We'll have to wait a little longer for the next release of a film in the "LDS Cinema" category. Kels Goodman's "Handcart", which was originally scheduled to be released for the July 24th holiday has been bumped from the summertime theaters by this year's abundance of blockbuster releases. During the summer it is always hard for an independent film to find room in the theaters. The actual date of arrival in the about 20 Utah and Idaho theaters has been moved back to October 11th, 2002. The film adaptation of Jack Weyland's "Charly" is scheduled for release on September 20th, of course, so "Handcart" has been staggered back to October 11th. A late-in-the-evening by-invitation-only screening of "Handcart" has been scheduled on July 23rd, but there will also be an official opening around the October 11th date. LDSfilm.com will have a representative at the July 23rd sneak preview, so we'll be sure to let you know our impressions of the film. By the way, there are some very nice stills on Kels Goodman's web page: http://www.kelsgoodman.com/moviestills.html TREU'S SECRETS SOON IN THEATERS: The nationwide release of Blair Treu's "Little Secrets" has also been delayed - but only by a week. The film, which involves a number of LDS cast and crew members, will be released nationally by Columbia Tristar on August 23rd. POSSESSION TRAILER ONLINE: Trailers are available online for "Possession" at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/p/possession.php. The film which is directed by Neil LaBute and stars fellow BYU-grad Aaron Eckhart, is scheduled for release on August 30th. (It also stars Academy Award-winner Gwyneth Paltrow.) The movie is rated PG-13, which means it is the first feature film directed by Neil LaBute that has not received an R rating. The MPAA note along with the rating states that the PG-13 rating is for sexuality and mature themes. Based on this, and the trailer we previewed, it appears that this tale of poets and the scholars who study them is full of passion and ideas, but devoid of violence and vulgar langauge. BAPTISTS AT OUR BARBECUE: Robert Farrell Smith's first novel "Baptists at Our Barbecue" will soon begin production as a feature film. The book itself will soon be re-published, this time by Deseret Book. It was first published by Aspen. The URL for the movie is: http://www.striplingwarrior.com/bbq/ (although there's not much there, yet). Yes, this is an LDS novel despite the fact that the word "Baptists" appears in the title. SALT LAKE CITY FILM FESTIVAL details can be found at: http://www.slcfilmfest.org/7_events/ The upcoming event, organized by Latter-day Saint filmmaker Wayne L. Lee and scheduled for August 22-24, 2002, will feature films from all genres by filmmakers of all backgrounds. Christian Vuissa will host a special screening of the "Best of the Interntional Young LDS Film Festival 2002" Marian Arthur will host a special screening of the "Best of 2002 Thunderbird International Film Festival 2002." Sheridan Prince will host a special screening the "Best of 2002 Utah High School Film Festival." And Jeanne McKinney will host a special screening of her film "Shattered Dreams", about the horrors wrought by alcohol, people who drink alcohol, and drunk driving. (Jeanne McKinney is a neophyte Latter-day Saint screenwriter who has been written about extensively in online publications by British Latter-day Saint novelist Anne Bradshaw.) The SLC Film Festival will feature workshops by John Lee, actress Mowava Pryor ("Testaments of One Shepherd and One Fold", "MMC", the New Mickey Mouse Club), music by Alex Boye and Monica Dixon, panels with Utah-based feature film director Gregory C. Haynes ("Cowboys and Angels", "Heaven or Vegas", "Slow"), screenwriter Jeanne McKinney, filmmaker Richard Dutcher ("God's Army", "Brigham City"), Academy Award-winning director Kieth Merrill, and many others. Directors who will be screening films at the festival include: Baoqi Ye, Chaille Stovall, Craig Lofgreen, DJ Kadagian, Daniele Pignatelli, David Asay, Eric Ulbich, James Cho, James Dalrymple, Joe Sasich, John Plausse, Kick Hughes, Mark Goodman, Michele Walton, Owen Shapiro, Paul Cross, Scott Bogoniewski, Scott Tiffany, Shawn Emery, Spencer Christiansen, Teddy Sharkova, and Yu Qian. Key staff of the SLC Film Festival includes: Breck Rice, Jacosta, Kevin McDaniel, Roger T. Muir, Nancy Pomeroy, Guy Marler, Don Fulton, James Holmes, and Aaron Syrett. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Conflict in Fiction (was: Satan Figures) Date: 16 Jul 2002 12:38:15 -0600 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > I wonder too if Mormon left out much detail on the Golden > > Years following > > Christ's appearance to them knowing us well enough to > > understand that we > > would find descriptions of peace, joy, happiness for hundreds > > of years a > > boring read. > > Personally, I'm guessing that Mormon was thinking on a pedagogical level > when making his editing choices. Not in a bad way, mind. He certainly > had instruction in mind, at any rate, and there isn't a lot of > information from a detailed description of utopian society that will be > beneficial to us. I mean, their lives just aren't terribly applicable > to us. So is it possible that the creation of a perfect society is so dependent on the time, place, people, and social needs that there's no instructive value to providing the details of one particular utopic implementation? Sure it would be interesting to know, but the goal is not to impose Enoch's system on us but rather to spur us to develop our own unique system that meets our very specific challenges and needs. Which ties back to something Jonathon suggested--what if social utopia is so localized to time and place that it might be possible to set up several different systems at the same time? Even more interestingly, that some (or all) of those individual communities could be supported equally by a super-organization whose only interest is the individual welfare of people? An organization like the Church... Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 16 Jul 2002 13:07:58 -0600 Jim Wilson wrote: > Whenever I read one of those bumper stickers with "Visualize World Peace" on > it I have to shudder. I can visualize world peace--a vast dictatorial > police state where nobody DARES do anything that is unapproved. _1984_ is > the only utopia available to mere mortals. Thanks but no thanks. The > Mormon kind of Utopia will have to wait for a different type of universal > dictator. Once every knee bows and every tongue confesses I don't think > anybody will think of rebelling. Just to make sure I understand what you're saying here... The only way to peace that you can imagine is through a powerful dictator who imposes a vision from the top down. Part of the reason for this is that people are not generally wise or unselfish enough to agree on any process that would eliminate individual privilege (those without power want it shared--by violent redistribution, if necessary; those with power want to keep the status quo). Since a perfect system cannot be implemented without a perfect dictator it's foolish to try, or even to imagine a system other than our own. All we can do is wait for Christ to come and do it for us. The Heinlein parable is interesting, and is one of the reasons I don't think any of the early agrarian collectives really had much chance of succeeding beyond a bare subsistence level. I know that during the mid-1800s there were a number of experiments put on by a set of what might be termed "intellectual elite" (Emerson, et al) that required every person to both work on the collective farm--all participated in the physical maintenance of the farm--then gave every person time to develop their intellectual facilities, most particularly literature and the pursuit of the natural sciences. One of the explicit goals of those collectives was to escape a hectic world, with physical labor as a necessary evil and leisure time as the functional goal. The result was a willingness to accept a minimal comfort as the cost of minimal work, with specialization as a function of leisure time rather than communal growth. Limited luxury was part of the plan--perhaps the only part that was executed flawlessly. So why is specialization impossible in a socialized system? The equity issue and the relative power of one person to earn more in a free market system than another person? The inherent tendency of people to create hierarchies--with the social stratification that tendency supports? Understanding that most of the socialist experiments we've seen were social reactions against something--an attempt to create a separate utopic place as proof of the corruption of the original system--rather than a grass-roots attempt to improve the existing system through development of a communal infrastructure. Under the best circumstances the first generation did it as a manner of personal choice and subsequent generations inherited a system that they neither signed up to nor particularly appreciated. Under less ideal circumstances it was imposed on an unwilling populace by a political opportunist. Certainly no actual utopia has been created (since the Garden of Eden--an intentionally temporary and limited utopia), though the utopian ideal has certainly informed many of the attempts--both successful and un--to create new social/political institutions. But does the fact of that failure suggest that there's no value in trying? I'm not sure it does. Perhaps this is where I need to back up a step and try to come up with a new term. After reading the "Utopian Writing" link at the OSU Utopian Visions Web site Clark Goble recommended, I see that some of the features (according to that author, at least) of a true utopia are that it exist remotely in time and/or place, that it be complete (in the sense that the whole society operates under the same principles), and that it exist with no explanation as to how it came to be. The author (Brooks Spencer) suggested that one of the fundamental points of a utopia was that it was impossible to implement, and that it exists primarily as a statement of philosophical ideal rather than objective possibility. So... When I talk about Mormon utopias, it appears that I'm using the wrong term. Because for my purposes at least, I am looking at something that is feasible, that is incomplete, that coexists with other systems, and that is in a constant state of change and development. Not a full-on Utopia, but a knowably and intentionally partial implementation of a Good Idea that ends up creating a social infrastructure that makes other Good Ideas possible. So what do you call that sort of thing? I use the term utopia only in order to get people to think of ideals. If there's a different term, I want very much to be educated to it so the labels don't interfere with the discussion. > Then the whole concept of "Noplace" will be gone, and good riddance. But what about the concept of "good place" that's also part of the pun ("ou-topos" means "no place," where "eu-topos" means "good place;" an ambiguity that More most likely intended as part of his comment)? Is there no value to imagining a better way and then going about the steps of making it come to be? Isn't that part of what we're commanded to do here on this earth? Isn't that precisely the thought process that prompted the American founding fathers to imagine a new and different kind of government of the people? Maybe it's just part of Scott's Private Heresies (Number 11c), but I think it's a gospel principle that we try always to improve our means and methods, our knowledge and science, our philosophy and morality. But like faith, all of these things are dead without works. So I try to improve myself and my community from within, and I not only expect it to change over time but I actively hope it does change--perhaps even radically. A decidedly non-utopic idea, since utopias are allegedly perfect and unchanging. I suppose I could have used the word "Zion" but I think the word has been so abused over the years as to have less meaning than Utopia for most Mormon readers. Of course Zion explicitly allows for growth, change, and development as exemplified by the doctrine of eternal progression. Or does it? Are Zion and Utopia the same ideas packaged for different audiences? Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 16 Jul 2002 12:22:23 -0700 Wow, thanks for sharing this article. I'm a closet rocker. Among my music-oriented friends, I'm not a closet-Mormon. But among the Mormons I know, I'd be pretty reluctant to say what I'm about to say: I'm totally into stoner rock and doom metal. :) I grew up going to see all the local Seattle grunge bands play in little dinky places before they got huge. Then got married and was too busy with kids and trying to make ends meet to go to shows. But now my kids are old enough to stay home on their own for an evening, so I've started attending shows again. Last weekend I saw Mudhoney play at an outdoor block party, and this weekend I'm seeing two different shows, both at little bars. I've often felt like I don't fit in anywhere, except with my husband. It's nice to hear about other Latter-day Saints into The Rock. :) I'd already heard about Low, but now I'm going to have to check into some of these other bands. Again, thanks! It's made me very happy! Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 16 Jul 2002 13:32:29 -0600 Scott Parkin wrote: > I hoped you would, and I admit freely that I trolled specifically for your > response (among others, not all of whom have responded yet...darn). Although the above line was addressed to Jacob Profitt I can only assume the "others" Scott was me--perhaps me several times and that is why he used the plural. Thank you, Scott. I had no idea you respected my opinions and rantings so highly. I am flattered that you would like to hear from me on this subject several times. I think things will remain pretty much the same. There will several different economic systems to choose from and variations within those systems--kind of like what we had last week. The only thing that will change will be the number of "enlighten" or spiritually evolved people in the population--I guess Mormons call them Zion People. When the ratio between Zion People and regurlar people changes the regular people will naturally change. When all your neighbors are loving and Christ-like it's hard to be a son-of-a-bitch all your life (I'm really trying, though). And now for my opinion again: Economic systems don't matter and won't influevce the melenium. What matters is the spirituality of the people. If you'd like my opinion a third time, Scott, please email me privately. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 16 Jul 2002 13:30:56 -0700 R.W. Rasband Thank you for sharing this article with us. I have a son, my only son, the youngest of four children, who is a wonderfully sensitive young man (25). He went down a forbidden path at age 14 and we have struggled for 11 years to bring him back. He is almost there, but we still have a ways to go. I haven't been pleased with his choice of music, and I thought this would be the last great obstacle to get him over. Thanks to this article I don't see it as that big a deal. My son is interested in Rock, and some of the stuff he listens to now is clearly inappropriate, however some of it is quite good. I know we listened and danced to rock and roll and rhythm and blues music, back in the 50's when I first joined the church. It was played at church dances and no one grew tails or long floppy ears. I think this article will give my son some wholesome alternatives to turn to as he works to regain his testimony. Thanks again. Regards, Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Education Week Get-Together Date: 16 Jul 2002 13:40:30 -0700 I'm game. Richard Hopkins ----- Original Message ----- > Anyone up for an AML dinner outing the week of Education Week (August 19-23)? I think (selfishly) that that would be a great week to get together since some of us (well, me, anyway) will be in town. > > -Darlene Young -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathrynlane@cs.com Subject: [AML] re: Faith-Building Literature? Date: 16 Jul 2002 11:20:54 EDT I'm not sure that someone could be given a list of books (other than Scripture) and expect that reading them could increase faith. That said, as I work at being more faithful I have found that many fictional works have helped me enormously. More years ago than I would like to admit I checked out Orson Scott Card's "Hot Sleep" (now out of print but reworked as part of "The Worthing Saga") from the library wondering if he was the same OSC that I paid 50 cents to see his plays when I was a student at BYU. "Hot Sleep" is, for me, still a pivotal work that speaks of justice, mercy and the role suffering plays in our lives. I gained more gospel insight and increased my faith more from this work of science fiction than I had in hundreds of Sunday School classes before or since. OSC thought it was so badly written he redid it but the newer work doesn't speak as strongly to me. I think I was already exploring those themes and "Hot Sleep" helped me open up some pathways in my mind. When someone shares with me their very favorite book and I find that they have read it more than once I think believe that they have had somewhat of a similar experience in recognizing themes or being given insight to things that are important to them at the moment. I assume that for this list fiction plays a huge role in who they are, including their faith and we see to know that we are not in the majority. I think that we may be in the minority in relating fiction so intimately to our real life. A couple of years ago my grandson was born with a severe heart problem. If he lived he would not have much of a chance of being the strapping, soccer playing hellion that his brothers are. My first thought on hearing this medical assessment was how I wanted him to know Miles Vorkosigian created by Lois McMaster Bujold. (Hugo award winning space opera series who's protagonist is damaged in utro and lives with a form of brittle bone disease.) I wondered how old he would have to be before I read him the books, which I'd start with and how I would deal with his sexual exploits. I really wanted to introduce him to this fictional character who got along on brains not brawn and played with the big boys. I still feel that my response wasn't typical and that the rest of the family wouldn't "get" why it was important to me. Maybe another question we should ask is their literature out there that would decrease faith? Should we censor our reading? Cathryn Lane Little Rock, AR -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 16 Jul 2002 14:02:48 -0600 Linda Adams wrote: > Perhaps I am wrong to perpetuate these "false" beliefs (I could be wrong > about the "false" part, anything is possible) by writing a series that > continues down the same path, but in many other ways there is such a thing > as "giving the people what they want." A couple of comments-- I don't know if those beliefs are false or not and to a very large degree I don't care. You wrote what you wrote and I applaud you for its creativeness, quality, and effectiveness. I think you wrote a very good book (something I have yet to say about any other Mormon apocalyptic novel, btw), and I hope that opinion came through in my review. If it didn't then let me say it again--I think _Prodigal Journey_ is a good book that succeeds on its own terms as story, and does so with more literary skill and style than most books in the Mormon market. My complaint was not that you should have done anything differently than you did, but rather to suggest that I wish other authors would explore other apocalyptic scenarios. Unfortunately, I read Lund's _The Freedom Factor_ after I read yours and before I wrote my comments, and some of my frustration with Lund spilled over into my review of your book. To a significant degree I was criticizing other books in your genre as much as I was talking about yours. As it turns out, I agree with you that the events of the last days will catch most of us by surprise. But in fiction we are not required--or even expected--to be completely realistic. We exaggerate in order to emphasize certain ideas or as certain questions. If we choose to develop a literal gathering in fiction as a metaphor of a spiritual gathering, that's just fine. If we use that physical gathering to illustrate the intellectual and spiritual barriers that we will have to overcome to build a Millennial Zion society, I can hang with that. We use familiar symbols so we can reach a greater audience. I just worry that the general Mormon public isn't really thinking it through for themselves. Many people take this black-helicopters/despotic-overlord vision as the one and only possible way for the Apocalypse of Saint John to come about--and thus have closed off their minds to thinking about it in different terms. I would like to see a story that took a radical approach and used other symbols and metaphors to tell a similar story; because of their familiarity these symbols and situations are rapidly becoming invisible (IMO) as a means of spurring new thought. I suppose that sounds like I *am* criticizing your novel as being a good example of a bad thing, but that's not really what I'm trying to say. I think your novel is a great apple; now that we've finally built a good apple let's consider moving on to oranges or bananas or even pineapples--in addition to making more apples for those who want them. Not a condemnation of apples, but a desire to see more variety of fruit on the store shelves to meet my individual desire for new and different taste treats. > Maybe my series can pave the way for > yours, Scott. I'd very much like reading something that was completely > different. Not likely. I have little or no desire to tell an apocalyptic story, and have no intention of trying. The novel I'm working on right now is set in an extremely limited Mormon social ideal, but it's not intended to be a description of the New Jerusalem or any other apocaplyptic precursor. My intention is not to spur the Mormons to prepare for the Second Coming, but rather to provoke thought about the communities each of us choose to become members of and how those choices affect our relationships with people who have chosen different communities. In other words, I have no desire to compete in that market segment, and I make no claims that what I write is any better than what anyone else writes. We all tell our own stories in our own ways, and that's as it should be. IMO. > If there is any mass gathering to Independence (15 minutes > from my house), most of us who live here believe it will be due to the > Prophet announcing our Temple, whereupon all the Utah crazies > who *believe* in this Gathering will move here en masse. We locals also > tend to believe this is one major reason that although we have 6 stakes in > our metropolitan area, and St. Louis (and Nauvoo, and Winter Quarters) only > have two (each), WE still don't have a local temple, even though we have > enough membership to support one. We drive between 3-5 hours to get to any > of these three closest temples. I know that my father (temple worker in the Chicago temple) is quite disappointed with the locals who will make a heroic effort to spend three days in Nauvoo to go to that temple but won't spend three hours to go to the Chicago temple. Theoretically a temple is a temple is a temple, but the reality is that we do favor some over others. That's one (of the many) reasons I was married in the Jordan River temple--it was a local temple other than the one in Salt Lake City. Whether conciously or not, I think Mormons do participate in this sort of symbolic--almost talismanic--preference of one place or building or authority over another. We want to believe that living in Independence (or Salt Lake City) automatically makes us more righteous, and thus more subject to the overflow of divine blessings because this place is more holy than that one. While I think most Mormons would be horrified that such a belief closely resembles the idea of symbolic magic, many of us still engage in behaviors that suggest just such a belief. But that's a social criticism that's probably out of bounds for the List, so I'll stop now. Except to say that this is one of the many reasons I'd like to see a Mormon apocalyptic literature that either has no literal gathering, or a gathering to some other place. Let's break the increasing superstition and reverence for places rather than ideas. Allegedly we don't believe in icons as concentrations of God's power--that power is found in each and every one of us as individuals, not in a particular place or structure or artifice. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 16 Jul 2002 13:55:22 -0700 Linda Adams wrote: > By the way, publication of Volume 2 is at a standstill. I am not sure how > much detail I can or should go into here. (Richard? I'll leave that to you.) You all know that Cornerstone has had some terrible problems. The latest is the result of an attorney, who though he was recommended to us, did nothing to advance our case, allowing the company to be converted to Chapter 7 (Liquidation) in April of this year. I have been told what the outcome of that "liquidation" will be, but I have not yet received confirmation of the information. Therefore, I have not, as yet, made any official announcement regarding Cornerstone. As soon as I know for sure what is happening, I'll let you all know. Needless to say, however, it is not what I or any of you will consider a positive outcome, though, I am currently doing just what I enjoy the most, freelance editing. So perhaps I will yet be able to help Linda get Vol. 2 published (though not at Cornerstone). I feel sometimes as though fate was against Cornerstone, but that is not the case. Its demise is the result of decisions based upon specific circumstances at the time. There is little that could be done about those circumstances, and given them, I would have made the same decisions if I had to do it again. We live in a capitalist society, and that means we need capital. Sadly, we did not have enough to make this venture work. Still, I've learned a lot and as always I appreciate the education. One thing I've learned is that there aren't a lot of good lawyers in Utah. I just may get my license to practice here as a result. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 16 Jul 2002 15:05:42 -0600 ---Original Message From: Russ Asplund > > I think you are on to something in the capitalism actually > keeps a check on greed. I think that is the beauty of the > American political/economic system--it provides buffers to > our evil influences, and insures our power to choose > righteous activity. At the same time, I have problems with > capitalism, not because it is based on greed, but because it > is based on scarcity. That is, in order to maximize profits > it is necessary to _not_ supply everyone with what they need. > When that product is VCR's that's not to big of an issue, but > when you are dealing with cancer drugs their comes a point > where you are saying the profit is worth letting some people > die. That doesn't seem like an ideal situation to me. > > I think a utopian society would have something that looked > like free markets, but without the reliance on scarcity and > maximizing profits. Then again, I was born Canadian and may > have some leftist leanings. Scarcity is the central feature of *all* economic systems. Scarcity is a primary feature of our mortal life and I believe deliberately so. I think God set it up this way so that we can learn to be generous, loving and kind. Since things are scarce, we are tempted to hoard our resources and to find security in our possessions. God set this up so that we can learn to find our security in him and share our good fortune with those in more desperate need than ourselves. Not that there isn't enough and then some on the planet, but we *do* have to learn how to distribute it wisely. Distributing resources is tough and it is a problem with every economic system. It's a little unreasonable to blame capitalism for it--particularly when capitalism solves the problem of scarcity better than any other system we've ever tried. If there is something that people want, then that thing will have value and others will be motivated to provide it. The higher the desire vs. quantity on hand, the higher the price--and higher the motivation to provide. Individual companies may *try* to control supply in order to maximize profits, but as long as there is no illegal barrier to entry they will ultimately fail because as long as there are profits to be made new companies will crop up to meet the desires of the people. Drugs are an interesting example of the strengths of capitalism and the utility of patent laws. Drugs are fiendishly expensive to develop. It takes on average $500 *million* and between 12 and 18 *years* to bring a single drug to market. That's a *huge* amount of resources to throw at any problem no matter how worthy. That's a long time for investors to tie up their cash, for scientists to spend their expertise and time, and for laboratories to be dedicated to a single problem. And the risk is enormous because during that time, some *other* drug might crop up by some *other* company that works better. Now, since the U.S. has strong patent laws, drug companies have between 2 and 5 years of monopoly power over the drugs they produce. They have to recoup *all* that investment in that very limited time. If they don't, there won't be any resources for the *next* big drug. And since time is so limited, it is vital that people find out about the drug quickly--which means another *huge* expense goes to marketing (mainly doctor education, but a full half of marketing is typically spent on free samples to doctors with the acknowledged goal of supplying the needs of poorer patients). Marketing costs are nasty, but then the best drug in the world isn't going to do anybody any good if nobody knows about it. The result of all this? Extremely high drug prices, unprecedented medical progress, key life processes are discovered and pain alleviated. Essentially, the rich people subsidize huge medical advances by being willing to pay for top-flight name-brand drugs. In fact, due to the rest of the world enacting strict price controls on drugs (like Canada), all of the drug research in the world is pretty much recouped entirely in a single nation--the U.S. Without the willingness to pay those high drug prices, the incentive to dedicate those huge resources to drug research dies entirely. Frankly, that's how technological progress is made with everything. The rich subsidize new product research. Whether it is computers or cars or refrigerators, those who have a lot of free cash buy sexy early models for huge amounts of money and thus make it possible for those products to be refined, bugs to be worked out, factories to spring up, and eventually for the price to come down and the rest of us enjoy the benefits. That's why I don't have a lot of patience with the "technological divide" with computers. Duh. There's *always* a technological divide, but eventually you get to the point where all who want them have them (98% of U.S. homes have a TV--now--but I guarantee that a couple decades ago there was an eeeeeevviiiiiil "TV divide"). Okay, the deuced thing about drugs, though, is that lives *are* on the line--or, at the very least, quality of life. So the temptation (given in to by pretty much every other nation on Earth except the U.S.) is to make them universally available. Well, that's well intentioned (maybe), but if you make the companies pay for universal access (by limiting price to a percentage of *production* costs), the result will be that drug research stops entirely. Tragically, people die between the time a drug is discovered and the time they have access to it. Those with more money have a better, easier, longer life than those without it. Life is unfair. People die needlessly and I hate to see that. But I don't see any way to stop it. Simply confiscating all new drug technology is *not* the answer to the problem. If you tried to make drugs universally available as soon as they clear the FDA, it wouldn't be two years before all drug research halted entirely. You wouldn't ever find out what benefits you might have had so you might feel just fine about it, but it would be a literally incalculable tragedy if that happened. And as long as we are willing to foot the bill in the U.S., most drug companies are happy to comply with the price controls of other nations--and even make drugs available for free for desperate nations with epidemic problems (like AIDS drugs in Africa where the trouble is a lack of medically trained personnel and stupid local government policies). It's not really fair that one nation pays for new drug development, and it isn't really fair that other countries can't enjoy the benefits because of incompetence and fraud. But it's the only system that works and as such I'm willing to support it. Which is why the gospel is such good news to *everybody*. Love, compassion, and salvation are available to all and they do not diminish in the giving. There is no such thing as spiritual scarcity. That's why economic systems are useless when applied to spiritual matters. All who want salvation can have it without having to dig it out of a mountain or assemble it in a factory. The only limitation on the spread of the gospel is the cost of communication--the distribution of knowledge (still not an inconsiderable cost, even in this day and age). We try as hard as we can to underwrite that cost and make the gospel available to all. One of the things I like most about the Church is that they make gospel resources available pretty much at cost and aren't trying to mine their knowledge for cash. Well, in addition to subsidizing a huge amount of work via missionaries and so on. In true loving-father fashion, God has made himself non-scarce. I *love* that. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 16 Jul 2002 14:46:58 -0700 Great review! Thanks for it -- lots of thought-provoking stuff. I will admit to picking up the book at Deseret Book, seeing it was Linda's, and putting it back down -- the size was just a bit much for what I wanted at that time. I enjoyed your thoughts. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 7/15/2002 at 12:53 PM Scott Parkin wrote: >Adams, Linda Paulson. _Prodigal Journey_ (volume 1 of Thy Kingdom Come >series). 2000: Cornerstone (Salt Lake City). Trade paperback: 517 pages; >$14.95. ISBN: 1-929281-05-6 > > ----------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Millennial Economics Date: 16 Jul 2002 16:24:07 -0600 > There's nothing really evil about corporations, per se. It's just when > you behave >unrighteously, cheating on the corporate rules or the accounting >conventions, that you run into problems. I read somewhere that it isn't so much that power corrupts -- it's that power attracts the corruptible. Large corporations spawn unrighteous behavior like a swamp spawns mosquitoes. That environment enables the self-serving and back-stabbing that characterize much of the corporate world. I think a lot would have to change in order for celestial corporations to be possible! >2. The United Order seems to be the economic system that God has established >as an ideal. On what basis do you say that? Because the Mormons tried it? >3. Communism doesn't work for the following reason: An individual has no >perception of ownership without possession. Possession is the right to >exclude others from using, possessing, or consuming of the thing in >question. If I possess nothing (as I do when we all own it in common), I do >not perceive that I have anything. Maybe ownership is not all that desireable, then. Didn't the Indians get along fine with common hunting grounds, until the Europeans came along and decided, based on their culture, that if it wasn't fenced in it was free for the taking? The natives perceived land use differently. Those who participate actually own (as a stewardship) >their property. To me, owning and stewardship are two different things, so I don't know how to deal with this statement. What is a stewardship to you? >What they do voluntarily is to give back >to the community anything that exceeds their needs (and righteous wants?). How likely are people to do that? Some will -- but we'd have to free ourselves from the shackles of our materialistic culture (h'mmm, I'm thinking of the chains that poor old Jacob Marley has to drag around--not a bad metaphor). >6. The law of tithing was given to the Church to replace the United Order. >There is some scriptural indication that a tithe (10%) represents the >average amount that we would give back to the community (the excess over our >needs) if we were in the United Order. That's interesting. That doesn't sound too bad, even to the greedy. Wonder how different all this is from the Evangelical concept of utopia? barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Education Week Get-Together Date: 16 Jul 2002 17:24:02 -0600 At 08:41 PM 7/15/02 GMT, daryoung@juno.com wrote: >Anyone up for an AML dinner outing the week of Education Week (August 19-23)? I think (selfishly) that that would be a great week to get together since some of us (well, me, anyway) will be in town. I'm interested. Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury workshop@burgoyne.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Education Week Get-Together Date: 16 Jul 2002 18:42:53 -0600 Yes. We will be performing My Turn on Earth that week. More information soon to be forthcoming at this location. Thom > > And by the way, is Thom (and company)'s new theater up and running yet? Will you be performing anything that week that I should plan on seeing? I saw Marvin Payne's and Steve Perry's _Wedlocked_ at Ed. Week a few years ago and really enjoyed it. I'm sad to see they won't be doing another this year. > > -Darlene Young -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Conflict in Fiction (was: Satan Figures) Date: 16 Jul 2002 21:03:36 -0600 ---Original Message From: Scott Parkin > > > > Personally, I'm guessing that Mormon was thinking on a pedagogical > > level when making his editing choices. Not in a bad way, mind. He > > certainly had instruction in mind, at any rate, and there > isn't a lot > > of information from a detailed description of utopian society that > > will be beneficial to us. I mean, their lives just aren't terribly > > applicable to us. > > So is it possible that the creation of a perfect society is > so dependent on the time, place, people, and social needs > that there's no instructive value to providing the details of > one particular utopic implementation? Sure it would be > interesting to know, but the goal is not to impose Enoch's > system on us but rather to spur us to develop our own unique > system that meets our very specific challenges and needs. Not what I meant at all. What I'm saying is that the kind of society created by the post-visitation Nephites and the City of Enoch are dependent entirely on the unanimous decision of the people to live that way and that *any* people who whole-heartedly embrace that kind of unity need no instruction in how to bring it off successfully because the hardest part has already been accomplished and the rest can be worked out in due course. In other words, the social construct might be interesting, but the key to success lies in a willingness of the people, not in the structure itself. Not that there are isn't a specific structure involved (I *think* there probably is, but have no way to really support that), just that the people who choose to live that way will have no difficulty discovering and implementing it once they choose to do so and don't stand in need of reading the record of the Nephites or Enoch to find it out. > Which ties back to something Jonathon suggested--what if > social utopia is so localized to time and place that it might > be possible to set up several different systems at the same > time? Even more interestingly, that some (or > all) of those individual communities could be supported > equally by a super-organization whose only interest is the > individual welfare of people? An organization like the Church... I can see that happening as well. I suspect that there's one specific structure, but that suspicion is based on the very meager evidence that the City of Enoch appears largely similar to the post-visitation Nephites. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] Re: Thoughts on Art and Literature Date: 16 Jul 2002 21:43:09 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- and Literature and Science Todd Petersen wrote: Writing is not a science. Science is a science. Writing is a craft, it's an art, but it's not a science. Some have thought literature followed some kind of algorithm and have written about it, but it doesn't. Jana writes: I have to semi-disagree with Todd on his Science Vs. Art declaration. I've always thought the opposite: that Science was more of an art than Art is. And this has recently been confirmed in my study of Descriptive Astronomy and Physics. (I can only pray that my departed father-in-law and mother-in law are helping me from the other side of the veil, because they were brilliant and adept in the subject respectively.) First, read the definition of "Scientific Method" from my textbook, "Astronomy: A Beginner's Guide to the Universe" by Chaison and McMillan. : " A set of rules used to guide science based on the idea that scientific "laws" be continually tested and replaced if found inadequate." Sounds familiar to rules of good writing. Not only that, but the authors use the word, Beautiful, in a very poetic sense in one of the first chapters (I just tried to scan for the exact quote, but can't find it.) I also love the history in the development of the science theories.....starting with Copernicus who first seriously tried to break the hold on the Aristotelian earth-centered view of the Universe.....then Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, etc., each bringing additional insights, adding upon the last one's maverick discoveries. Galileo even died in prison for popularizing the theories of Copernicus, because a heliocentric theory was at odds with the Catholic view of things or the earth-centered model: (Copernicus' book on his theories was placed on the "Index of Prohibited Books" in 1616 when Galileo popularized them.) In fact, the Catholic church was the reason Aristotle's theory was not renounced until the renaissance, even though bright people early on suspected the heliocentric version. Here is a quote from the book that explains the fascinating im-preciseness (hence artlike) aspect of science at the top: "The Copernican episode is a good example of how the scientific method, though affected at any given time by the subjective whims, human biases, and sheer luck of researchers, does ultimately lead to a definite degree of objectivity. Over time, many groups of scientists checking, confirming, and refining experimental tests will neutralize the subjective attitudes of individuals. Usually, one generation of scientists can bring sufficient objectivity to bear on a problem, through some especially revolutionary concepts are so swamped by tradition, religion, and politics that more time is necessary. In the case of heliocentricity, objective confirmation was not obtained until about two centuries after Copernicus published his work and more than 2000 years after Aristarchus had proposed the concept. Nonetheless, that objectivity *did in fact* reveal reality." So how does this apply to Mormon Arts and Letters? I think Mormon artists and scholars also have a common goal which has been hashed and rehashed on this list enough. I think that goal can get obscured along the politcal/cultural/social spectrum over the years or generations. But I think the group dynamics are important to any work of real importance, be it artistic, scientific or religious. I've always liked that President Hinckley has mentioned in at least two talks, the "Reformers" in the history of the Gospel (I'm assuming that's from Adam on down....not that reformation is the exclusive province of artists, as witnessed in the history of astronomy excerpts above.) In conclusion, I'd like to add the comments of my non-member, blue-dog democrat friend from the south, poet, scholar and Naturalist (I tried to surround myself with friends from both sides of the political rift so I don't stay static on the issues) about her response to one of the listers comments on art transcending science and she said I could quote her. So here is a compendium from Kristina Moore Simms of Central Georgia. "Here's art is to me----it's an interaction between the viewer and the creation. If it really grabs my ear or my eye or my feelings without there being any hint of falsity or manipulation, and I want to experience what the creation is sending out to me, then I get the "art response." It's that magic that occurs between me and the artwork, whether it's a poem, painting, or music. Something clicks! It's not entirely inherent in the work itself. "Here's a thought for you...If all the works of Leonardo and/or Shakespeare and/or Beethoven were gathered up and locked in a dark room forever, and no one could ever see them again, would they still be art? That's what I mean by art not being totally inherent in the work itself. It must have an audience. Therefore, what part of "art" exists in the work, and what part in the viewer/listener/and what part in that which the interaction between the two creates? "Art" is defnitely an interaction. I don't get any interaction at all from pre-columbian art. It is harsh and ugly to me. Same way with totem-poles, for example. I can only admire the craftsmanship. But don't you know they were filled with awe and significance for the people who created them? But I can't bring my 1/2 to them in order to get either the "art" feeling or the "spiritual" feeling from them. Culturally, it's not within me. "Where I get the "spiritual" feeling most is from certain kinds of music and from pondering the mysteries of nature & knowing that it is beyond my understanding. I have a little microscope & yesterday I looked at water from the lake. There was a whole little drama going on around the piece of pondweed that I inspected. It gave me a chill up my back. In the south we say, "A rabbit ran over my grave." End of Tina's comments. Jana Pawlowski -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Education Week Get-Together Date: 17 Jul 2002 05:42:55 EDT Darlene, An Education Week get together at BYU sounds like a grand idea. It would give me the added boost to go with my wife again as we did for many years and also put some faces to those who post on AML. I have a difficult time talking to faceless friends, if you know what I mean. Glen Sudbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Elijah Able Society Date: 17 Jul 2002 09:17:00 -0600 I am now a grandmother. My daughter gave birth yesterday afternoon. 7 pounds 7 oz. unnamed girl. It was a thrilling experience. Now, on a previous subject, I did take a little time to go over the "Elijah Abel Society" document--and again, I am really disheartened that it is being taken so seriously and is so widely available. I started to do a point by point, but it just got too long. The biggest problem is that it assumes the "Curse of Cain" theory is Church doctrine, and I KNOW the author has an agenda. His official notice withdrawing his membership from the Church says that he takes great issue with the Church for not acknowledging that it taught the Curse of Cain idea to justify priesthood restriction. He goes to great lenghts to get Black latter-day Saints to call the Public Affairs office (though he gives no contact names) and to ask them what the doctrine is. He even provides phone numbers and instructions for contacting the office. It's not real hard to see what he's up to. Public Affairs has no tract and no answer except, "We do NOT KNOW WHY the priesthood restriction was in place" and "The statement of 1978 continues to speak for itself." He paraphrases scripture and quotes from Joseph Smith unfairly and uses archaic logic. The real problem, though, is that he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is trying to put his own ideas in place of actual doctrine, and actually trying to get missionaries to use his tract as a "download tool." Such a shame. And more a shame that so few seem to see through him. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rich Hammett Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Elijah Able Society Date: 17 Jul 2002 13:18:09 -0500 (CDT) On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, margaret young wrote: > The biggest problem is that it > assumes the "Curse of Cain" theory is Church doctrine, and I KNOW the > author has an agenda. His official notice withdrawing his membership > from the Church says that he takes great issue with the Church for not > acknowledging that it taught the Curse of Cain idea to justify > priesthood restriction. He goes to great lenghts to get Black > latter-day Saints to call the Public Affairs office (though he gives no > contact names) and to ask them what the doctrine is. He even provides > phone numbers and instructions for contacting the office. It's not real > hard to see what he's up to. Public Affairs has no tract and no answer > except, "We do NOT KNOW WHY the priesthood restriction was in place" and > "The statement of 1978 continues to speak for itself." He paraphrases > scripture and quotes from Joseph Smith unfairly and uses archaic logic. > The real problem, though, is that he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He > is trying to put his own ideas in place of actual doctrine, and actually > trying to get missionaries to use his tract as a "download tool." Such > a shame. And more a shame that so few seem to see through him. I've got a historical question, from somebody who lives in the south, but was fairly young in 1978--wasn't this official Church doctrine? I'm not quite sure what makes something "official", but I heard this doctrine preached from the pulpit, and I'm pretty sure I read it in lessons that had made it through the correlation committee. It's obvious that he has an agenda, but it's also obvious to me how painful it could be for people to deny what was clearly taught in the Church up until 1978. I think we can be faithful members, and still acknowledge that some early leaders allowed their feelings to influence church policy. rich -- \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / rhammett@HiWAAY.net "Better the pride that resides / in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Thoughts on Art and Literature Date: 17 Jul 2002 12:23:30 -0600 Jana Pawlowski wrote: > Todd Petersen wrote: > > Writing is not a science. Science is a science. Writing is a craft, it's > an art, but it's not a science. Some have thought literature followed some > kind of algorithm and have written about it, but it doesn't. > > Jana writes: > I have to semi-disagree with Todd on his Science Vs. Art declaration. I've > always thought the opposite: that Science was more of an art than Art is. > And this has recently been confirmed in my study of Descriptive Astronomy > and Physics. (I can only pray that my departed father-in-law and mother-in > law are helping me from the other side of the veil, because they were > brilliant and adept in the subject respectively.) > > First, read the definition of "Scientific Method" from my textbook, > "Astronomy: A Beginner's Guide to the Universe" by Chaison and McMillan. : > > " A set of rules used to guide science based on the idea that scientific > "laws" be continually tested and replaced if found inadequate." > > Sounds familiar to rules of good writing. Not only that, but the authors > use the word, Beautiful, in a very poetic sense in one of the first chapters > (I just tried to scan for the exact quote, but can't find it.) The problem is that in the physical universe things tend to behave consistently under controlled conditions. In other words, the hammer falls every time you drop it (unless some predictable or evident force stops it). This makes systematized study possible, and suggests that physical observations made today will remain true tomorrow--unless conditions change. People are nowhere near as consistent, either in how they react to stimulus or in how they interpret identical data. Given an identical input of words, one person may say "I felt the stirrings of the Spirit" and another may say "I felt the beginnings of nausea." That's what agency gives you--the ability to act and interpret by choice, not by nature. And that agency makes predictive modelling of human reactions and behavior less reliable. The same words will not necessarily evoke the same response from different readers. So while I absolutely agree that one can learn rules of effective writing, I also believe that those rules are not necessarily consistent over time and across different audiences. I hate the idea that writing is a purely mystical act, but because it's so tied to the infinitely changeable minds of Humanity, there is something to be said for the idea that good writing can't be easily reduced to a single, consistent, reproduceable formula that will be the same tomorrow as it is today--as most studies of physical sciences are. FWIW. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Originality in Art Date: 17 Jul 2002 14:01:35 -0500 Reading Scott Parkin's comments on Linda Adams's novel, and their back-and-forth, got me started on an internal conversation about the importance of creativity in artistic work. Which, I think, led me to a new understanding of one of the fundamental divides in Mormon art, and art in general. Scott wants to see a variety of stories told. Although he does not say so, it's only a small step from his position to a position that I have heard others on AML-List articulate from time to time (I think Thom Duncan among them), and that is very common among artistic communities of every sort: that art is most valuable when it provides a *contrasting* perspective from what we already know, or think, or believe. So from this perspective, difference--originality--in fiction, or other art, is a strong positive value in itself. And then there are others who, while valuing art, want it to do something almost exactly opposite: that is, to retell the stories we already know and believe, but to tell them well and affectingly. This, for example, is (I think) the key motive behind almost all truly epic storytelling, historically speaking: to tell in powerful form the foundational story of a particular community. This, of course, is an oversimplification: there are more than two positions, and it's possible (for example) to be original in craft but orthodox (for lack of a better alternative term) in message/storyline. But I think the tension between these two positions really is fundamental, and underlies much of the conflict that is generated within an artistic community such as that of Mormon letters, and between such an artistic community and the larger community of which it is a part. When I think back on Pres. Kimball's message on arts in the gospel, the clues seem to point toward a desire for the second kind of art--affirming, retelling, not challenging. I think we see that same mindframe in the message of some like Boyd K. Packer who affirm the value of art but do not see any value to art that challenges "received" versions of the key stories we have to tell. At the same time, some like Thom Duncan and Eric Samuelsen, I suspect, see no value in art that does *not* add something new to our perception. Indeed, I wonder whether they would consider art that does not innovate in some way--whether in craft, message, approach, whatever--art at all. Conflicts of this sort, in my view, underlie (for example) the differing opinions about the value of Gerald Lund's work. It seems clear that his intention has nothing to do with giving us new and different perceptions of the restoration, but rather of giving us more vivid perceptions of the story we already know. I'd say the same (in a different vein) relating, say, to Greg Olsen's artwork: no real new perceptions, but a vivid image placed upon an old perception. I think it's important to acknowledge that great art *can* be written from both perspectives. I suspect the works of Homer were not original within his culture. At the same time, their value *to us* probably has something to do with the fact that we don't know the preceding myths. For us, they *are* the literary wellspring, not the end product. Which brings me back (sort of) to Scott and Linda. Scott expresses, and Linda agrees, a wish for stories that tell a *different* end-time scenario than what Mormons typically believe. At the same time, Linda's own story does not attempt to do such a thing, but rather tries to make sense of Mormon folklore in a creative and logically consistent way. But I think that what will appeal to many Mormon readers is precisely that Linda *has* given the familiar scenario (though apparently with a few different twists). Would such readers enjoy the "different" scenario that both Scott and Linda call for from other authors? I doubt it--because they don't go to art to see a different vision; rather, they go to art to see their own existing vision spelled out in imaginative detail. Part of this may have to do with different views of what the artist's role is. There's a long tradition to the artist as visionary, with the notion that what the artist is peddling is his/her own view of reality. But there's an at least equally ancient tradition of the artist as spokesperson for the community, whose business isn't to compete in the sphere of ideas but rather to express existing ideas in a given format. Artist as craftsman, not visionary. I think that the view of artist as visionary (and/or alternative voice) is a pretty dominant in the larger artistic community, and is the criterion by which Mormon artists will or won't be taken seriously in the world as a whole. However, I think that the view of artists as craftsmen is the one that most Church member hold for those whom they think of as "Mormon artists" and is the role with which the Church as an organization is most comfortable for artistic creation related to Mormon themes. I'm not sure there's any way to avoid the dichotomy, and I'm not even sure of the practicality of mutual friendly coexistence between these two perspectives. Those who see the artist's primary responsibility as linked to originality of thought are likely to be seen as presumptuous by the other group at precisely the point when they succeed best as artists, according to their own values. On the other hand, those who do not place high value on originality are likely to be seen, by those who do, as sellouts, or not real artists, or (at least) as unworthy of serious attention. Hence (for example) the conflict in groups such as AML about how seriously popular fiction should be taken. On the one hand, proponents of popular fiction understandably find their neglect arrogant and disrespectful. On the other hand, when popular fiction is considered in such venues, it is usually in terms of criteria according to which it has a hard time competing--criteria that place a high value on originality, which (I would argue) is not only not valued, but positively punished by popular readers in any field, including Mormon fiction. Anyway, that's my thoughts on the topic today... Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Originality in Art Date: 17 Jul 2002 19:47:47 -0600 Jonathan Langford wrote: > Which brings me back (sort of) to Scott and Linda. Scott expresses, and > Linda agrees, a wish for stories that tell a *different* end-time scenario > than what Mormons typically believe. In terms of the specific subject matter (Mormon apocalyptics) I think Linda's ideas become very interesting. At the risk of picking on Linda, she says she wrote using those specific assumptions because they met the audience on it's own turf using settings and major plot elements that are familiar and comforting (as it were). She doesn't claim the lore as true, only as common. Yet Linda also suggests that she doesn't really accept this commonly held view as doctrine. Of course part of the problem is that there are few authoritative statements on exactly what the specific events of the last days will be (though there is plenty of speculation by a surprisingly diverse set of Mormon writers), so to some degree it's anyone's guess as to exactly what will happen. Which is why I'm surprised that there has been so little guessing at anything but the standard global conspiracy crackdown version of events. Part what interests me is how this one apocalyptic vision became so firmly entrenched in the Mormon mindset. I've speculated before that it's just an update of the Mormon foundational experiences--eviction from Missouri and Nauvoo, and a near war of eviction in Utah. In very real ways, the Mormon world experienced apocalypse in both Missouri and Nauvoo, and because those foundation stories end with corrupt politicians using government troops to suppress/oppress our religious, economic, communal, and political freedom, we assume that the next crushing of our freedom will take place in pretty much the same manner. I can accept that. But I also accept that this is a very different world than it was in the mid-1800s, and I'm a little surprised that we haven't updated our doomsday scenario to take a newer world into account. In an odd sort of way, it suggests that the Mormon worldview is a fantastic one (in the mythopoeic sense). It's been argued that in fantastic literature the answers (Golden Age) are found in the past, where in science fiction the answers (and Golden Age) are created in the now or found in the future. But of course we believe that our own created society will fail and it will take a restoration of the original society to bring general good into the world. Which I suppose makes me a heretic for wanting--and believing--that the Mormons of here and now can create a community of extraordinary righteousness in the very near future. Part of learning to become as God is to learn to create a paradise of your own making. > Would such readers enjoy the "different" scenario that both Scott > and Linda call for from other authors? I doubt it--because they don't go to > art to see a different vision; rather, they go to art to see their own > existing vision spelled out in imaginative detail. I can't argue except to say that I think part of the reason for the general apathy toward Mormon literature is precisely because we offer only existing artistic, social, cultural, and political visions rather than offering a wider variety of views. Isn't part of agency having a choice among many options, some of them equal in value and quality? Because I'm not necessarily calling for a massively different assumption, only a somewhat different one. Instead of borrowing the right-wing black helicopter nightmare, why not build something more uniquely our own. Organized oppression creates easy choices and opportunities for grand heroism (good things when telling an adventure story) but isn't one of the Mormon nightmare scenarios that people will just ignore us? That we will be found irrelevant, and perhaps even silly? As Linda reminded me in a private note, our lore of the last days suggests that temples will dot the landscape--something that's awfully hard to do if the Church is being forcibly suppressed. What if we threw a baptism and nobody came? Is the fault ours for not being righteous enough to convert others? Is our example so ordinary that people see no reason to choose us over any other vision? Because we know that the righteous will be hated by the wicked; therefore acceptance and marginalization is proof that we have in fact grown ripe in our own iniquity and bland in our belief. Lukewarm. Every bit as powerful a warning story about getting your life in order, but with not a single despotic overlord or jackbooted stormtrooper in sight. Or what about a fragmented Mormonism? We have a rich history of fundamentalism, rebaptism, and attempts to reform the Church and return to a truer foundation. What if the Jackson County faction built a sort of hasidic Mormonism for the ultra-orthodox but still accepted the authority of the GAs, while rejecting the righteousness of the majority of members? They could certainly pass the temple interview, but the social fragmentation could be ugly. How's that for a nightmare scenario? Both ideas fit well within established lore. > Part of this may have to do with different views of what the artist's role > is. There's a long tradition to the artist as visionary, with the notion > that what the artist is peddling is his/her own view of reality. So is the fact that we believe in modern revelation and a sort of central orthodoxy part of what leads the general Mormon public to avoid competing speculative visions? Except that the general authorities remain quite silent on most of those matters. Are we so afraid of leading the hearts of men astray that we become afraid to offer a view and the inherent invitation for opposing view implied in that offering? Wasn't it the slothful servant who did nothing and just waited for the Master to return? I'm not agitating for suppression of one vision in favor of another; I want to see many visions and the dialog that comes out of it. Thought experiments, not social movements. Active discussion of our ideas and hopes and fears that challenge us to have reasons for our beliefs, that reach into the minds of the many different kinds of good and faithful Mormons and their radically different social and political assumptions. I don't believe such a thing has to challenge anyone who doesn't want to be challenged. But for some of us it's through the challenge that we come to more solid foundations in faith. Isn't my faith worth building, too? > I'm not sure there's any way to avoid the > dichotomy, and I'm not even sure of the practicality of mutual friendly > coexistence between these two perspectives. Certainly not within the market segments defined by the current publishers. DB can't allow challenging visions for fear of losing it existing conservative readership. Same with Covenant. And there just aren't any other major players in Mormon publishing right now. It just feels like a bad kind of statis to me. Not so much a response to Jonathon's post or his ideas as yet another braindump by a frustrated writer who wants to like Mormon fiction more than he does. Sigh... Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Millennial Economics Date: 17 Jul 2002 12:58:26 -0700 Barbara Hume responded as follows: I think a lot would have to change in order for celestial > corporations to be possible! Indeed, the *people* would have to be righteous. > >2. The United Order seems to be the economic system that God has established > >as an ideal. > > On what basis do you say that? Because the Mormons tried it? D&C 82:20 and other passages, suggest this. > >3. Communism doesn't work for the following reason: An individual has no > >perception of ownership without possession. Possession is the right to > >exclude others from using, possessing, or consuming of the thing in > >question. If I possess nothing (as I do when we all own it in common), I do > >not perceive that I have anything. > > Maybe ownership is not all that desireable, then. Didn't the Indians get > along fine with common hunting grounds, until the Europeans came along and > decided, based on their culture, that if it wasn't fenced in it was free > for the taking? The natives perceived land use differently. I don't wish to suggest that ownership is a good thing, merely that it is human nature to desire it...well Western human nature, anyway. :-) > Those who participate actually own (as a stewardship) > >their property. > > To me, owning and stewardship are two different things, so I don't know how > to deal with this statement. What is a stewardship to you? Stewardship involves the right to exclude others from possession, use, or consumption of the property which is the subject of the stewardship. Therefore, it involves ownership, though it is not unfettered ownership. There are conditions subsequent (legal contract term) to retaining ownership, namely accounting for its use. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 17 Jul 2002 14:22:27 -0500 >You wrote what you wrote and I applaud you for its creativeness, >quality, and effectiveness. I think you wrote a very good book (something I >have yet to say about any other Mormon apocalyptic novel, btw), and I hope >that opinion came through in my review. Yes, it did, and thank you. >My complaint was not that you should have done anything differently than you >did, but rather to suggest that I wish other authors would explore other >apocalyptic scenarios. I do too. It would be interesting. >I just worry that the general Mormon public isn't really thinking it through >for themselves. Many people take this black-helicopters/despotic-overlord >vision as the one and only possible way for the Apocalypse of Saint John to >come about-- I have the same worry, yet here I am contributing to it. :) And it isn't just Mormons. I haven't read the _Left Behind_ series yet (I keep meaning to, but there are so *many* volumes now), but I keep up with what is going on with it. The evangelical Christian ideas presented there are far more literal than the apocalyptic stuff Mormons come up with. A friend told me the latest volume includes a form of beetle that literally matches the description presented by John (those verses we LDS usually interpret to be the black helicopters). In that way, the "standard" LDS take on gathering and New Jerusalem is a fresh new voice to non-LDS persons who see Revelation as literal rather than symbolic, or those who see it as a nonsensical piece of gibberish. I suspect that if I could get my book out nationally somehow, the general public might appreciate this story--one which, although familiar to us, is new to them. >Whether conciously or not, I think Mormons do participate in this sort of >symbolic--almost talismanic--preference of one place or building or >authority over another. [snip] Let's break the increasing superstition >and reverence for places rather than ideas. Allegedly we don't believe in >icons as concentrations of God's power--that power is found in each and >every one of us as individuals, not in a particular place or structure or >artifice. This is an excellent point, well made. Yet I'm guilty of similar things myself--I chose Manti over the Provo Temple for my wedding, and there will be times I will spend the extra hour driving to attend in Nauvoo rather than St. Louis, although (like your relative) I do believe in attending in one's own temple district. The architecture and ambiance of Nauvoo is refreshing to my mind and spirit. I'm a sucker for old buildings and antiques. It may be a replica, but it appeals to my personal aesthetic senses in ways the St. Louis temple can't. Thank you for the review and this dialogue. Richard, thanks also for responding. I hope I didn't force a premature acknowledgement of circumstances, but I suppose it is safe to say here, now, that I am seeking a new publisher for the second volume. On the plus side, my website has had 500 hits in the last few months (not huge, I know, but when you consider only a few thousand copies were sold in the first place, that's a good percentage... plus a major increase in traffic, for me), so I know people are out there looking for the next installment. It will sell. I just have to convince someone else of that. I have serious housework calling me. Signing off for now. Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Millennial Economics Date: 17 Jul 2002 13:38:02 -0600 Richard said, "The United Order seems to be the economic system that God has established as an ideal. But it is far more capitalistic than most members of the Church realize. For example, every member of the United Order was entitled to borrow money from the Order once--interest free! You could do it again only if you faithfully repaid the first loan. That's a fabulous way to create wealth and make a society grow rich fast. It obviously works well in a capitalistic system." Capitalism isn't just doing business or making money or selling. Capitalism is a system whereby the primary economic goal is not bettering people's lives or creating things of utility or beauty. Instead it is to create more capital. At least that's what Marx says. Capitalism wants to turn goods and materials into money. I hope I have my terms right here, but the United Order seems more like a Mercantile system. The United Order is an economic system designed to help people take care of their needs and the righteous portion of their wants. Lots of LDS people describe the United Order as capitalistic simply because money is involved, and that's not really what capitalism is, and certainly not what industrial capitalism is. -- Todd -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: daryoung@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Education Week Get-Together Date: 17 Jul 2002 20:27:09 GMT OK, let's do it. Anyone who is interested in getting together for dinner at a Provo or Orem restaurant during Education Week (August 19-23), please e-mail me your choice of date and a suggestion of a dining joint, if you have one. I'll pick the most popular date and place and then make Chris Bigelow call the restaurant for a reservation. (OK with you, Chris? Since you're down there, you know. And since you're such a nice guy.) You have, oh, two weeks or so to get back to me. -Darlene Young p.s. I already have two plugs for Monday night. Sounds fine with me because I won't be with my family anyway, but that might be a problem for the locals. Opinions? ________________________________________________________________ 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: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 17 Jul 2002 14:31:16 -0600 Here's my question: what happens when we get the first generation of = General Authorities who grew up liking, and kept liking, rock and roll? Fact is, I don't think we have any yet. So far, the stance of the Church = vis a vis rock seems to be, after an initial period where talks periodicall= y would declare it carnal, sensual and devilish, a grudging recognition = that it's probably not going away, and that our youth do seem to like it, = so let's damage control as much as possible. And now we seem to be at a = cultural moment nationally where the main response to rock is to mourn its = passing, which may mean it's about time for a more positive reassessment = of it. Me, I like it all, from the Carpenters to gangsta rap. I think = it's all a valid cultural expression. But what if we had leadership in = the Church today who remembers Buddy Holly fondly, and rocks out to Little = Richard. Or a hardcore Dylan fan. Or a hardcore Led Zeppelin fan. Or = Smashing Pumpkins. =20 I mean, for Father's Day this year, my wife got me the best FD present = I've ever had; two third row center tickets to see Jethro Tull. And my = son tells me that Tull was always one of those bands seminary teachers = were particularly fond of attacking, but I grew up with Tull, have been = listening to their records for thirty years, have all their albums, and = have most of their songs memorized. I've had spiritual experiences = listening to Locomotive Breath. And I also love classical music, spent = years working professionally as a classical music DJ. I make no differntia= tion, IOW, between Mozart and Jerry Lee Lewis. So what if that were the = attitude of the Church? What if we in the Church actually took Psalm 150 = seriously? =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 17 Jul 2002 15:14:50 -0700 My LDS bookgroup is reading this book (Prodigal Journey)for our "summer reading" selection. We were looking for something engrossing that you could get caught up in--you know...an escape. All 10 of the women reading this book have reported to me it has been just that--something they couldn't put down. They were all concerned at the size of the book when I announced it, but they all say it's a fast read, since they can't make themselves stop. I highly recommend it as a great story when you're looking for something to take you away from it all. I'll report back on the discussion we'll have on July 31 about Prodigal Journey. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 17 Jul 2002 15:36:26 -0600 Paris Anderson wrote: > Scott Parkin wrote: > > > I hoped you would, and I admit freely that I trolled specifically for your > > response (among others, not all of whom have responded yet...darn). > > Although the above line was addressed to Jacob Profitt I can only assume the > "others" Scott was me--perhaps me several times and that is why he used the > plural. Thank you, Scott. I had no idea you respected my opinions and > rantings so highly. I am flattered that you would like to hear from me on > this subject several times. It's not flattery if it's the truth. Thank you (both) for responding. > I think things will remain pretty much the same. There will several > different economic systems to choose from and variations within those > systems--kind of like what we had last week. The only thing that will > change will be the number of "enlighten" or spiritually evolved people in > the population--I guess Mormons call them Zion People. When the ratio > between Zion People and regurlar people changes the regular people will > naturally change. When all your neighbors are loving and Christ-like it's > hard to be a son-of-a-bitch all your life (I'm really trying, though). I spoke with both my bishop and his second counselor in separate conversations last night on this very topic, and both made pretty much this same point. They suggested that the hearts of the people are just not right, and that no external system will change their hearts. I was a little surprised at how ready both were to suggest the failure of the Saints--and they both seemed to believe that we have already passed the high point and that the number of people whose hearts are (close to) right are declining rapidly. That sort of semi-cynicism seems almost apocalyptic. Which is kind of the basis of my assumption. There are a few external institutions that are known to change peoples' hearts--war and poverty being the ones most discussed in scripture, with war being the one most generally emphasized in Mormon millennial speculative fiction. Both change peoples' focus from gathering wealth to surviving calamity and hopefully stopping it; community formed through crisis. Of course we have one rather substantial historical example that shows the results of a communal approach versus a strictly individualistic approach--the pioneers of the Mormon Trail versus those of the Oregon Trail. One had as it's goal the creation of a unified community, the other had the acquisition of individual wealth and advantage as its goal, with the result that very different stories are told about each. So the question remains--if people become loving and charitable and concern themselves with the welfare of others as much as their own comfort, how would that change of attitude manifest itself? Would the goal of distributing wealth more evenly result in changed social, economic, or political institutions? What kinds of changes would that entail, in your opinion? I think that's the basis of failure for most of the social/political/economic experiments: the focus was on creating the institutions first and hoping those institutions would change hearts. When the hearts failed to change, the institutions failed. Whichever came first--chicken or egg--the end result is that now we have both. In describing a utopic place it's a description of the new behaviors and institutions that most effectively illustrate the fact of a changed heart. In fiction, at least. Of course the possibilities are endless, as are the stories that could derive from those possibilities. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Originality in Art Date: 17 Jul 2002 17:20:08 -0600 At 02:01 PM 7/17/02 -0500, you wrote: >Those who see the artist's >primary responsibility as linked to originality of thought are likely to be >seen as presumptuous by the other group at precisely the point when they >succeed best as artists, according to their own values. On the other hand, >those who do not place high value on originality are likely to be seen, by >those who do, as sellouts, or not real artists, or (at least) as unworthy >of serious attention. Jonathan's post does an excellent job of clarifying the discussions we've had on the list for some time and showing how these two disparate points of view relate to each other. I think he's right to wonder whether a reconciliation of these views is possible. Perhaps what we need more than reconciliation is acceptance. I don't object to someone else creating the kind of art that reflects his artistic vision, whether or not I find it pleasing. On the other hand, I do not appreciate having someone else telling me that my work is less valuable because it reflects my vision rather than his own. I disagreed, for example, with Thom's position that Greg Olsen's work isn't "art" because it doesn't do something new -- who says it has to? And I personally feel great distaste for the Dali portrait of Christ that he praises for being different -- it does nothing for me except distance me. There's room in the world for both types of art. There will always be both literary fiction and genre fiction -- perhaps the best we can do is to stop sneering across the dividing line at each other. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 17 Jul 2002 18:35:11 -0700 on 7/12/02 5:00 PM, Jacob Proffitt at Jacob@Proffitt.com wrote: > I really dislike the whole capitalism = greed trope. I went so far as > to pen an essay describing why that is just not so > (http://www.jacob.proffitt.com/Greed.html). Capitalism doesn't *create* > greed, it cripples it. And capitalism can't violate the principles of > charity and love, that requires agency. Capitalism makes charity less > *necessary*, but it doesn't stand in the way at *all* if people want to > practice charity and love. Not sure what you meant on that one. > [snip] > > Jacob Proffitt If I might add something to your excellent response, capitalism was invented by Marxists. Adam Smith didn't invent it--he merely observed and extrapolated his ideas from what he saw. Socialism and communism and every other form of collectivism is anti-specialization. Capitalism was a slur that they invented for those who were trying to adapt to the real world that Smith expounded. It's rather like yankee--a slur worn proudly just to show 'em. Whereas all the varied forms of collectivism are attempts to revive feudalism, capitalism is really just an attempt to adapt to the facts. I don't have any problem with the idea that capitalism will be the economic form of the millenium because its the only form in which there really can be no poor among us. Capitalism embraces freedom, and with a leader and ruler who is truly divine what need could there be for all the coersive evils of collectivism. Charity isn't charity if it be forced or coerced. It absolutely positively must be of each individual's free will. I must admit that I count Adam Smith as Mormon literature. Truth is truth, and everyone who wrote truth I call brother. If I can ever merit a seat among them it would really please me. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Thoughts on Art and Literature Date: 17 Jul 2002 18:36:26 -0700 on 7/15/02 12:15 PM, Todd Petersen at petersent@suu.edu wrote: > Writing is not a science. Science is a science. Writing is a craft, it's > an art, but it's not a science. Some have thought literature followed > some kind of algorithm and have written about it, but it doesn't. [snip] Couldn't disagree more. Science is merely too full of itself to admit it. Science is a craft like any other. There's nothing magic about it. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Elijah Able Society Date: 17 Jul 2002 15:36:29 -0600 At 01:18 PM 7/17/02 -0500, you wrote: >I've got a historical question, from somebody who lives in the south, >but was fairly young in 1978--wasn't this official Church doctrine? >I'm not quite sure what makes something "official", but I heard this >doctrine preached from the pulpit, and I'm pretty sure I read it in >lessons that had made it through the correlation committee. I was living in the south in 1970 when I was first tracted out by two young missionaries. When I learned about the restriction and asked about it, the explanation they gave me was that certain people in the pre-existence chose not to receive the priesthood here because they were afraid that would open them up to too much flak from Satan, and they were born into black bodies so that wouldn't happen. I was told that there was a finite number of such people and they would soon run out and worthy black males would then be given the priesthood. Has anyone ever heard that one? The restriction bothered me, because I was the one who had defended blacks against my redneck, good-ole-boy relatives as not being an inherently inferior race, and here I was about to join some weird church who kept blacks (and women, natch, but I was used to that) from positions of authority! I prayed about this issue, and the answer I got was that the church was true, so join it, and these problems that had their basis in human weakness would eventually be resolved. So that's what I did >barbara hume, who still hasn't prayed about some issues because she might >not like the answer -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Millennial Economics Date: 17 Jul 2002 22:13:01 -0600 ---Original Message From: Barbara Hume > > I read somewhere that it isn't so much that power corrupts -- > it's that > power attracts the corruptible. Large corporations spawn unrighteous > behavior like a swamp spawns mosquitoes. That environment enables the > self-serving and back-stabbing that characterize much of the > corporate > world. I think a lot would have to change in order for celestial > corporations to be possible! This is a false impression. The belief that corporate executives are self-serving and back-stabbing arises from an unfamiliarity with running businesses (and an unfamiliarity with people who run businesses). Executives have to make a lot of tough calls and are often forced to balance the pain of one group against the pain of another. Command decisions are rough and often no path exists that will make everybody happy. Anybody who lays people off knows that there's just no way to express adequate sympathy and that people are supremely uninterested to hear about the pain you went through when the pain of others is so obvious. Even discontinuing an obviously failing product means that you will be unpopular and called all kinds of unjust names. And when it comes to commerce, the fact is that companies run more on trust than on anything else. You see this at companies like Enron and WorldCom where that trust was abused. A huge amount of resources are saved if you can establish a trusting relationship. As such, most executives rely on their reputation for integrity more than pretty much anything else. There are exceptions, of course, but those exceptions are rare and often short lived. > Maybe ownership is not all that desireable, then. Didn't the > Indians get > along fine with common hunting grounds, until the Europeans > came along and > decided, based on their culture, that if it wasn't fenced in > it was free > for the taking? The natives perceived land use differently. The Indians got along (on those occasions when they weren't killing each other) because they were so few spread out on a land so large. And they led short, brutal lives that ensured that their numbers remained few. When the Europeans came, they were able to support the same population as the Indians on a fraction of the required land. It wasn't a difference of ownership, it was a difference of technology and culture. > Those who participate actually own (as a stewardship) > >their property. > > To me, owning and stewardship are two different things, so I > don't know how > to deal with this statement. What is a stewardship to you? Interesting. How are they different? To me, you can't have stewardship over something you can't control, and the fact of being able to control something means ownership. Unless you bring in unrighteous dominion or illegal force--in which case it would be neither ownership nor stewardship. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis Manning" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] 3 LDS Lit Queries Date: 18 Jul 2002 19:01:03 -0500 [Jonathan, I hope this will work to post on the AML list.] I have three questions, the third for a Mormon lit buff. First, is the "Ensign" mag allowing more poetry these days, if it's of a "higher quality?" Page 7 (a prominent position for poetry in the "Ensign") of July 2002's Ensign contains the historical poem "At Journey's End," by Elaine Wright Christensen.  It's really a fabulous poem about an 1847 pioneer entry into the Salt Lake Valley; I really like "At Journey's End" because it has a historical/nonfiction quality about it, while gripping the reader with a strong sense of endurance and faith. Are "Ensign" editors allowing more poetry now, because it's of a "higher quality" (my emphasis added).. Second, are any of you located in Spokane, Washington, or do you know of any LDS writers in the Spokane/northern Idaho area? My wife and I moved here two weeks ago so I can pursue an MFA in literary nonfiction at Eastern Washington University. I want to get a writing group going here. Third, does anyone know if author John D. Fitzgerald is Mormon? Fitzgerald is the author of the "Great Brain" children's book series of the 1940s. He also wrote a biography/family history book about his own father's family called _Papa Married a Mormon_, copyright 1955, by Prentice-Hall, Inc., 298 pp. Thanks for any help you can provide on any of these three questions. Travis Manning Travis K. Manning "Men and women die; philosophers falter in wisdom, and Christians in goodness: if any one you know has suffered and erred, let him look higher than his equals for strength to amend, and solace to heal." (Jane Eyre) ---------- MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: <'http://g.msn.com/1HM1ENUS/c156??PI>Click Here -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: [AML] Writing as Science (was: Thoughts on Art and Literature) Date: 18 Jul 2002 00:13:24 -0700 on 7/17/02 11:23 AM, Scott Parkin at scottparkin@earthlink.net wrote: Writing is a science as much as any other discipline. The difference is that human beings are individual unique mentally, and therefore the same set of stimuli do not affect them equally. Beer is one of the first things to be invented--a recipe is one of the oldest writings in existence. Animals were genetically engineered for millenia, only they didn't know that was what they were doing. Their efforts were "artistic" because they didn't really understand all the ins and outs of the systems they were toying with, but they still got results. Right now these extremely ancient sciences are much better understood. Genetic engineering could become civilization-altering for better of for worse. The fact is they're still playing with things they don't fully understand but they've gained ground and are gaining more daily. So it is with writing. The search is the same--for truths. Writing that survives is universal and timeless, that can be understood by people generations or centuries apart. That is the "greater" desire of writing, but there are simple, consistent, reproduceable formulas that appeal to certain groups of people. That's why they call them formula novels. So long as all the blanks are filled correctly it will sell to the target audience. The fact that nobody's figured out a universally appealing way to write a novel doesn't mean that it can't be done. People gravitate to genres because it fits them. Someday somebody may write a novel that EVERYONE will want to read, and EVERYONE will understand. Bit of a tall order, methinks, but you never know. Sort of like solving one of the mysteries of the universe. As for physical sciences, there are portions that are scientific, but there are hundreds of competing theories for anything you want. There is no single standard for almost every theoretical framework in any discipline. I have read 19 different versions of the theory of evolution that are currently being debated, and none of them is much like Darwin's original. I haven't read Gould's monstrous swan song, but his theory is rejected by most scientists. So are all the others. Each has a small minority, and everybody thinks that HIS version is the most common one. In reality the most common one dates from the 30s and is horribly obsolete and really quite funny--but it's the one that shows up in most textbooks. When science becomes scientific I might consider altering my opinion. So long as it produces good technologies I'm all for it, but in terms of explaining the world, or even figuring out what causes cancer, please. The jury hasn't even been selected yet. The recent bombshell about estrogen is a perfect example. Or oat-bran. Or eggs bad for you good for you bad for you good for you. The list goes on forever. The fact of the matter is, writing is much more scientific that most science. It uses a different laboratory and its own logic, but the formulas aren't hard to memorize. It's the big picture that's hard to master. This is the reason I say that Einstein or Newton or Curie or Pasteur were artists. They rose above formula and mastered formulations that have stood the test of time. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Education Week Get-Together Date: 18 Jul 2002 06:53:10 -0600 Count me in. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 19 Jul 2002 12:11:59 -0500 >on 7/16/02 12:07 PM, Scott Parkin at scottparkin@earthlink.net wrote: >>I know that during the mid-1800s there were >> a number of experiments put on by a set of what might be termed >> "intellectual elite" (Emerson, et al) that required every person to both >> work on the collective farm--all participated in the physical maintenance of >> the farm--then gave every person time to develop their intellectual >> facilities, most particularly literature and the pursuit of the natural >> sciences. One of the explicit goals of those collectives was to escape a >> hectic world, with physical labor as a necessary evil and leisure time as >> the functional goal. The result was a willingness to accept a minimal >> comfort as the cost of minimal work, with specialization as a function of >> leisure time rather than communal growth. Limited luxury was part of the >> plan--perhaps the only part that was executed flawlessly. >> >> So why is specialization impossible in a socialized system? The equity issue >> and the relative power of one person to earn more in a free market system >> than another person? The inherent tendency of people to create >> hierarchies--with the social stratification that tendency supports? Intellectual elite is the very purpose of socialism. Socialism replaces the warrior feodality with an intellectual feodality that knows best for everyone. It proposes nothing but the return to inefficient agrarian feudalism with new masters. The rest of us still get to be serfs, and of course intellectuals could never be as cruel as warriors. Specialization requires eduacation, desire, and reward, all of which were denied to serfs and slaves throughout history. Capitalism provides all three, which is why it's the best form of society. Everyone may not act rationally, which is why Utopia=noplace, but they get to decide for themselves what rational is, and if they're wrong they suffer for it. Capitalism lessens the damage that an individual can do--because it can only work in a free society. China will soon learn that. They loose the chains just a bit and capitalism will break them. Specialization is the natural outcome of capitalism, and the natural order of life. It is what is, and capitalism is just a recognition of the facts. Socialism attempts to curb specialization as it attempts to curb every other freedom. There has never been a pure socialism because people just won't stay in their assigned pigeonhole. If you've read Marx's ramblings about working the fields in the morning, the tavern at midday and watching the flocks in the afternoon then it's obvious what he felt about specialization. It's also ludicrous--imagine being a surgeon in the morning, a geologist at noon and a nuclear physicist in the afternoon. Those things wouldn't exist without specialization, and wouldn't exist without capitalism. Zion is not utopia in any way. More's original concept is a place where everyone acts rationally. From a mortal perspective there are plenty of things that are not necessarily rational but symbolic or spiritual. Take baptism as a for instance. Reason is not the cure-all that Kant and other imangined. It's not that hard to string together a self-consistent logic to explain anything or everything you want. The fact that it's well-reasoned doesn't make it true. There are vast bodies of belief that sound very rational, that are believed with religious faith, and which are based entirely on falsehood. The modern form of socialism is predicated on the idea that the human race can and more importantly will evolve into a higher species. Socialism is the breeding and education program. Socialism is nothing more or less than the jump-off to the next stage of human evolution. Evolution itself is just such another, a "scientific" religion, believed dogmatically and reflexively, but no less self-consistent and rational, unless one actually looks at the exiguous evidence. Zion could be decribed in literature much more easily than in fact. It could be achieved on earth but not without the intervention of God. For the whole world to swallow the narcissistic pride that governs so much of mankind would take an intervention of global proportions, on the order of, say, the return of the Christ. There have been eras of peace before, usually a less than a decade long, and they have always been through the strength or hegemony of some nation or other, with the exception of the Nephites after somebody who's name escapes me visited them. The colonial period was such a time, from the Treaty of Vienna to WWI. Wasn't nearly as fabulous as all that, though wars were rare and localized during that time. Peace is merely the absence of war, and there are worse things than war, as the survivors of the Kolyma camps could tell you. World peace is impossible without something of the kind. There could be a watchful peace, or a cold war sort of peace, or a glaring over the borders kind of peace, but real peace is something that will never happen so long as the world remains ungrateful to God. Zion does not equal Utopia. Zion is the embodiment of gratitude, not reason, which is the source of charity. Pity doesn't cause charity necessarily, since it can easily include the comfortable supposition of superiority. Gratitude is the enemy of pride and the source of charity, and when Jesus does come back it will rule the world beside him. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Interesting Literary Device Date: 18 Jul 2002 12:02:27 -0700 This has little to do with Mormon literature, but more with a way of writing I've just encountered that I don't recall seeing before. I picked up a novel called "Violets are Blue" by James Patterson. It's a mystery novel. I didn't get too far into the book before I realized I was lost without having read the previous volume, titled "Roses are Red." So I stopped reading the second book, got the first one, and became very interested in the story. Behind all the mayhem is a character named the Mastermind. The chief protagonist is a copy named Alex Cross. On the last page of the first book, we learn who the Mastermind is. But Alex Cross does not learn this. I now have returned to the second book. Readers who read the first book know the Mastermind's identity. Readers who begin with the second book are just as much in the dark as is Alex Cross. I suppose this is kind of a reward for having read book #1. But this is the first time I've seen this done in a series. ----------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] re: Faith-Building Literature? Date: 18 Jul 2002 14:36:41 -0600 Cathryn Lane asked: >Maybe another question we should ask is their literature out there that = >would=20 >decrease faith? Should we censor our reading?=20 It seems to me that there are two separate issues here. I think it likely = that there is reading that would damage our relationship with the Holy = Ghost. Pornography, I suppose, would be an example of that. =20 But when we ask about writing that might decrease faith, that seems to me = a different question. Then we're asking, is there stuff out there that, = if we read it, will cause us to question our testimony so substantially = that we might stop believing in God or in the Church. And to that = question, I would say that the answer is an absolute, unequivocal, no. It = is not possible that anything could be written that would cause us to lose = our testimony, if indeed a testimony is something worth having. =20 There can't be. If the gospel contains all truth, then anything we read = will either be filled with truth or falsehoods, or, obviously for most any = piece of writing, a mix of the two. But most writing is simply a = testimony itself, a person describing the world she lives in and how she = copes with it. That can't possibly damage anyone's testimony. Anti-Christ= ian or anti-Mormon writing might be an attempt to deliberately and = intentionally damage one's faith. But the only methods that can be = employed are truth or lies or a mixture of the two. We can generally sort = them out pretty easily, or if a particular piece of writing bothers us, = then find ten more pieces of writing to put the one troublesome piece in = context. =20 The answer, in other words, is never to censor ourselves, but to educate = ourselves, not to read less, but always to read more. The same perhaps = could not be accurately said of the kind of writing that might damage our = relationship to the Holy Ghost. Then, perhaps, the answer might be to = avoid such works. But in my experience, such works are easily recognized = and easily avoided. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathy Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 18 Jul 2002 18:30:20 -0600 Scott Parkin wrote: So the question remains--if people become loving and charitable and concern themselves with the welfare of others as much as their own comfort, how would that change of attitude manifest itself? . . .What kinds of changes would that entail, in your opinion? I think that's the basis of failure for most of the social/political/economic experiments: the focus was on creating the institutions first and hoping those institutions would change hearts. When the hearts failed to change, the institutions failed. Right on. I think we have no clue what kind of institutions might emerge when people's hearts do change. Have you ever heard of modestneeds.com? This English professor set aside $500 a month to give to the poor and needy. Many others have responded with funds and he sends out money to people in emergencies and with special needs. One guy, by himself, making a difference. Occasionally you run into people with good hearts who set out to make every moment better and every gesture generous. I wish to be such a person myself someday and each day I try for it. As to institutions to support this? Who knows? It's anybody's guess. When enough people make the internal change and really live in a state of compassion and charity, I'll bet that the right form will emerge. Cathy Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Originality in Art Date: 18 Jul 2002 18:46:35 -0600 > I disagreed, for example, with Thom's position that Greg Olsen's work isn't > "art" because it doesn't do something new -- who says it has to? > Well, I did. If not, why do it? Anyone of adequate artistic technical skill can paint a picture of a Caucasian Christ who apparently took a bath after climbing to sit on this rock and overlook the city of Jerusalem. Is Christ so spiritually superior that he doesn't sweat? That his feet don't get dirty? And maybe I should look more closely at the painting but I don't recall seeing Mary Magdalene lurking in the background so I wonder who was available to wash Christ's robe? Olsen's Christ is a male model. His hair is long but not so long that we would call him a hippie. His hands (complete with the elongated thumbs) are the hands of a poet, not of a working man. > And I > personally feel great distaste for the Dali portrait of Christ that he > praises for being different. It's not great art because it's different. It takes Christ and uses artistic means to portray his worldwide importance. He's suspended on the cross above the earth signifying his importance to the history of the world. This Christ is portrayed as fairly Caucasian and beardless but not out of a desire to be non-offensive to the conservative, untrained Mormon audience, but to show His universalness -- Dali's Christ is the Christ of the whole world. Olsen's is the Christ of the American Republican. Not to mention that Dali's mastery of anatomy makes Olsen's painting look like a stick figure in comparison. Olsen wants to show a Christ most already believe in. Dali wants to widen our concept of Christ to something greater than the Savior of a Chosen People -- rather, the Savior of the entire planet. > There's room in the world for both types of art. There will always be both > literary fiction and genre fiction -- perhaps the best we can do is to stop > sneering across the dividing line at each other. Far be it from me to deny Olsen the right to portray Christ anyway he wants to. But just as he has the right to do so, others have the right to hate his work. But accepting his work as on a parellel with real art merely because of the First Amendment does Art and the Constitution a great disservice. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] 3 LDS Lit Queries Date: 18 Jul 2002 19:12:16 -0600 ---Original Message From: Travis Manning > > Third, does anyone know if author John D. Fitzgerald is > Mormon? Fitzgerald is the author of the "Great Brain" > children's book series of the 1940s. He also wrote a > biography/family history book about his own father's family > called _Papa Married a Mormon_, copyright 1955, by > Prentice-Hall, Inc., 298 pp. John was never baptized LDS. John and his sister both remained catholic. Tom D. was baptized LDS and served a mission to China. That's as much as Melissa and I have ferreted out, so far (Oh, and the "Academy" that Tom *actually* attended was the Brigham Young Academy in Provo). We read the "Great Brain" books to the kids a while back (all of them) and enjoyed them (though I noticed a hardening in the last few--made me wonder if there wasn't a score to settle there and some bitterness at Tom's success and social assimilation). We *very* much liked "Papa Married a Mormon" also by John D. (kind of a grown-up story about the same area and closer to actual events--though obviously still fictionalized somewhat). It has one of the most sympathetic depictions of early Mormons I've ever read from a non-Mormon. I came to have great respect for Bishop Aden and wonder who John D. might have met to give him such an impression. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Elijah Able Society Date: 18 Jul 2002 20:12:51 -0500 Barbara Hume: I was living in the south in 1970 when I was first tracted out by two young missionaries. When I learned about the restriction and asked about it, the explanation they gave me was that ... Has anyone ever heard that one? _______________ That's pretty creative, IMO. I've heard a few of those pieces before, but hardly any of them were ever official. I think that sometimes when a person has trouble dealing with an issue and doesn't know what to say about it, that person will just make up a thing or two to fill in the blanks. I think for many it is a natural human trait to want to be able to answer every question that comes along. It is very difficult to say, "I don't know." But used effectively, that phrase can be very powerful in the right circumstances. 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: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Elijah Able Society Date: 18 Jul 2002 09:38:12 -0600 I'm afraid getting very far into this would take us away from the AML agenda, but briefly, many Church leaders taught what was the common thinking of the time (1800's): That the "Negro" was cursed as the lineage of Cain, whose seed had come through the flood via Ham and Canaan ["servant of servants"]. The "doctrine" included the idea that no person of African descent would receive the priesthood until after the millennium. Through the 20th Century (especially in the 1940's through the 1960's), Church leaders didn't mention the "Curse of Cain" nearly as much as they did "something antemortal" which had apparently occcurred, since cursing a lineage because of the act of one person seems contrary to the idea that we're punished for our own sins, not someone else's. (Curses are conveyed through the generations by teaching false doctrine.) The idea of "antemortal" sins covered "fence sitting" and the "less valient" theory. However, in the 1960's, President David O. McKay is reported to have said definitively that he considered the practise a "policy" not a "doctrine." Big difference between those two words. That leaves room for white folks to take some blame and for tradition to own its own. Some leaders, such as Hugh B. Brown, tried actively to get the policy changed--and nearly succeeded in 1969. It was very much on Spencer Kimball's mind long before 1978, and though he had defended the Church policy all his life, he went to the temple daily to pray over the possibility of a change. The rest of the story is pretty well known, I believe. It is undeniable that previous Church leaders taught many things, including Curse of Cain, Curse of Canaan (both mainstream philosophies of the day used to justify slavery), and antemortal sin or fence-sitting. Of course, they also taught Adam/God and a number of other ideas we no longer subscribe to. I think we're back tracking whenever we repeat the ideas promulgated prior to 1978. Even though _Mormon Doctrine_ still needs some massive revision on the subject, I consider what Bruce R. McConkie said on the subject to be inspired: "Forget what I have said or what George Q. Cannon or any other Church leader has said prior to 1978. We were working with limited light and knowledge." Elder Alexander Morrison, when pressed on why the Church had restricted the priesthood from Blacks, said "We don't know the reason." When asked specifically if Mormons believed in the Curse of Cain, he repeated, "We don't know the reason for the restriction." Elder Marion Hanks has suggested to Darius and me that he thought the priesthood was not given to Blacks until Whites were ready to treat them with full charity and brotherhood, which is similar to Gene England's idea that we were living a "lesser law" until ready for a higher one. Those of you at the AML "extra" session heard Darius Gray talk about the restriction being "not a curse but a calling." We go into some detail about that at firesides, but I won't do it here. Suffice it to say, I have a personal policy of challenging anyone who suggests that contemporary Mormons believe any of the "cursing" ideas. If some do, I suggest they follow President Kimball's example and visit the temple with a prayer in their hearts. The change of 1978 was not some act of mercy towards a cursed people. It really was a revelation. Section 93 of the D&C is still true: all are innocent at birth. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: katie@aros.net Subject: [AML] GREEN, _Hearts in Hiding_ (Review) Date: 18 Jul 2002 19:14:34 -0600 Green, Betsy Brannon. _Hearts in Hiding_. Covenant, 2001. Softcover, 2= 99=20 pp., $14.95. Reviewed by Katie Parker My first recommendation here is to all those people who would like to rea= d LDS=20 fiction but can=92t stomach all the moral lessons and fictional faith-pro= moting=20 events: You might like this book. The characters are LDS, and they go t= o=20 church and read the scriptures, but the importance of religion to the sto= ry=20 really stops there. You won=92t find any preaching, you won=92t find a s= tory that=20 exists only to teach a lesson, and you won=92t find a fictional God const= antly=20 tweaking the picture and causing all sorts of improbable miracles. What = you=20 will find is romance, suspense, and intrigue, all within LDS standards. = Even=20 the romance doesn=92t get too sappy. But it gets better. Betsy Brannon Green can actually write. I don=92t k= now how=20 many LDS novels I=92ve stumbled through that have decent plots, but are p= oorly=20 written. In a poorly written book, that=92s how you get through: you st= umble. =20 The prose is clumsy, the characters are often mere cartoons, and you are=20 constantly aware that you are reading a book written by someone you may n= ot be=20 able to trust because they can=92t even write. But Green=92s writing is = much=20 stronger, in that her characterizations and settings are fuller, and the = prose=20 seems almost invisible because it creates something larger than the words= on=20 the page. This is something that is unfortunately still rare in LDS fict= ion. =20 I hope that the standards will become higher as more writers like Green e= nter=20 the scene. Those of you who are looking for deep explorations of issues and characte= rs=20 will not find much of that here. This is a typical LDS romance and suspe= nse=20 story through and through; minus the lessons, miracles, and overall chees= e. =20 And it=92s entertaining, it=92s clean, and it=92s very readable. A lot o= f folks are=20 looking for just that. The premise is quite interesting. Kate, a young pregnant LDS woman, is t= aken=20 into protection by the FBI after her agent husband is killed, and she=92s= given a=20 new identity and a new husband, Mark Iverson, in a small town in Georgia.= This=20 opens the door for all kinds of plot material, which unfortunately is exp= lored=20 only superficially. What=92s it like being married to someone you don=92= t know? =20 To take on an identity completely foreign from your own? To have to lie = to=20 people, constantly, about who you are and even to act differently? These= =20 problems are addressed somewhat, but the characters don=92t seem to have = much=20 difficulty adjusting. There are a few minor problems, such as the fact t= hat=20 word gets around town that Kate and Mark (who are going by other names) h= ave=20 marital problems because they never show any affection and don=92t even s= leep in=20 the same room. So, these two virtual strangers have to start kissing eac= h=20 other in public. Fortunately, they enjoy it. (And a note to anyone who=92= s=20 wondering about the moral issues surrounding this: Mark is also LDS, and= the=20 FBI required them to legally marry each other before they left for Georgi= a and=20 assumed other identities. The idea is that they will have the marriage=20 annulled upon returning home.) There are other questions, too, surrounding Kate=92s first husband and wh= ose side=20 he was really on. Some scenes are packed with suspense. Many other scen= es,=20 perhaps too many, depict their new lives in a small southern town. They = do=20 illustrate the peacefulness of small-town life and help to bring home th= e=20 painful reality that none of this is real for them; the killers could mov= e in=20 at any time, or the FBI could send them to their =93real=94 homes. But I= agree=20 somewhat with the reviewer in _Irreantum_ who says that the middle of the= book=20 drags. We see Kate and Mark decorating their house, cooking dinner, taki= ng=20 naps, and so forth. We see them opening up to each other and growing to = love=20 each other as well, but they do take a lot of naps and eat lots of dinner= s. =20 Green writes well enough that it=92s usually still fairly interesting, bu= t=20 perhaps she should have pared this part of the book down. Those who want a deep exploration of issues here are not going to find th= em. =20 But those who are looking for a good fun read with LDS standards and minu= s=20 the =93sappy=94 elements of other LDS fiction need look no further. Bets= y Brannon=20 Green is a great addition to the Covenant line-up of authors. Her third = book,=20 _Until Proven Guilty_, will be released in August. Keep an eye out; we s= hould=20 be seeing more from her. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "kumiko" Subject: [AML] Re: 3 LDS Lit Queries Date: 18 Jul 2002 20:37:53 -0500 John D. Fitzgerald was a Mormon. I do not believe, however, that he was ever a baptized Latter-day Saint. Ethnically, he was half-Catholic and half-Mormon. John D. Fitzgerald was "born in Price, Utah, in 1907 to a Scandinavian Mormon mother and an Irish Catholic father, he grew up influenced by both cultures. He left Utah behind at age eighteen..." (http://humanities.byu.edu/MLDB/94/godfrey.htm : Audrey M. Godfrey : "The Promise Is Fulfilled: Literary Aspects of John D. Fitzgerald's Novels") I have read Fitzgerald's "Great Brain" juvenile novels. The central character is a Gentile (non-Latter-day Saint) living in a predominantly Latter-day Saint community in turn-of-the-century Utah. The central character is in many ways Fitzgerald's fictionalized younger self. From what I've read about and by Fitzgerald, I believe that the Great Brain character's non-LDS status reflects Fitzgerald's own favoring of the Catholic/non-LDS half of his identity over his Mormon half. His novels paint a picture of turn-of-the-century Mormonism that is largely unprecedent in the extent to which a non-LDS writer of national status depicted Mormons with warmth, affection and realism. Preston Hunter ---------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] Acquiring Labels Date: 18 Jul 2002 19:19:27 -0600 ---Original Message From: The Laird Jim > > Capitalism was a slur > that they invented for those who were trying to adapt to the > real world that Smith expounded. It's rather like yankee--a > slur worn proudly just to show 'em. Or like Mormon, for that matter :) Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Elijah Able Society Date: 18 Jul 2002 19:39:01 -0600 Rich Hammett wrote: > I've got a historical question, from somebody who lives in the south, > but was fairly young in 1978--wasn't this official Church doctrine? > I'm not quite sure what makes something "official", but I heard this > doctrine preached from the pulpit, and I'm pretty sure I read it in > lessons that had made it through the correlation committee. A lot of things have been preached from the pulpit that were later rescinded or clarified, and institutional racism was one of them. That we know better now in no way changes the fact that a lot of questionable or untrue ideas were offered as doctrine for many years. That's part of the joy of being Mormon--we believe in continuing revelation, ongoing progression, and repentence. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 18 Jul 2002 19:31:33 -0600 Kathy Tyner wrote: > Great article. Thanks to R.W. for sharing it. > As the article says it is possible to be both a > rocker and an active, faithful member. In > our Northiridge, California ward our Elder's > Quorum Pres. belonged to a rock group > called "Spaghetti Western" that we saw > perform at The House of Blues on the Sunset > Strip a few years ago. He is now Bishop > Hollister of the Northridge 1st Ward, a rocker > AND a Bishop, wow. and Susan Malmrose wrote: > I'm a closet rocker. Among my music-oriented friends, I'm not a > closet-Mormon. But among the Mormons I know, I'd be pretty reluctant to say > what I'm about to say: I'm totally into stoner rock and doom metal. :) So what constitutes a "rocker?" One who listen to modern rock? One who plays it? If the definition is loose enough to include country, rap, and the six thousand flavors of alternative, I suspect about half of the American Church qualifies. I'm curious for a couple of reasons. I've ended up doing both (listening to old Black Sabbath as I write), and will have to admit that I really enjoyed playing bass in an alternative rock band just a few years ago (my wife was the drummer, and at least one other List member was in the band with us; I'll let him identify himself if he chooses). I know that as an individual what I most like about rock music is the music itself; the lyrics are usually somewhere between irrelevant and dumb, with a few either rising to interesting or falling to grotesque. The costumes are kinda silly (IMO), and the lifestyle is somewhat less than appealing, but I love the energy. I stopped caring about the videos sometime in the late 80s. I think it was my father who first pointed out that "A Passage to Bangkok" by Rush is a drug song. As a twelve year old that hurt my head because otherwise Rush was known for intelligent lyrics that stayed clear of the standard "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" stuff that dominated popular music. I had shown the record jacket to my father because I though the 2112 collection on the front side was an interesting representation of Satan's plan (portrayed as a bad thing), and I thought it was cool that these non-LDS Canadian rockers could come with something that looked darned close to gospel truth. When my mother read the lyrics of "Mother" by Pink Floyd she just about threw my entire collection out. I got a really good set of headphones after that and kept my music to myself. To this day I think she took those lyrics as a general condemnation of Motherhood even though I think they were meant as an autobiographical comment by Roger Waters on his own life and experience. Oh well. I'm not sure when I started listening to lyrics, but it's been recently. I find myself arguing with them a lot now, but I still like the tunes the lyrics are delivered in. I disagree with a lot of Neil Peart's social and political stances, but I still love the fact that he has those opinions and that Rush couches them in interesting music. I recently started talking back to David Bowie while listening to Diamond Dogs (a very old song from the 70s), but that didn't keep me from enjoying his creativity and admiring some of the social commentary he was trying to make. I just have to ignore Metallica's lyrics because they make me mad--which is annoying, because I *really* like the music. Godsmack is a whole different problem. I don't accept a lot of the messages those bands are trying to offer, but then I don't accept the messages Gerald Lund offered in _The Freedom Factor_ or _The Alliance_ either. If you include what I consider to be the partial messages or incomplete presentations, I argue at least as much with LDS authors as I do with rock lyricists. For me, at least, that's half the fun of it. But isn't rock music like any other input from any other source? Don't we need to think about everything we hear and evaluate it against our own knowledge and revealed gospel? Does the presence of any false teaching require us to reject the entire thing, or only to be aware of that falseness? I know that I've thought as much about what I believe (and refined those beliefs) while arguing with rock lyrics as from nearly any other source--including Gerald Lund. Though arguing with talk radio hosts is still where I have the most fun. When I played in an alternative rock band one of the things that differentiated us was that our lyrics, while sometimes deeply introspective and occasionally dark, never glorified evil things as good--often pointed out the ugly results of evil things, but never glorified the fact of that evil. Even the songs we covered were songs we thought had valid lyrical content (though in one case we mocked a song by performing it in such a way as to communicate exactly the opposite of its intended meaning--vastly improving the song in the process, I believe). I don't remember being shunned for being in a rock band, or for having a mid-back ponytail, even though I lived in Utah's most conservative county. Maybe I was but I just don't remember it, which in a way means it never happened because what good is a shunning if the victim never notices? Did I mention that everyone in the band had a temple recommend--and used it? I will say this, though. If I could get that band back together I'd do it in a heartbeat. I wasn't a creative guy; I just played bass. But making music with my friends was some of the best fun I've ever had, and I recommend it to anyone. Scott Parkin (golly that was a long post on a subject that wasn't nearly as serious as all that...sorry for being incomprehensibly verbose yet again) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 18 Jul 2002 19:50:54 -0600 ---Original Message From: Scott Parkin > > So the question remains--if people become loving and > charitable and concern themselves with the welfare of others > as much as their own comfort, how would that change of > attitude manifest itself? For starters, they'd know more. Actual charity and loving concern will motivate people to get to know one another--they wouldn't let surface reassurances assuage niggling concern. They'd all be busybodies, but with the kindest intentions, realistic expectations, and an eye for true assistance as opposed to a desire to be right or to reinforce some societal ideal. Then, because help often takes collective action, they'd learn more about how to manage resources effectively--they'd want to know what works and what doesn't and they'd want to *explore* tough trade-offs instead of being content with easy sentiment or unearned authority. To me, that means they'll discover and adopt decentralized decision making with a standard, shared distribution and communication system. Or, as I've been trying to say, they'd adopt a system like that used in the church today. > Would the goal of distributing > wealth more evenly result in changed social, economic, or > political institutions? What kinds of changes would that > entail, in your opinion? Changed institutions? Sort of, but not in the way you'd think. The biggest barrier to health and well-being in the world today isn't economic. So you might do anything economically. Since the key barriers are social and political, you'd have some broad changes there though. Petty tyrants and meaningless turf wars would cease and that's a substantial proportion of the worlds current set of rulers. You'd have an awful lot of vacancies at the top because the top is self-selected for those who crave power and are willing to abuse it. This will help the whole idea of sovereignty and kingdom to soften to the point of irrelevance (because they'd be barriers and not facilitators of well-being). And if your decision making is *really* local, then there isn't much need for territorial boundaries beyond the neighborhood level. So for the roles that government currently assumes: - There is no tragedy of the commons because the basis for such tragedies is selfish greed. - Regulatory control would become the ideal of the principle it is now--instead of a check for fraud (and greed, and so on), it would become solely a check for error. As a result, regulatory processes would move largely in-house and become a small fraction of what they are today. - Military? What's that? Light peace-keeping forces might be needed for when tempers flare, but they'd be the "sleep it off in a cell" kind of units. - Welfare and social services would be handled locally and without the *huge* overhead it currently sustains. - Funding for the arts, um, good question. Depends on what role you see for art in the ideal society. Since "funding" isn't an issue, though, I'm guessing some as yet unexplored system will be needed. In addition: - Whole industries would disappear (weapon manufacture, stock brokers, insurance, lobbyists, unions, others I can't think of off the top of my head). - Whole industries would appear (maybe, hard to predict, traveling scientists/teachers to disperse needed skills, unified distribution systems). Come to think of it, though, you're going to need some flexibility in this because you'll have certain functions that require a great deal of mobility. Freighter Crews, long-haul truckers, theater/music/comedy groups, Airplane crew etc. You'll need to be able to have services available for them, so you can't be entirely dependent on a local bishop for all your needs. Of course, given adequate communication infrastructures, mobility is less of a concern, but you still have to have a way to allocate responsibility (stewardship) in geographically challenging situations. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 18 Jul 2002 19:54:56 -0600 At 07:47 PM 7/17/02 -0600, you wrote: >Organized oppression creates easy choices and opportunities for grand >heroism (good things when telling an adventure story) but isn't one of the >Mormon nightmare scenarios that people will just ignore us? That we will be >found irrelevant, and perhaps even silly? Interesting, considering that in the Protestant apocolyptic fiction venues, Mormonism is not even mentioned. We do not appear as either bad guys or good guys -- we are apparently part of the ignorant mass of people who are not with the E-vangelicals, and therefore not worthy of notice. Likewise, in our fiction, we tend to put what we call The Church in the center, and push everyone else to the edges because they don't really count -- they are unbelievers (infidels, outsiders, non-us, wrong). That's one reason our literature is so often boring -- everyone in it is Us, and we are not everybody -- we are not all of God's children. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 18 Jul 2002 21:23:49 -0600 Scott Parkin wrote: What if the Jackson County faction built a sort of hasidic Mormonism for the ultra-orthodox but still accepted the authority of the GAs, while rejecting the righteousness of the majority of members? They could certainly pass the temple interview, but the social fragmentation could be ugly. How's that for a nightmare scenario? Scott--That is probably the most important things I read on this list since I joined. Write it. Now. The reason it is so important--and terrifying--is that it isn't so distant. Everyone of us--even us enlightened bastards--have some of that quality. If you write it you may cause a few people to examine themselves and their motives a little more closely. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Millennial Economics Date: 19 Jul 2002 00:41:51 -0700 on 7/16/02 3:24 PM, Barbara Hume at barbara@techvoice.com wrote: > Maybe ownership is not all that desireable, then. Didn't the Indians get > along fine with common hunting grounds, until the Europeans came along and > decided, based on their culture, that if it wasn't fenced in it was free > for the taking? The natives perceived land use differently. > > How likely are people to do that? Some will -- but we'd have to free > ourselves from the shackles of our materialistic culture (h'mmm, I'm > thinking of the chains that poor old Jacob Marley has to drag around--not a > bad metaphor). There was more to this post but these are the two that stood out to me. The fact is the Indians didn't have common hunting grounds. They had a concept of ownership just as developed as any other group of people in the world. They fought constantly over resources just like everybody else. They were not magical creatures from another planet but human beings like the rest of us. You say that they perceived land use differently--and so they did, since only a minority of them were agrarian. The Five "Civilized" Tribes had their own versions of deeds and inheritance rights for land, and had a quite complex system of planting that allowed the land to lie fallow to keep it working. Here in the southwest the Hopi and Pima fenced in their fields just like the settlers did in New England. Had to live in castles, too, since the Navajo and Apache perceived land use differently and came to take their corn pretty frequently. The fences weren't to keep people out any more than the fences anywhere else. They're supposed to keep animals out, like say peccary. The hunting tribes did share hunting grounds after a fashion--so long as they didn't run into enemy tribes or tracks they didn't bother with fighting over the country. The various sorts of settlers didn't think the land was free for the taking--otherwise they wouldn't have bothered fighting the Indians ever. It would've been a one-sided fight if that had happened and the Europeans would've lost. They intended to take the land, because there were no kings to tell them they couldn't, and the Indians never had power enough to stop them. Even the Iriquois Confederation never had enough power to do more than kick at the gallows steps. It's not like it happened only here. It happened in Africa, India, China, any island you care to name--because the Europeans were technically superior. If it had been the other way around we might be living in Hamburg speaking Cherokee or Bengali. Some people like to think that only the "Ice People" of Europe would do such a thing but people are people. It works both ways. Whoever gains the advantage tends to use it, and in all of history there are only a few opposing examples, and America is responsible for most of those examples. Not consistently, of course, but there is no precedent in history for Germany and Japan after WWII. There's no precedent for George Washington relinquishing power voluntarily after winning a revolution, either. These things are extraordinary and unusual, just as was the Iriquois Confederation. I'm still waiting to find out what's wrong with a materialistic culture. I don't understand. Since there is no other kind, what exactly are we shooting for? The millenial economy will still be materialistic. Lusting for wealth is not the same thing as wanting a better car or computer or tennis shoes. It's better for people to run after material things than several less palpable objects, however. Lust for power over other people is worse than wanting to upgrade your stereo. Even if the only reason you want to do it is to keep up with the Joneses. There's no doubt that setting one's heart upon the things of the world is a bad thing, but that doesn't mean that we all have to live in camel-hair shirts in the desert and forego toilet paper and french fries to prove how much power the spirit has over the body. I'm a Mormon--I could care less about such gnostic things. Very few religions believe that God is Himself material--but this is such a one. He has form and substance, and is not purely of spirit. Neither are we. Greed and envy are bad. It doesn't follow that money and material goods are bad. St. Paul didn't say that money is the root of all evil, but that "the love of money is the root of all evil." People say the love chocolate but I hope they're just exaggerating. If they really do then I suppose it would be a bad thing and they might suffer for it when they have to face justice. It doesn't follow that chocolate is inherently evil. I equate money with sweat. If I look at something I want to buy I judge how much I'm willing to sweat for it. I need to get a new truck soon, but I'm going to suffer with my little one for another six months because I'm not willing to sweat as much as I'll have to if I get what I want now. It may hurt my back on the long commute but oh well, I'll just have to suffer. It won't hurt as much as a $600 payment. If I wait I won't lose as much on my current truck and I'll have some down payment money to lessen the burden. This is a real concern, something that is important in my life. The fact that it concerns material and money doesn't bother me a whit. I could get a cheaper little car and use it to commute, but then I couldn't get away from the city and smell the pines. Sorry, no; I'd rather be materialistic and get what I want. Marley's chains are lusts and loves and unfulfilled promises, not the fact of wealth or material goods. He loved money, he was dishonorable and dishonest, he was miserly and cruel. To re-re-relate this to literature, I don't write for money (yet). I don't even write for the hope of money. If I never make a dime I won't stop, because I love it. The fact that it is considered "art" and therefore somehow better than shoe selling or street sweeping makes no difference to me. I would love to do it for a living but that doesn't mean I'm willing to live in a shoebox to accomplish that goal. I'm not. I'd rather have a car, and a computer, and a television, and a bunch of books. I want a refrigerator and a toaster and a microwave. I could live without them. I just don't want to. Being a writer is inherently materialistic, anyway. I take existing material, such as research or background information, and turn it into a story, which also gets to be called material. Then I try to sell my material to a publisher for material bucks, and hopefully my material will show up in bookstores with real carboard covers. I still don't get it. What exactly is wrong with materialism? Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 18 Jul 2002 20:10:45 -0600 At 12:53 PM 7/15/02 -0600, you wrote: >. And while I admit that I haven't researched modern revelation, the >idea of the gathering to Jackson County seems more folklore than >doctrine--yet that gathering in that place is a consistent element of Mormon >apocalyptics. I see no reason to believe that the whole eleven million of us will trash what we have and migrate to boring Missouri. This planet is covered with children of God who need what the church has to offer, and they'll need it even more in the dark days. The faith will be where the stakes of Zion are. The church has not spread over the earth only to contract to a single (overcrowded) space at some point. barbara hume, frustrated with ideas that float around freely with nothing to hold them up unless they are her own half-baked notions -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: [AML] Personal Goals and Personal Thanks Date: 19 Jul 2002 01:06:39 -0700 I have a personal goal that comes up for review every week. I try to write at least 1,000 words each day, which means at least 6,000 words each week since I don=B9t count Sundays. I keep a tally in a database for each day and week, which both keeps me honest and gives me reason to try harder if I haven=B9t been keeping up. I just looked it over and noticed how much of my daily writing is related t= o AML. It might be a bad thing since it takes away from progress on a book, but that=B9s not how I see it. Without AML I would=B9ve missed my goal much more often than I actually did. I only count 500+ word responses in my tally, but there are enough of them to put me over the top several times in the last few months. I just want to tell you all how much I appreciate it. I enjoy the give and take and get finished with work each Wednesday spoiling for another fight. Jonathan has to rein me in all the time =8Ccause I tend to be rambunctious. If I slip something past him and you do feel insulted please don=B9t be. I take offense at so little that I don=B9t see why anybody else should be more sensitive. I realize that it=B9s wrong to feel so, but there it is. I have to remind myself constantly because there=B9s no gut to it. There are few things I like more than debate, and I never really get enough= , sort=B9ve like bacon when I was a kid. You never get enough bacon when there are seven kids and as the oldest you have to be self-sacrificing and noble. So it is with debate, because everyone gets offended too quickly and I neve= r get finished. I had three people walk out of the room the other day while = I argued with another. It wasn't even acrimonious! Just 'cause I'm yelling doesn't mean I'm mad. We're still friends and all, and I didn't even win. You may think my posts are long, but they=B9re about half of what I want to say most of the time. Be concise, eh? I do try. Thanks a lot for fighting with me. It=B9s a real pleasure, and one that I hope will be repeated often. This week has been particularly interesting and I=B9m currently annoyed about the only twice per day rule just now. I'll live till next week. Keep up the great work folks! Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Some Film Notes Date: 19 Jul 2002 10:36:21 -0500 You can finally see the poster for "Possession," the upcoming film directed by Neil Labute, starring Aaron Eckhart: http://posters.imdb.com/Covers/25/62/76.jpg ---- A new review of "Brigham City" can be found at: http://www.greaterthings.com/Bookstore/Videos/Reviews/BrighamCity.htm ----- New out on DVD this week: "John Q" starring Denzel Washington. It was directed by native New Yorker Nick Cassavetes. This is Cassavetes's 4th film as a director. He started his career as an actor. One of his major roles was the 3rd-billed role in Latter-day Saint director Blair Treu's "Just Like Dad" (1996), which was filmed in Utah. That year Cassavetes directed his first feature film "Unhook the Stars", also made in Utah. I don't think Cassavetes is a Utahn or Latter-day Saint, but "John Q" is an excellent movie, with incredible performances. Best of all it's really ABOUT something -- the health care crisis; it's not just a meaningless action flick. It tackles substantive issues in a concrete and informative -- yet interesting and entertaining -- way -- issues which are very contemporary and which really not been addressed in a feature film before. webmaster, www.ldsfilm.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 19 Jul 2002 09:32:04 -0600 >I haven't read the _Left Behind_ series yet (I >keep meaning to, but there are so *many* volumes now) Linda-- Don't let the number of volumes scare you off...they are as quick a read as an adolescent novel. 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: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Millennial Economics Date: 19 Jul 2002 09:30:32 -0700 Todd Petersen said, > Capitalism is a system whereby the primary economic goal is not > bettering people's lives or creating things of utility or beauty. > Instead it is to create more capital. At least that's what Marx says. > Capitalism wants to turn goods and materials into money. I hope I have > my terms right here, but the United Order seems more like a Mercantile > system. > > The United Order is an economic system designed to help people take > care of their needs and the righteous portion of their wants. > > Lots of LDS people describe the United Order as capitalistic simply > because money is involved, and that's not really what capitalism is, and > certainly not what industrial capitalism is. Capitalism requires capital, and the United Order provides it interest free. That is at least a compatibility, and in fact facilitates the creation of wealth through debt that is the keystone of capitalism. Further, capitalism rewards those who most effectively meet the needs of the people. It does this through the free market, where people are free to buy what they need or like most. Those who complain about this aspect of capitalism sometimes fail to realize that whatever they think is utilitarian or beautiful may not be what the majority of people think is utilitarian or beautiful. In other words, in a free market, that which sells is that which the majority of people find utilitarian and beautiful, even if some of us who are working hard to make things that are utilitarian and beautiful, don't share the same taste. I think if we were in a society where we had to buy the things that some people think have utility and beauty, we'd call it a totalitarian state. Money in a free market society, automatically rewards what the majority enjoys the most. If the majority is righteous, that shouldn't be a bad thing. So, I'm not sure that anything in the United Order would really change this method of taking care of people needs and righteous wants. The artistic side of me is not always pleased with that result, because I am not always able to give the public what it enjoys the most. That's skewed a little in today's society because so much of what is wanted is not good (drugs, sex, violence), but in a righteous society, the needs would change, but should the method of providing them really change? And if it doesn't change, if we retain a free market economy, are we not being capitalistic? The answer to the last question is, I think, that we will, in fact, see a somewhat different capitalism under the United Order, but not because of anything having to do with the utility or beauty of our products. Rather, the profit motive will see some modification in a society where we give back to the community all our profits (as that term is defined using generally accepted accounting principles). Basically, under the United Order, all the corporations would essentially be non-profit. Right? Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Education Week Get-Together Date: 19 Jul 2002 09:32:04 -0700 I'll go along with the majority. I have no preference as to night or place (don't even know the good places down there). I'd just like to get together. See you. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 19 Jul 2002 09:38:31 -0700 Eric R. Samuelsen wrote: Here's my question: what happens when we get the first generation of General Authorities who grew up liking, and kept liking, rock and roll? (snip) I make no differntiation, IOW, between Mozart and Jerry Lee Lewis. So what if that were the attitude of the Church? What if we in the Church actually took Psalm 150 seriously? Richard responds: I'm with you, Eric. I love and play classical music, but I enjoy good rock just as much. It's all music to me. Much of the best pop music has the same complexity and form in it that I enjoy in the best classics. And I know that we will see a change in Church music and the attitude of the Church toward music if Gladys Knight gets her way! (Same with Thurle Bailey.) Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 19 Jul 2002 09:41:06 -0700 Kim Madsen wrote: > My LDS bookgroup is reading this book (Prodigal Journey)for our "summer > reading" selection. We were looking for something engrossing that you could > get caught up in--you know...an escape. All 10 of the women reading this > book have reported to me it has been just that--something they couldn't put > down. They were all concerned at the size of the book when I announced it, > but they all say it's a fast read, since they can't make themselves stop. When Cornerstone first put it out, we told the bookstores that we had almost been forced to get FDA approval before releasing it because it was so addictive. I'm glad to see others agree with that assessment. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] Thoughts on Art and Literature Date: 19 Jul 2002 10:54:12 -0600 Actually, science is a system of investigation--nothing more and nothing less. Doing science may be an art, but science itself describes the system of hypothesis, experimentation, and repeatability. It has proven itself a very effective system for investigating and explaining the physical world. Writing, Philosophy, Ethics and several other endeavors do not and cannot be carried out by using the scientific method, and are therefore not sciences in any really accurate sense of the word. I think our education system leads everyone to think what we study about in Science classes is science, when really what we are learning is only the result of scientific investigation to date. I also don't believe that writing is always a search for truth. Sometimes it is just the search for a cheap laugh, an emotional connection, or a pleasent diversion. 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: rjwillia@uci.edu Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 18 Jul 2002 22:14:52 -0800 I can still remember hearing a recorded conference (or maybe fireside) talk that my dad played one afternoon for family home evening. I was only seven or eight, but I remember vividly the speaker on the tape taking great pains to show the evils of rock music, even playing some of the more nefarious tunes backwards to reveal hidden, subliminal messages, all designed to further the great and terrible work of Satan. He was very convincing (the speaker, I mean, not Satan). Through the harsh, scraping "zzvvwwamp" of the needle on this turntable-turned-detective, I could distinctly make out a voice--the devil himself, I thought: "Smooooke Maarrraaaawaaanaaa." Something about it terrified me, perhaps the subtlety of it, the seemingly hypnotic nature of a subconscious message planted by Satan, and played over and over again somewhere in my mind, somewhere beyond my control. As I recall, I nearly started crying and my parents had to end the tape early. But what made things even worse, I remember hearing my dad that same afternoon, thinking about something else, gradually begin humming the evil tune to himself. When I confronted him, he grinned sheepishly. "Geez," he said, "it is a catchy song though." I was righteously appalled. Quickly repenting of ever enjoying rock music, I made sure that the radios in our home were programmed to more wholesome and uplifting stations. I became zealously attached to my grandfather's favorite station, something like 540 AM, literally the most innocuous, ridiculously gentle music on the planet. At this point, of course, my parents were probably worried they had made a terrible mistake. What began as a simple family home evening lesson on avoiding the "ways of the world," had turned into a fierce battle of good and evil (definitely one too large for someone my size). Something happens to us as teenagers, though. As a teenager, you could have PROVED to me with scientific evidence that listening to rock music caused leprosy, and I would have still listened to it. Sure, I tried to steer clear of the truly hard-core Satan-worshipping bands, but there were times when a good punk beat (the Ramones, the Pixies, etc.) seemed impossible to live without. And when I discovered the darker, more gloomy, melodramatic bands like the Smiths, Depeche Mode, and the Cure--well, listening to them became absolutely necessary to my well-being. I became an expert at defending these bands to my parents, even trying on occasion to get them to listen to them. This was good music, I argued. It had soul. It dramatized a part of me that even the church didn't seem to have a venue for. I even learned to play the guitar and began writing my own songs. But this new interest in "worldly" music was much harder for my parents to deal with, and on several occasions we argued about what I should, and should not, listen to. Mom finally conceded that my music probably fell under the category of "terrestrial," that is, somewhere between "telestial" music (things like AC/DC, KISS, and amateur violin recitals) and "celestial" music (things like hymns, musicals, and 540 AM). And that was good enough for me. I knew I didn't belong in hell, but I certainly had NO desire to spend eternity listening to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. In high school and college, I joined a band, and my parents did their best to understand (I won't say "support") it. I can remember one evening when my dad, a respected lawyer in Salt Lake, came to one of our shows. He sat in the back, wearing a suit, an open briefcase on his lap, and worked on one of his cases as we shouted our ungodly racket. I don't remember him ever saying that he liked any of our songs, but occasionally there were moments when I would catch him--probably thinking about something else--humming one of our tunes. --John Williams UC Irvine. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] 3 LDS Lit Queries Date: 19 Jul 2002 13:03:16 -0600 On 18 July 2002, Travis Manning wrote: > > Third, does anyone know if author John D. Fitzgerald is Mormon? > Fitzgerald is the author of the "Great Brain" children's book series > of the 1940s. He also wrote a biography/family history book about his > own father's family called _Papa Married a Mormon_, copyright 1955, by > Prentice-Hall, Inc., 298 pp. John D. Fitzgerald grew up in Price, Utah, as a Catholic. As he discribes in his book, the town didn't have enogh Catholics to merit its own Catholic church, so the met in a congregation with all the other non-Mormons in the town. In his Great Brain series, John fictionalizes his family experience, as indicated by his fictional hometown Adenville. _Papa Married a Mormon,_ although based on his father's story, also contains many fitcional elements. John left Utah for college and setteled in Florida. His brother Tom lived in Price until his death. I have reviews of the first two Great Brain books, which I will post here. Although not written by a Mormon, the books create an excellent picture of life in early 20th century rural Utah. -- Terry L Jeffress -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: [AML] John D. FITZGERALD, _The Great Brain_ (Review) Date: 19 Jul 2002 13:07:46 -0600 TITLE: The Great Brain AUTHOR: John D. Fitzgerald PUBLISHER: Yearling, 1967 ISBN: 0-440-43071-2, Trade paperback PRICE: $4.99 J.D. Fitzgerald, aged seven, tells of his adventures with his older brother Tom, alias the Great Brain. Tom, aged 10, unabashedly admits that he has the greatest brain in all of Adenville, a fictional town set in rural Utah. When Mr. Fitzgerald installs the first flushing toilet in their town, Tom devises a scheme to charge the neighborhood kids each a penny to see the "Magic Water Closet." Although Tom prefers to use his brain for profit, he will also use it to rescue boys lost in a nearby cave, make an immigrant Greek boy feel welcome, and teach a friend who lost a leg to use his new peg leg. I loved _The Great Brain_ as a kid, and I still love its charm and wit. Fitzgerald places interesting characters in a fascinating old-West setting and gives them fun adventures. We get to join J.D. in his admiration of the Great Brain, but we also get to sample life in rural 1890s Utah. For example, Abie Glassman tries to open a store in town, but he quickly goes out of business (and dies) because the Mormons (and many of the non-Mormons) will only shop at the Mormon-owned ZCMI store. You never get the impression that Fitzgerald holds a negative opinion of Mormons, he just describes his life as he lived it. -- Terry L Jeffress -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: [AML] John D. FITZGERALD, _More Adventures of the Great Brain_ (Review) Date: 19 Jul 2002 13:10:32 -0600 TITLE: More Adventures of the Great Brain AUTHOR: John D. Fitzgerald PUBLISHER: Yearling, 1969 ISBN: 0-440-45822-6, Trade paperback PRICE: $4.99 Fitzgerald continues to chronicle his adventures with his older brother Tom, the Great Brain. This volume gets a little repetitive with the opening and closing chapters both involving the boys sneaking out at night to places forbidden by their parents. In each case, Tom shames other boys into going out late at night to prove his point, either that monsters do exist or that ghosts don't. The real charm of this series lies in its accurate portrayal of the characters. Tom does always think up great schemes, but he doesn't always benefit from them. When Tom starts his own newspaper, he tries to scoop his father's paper and he prints mostly gossip that hurts his neighbors. Every kid has to learn at some point that probably everyone does know the juicy stories, but that bringing those stories out in the public eye can do great harm. Tom wanted to work for his father, but his father wisely tells Tom that Tom has only proved that he hasn't matured enough to work for the paper. But Tom has his good points too. When Old Butch, the well known and loved town mongrel dog dies, Tom arranges to give Butch a hero's funeral. Tom eulogizes Butch by praising his availability to all the kids whose parents wouldn't allow a dog in the home. Tom can use his great brain for both the best and the worst uses, and he (and hopefully we too) learn from these simple yet touching stories. -- Terry L Jeffress -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 19 Jul 2002 14:03:40 -0700 Eric Samuelsen wrote: >snip Here's my question: what happens when we get the first generation of General Authorities who grew up liking, and kept liking, rock and roll? >snip I'm quite sure this has already occurred. There is good and bad in everything and in everybody. I like to believe, in fact I'm sure, there is more good than bad in our general authorities of the church. As far as the good and bad of music in general and Rock and Roll in particular, isn't it like everything else? Don't we all have our own level of tolerance for what we deem entertaining. We all can control our own personal on off switch. We all can get up and walk out of a bad movie, or hit the fast forward in a good movie with offensive scenes. Every reader makes their own determination whether to turn the page or close the book. Because we won the war in heaven, we each have the right and the responsibility to govern our own entertainment material. No one has the right to choose for us. For our children whom we have responsibility there may be times when we need to exercise our parental right to choose what we feel is appropriate for them, however; at some time they will have to exercise their own agency and we can only hope they remember what we have tried to teach them, and that they will make good choices. As for the general authorities, I'm sure they have some good Rock that they have enjoyed in the past, and they may even still enjoy the best of the classic Rock and Roll. I see nothing wrong with this, and I certainly wouldn't spend any time worrying over a GA's choice of music. Regards, Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 19 Jul 2002 16:31:27 -0400 I want to ponder this and here is my question. What is the average age of a GA at this moment? And what is the youngest age they ar usually made a GA? Debbie Brown ----- Original Message ----- > Here's my question: what happens when we get the first generation of General Authorities who grew up liking, and kept liking, rock and roll? [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 19 Jul 2002 10:45:22 -0600 > From: Jacob Proffitt > Scarcity is the central feature of *all* economic systems. Scarcity > is > a primary feature of our mortal life and I believe deliberately so. > I > think God set it up this way so that we can learn to be generous, > loving > and kind. Since things are scarce, we are tempted to hoard our > resources and to find security in our possessions. God set this up > so > that we can learn to find our security in him and share our good > fortune > with those in more desperate need than ourselves. Not that there > isn't > enough and then some on the planet, but we *do* have to learn how to > distribute it wisely. Distributing resources is tough and it is a > problem with every economic system. It's a little unreasonable to > blame > capitalism for it--particularly when capitalism solves the problem > of > scarcity better than any other system we've ever tried. If there is > something that people want, then that thing will have value and > others > will be motivated to provide it. The higher the desire vs. quantity > on > hand, the higher the price--and higher the motivation to provide. > Individual companies may *try* to control supply in order to > maximize > profits, but as long as there is no illegal barrier to entry they > will > ultimately fail because as long as there are profits to be made new > companies will crop up to meet the desires of the people. > > Drugs are an interesting example of the strengths of capitalism and > the > utility of patent laws. > It is true that all economic systems deal with the allocation of scarce resources--but there are parts of our economic system that seem to encourage it, rather than simply dealing with it. Detailing why seems inappropriate in a literary forum. We were talking about Utopia's after all, and I was just adding another potential take on it, not arguing for political changes. I would also hold out the City of Enoch as an example that it is possible to eliminate scarcity--however, the references to it give us no idea of how they achieved their lack of poverty. This thread has also devolved into referring to Capitalism and Socialism as two opposing, set-in-stone systems, which isn't really the case in the real world. Even in your post here, you start out by defending unfettered free markets, and then segue into patent law by which government limit free markets. There is also a great deal of confusion on the difference between economic, social, and political systems. They are intertwined, but not the same. Most countries, even the US, socialize certain goods and services. The Military, for example, or the post office or the highway system. Socialism does not always equal a completely centrally controlled economy--nor does having socialized medicine mean everyone acts as a doctor for the week. You can have specialization within a socialist system. Meanwhile, fascism was a free market system that most definitely did not value freedom. When looking for a good story to tell, it might help to remember that there are a lot of different options. Russell Asplund --- "In the long run, we're all dead. " John Maynard Keynes -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Remy Subject: RE: [AML] Faith-Building Literature? Date: 19 Jul 2002 14:13:05 -0700 Eric said: > But when we ask about writing that might decrease faith, that seems to me a different question. > Then we're asking, is there stuff out there that, if we read it, will cause us to question our testimony > so substantially that we might stop believing in God or in the Church. And to that question, I would > say that the answer is an absolute, unequivocal, no. It is not possible that anything could be written > that would cause us to lose our testimony, if indeed a testimony is something worth having. I agree with Eric that "most writing is simply a testimony itself", that writers transmit to paper their convictions and their views of the world. I'm not sure that my personal experience squares with the above statement, however. I have come across a lot of material over the years-fiction, history, science, writings from other religious perspectives which have challenged my basic convictions in several of the fundamental principles of the gospel. I apply the same conscience, the same open mind, and similar techniques to these new perspectives which I applied when first discovering gospel truths, and sometimes my heart and mind tell me that the new principles make more sense than the LDS ones. I do not intend to make this post too personal. I am drawing on personal experience to demonstrate that we are quite capable of writing stories and reading works which transform worldviews and challenge existing perspectives-even personal religious convictions. Perhaps Eric and I agree on one thing here. Everything we read contains truth and untruth. Eric labels his truth "Gospel", and I feel that "Truth" is my gospel (Gandhi once said that "Truth is God"). The more we read, the more we are exposed to truth and untruth. Hopefully, with each exposure, we apply the various tools with which we measure truth-our conscience, the Holy Ghost, critical thinking, our code of ethics and morality, our life experience, etc.-and come away a little wiser. John Remy UC Irvine -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 19 Jul 2002 14:59:25 -0600 There is another thread about what literature helped us spiritually. If we broaden that to music, I'd have to list a lot of rock music. (I am, by the way, the other list member from Scott's band. I still miss playing.) To quote from a song by Frank Black, "I need peace/I feel so down/ I've got peace/ turned up so loud, turned up so loud." That being said, there is a lot of Rock music that has the opposite effect. Just like good TV vs. bad TV, good books vs. dirty books, etc. It seems like we want a shorthand to simply avoid all of Category X, rather than be asked to use our judgment and the spirit to seek out the praiseworthy from the evil. candesa Russell Asplund Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. English Translation: I have a catapult. Give me all of your money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 19 Jul 2002 15:41:09 -0600 Okay, since we seem to be, yet again, in a moment where the pet rocks of = the right are given warmth and sunlight and nourishment, I'm going to hope = for, at least, equal time to air out my little pebbles here on the left. Capitalism, as it seems to be construed by The Laird and by Jacob and by = several others, is the freedom-and-choice alternative to nasty old = collectivist central planning communism. Fine and dandy, as far that all = that goes: right now we seem to be a moment in history where capitalism = seems to work pretty well, and where socialism seems a ludicrous and = brutal failure. I share the same historical moment as the rest of you, and = am, in fact, a fan of market economics. In the '30's, a different picture = seemed to be emerging. For a time, the Soviets seemed to be feeding their = people better than we seemed able to do; that is, when they chose to feed = them, when Stalin wasn't busy starving the Ukraine or Georgia, or sending = all the smart people to the Gulag. Okay, we're post-Solzhenitsyn; we know = who Stalin was. 'Sovietism' vs. 'capitalism' isn't a useful topic much = anymore. The Soviet system was able to build terrific subways and terrible = cars, wonderful rockets and lousy shoes, create really super parades and = really awful art. It's dead, and not many mourn its passing. =20 I'm a Norwegian, and have lived in Scandinavia for some time since my = mission. It's very nice to live in a country without poor people, or to = live in a city the size of Oslo and notice that it has no slums. At the = same time, I have no desire to live in Norway. I have a great uncle who = died because his head injury took place late on a Thursday, and the = state's doctors only worked M-Th; his aneurism killed him late Sunday = night. My father, on a mission in Norway a couple years ago, had a mild = heart attack, but received no treatment; there was a four month waiting = list for an angioplasty. He had to cut his mission short, come home, and = receive immediate attention. =20 Now, let me add that I'm a huge fan of America and of American capitalism, = especially in its tackiest manifestations. I like telemarketers. I love = personal injury attorneys. I like big ugly billboards. I think there = does not exist on this earth a more intensely pleasurable activity than = buying a used car. So I'm no enemy to capitalism. 'Socialism doesn't work.' But that's nonsense; in some ways, socialism = works very well indeed; i.e. rockets, subways and parades. The devil's in = the details, and broad statements about Adam Smith seem at times to duck = an uncomfortable truth; capitalism is inherently and fundamentally amoral. = Market economies are very good at generating wealth, and that's not a bad = thing. But wealth also tends to accumulate at the top, and at the bottom, = emerges endless, inescapable and crushing poverty. Laissez faire = economics has been tried on a national scale just as communism was tried = on a national scale; in terms of human misery and suffering, they're about = even. Stalin starved kulaks because he thought they were a threat. = Victorian England starved an equal percentage of its society's children, = because there was no profit to be made in feeding (let alone educating or = training) them properly. Read Brigham Young's comments on arriving in = England, and feel in your bones the shock and outrage of a prophet of the = Lord as he recoiled in horror from, well, libertarian political and = capitalist economic theory in action, slightly alleviated by private = charity. =20 The relationship between capital and business and government is a complex, = ever shifting interaction, but one fundamental purpose of government must = always be to ameliorate the worst and cruelest excesses of capitalism, = while also providing rule of law, infastructure and appropriate regulatory = controls which foster and help enable economic growth. =20 I look at my father, for example. A dirt poor Norwegian immigrant, came = to the US at seventeen, was drafted to fight in Korea before he'd even = become a citizen. His father, my grandfather (who we called Bestefar), = had two years formal education, and worked at Geneva Steel for thirty = years. He made a decent wage, though, because he worked for a union that = won good wages and benefits through collective bargaining. My father went = to college, bachelors and masters, on the GI bill. He taught in Indiana = for thirty five years at a public university, and every year we traveled = to Utah to see his parents, and drove there on highways built with federal = money. Would Geneva have paid Bestefar enough so he could afford a decent = home, or a car, or even enough food on the table without the union? Would = Geneva have bargained with the union, had they not been forced to by a = panoply of federal and state labor laws, regulated by the NLRB? Would = Indiana University have existed if it had only been privately funded, its = education available only to those who could afford it? Would my father = have had a career as an opera singer and professor of music without the = substantial intervention of a variety of government programs, paid for by = tax dollars? My dad is a success story. He hauled his bad self up by his = bootstraps. He could, because he had help. From the gummint. Point is, = this is not a bidness vs. gummint issue. Both have crucial roles to play, = both, in part, ameliorate the excesses of the other. What is the millennium? What will it look like? I have no idea. But to = suggest that it's a capitalist paradise is nonsense. John D. Rockefeller = built a capitalist paradise. Robert Blake looked at the capitalist = paradise of his day, and wrote about it: 'England's dark, satanic mills" = was his word for the textile industry. Any paradise would have to include = intelligently conceived, adequately funded programs to ameliorate poverty = and ignorance, and those programs can not, can never arise from capitalism,= because there's no profit in them. And mostly, they have to be funded = and run by the government, because private charity has always, always, = been unequal to the task. Might be worth pointing out that King Benjamin = was quite a high ranking government official. =20 Deep breath. Point is, whatever structure or theory we can think of, it's = been tried. Everything's been tried. What works is balance. =20 I will say this; I'm not sure how relevant Joseph Smith or Brigham Young's = experiments in the United Order are, because they conceived of them taking = place in the only society they knew, an essentially agrarian society. = Joseph's United Order is perfect, for a society of small farmers. My = family would starve pretty quickly on that plot, because I can't even grow = zucchini. What would an information age utopia look like? Especially one = in which everyone was good, or reasonably good? Interesting thoughts. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Millennial Economics Date: 19 Jul 2002 15:52:55 -0600 Since I seem to be disagreeing with Jacob Proffitt a lot lately: >The Indians got along (on those occasions when they weren't killing each >other) because they were so few spread out on a land so large. And >they >led short, brutal lives that ensured that their numbers remained few. >When the Europeans came, they were able to support the same population >as the Indians on a fraction of the required land. It wasn't a >difference of ownership, it was a difference of technology and culture. As a matter of historical fact, this isn't true. It's an illusion caused = by the awkward fact that while what most Europeans encountered looked like = a vast and empty wilderness, when what it really was was a vast burial = ground. The American continent was depopulated by the greatest pandemic = in recorded history well before Lewis and Clark. No one knows exactly how = many natives the land originally held, but no one seriously argues with a = death toll in excess of 95%, and a pre-Columbian population in excess of = 40 million. =20 The native peoples also probably lived a good deal longer than Europeans, = because what we know of their culture suggests a far healthier diet with = far fewer endemic childhood diseases. For the most part, they were not = hunter/gatherers, but very sophisticated farmers; a number of excavations = in the American midwest have shown how very advanced they were agricultural= ly. They weren't particularly peace loving--no human peoples ever have = been, but remember that the 'Indians' most Europeans came into contact = with were the tiny remnant of a far vaster society. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Education Week Get-Together Date: 19 Jul 2002 16:21:15 -0600 (MDT) > I'll go along with the majority. I have no preference as to night or place > (don't even know the good places down there). I'd just like to get together. > See you. > > Richard Hopkins ditto me. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] John D. FITZGERALD, _The Great Brain_ (Review) Date: 19 Jul 2002 15:47:49 -0700 Thanks for this! I've never read this book, saw it on the shelves, but never did pick it up. I was unaware of its connection with Mormonism. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 7/19/2002 at 1:07 PM Terry L Jeffress wrote: >TITLE: The Great Brain > AUTHOR: John D. Fitzgerald >PUBLISHER: Yearling, 1967 > ISBN: 0-440-43071-2, Trade paperback > PRICE: $4.99 > ----------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LSWeber@aol.com Subject: [AML] Publishing Questionable Items (was: Elijah Able Society) Date: 20 Jul 2002 00:16:38 EDT I've been lurking for an awful long time, but I wanted to respond to this discussion. I had replied individually to Margaret after her initial post that I had been approached by the Elijah Abel Society to publish their tract. I'm co-owner of a small publishing company and we've been interested in getting some more titles in print. I had only done a superficial look at the manuscript and while I didn't agree with what I saw, I thought that maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to publish something that might contribute to an important and interesting topic. Without going into the merits or lack of merits about the specific piece, I'd like to ask the group about the ethics, for lack of a better word, of publishing something that you really don't agree with in order to raise an issue or maintain dialogue. And, to take it to the next step, where do you draw the line with something that may be unpopular or even undoctrinal. When does something go from controversial to undoctrinal or even to anti-mormon? Lloyd Weber -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Faith-Building Literature? Date: 20 Jul 2002 16:39:26 -0700 Thank you to Eric for his astute observations about "not to read less, but always to read more" and "to educate ourselves". They were inspiring words, and succinctly described how to differentiate between writing that could "damage our relationship to the Holy Ghost" and writing that challenges our worldview and makes us think. I appreciate your time in writing the response to Cathryn Lane's original question. It was an important thing for me to read, and I plan on sharing your words whenever I can. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Elijah Able Society Date: 20 Jul 2002 17:14:35 -0600 I have indeed heard the "They didn't want it in the pre-existence" balderdash. And I've heard a Black man respond to it: "Well, I want it now." I love what Elder Cecil O. Samuelson said at a Genesis meeting last year. He quoted Alma talking about the mysteries of God and saying, "I do not know all things; therefore, I will forebear." (Sorry I don't have my Book of Mormon with me at the moment or I'd give you the actual reference.) Elder Samuelson then said, "I wish others had made the same decision Alma did." Yep. It's amazing how folklore manages to fill in the spaces where truth hasn't flowered. Reminds me of my neglected garden. As soon as my grand-baby arrived, all my petunias got abandoned and have now been overrun by weeds. That's an example of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So is folklore and its devastating fruit. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Institutional Repentance (was: Elijah Able Society) Date: 20 Jul 2002 17:19:17 -0600 In regards to past institutionalized racism, Scott Parkin said we believe in continuing revelation and repentence. Big question. I'll even link it to Mormon letters. Scott, HOW do you suggest we repent AS AN INSTITUTION? Can we as Mormon writers/artists help that process along? Can we do it better than we are now? Can we be vocal about a need without "rocking the boat" and risking the "Gene England" fate? Or is it necessary for us to be vocal about it in our writing and speaking? [Margaret Young] Scott Parkin wrote: > A lot of things have been preached from the pulpit that were later rescinded > or clarified, and institutional racism was one of them. That we know better > now in no way changes the fact that a lot of questionable or untrue ideas > were offered as doctrine for many years. > > That's part of the joy of being Mormon--we believe in continuing revelation, > ongoing progression, and repentence. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis Manning" Subject: Re: [AML] 3 LDS Lit Queries Date: 21 Jul 2002 18:58:14 -0600

Preston Huner wrote on 18 July 2002:

>John D. Fitzgerald was a Mormon.  I do not believe, however, that he was ever a baptized Latter-day Saint.  Ethnically, he was half-Catholic and half-Mormon.  John D. Fitzgerald was "born in Price, Utah, in 1907 to a Scandinavian Mormon mother and an Irish Catholic father, he grew up influenced by both cultures. He left Utah behind at age eighteen..."
(http://humanities.byu.edu/MLDB/94/godfrey.htm : Audrey M. Godfrey : "The
Promise Is Fulfilled: Literary Aspects of John D. Fitzgerald's Novels")

Not to strain at a nat, but months ago I called Wallace Stegner a "Jack Mormon," and was kindly reminded by AML-listers that he was never baptized.  I guess what I had in my own mind was that because Stegner lived in and amongst Utah Mormons in his youth, he was, culturally, Mormon. 

Switching gears, Preston Hunter says above that children's novelist "John D. Fitzgerald was a Mormon," then, "I do not believe, however, that he was ever a baptized Latter-Day Saint." 

I'm not sure what to think about the notion of an unbaptized Mormon still being considered "Mormon."   Just as I am not exactly sure how to categorize "Jack Mormons."  Preston goes on to say: "Ethnically, he was half-Catholic and half Mormon."  So, from a literary historical perspective, could it be said then that there are several types of Mormons:  ethnic (cultural, or "dry" Mormons); baptized (or "wet") Mormons; finally, Jack (once wet, but now gone astray from church teachings and modern leadership) Mormons?

Not that we ought to delineate and "segregate" (I use the term loosely) classes of people, but where do we draw the line between being Mormon, non-Mormon, Jack Mormon, or any other kind of Mormon?  Is labeling Mormons instructive?  (Other than for the media emphasis explained by church leaders prior to the Olympics.)  For the purpose of literary analysis and clarity, can a person be considered "half-Mormon" because their mother was a Mormon, but not the father?  Finally, in the eternal perspective of things, will God and Christ themselves ever "draw a line" somewhere near Judgement Day defining or separating Mormons and non-Mormons?

Or, does it even matter....

Travis Manning


Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here
-- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "kumiko" Subject: [AML] New Brigham City Reviews and More Date: 22 Jul 2002 08:18:41 -0500 Found two new reviews of "Brigham City." They're both interesting, well-written and very positive. You can read them at: http://www.fanboyplanet.com/movies/mc-brighamcity.htm http://www.coldfusionvideo.com/b/brighamcity.html Last week we sent notice of another review that was... well, positive, but a bit unusual. It was written from the standpoint of a staunch Constitutionalist. These reviews are written by experienced movie reviewers who are also Latter-day Saints, and they're quite insightful. ---- Just a reminder: Actors who will be auditioning for Mark Potter's feature film about missionaries, "Suddenly Unexpected" NEED TO PREPARE LINES. The lines can be found on the official website at http://www.suddenlyunexpected.com, as well as http://www.ldsfilm.com/SuddenlyUnexpected.html Auditions will be held August 3rd in Houston and August 5th in Provo. Preston Hunter ldsfilm.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Originality in Art Date: 22 Jul 2002 11:37:24 -0600 ___ Scott ___ | ...she says she wrote using those specific assumptions because | they met the audience on it's own turf using settings and major | plot elements that are familiar and comforting (as it were). | She doesn't claim the lore as true, only as common. ___ One thing that is interesting when reading the scriptures is how often the prophecies can be taken in so many ways when looking forward. They tend to be more "fixed" only when looking back. It is the old "hindsight is always 20/20" principle, only intensified by several orders of magnitude. Let's be honest. Even given all the primary prophecies of the last days there are many ways things can go. Once your throw in secondary statements which are often a tad more dubious in nature (i.e. the Woodruff/Taylor "prophecy" found in the temple regarding a plague in a America in the last days) things get even more confusing. The problem is that what is familiar and comforting tend to be interpretations of the scriptures which are comforting. i.e. a last days which fits our fairly biased reading of scripture. This is why I rather liked Card's _Folk of the Fringe_. While it really did take some common readings of LDS prophecy, it did so with a dramatic twist that I found interesting. I'm not sure Lake Bonneville could rise again the way he says (isn't the land dam down by Nephi broken which would prevent his scenario?). What I'd like to see in apocalyptic literature is writing that shakes things up a little. It fits the prophecy but not in the way we anticipate. ___ Scott ___ | In very real ways, the Mormon world experienced apocalypse in | both Missouri and Nauvoo, and because those foundation stories | end with corrupt politicians using government troops to suppress/ | oppress our religious, economic, communal, and political freedom, | we assume that the next crushing of our freedom will take place | in pretty much the same manner. ___ If so, then I think we'd be the cause of most of our own problems. The mainstream "sanitized" histories tend to paint a rather idealized version of what was going on in our eastern persecutions. I'm not saying there wasn't persecution, but the history is much more complex than the "eschatological" version. (Which I've always found interesting and apply that idealization process to how I read scripture since scriptural histories probably are the end result of such rethinking of events) So I agree completely with you, but I think this relates to what I said earlier. Anyone who reads the history of persecution in seminary and compares it with more mature histories notes the difference. I think the same phenomena ought to accompany any "mainstream" use of our apocalyptic folk doctrines. (i.e. the various interpretations of what the constitution hanging by a thread entails) ___ Scott ___ | I can accept that. But I also accept that this is a very | different world than it was in the mid-1800s, and I'm a little | surprised that we haven't updated our doomsday scenario to | take a newer world into account. ___ I'm not sure I agree with that. One popular set of folk doctrines arises out of a prophecy of the last days that Wilford Woodruff found in the temple back in the late 19th century. I'm sure most here have read it and it is often attributed on John Taylor due to the author apparently knowing foreign languages. In it we have a discussion of what sounds like a genetically engineered plague. The scenario, minus the going east to build the temple in Independence, sounds remarkably like science fiction of the last 20 years, such as Stephen King's _The Stand_. With the recent fears regarding bio-terrorism many of the folk doctrines of the 19th century sound all too remarkably topically and in their way don't fit the 19th century that well. The prophecies that still are hard to fit in are the rise of the Lamanites prophesied in the Book of Mormon. Card plays with this a bit in _Folk of the Fringe_ but I'm not sure he does so in that believable a fashion. (And he tends to sweep a lot of issues under the rug) Further I have to admit I found the adultery he uses of the Utah governor as rather distasteful. (Although it does fit the criteria of "shaking up our preconceptions). -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Acting vs. Performing Date: 22 Jul 2002 11:09:17 -0600 I don't know if this is close enough to the them of Mormon letters. I'm searching for the "Mormon" connection. However I thought I'd send it through anyway given that I think most recent threads have tended to finish their course. However if it isn't close enough and I don't see it on the list, that's OK too. Some friends and I were discussing last night the issue of why comedic actors rarely get recognized as actors. I suggested that many in film tend to distinguish between acting and performing. After the inevitable debate that confused semantic issues with meaning we got past word choice to the heart of the subject. As I see it, people see "real" acting as portraying on screen (or stage) a fully nuanced real person. It isn't an issue of subtlety nor exaggerated characteristics. There are many real people who have subtle aspects of their personality and exaggerated characteristics. The difference is whether in the performance one aspect of the performance is portraying the character as a real person. In most comedies the character doesn't really matter as a real person. All that matters are the punch lines and so forth. This isn't true of all comedies. Dustin Hoffman in _Tootsie_ is a great example. I think he tried to portray the character as a real person, even though it was a comedic role. The Ace Ventura character that Jim Carrey portrayed really doesn't. This isn't to say that comedic actors like Jim Carrey, Groucho Marx, Jim Belushi or others aren't skilled performances. Rather it just says that in many of their performances they aren't really acting in the sense that some see "real" acting as being. It is closer to doing a skit or stand up performance. Now many comedic performers do move towards more real acting. Jim Carrey, for instance has moved towards drama as has Robin Williams. I think that the difference which I designated as performing vs. acting (for simple need of words for discussion) really relates to the issue of "embodiment" that we'd discussed last month. There is a certain question of authenticity. I don't think I was able to convey that notion too terribly well to my friends who don't have a background in philosophy. However I do think that this is a notion that exists in the film community even if it isn't always analyzed well philosophically. Anyone agree? Disagree? Is there a good way to explain this without invoking too much philosophy? Now for the (somewhat strained) LDS connection. It often seems like in our literature, even written literature, our characters are less "acting" than they are "performing." Characters exist for their role in the plot and not as fully fleshed out characters. While this is understandable in scriptures, where the significance isn't figures are real people but their theological or typological roles. Yet it often seems in a lot of "popular" fiction and film that characters don't resonate a true characters. This is true in a lot of church films I've seen. I think that there has the last few years been a move to more real characters. (_God's Army_, _Brigham City_, etc.) I've not seen it, but I've heard some suggest that _Other Side of Heaven_ moves more on the performance line rather than the acting line. In literature the more "serious" fiction often has characters who are "actors" rather than "performers" but I think a lot of fiction doesn't. Perhaps for literature this the terms acting vs. performing is less appropriate than whether a character is embodying a real human being. (A term I lifted from Heidegger but which does pop up in both film and literary criticism) In other words is the character believable as a real human being. Now in comedy this is often less necessary. However I'd simply point out that I think that the comedies which have both the comedy and the real characters are much more powerful than simple comedies like say _Ace Ventura_. Clark Goble -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 22 Jul 2002 11:54:41 -0600 ___ Scott ___ | Since a perfect system cannot be implemented without a | perfect dictator it's foolish to try, or even to imagine | a system other than our own. All we can do is wait for | Christ to come and do it for us. ___ Just a minor theological quibble. My understanding is that the ideal of the gospel is more a kind of anarchy where all involved are so good that their choices are always in harmony. I don't think you necessarily have the direction you discuss. For one it isn't necessary - the individuals in question have sufficient power that they don't need the organization that resource poor communities do. For an other all fully born again beings share the Spirit in some way we don't really comprehend. i.e. why do you need a "dictator" for beings who have in some sense a shared will The wind bloweth where it listeth and thou heareth the sound thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the spirit. (John 3:8) This was what I was getting at last week when I asked the question of "utopia for whom?" It seems that the nature of an ideal civilization for a well educated society will be different than that for an uneducated society. Likewise it will be different depending upon the level of that society's spiritual growth. So once again I ask, utopia for whom? We bring up the stories of the Garden of Eden, but perhaps the Garden of Eden was only a utopia for Adam and Eve in their innocent childlike state. I personally doubt it would be a utopia for the Adam and Eve towards the end of their mortality and certain not had they had the veil lifted. Call me cynical, but to me being stuck in a garden with only one other person and no challenges is hell. The desert island "fantasy" to me is a hell. I always found Tom Hank's _Castaway_ as a kind of anti-utopian critique of the utopia of the desert island which is itself a kind of re-presentation of the utopia of the garden of Eden. And of course the folks on Gilligan's Island, for all its utopia, still wanted to home of America rather than the garden. Even Lehi points out that Adam and Eve had to leave utopia to be happy, which suggests that utopia really isn't. I note that in a lot of Jewish literature that the Garden of Eden is a kind of middle point in the heavenly ascent. Roughly it corresponds to our notion of the terrestial kingdom. Heaven, or the *real* utopia requires moving beyond the garden. ___ Scott ___ | Are Zion and Utopia the same ideas packaged for different | audiences? ___ My personal opinion is that Zion is not utopia. Rather it designates a kind of people. The kind of people live in a kind of place, but the place is determined by the people and not vice versa. Put a way there is no way to structurally create a utopia. As Joseph liked to say, for a Zion people you could put them anywhere, even hell, and they'd make a heaven out of it. That's an other reason why I find the notion of utopia in literature so interesting. It tends to focus on utopia as a kind of engineering project. As if human beings could ever design a utopia in that fashion. Perhaps that is yet an other play on Moore's pun of Eutopia as both good place and no place. It is a no-place because the key is that it isn't place at all, but people. It is good because of the people, not because of the place. Something to think about in light of the war in heaven which I mentioned last week as the ultimate critique on any notion of utopia. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Institutional Repentance Date: 22 Jul 2002 12:43:46 -0600 ___ Margaret ___ | Scott, HOW do you suggest we repent AS AN INSTITUTION? ___ What does it even mean to repent as an institution? I mean I understand that institutions change, which is the essence of repentance. But I honestly don't quite fathom what we mean by institutional repentance. If it is just change, hasn't the institution already done this with the 1978 revelation? Do you mean individuals within the institution who haven't adopted the change? But if so, doesn't that suggest that the problem isn't institutional change but individual repentance? Further wasn't institutional racism really mainly a manifestation of individual racism? Other than structural changes that took place in 1978 (the theological nature of which is still debatable) what did the institution (rather than individuals) do wrong? Unless we mean by institution not the structure/organization but the institution as the aggregate of the individuals belonging to it. Color me confused over this frequent rhetorical treatment of institutions as people. I don't mind it as a rhetorical trope but get hopelessly muddle headed when I try to comprehend it when it moves from trope to reality. ___ Margaret ___ | Can we as Mormon writers/artists help that process along? ___ I'm not quite sure what this means either. I mean I can understand writing as aiding people in seeing others as authentic human beings thereby helping eliminate racist thinking. One advantage of literature is that it enables us to experience things that we don't have the opportunity of experiencing directly. Given the "Mormon belt's" seeming lack of cultural/ethnic diversity this can be of great help. I think that 50% of racism is simply ignorance from a lack of encounter those who are "different." So in that regard literature can certainly help. I half wonder if one of the greatest aids to reducing racism wasn't the miniseries _Roots_ back in the 70's. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 22 Jul 2002 13:53:00 -0700 > I want to ponder this and here is my question. What is >the average age of a GA at this moment? And what is >the youngest age they are usually made a GA? >snip I don't know for sure, but the average age must be somewhere around 60 +/- and I don't think there are any who are made GA's before 30 -35.. My guess would be that the majority of them have been thoroughly exposed either first or second hand to Rock and Roll and for that matter just about any other form of music there is. The thing is I'm sure they all (GA's) have a very well tuned and finely adjusted censoring system and they monitor their intake of the wide diversity of media saturation we are all exposed to every waking moment. I think we all have to learn to do that for ourselves and only the very young and immature need to be monitored by their parents or adult mentors. Regards, Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Tooting My Horn Date: 22 Jul 2002 14:01:16 -0600 For anyone who might be interested, I will be signing copies of my novel, "Lost Without You," this Saturday, the 27th. I will be at the Orem Seagull from 11:30 -1:30 and the Provo Seagull from 2:00 - 4:00. For those who remember, this book is the happy ending to the story I related in my critique post last winter. :) Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Faith-Building Literature? Date: 22 Jul 2002 15:21:14 -0600 I wrote: >> Then we're asking, is there stuff out there that, if we read it, = will=20 cause us to question our testimony >> so substantially that we might stop believing in God or in the = Church.=20 And to that question, I would >> say that the answer is an absolute, unequivocal, no. It is not = possible=20 that anything could be written >> that would cause us to lose our testimony, if indeed a testimony is=20 something worth having. To which John Remy replied: >I have come across a lot of material over the years-fiction,=20 >>history, science, writings from other religious perspectives which = have=20 >challenged my basic convictions in several of the fundamental principles = of=20 >the gospel. I apply the same conscience, the same open mind, and = similar=20 >techniques to these new perspectives which I applied when first discoverin= g=20 >gospel truths, and sometimes my heart and mind tell me that the new=20 >principles make more sense than the LDS ones. Well, sure. And that's all to the good, isn't it? In part, the gospel is = a never-ending search for truth, and of course we'll read stuff that = challenges previously held assumptions on a whole variety of matters. But = will it destroy a testimony, this constant process of discovery and growth = and challenge and change, this constant search for knowledge and understand= ing? Will a life long engagement with the world of ideas ultimately = destroy a firmly held, spiritually based testimony? I'll go to my grave = insisting that testimony can only be enhanced by a search for truth, and = that a testimony that says 'this book disturbs me, these ideas challenge = what I believe, I will therefore read no more" is not, in fact, a = testimony at all, but only an opinion. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 22 Jul 2002 16:17:29 -0600 >>> russa@candesa.com 07/22/02 10:50 AM >>> > >I would also hold out the City of >Enoch as an example that it is possible to eliminate scarcity--however, the >references to it give us no idea of how they achieved their lack of >poverty. The people of Enoch "solved" the problem of scarcity, they didn't eliminate it. The scarcity axiom of economics says that there is a limited supply of goods. If I have something and give you some of it, there is less for me. I put "solved" in quotes, because the scarcity axiom still applied to them. The people of Enoch still had demand for goods. They ate. They needed to stay warm and dry, etc. There was still a limited supply of goods. You could eliminate the scarcity problem by tapping into an infinite supply ("Earl Grey, caffeine-free, hot"), but I don't think that's how they did it. Solving the problem of scarcity means to find an optimal match of a limited supply of goods with everyone's demand. A socialist system could achieve this ideal with an omniscient central planner, but OCPs are notoriously scarce (!), so I don't think that's how Enoch's people did it, either. Besides, about the only other thing that we know about the people of Enoch was that they were righteous enough to be taken up to heaven, and having an OCP doesn't imply anything about a people's righteousness. I think it's safe to say that there's a direct connection between the righteousness of the people of Zion and the fact that there was no poor among them. The people achieved a level of empathy and compassion that they were able to recognize and provide for one another's needs as if they were their own. "I have two loaves of bread, but I see that he doesn't have any. I'll give him one, and I won't feel any sense of loss, because fulfilling his needs is as satisfying to me as fulfilling my own." The city of Enoch would still have been subject to natural disasters or other forces that create shortages of goods (unfilled demand), but everyone would suffer equally. Everyone would also grow equally wealthy in good times. Presumably, the people of Enoch (being people) would still vary in their demand for various goods. Not everyone would want identical houses or to drive the same car, but no one would feel envious when they looked across the fence. MBA (Morgan B. Adair) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance Date: 22 Jul 2002 17:55:31 -0500 Margaret asked: > Scott, HOW do you suggest we repent AS AN INSTITUTION? Can we as >Mormon writers/artists help that process along? To which I reply: I think it's dangerous for us as private individuals to act in ways that might be seen as calling the Church as an organization or Church leaders (past or present) to repentance, as might be the case if we called for the Church to "repent" of past policies regarding blacks and the priesthood. If such repentance is needed, I think most active members are inclined to think that it would come in and through priesthood authorities; to publicly call for it seems to call for a politicization that I think most active LDS are likely to think is really out of place, for artists or anyone else. On the other hand, I think art provides a prime opportunity to call us to repentance of our individual and cultural sins, our intolerance, and the like, and to help convey in human terms the cost of policies of the past and present. Church leaders have spoken out against intolerance. It's certainly appropriate for Mormon art to take on this theme, as Margaret and Darius's work has done. And I think it goes further than that. If there's a process of preparation that's needed in order for change to take place--including repentance, where needed--art can help prepare the hearts of the people for that. As Mormons, our understanding of the dynamics of revelation, as I understand it, places a high emphasis on the preparedness of the people to receive revelation; even Pres. Kimball's own declaration made reference to the role played by prayer in obtaining the revelation changing this policy. Art can help prepare the way for such changes--not by calling for change, but by inviting thoughtful self-examination. If you really believe in the principle of continuing revelation, it seems to me that once the hearts of the people are ready, further light and knowledge will come. So far as I can tell, Margaret's and Darius's work has done as much, in terms of helping prepare the way for us as a people to repent of our intolerant past, as any specific work of art could do. Other works of art can do more of the same, in this and other areas. But I think they'll be most effective--and honest, as works of art--if, like Margaret's and Darius's work, they focus on telling true stories powerfully, rather than agitating for a particular action or viewpoint. To the degree that Mormon art is seen as agendized, as pushing for a particular course of future action, to that degree I think it will be marginalized and denied much of its power to change the hearts of people. Just my opinion. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Means" (by way of Jonathan Langford) (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Library Position at BYU Date: 22 Jul 2002 18:08:49 -0500 [MOD: I've included the text of the listing below.] Jonathan, Gideon Burton suggested I pass along to you this job opening at the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU  for posting on the AML website. This is a faculty position for a Theatre, Media Arts, and Communications Subject Specialist, and we hope we might attract some AML members out there. I ve attached the job description and the listing with BYU Employment (anyone interested can also get to BYU Employment via http://www.byu.edu/hr/employment/faculty.html , position # 001410). Thanks for your help. Robert Robert S. Means English & American Literature Librarian 5525 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 voice: (801) 422-6117 fax: (801) 422-0466 robert_means@byu.edu ANNOUNCEMENT OF FACULTY VACANCY Position: Theatre, Media Arts, and Communications Subject Specialist Available: December 1, 2002 Description/Environment Brigham Young University, a privately owned and operated university of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, located in Provo, Utah, invites application for a tenure track faculty position in the Public Services Division of the Harold B. Lee Library. The library is seeking a dynamic individual who can perform well in a rapidly changing environment. The Theatre, Media Arts and Communications Subject Specialist is responsible to develop collections, provide reference and advanced research assistance and bibliographic instruction in the subject areas associated with the Theatre & Media Arts and the Communications Departments at Brigham Young University. Brigham Young University, an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer, is sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and requires observance of Church standards. Preference is given to applicants who are members of the Church. Responsibilities: oDevelop and manage print, non-print, and electronic collections for the library in the subject areas of media arts studies, theatre arts studies, theatre arts education, acting, production design, theatre design, technology, communication studies, broadcast journalism, print journalism, advertising and marketing, public relations, and mass communications. oAct as faculty liaison with university faculty and program administrators in the assigned subject areas of expertise oPlan, promote, and implement instructional programs for undergraduates, graduates, and faculty. oProvide reference and advanced research assistance to patrons in person, through digital channels and over the phone. oIn collaboration with faculty, plan and implement digital library projects in support of teaching and research. oServe on library committees, working groups, and task forces. oParticipate in research, publication, and other professional development activities Qualifications Required: oMLS from an ALA-accredited institution required oA Bachelor of Arts in Theatre & Media Arts, Visual Arts, or Communications required. oAn advanced degree in related subject field preferred. oAbility to provide advanced research assistance in assigned subject areas oExperience in an academic library setting preferred. Ability to work effectively with faculty, students, and other professionals in a research library setting. oSubject expertise to assess the curricular and research needs of the University and to build the collections to meet these needs oDemonstrated interest in information technologies and a high degree of computer literacy. oExcellent interpersonal skills including the ability to work collaboratively with colleagues, faculty, students and the general public oFlexibility in adapting to changing departmental and organizational priorities and to ever-changing technological environments Salary and Benefits This is a tenure track position with faculty status, generous insurance, and retirement benefits. Salary is commensurate with experience and academic/professional qualifications. This is a twelve-month appointment with twenty-two days annual leave and additional professional development time available. To Apply Send BYU Faculty Application (available at http://byu.edu/hr/employment/faculty.html), resume and names of three references to Cali O'Connell, Administrative Assistant, 2068 HBLL, Brigham Young University, Provo UT 84602. Email inquiries to cali_oconnell@byu.edu Application Deadline: September 30, 2002 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Folklore in Our Religion (was: Elijah Able Society) Date: 22 Jul 2002 16:56:47 -0600 At 05:14 PM 7/20/02 -0600, you wrote: >Yep. It's amazing how folklore manages to >fill in the spaces where truth hasn't flowered. Reminds me of my >neglected garden. As soon as my grand-baby arrived, all my petunias got >abandoned and have now been overrun by weeds. But the Mormon religion provides such a rich and fertile ground for such errant growth! When I was a Protestant, I never worried too much, for example, about the next life; I was saved, so I would go to Heaven and praise God all day and float around and pluck a harp. Didn't sound at all exciting -- about all you could say for it was that it was better than the lake of fire and brimstone and the imps with the pitchforks. Maybe that's why we didn't bother speculating. But this! Oh, my gosh! Families forever? What about mean old Great-Grampa Fisher, who thought the right thing to do was to whale the tar out his children to prove how godly he was? Plural wives, eh? Well, we'll just see about that! Will there be libraries there, where we can read all the stuff we didn't have time to read here? More do the point, will that information actually stay in our celestial brains, rather than dribbling out like it does here? Will we be resurrected fat? If we were when we died, that is. Will the people who think they're the only ones who deserve to go to the highest kingdom have their own space so they don't have to see the rest of us? Will I mess up so bad that I will be condemned to that eternal servant class, and have to endure an eternity of celibacy on top of the decades of it I've had here? You call that heaven? As you can see, I've had a lot of fun with speculating. The usual response I get is to chill out and "wait until you get there, assuming ." We just have so much more material to work with! barbara hume, whose favorite speculation comes from a business colleague, who posits that my husband was killed in the Napoleonic Wars -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 22 Jul 2002 17:27:33 -0600 See, here's the thing. There've been a lot of posts on this thread, and = throughout them all I've seen the same assumptions: there's 'wholesome' or = 'edifying' or 'uplifting' music, and then there's rock, which we like a = lot better and think of as a lot more fun, but which probably actually = isn't 'wholesome' or 'edifying' or 'uplifting.' And we all have to be = really careful, even us rock fans, to be sure we're listening to the more = 'edifying' rock bands, or at the very least leavening not-good-for-us fun = music with actual real 'edifying' music, like Mozart or the Tab choir. =20 When I wondered if there were any GA's who rocked, I intended to implicitly= challenge those assumptions. I think those assumptions are inherently = false. I think there's just music. I don't think there's anything = particularly edifying or spiritual about Mozart or the Tab choir. I love = Mozart. I write Spoken Words for the Tab, have sung in choirs professional= ly most of my life and am reasonably familiar with much of the choir = literature, grew up on opera with a father who is a professional opera = singer, and was a classical music DJ for years. I like the Tab choir. = It's not lowbrow music at all, especially since they're started doing = those amazing Mac Wilberg arrangements. They've improved mightily. When = I say I think there's nothing inherently spiritual about classical music I = say that from the perspective of someone who knows classical music, plays = it all the time and loves it. I just think there's nothing inherently = unspiritual about rock music. I have felt the spirit bear witness to my = soul while listening to, and singing, classical music. I have felt the = same spirit bear an equally strong testimony while listening to Jethro = Tull, or AC/DC or Metallica. Or Keb Mo, or Muddy Waters, or Robert = Johnson. Or Waylon Jennings or George Jones or Loretta Lynn. Or Miles = Davis. There's no difference. It's just music. So when I wonder if = there are any GA's who rock, I mean, are there any GA's who deeply love = hard core rock and roll, and have enjoyed the same deep communion with the = Spirit while listening to the Who, or Pink Floyd, or The Clash, or Elvis = Costello, that I have felt. 'Cause I know some of 'em have felt the same = communion with the Spirit that I have felt while listening to the = Rachmaninoff Third, or to Brahms German Requiem. Well, two addenda. It's not 'just music.' Music is a wonder and a = miracle, really, that human beings can create instruments and sounds that = can affect us so powerfully. I can't live without music in my life, = pretty much all the time. I certainly can't write without music. In = fact, I can't write anything without first finding exactly the right kind = of music to inspire me on this piece. =20 Second, of course I can't generalize from my own experience. I don't know = if this is off-list guidelines, but in his talk The Arts and the Spirit of = the Lord, Elder Packer talks about how some pieces of music help him feel = the spirit and others don't. He's telling the truth of course. I cannot = feel the spirit when I sing hymns in church, for example, not most of the = time. Our organist is pretty bad, the tempi are always too slow, and = there's never any energy or life in the conducting or singing. That's = okay; we just don't happen to live in a very musical ward right now, = that's all. Other wards I've lived in, the hymns have been sung with = some vigor, and they're been a valuable part of my spiritual life. I = doubt I could feel the spirit while listening to Britney Spears. (Though = her cover of "Satisfaction" is brilliant.) There are some sounds I think = I'd probably better avoid if I want to feel the spirit, not because the = music is bad, but because it carries with it associations that I personally= find spiritually detrimental. But the edifyingness of any piece of music = is highly, highly subjective. It's all just music. Not rock, or jazz or = country or classical. Music. Those classifications are useful musicologic= ally. But not spiritually, not at all, not even a little.=20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 22 Jul 2002 18:52:24 -0600 Morgan Adair wrote: > I put "solved" in quotes, because the scarcity axiom still applied to > them. The people of Enoch still had demand for goods. They ate. and > Presumably, the people of Enoch (being people) would still vary in their > demand for various goods. Not everyone would want identical houses or to > drive the same car, but no one would feel envious when they looked > across the fence. Right. There's a fairly common assumption that the socialist ideal requires that each and every person receive exactly the same goods in exactly the same proportions in order to meet some ideological concept of "equal" or fair. But I'm not sure this is a useful assumption. If there are twelve people, but only eleven eggs is it really equitable to force all to do without eggs since the resource is scarce and there's no easy way to divide eleven eggs among twelve people? Why? Can't one person choose to do without an egg today and another does without tomorrow? Or better yet, why can't we evaluate the peoples' need for eggs and supply the one person who needs one egg for pancakes, the other person who needs three eggs for a birthday cake, a third person who needs two eggs for his custard with their six total eggs since no one else has expressed a need for eggs today? We can then either put the remaining five eggs in the egg bank for tomorrow when the demand will be for sixteen eggs. Of course another answer is to distribute all eggs every day and let the people manage their own use, either storing eggs on a daily basis against future need or bartering among each other to redistribute scarce resources among those who need them. I know a woman who is getting old and feeble and has a hard time caring for herself. A service does her shopping, a nurse drops by to see her every two weeks, and she receives government support in the form of eggs, beans, rice, cheese, and milk. She has little use for any of those things, but is afraid to pass on her weekly allotment for fear that she will be removed from the list and not receive the perishable items on those few occasions when she actually needs them. During a recent visit we found that she had eggs in her fridge with a January expiration date, and cheese with a December expiration. She had powdered milk so old that weevils had infested it, and bags of beans that were several years old and had never been opened. There was no real scarcity there, only a fear of it. As a result, useful resources were wasted because she didn't trust the system to meet her occaisional need. She had learned years ago that the system didn't care about her as an individual, so her trust in that system vanished, with fear and hoarding as its result. Which suggests that a change of heart is the first thing that needs to occur to make any system work at optimum efficiency--even here in the United States. Which is, of course, what happened in Enoch. There's no evidence that they evenly distributed every resource, but there is evidence that those with need received what they needed and others did not feel need. We keep trying to create these pure definitions--socialism requires all or nothing distribution, and capitalism requires a vast poverty class in order to ensure the wealth of a few--but none of these pure systems is or can be considered perfect. Why do we have such a hard time imagining systems based on one foundation that use the principles of other systems--anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy is sought after an implemented in combinations previously untried or unimagined? Because if the will of this or any other people were only to ensure the total prosperity of the community and not the individual wealth or power of a few of its members, the possibilities are truly boundless. Maybe such a thing is impossible, but I'm not sure it is. We claim to want to become as God; at some point we need to show that potential in exceptional works. If not in reality, why not in fiction? Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] 3 LDS Lit Queries Date: 22 Jul 2002 22:51:50 -0700 Travis Manning wrote: >Is labeling Mormons instructive? I think the best (most hilarious) "labeling" job of Mormon-ness was done by Robert Kirby in his column titled "Five Kinds of Mormons". I think it was originally published when he worked at the Orem paper...sorry I can't remember the name of that paper...Utah County Journal or something like that? I believe the column was re-published when he moved to the SL Trib. Unfortunately, it wasn't one of the columns collected into either of his compliation books, and it's probably over five or six years old, so I don't know how to direct anyone to it. If you missed the column first time around, you could probably drop him a line at his very public email published in the Trib three times a week rkirby@sltrib.com and ask him where you could find a copy. If you've never read the description of a Nazi Mormon, you really ought to. A convert in our ward, a gentleman from Jamiaca who converted here in Utah--a temple-worker, ex-bishopric member, our high-priest group leader--emphatically states often that although he loves the gospel of Jesus Christ and believes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be Christ's church on earth, he will NEVER be a Mormon. Mormonism, to him, is strictly a cultural thing and has nothing to do with the gospel. Being a born and bred cultural Mormon, as well as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have to agree with him. That line of reasoning probably only holds true for the state of Utah, where our sheltered roots have led to a weirdness not found in the rest of the church. By the way, according to Kirby, there are only three true Mormons alive on the face of the earth right now, but each Mormon thinks he/she is one of them... Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 22 Jul 2002 22:56:42 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:54 AM > ___ Scott ___ > | Since a perfect system cannot be implemented without a > | perfect dictator it's foolish to try, or even to imagine > | a system other than our own. All we can do is wait for > | Christ to come and do it for us. > ___ > > Just a minor theological quibble. My understanding is that the ideal of the > gospel is more a kind of anarchy where all involved are so good that their > choices are always in harmony. I would hope this is not the case because it implies that we must ultimately all come to think alike. It's always been my wish that the true Mormon utopia would not undermine free choice but that it would be more tolerant of different choices than our own Mormon society is today. This would be a true utopia. A world where all believed an acted in harmony would be a prison, afaic. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance Date: 22 Jul 2002 23:01:37 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:43 PM > ___ Margaret ___ > | Scott, HOW do you suggest we repent AS AN INSTITUTION? > ___ > > What does it even mean to repent as an institution? I mean I understand > that institutions change, which is the essence of repentance. But I > honestly don't quite fathom what we mean by institutional repentance. If it > is just change, hasn't the institution already done this with the 1978 > revelation? Do you mean individuals within the institution who haven't > adopted the change? But if so, doesn't that suggest that the problem isn't > institutional change but individual repentance? > > Further wasn't institutional racism really mainly a manifestation of > individual racism? Other than structural changes that took place in 1978 > (the theological nature of which is still debatable) what did the > institution (rather than individuals) do wrong? It allowed the untruths of certain very important Apostles and their Sons-in-Law to be published with the apparent agreement of the Church. We realize now that Mormon Doctrine by McConkie contained thousands of doctrinal errors and even though it was initially quashed, it was eventually published. Several generations of Mormons were influenced by MD and its personal opinions posing as official doctrine. The institution (meaning the Church) could have insisted that the book never be published and even now, could insist that it be taken off the market. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 22 Jul 2002 22:27:40 -0600 > Come to think of it, though, you're going to need some flexibility in > this because you'll have certain functions that require a great deal of > mobility. Freighter Crews, long-haul truckers, theater/music/comedy > groups, Airplane crew etc. You'll need to be able to have services > available for them, so you can't be entirely dependent on a local bishop > for all your needs. Of course, given adequate communication > infrastructures, mobility is less of a concern, but you still have to > have a way to allocate responsibility (stewardship) in geographically > challenging situations. > We used to run a barter business. The people who started the business were convinced that it would be the forrunner to the United Order. Anyone with goods or services could join and trade. Members could accumulate barter points to spend in the system any way they wished. It worked very well until the Government decided to tax the trades. Some clients felt that hard goods were more valuable than cleaners or pest control, but if people willingly choose to live the United Order it can work very well. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] LARSON, _Wake Me When It's Over_ Date: 22 Jul 2002 23:29:44 -0600 _Wake Me When it's Over_ A play written and directed by Melissa Leilani Larson Eric, thank you so much for recommending this good work. I was happy to = donate to this worthwhile project. My husband and I drove to California = the day after seeing the play and we spent lots of time talking about = it. The play is about a young man who has chronic fatigue syndrome. I = know several people who have this disease, so I have a frame of = reference. Although Ben and Grace love each other, the reality of their = complex, somewhat hopeless situation calls for more than love to exact a = solution. Their problem is complicated by Ben's overprotective mother. = Much of the storyline is revealed through Ben's frequent dreams. Both = Ben and Grace feel extreme guilt. Grace avoids having a life that = doesn't include Ben, because she feels sorry for him. Ben feels guilty = that he is preventing Grace from having a full life. Even though their = intimacy has dwindled and their communication is suffering, they still = have a sweet rapport with each other. Even when their strained = situation is most obvious, the love that they feel for each other comes = through. They are darling together. Ben has joined a chat room to talk = to other people who share his disease. He establishes a friendship with = a girl and they frequently talk. One day Grace, unknown to Ben, joins = him and azure_skies for a conversation. I was sure that Ben and Grace = would rediscover their lost communication through this chat-room. It = seemed obvious where this triangle was heading. I was so relieved that = I was wrong. The outcome of the play is not predictable. The play is = well written, well cast and well directed. Melissa shows wisdom beyond = her years. I liked the slides showing the chat-room conversation. That = worked well for me. My only problem was combining the two plays. = _Cinderella_, although entertaining, was more like an entreact. It was = not a compatible or satisfying companion piece,=20 Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] David Wilcox Lyrics Date: 22 Jul 2002 22:07:27 -0600 I love all music, but the music I love most has great lyrics. Because I = am old I know I am outnumbered here, but have any of you listened to any = of David Wilcox songs? http://davidwilcox.com/HIUTTL.html When I hear = these lyrics, I think of Steve Perry's music. Does this music speak to = any of you as it does to me? Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kathy Fowkes" Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 22 Jul 2002 23:44:59 -0700 > At 12:53 PM 7/15/02 -0600, you wrote: > >. And while I admit that I haven't researched modern revelation, the > >idea of the gathering to Jackson County seems more folklore than > >doctrine--yet that gathering in that place is a consistent element of Mormon > >apocalyptics. > > I see no reason to believe that the whole eleven million of us will trash > what we have and migrate to boring Missouri. This planet is covered with > children of God who need what the church has to offer, and they'll need it > even more in the dark days. The faith will be where the stakes of Zion are. > The church has not spread over the earth only to contract to a single > (overcrowded) space at some point. > > barbara hume, frustrated with ideas that float around freely with nothing > to hold them up unless they are her own half-baked notions Given all the prophecies regarding Zion that exist, and aren't very hard to find, really (D&C is a great place to begin), and after reading all your commentary regarding what y'all seem to deem folklore, I have one question. In your estimation and conversation, does prophecy that is not in the four standard works, or even prophecy that *is* in the four standard works, equal folklore? Because if it does, I object to the definition. Given what's been said in this discussion, I haven't seen a big distinction made between the two, and it's confusing the heck out of me. The building of the city of Zion *is* doctrine and has been since Adam's day. It's been prophecied in all four standard works, as well as spoken of by most of the prophets since Joseph Smith. In 1833 the location of the New Jerusalem, the City of Zion, was given by revelation, right down to the temple complex, how the city would be layed out, and quite a bit more. Wilford Woodruff testified later: "The plan which he presented was given to him by vision, and the future will prove that the visions of Joseph concerning Jackson County, all the various stakes of Zion and the redemption of Israel will be fulfilled in the time of appointed of the Lord." (_Journal History_, April 6, 1837.) I think the problem comes when we misunderstand the various meanings of Zion. Zion is the pure in heart, and Zion the City, the New Jerusalem, is more correctly called the center-stake or center place of Zion. Like putting up a tent, the stakes of Zion in which we all live have been placed before the center stake goes up, raising the tent, to be semi-symbolic. the City of Zion, the New Jerusalem prophecied to be built in Jackson County, Missouri, and its temple, will be built when enough members are sufficiently pure enough to do it. It cannot be built up without a people pure in heart, and sanctified sufficiently to do the building of it. (D&C 105:5). Only some members will be called to live there and build the city and the temple to which the Lord will come prior to His coming to usher in the Millenium. Like Linda said, some are already there paving the way. I know many of you have little respect for Gerald Lund's fiction. I think he's done shoddy work there myself (and now that he's a general authority I hope I won't be struck by lightening for stating that opinion yet again ;-)). But his compilation of prophecies regarding the second coming of Christ is in my estimation very well organized and worth owning and reading. _The Coming of the Lord_, first published by Bookcraft in the 1971, and back in print since 1996, is great for those of us who don't have time or the means to delve into volumes and volumes of archives and old journals, etc. I know many of you have resources regarding all these prophecies, but I don't. I've been very grateful Lund put this together. It's an easy read, but very eye-opening. He uses little commentary, IMO. Just enough to organize it all, without getting in the way of the quotes themselves and the prophecies they contain. It goes right to the sources from which the folklore originated. For me, getting to read the prophecies in their original wording, and having their original sources documented, has been a delight. But the scriptural prophecies are sufficient evidence that we as a church and people look to the East with hope and expectation (and for me after visiting there last year, with longing) for very good God-given reasons, and not for some fog-ridden folklore that's been handed down--using the literary definition of folklore, ie: an often unsupported notion, story, or saying that is widely circulated. (merriamwebster.com). The building of Zion, the people as well as the city, was the prophet Joseph's main goal -- sanctify the people so they could build the City of Zion and be ready for the coming of the Lord. It's so well documented it isn't funny, so how is this folklore? Kathy Fowkes -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 23 Jul 2002 01:10:53 -0600 ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen > > Okay, since we seem to be, yet again, in a moment where the > pet rocks of the right are given warmth and sunlight and > nourishment, I'm going to hope for, at least, equal time to > air out my little pebbles here on the left. I was hoping you would, if only for balance. I always find your contributions enlightening. > Capitalism, as it seems to be construed by The Laird and by > Jacob and by several others, is the freedom-and-choice > alternative to nasty old collectivist central planning > communism. True. Polarizations like that are not really useful. Since I view free-market capitalism as the solution to most economic problems, I tend to look to it for clarifying explanations. It is important to note that it a) isn't the only way to solve problems and b) sometimes isn't the best way to solve them. > 'Socialism doesn't work.' But that's nonsense; in some ways, > socialism works very well indeed; i.e. rockets, subways and > parades. The devil's in the details, and broad statements > about Adam Smith seem at times to duck an uncomfortable > truth; capitalism is inherently and fundamentally amoral. > Market economies are very good at generating wealth, and > that's not a bad thing. But wealth also tends to accumulate > at the top, and at the bottom, emerges endless, inescapable > and crushing poverty. I couldn't begin to discuss your claims here without carefully defining capitalism. If you go to the roots of the term--market theories based on examining the control of assets (capital)--then maybe you're right. "In the raw" like that, capitalism doesn't have much to say about morals and given static evaluations, capital will tend to accrue to only a few individuals. I tried to be careful to specify free-market capitalism, though, and that's something different. The free-market variety (as I understand it and have tried to communicate) *does* have moral implications and does *not* accrue power at the top or enforce inescapable poverty. At the root of free-market capitalism is the freedom to engage in the market at your own discretion. Protection and freedom are *very* moral and make free-market capitalism "moral" insofar as it protects from coercion and force. That's a defensive kind of morality and not terribly comprehensive, but it's a start. And I'd modify the last to say that free-market capitalism isn't a comprehensive solution for all ills, either. It doesn't handle certain very important questions at all well. For one, wealth accumulates by ability to identify and satisfy the desires of others. Well, others' desires might not be good (however willingly they pursue them). And some people won't be very good at it, so they will be condemned to endless, crushing poverty. No unalloyed system is going to be effective, so poles don't really do us much good. I'd say that free-market capitalism is helpful to understand and solve most problems, but that it leaves gaps that we need to consider carefully. > Laissez faire economics has been tried > on a national scale just as communism was tried on a national > scale; in terms of human misery and suffering, they're about > even. I'd *never* defend laissez faire capitalism any more than you'd defend soviet communism. They *are* roughly equivalent in terms of human suffering and frankly, they look a lot alike if you strip off all the different labels for things and just look at the structures. > The relationship between capital and business and government > is a complex, ever shifting interaction, but one fundamental > purpose of government must always be to ameliorate the worst > and cruelest excesses of capitalism, while also providing > rule of law, infastructure and appropriate regulatory > controls which foster and help enable economic growth. If by "excesses of capitalism" you mean the abuses of laissez faire, then I'll agree with you on the principle and we can start bickering over details of implementation :). I've never liked caveat emptor and I'd call any system that has that at its root is actually immoral (as opposed to merely amoral). I much prefer the rule of law and infrastructure-rich environments of the Anglosphere. > What is the millennium? What will it look like? I have no > idea. But to suggest that it's a capitalist paradise is > nonsense. Now that's unfair. Nobody has suggested that the millennium would be a capitalist paradise. I went so far as to say I think the Millennium will likely be a kingdom with a distributed decision-point market structure. > Any paradise would have to > include intelligently conceived, adequately funded programs > to ameliorate poverty and ignorance, and those programs can > not, can never arise from capitalism, because there's no > profit in them. Problems of poverty and ignorance aren't solvable via programs no matter how intelligently conceived or adequately funded. The belief that they are is contributing to those problems. They are personal problems and must be solved on a personal basis, and even then solutions are only possible if people are motivated to solve them. Again, I like the church's methods of handling poverty and ignorance because however flawed the decision-makers involved are, they're at least personal, available, and start from a position of intimate knowledge of the real situation. It's a tough system to defraud, and one that is often eschewed for the easier options available from other sources--preventing the long-term solutions that would truly alleviate suffering. > And mostly, they have to be funded and run > by the government, because private charity has always, > always, been unequal to the task. Might be worth pointing > out that King Benjamin was quite a high ranking government official. King Benjamin's solution to poverty wasn't governmental at *all*. He didn't tell his people, "You aren't doing enough to help the poor so I'm going to take your stuff away and do it for you." He *could* have done so (he *was* king) and he might arguably have done some actual good if he had. Instead, though, he worked by example (by refusing to live a life of leisure) and by entreating his people to care for the poor among them. He rallied them to their personal duty, not to some governmental program. He *had* force he could have employed, he chose instead to teach and leave people to their responsibility. > Deep breath. Point is, whatever structure or theory we can > think of, it's been tried. Everything's been tried. What > works is balance. Oh, we agree absolutely there. Oh, we'll argue about aspects of that balance. Still, I think we should realize that (regardless of balance) the tough questions of poverty and ignorance won't be solved in the fallen world we have right now no matter what balance we strike. Poverty has unrighteousness as a foundation--whether of those who have or of those who have not it doesn't matter. As such, we're struggling for some unverifiable optimal solution that will forever fall short of an actual end to the problems that vex us. It seems to me that these problems are aspects of our Telestial condition and that even a promotion to Terrestrial will solve the vast majority of the trouble. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] English Departments Etc. Date: 23 Jul 2002 01:36:50 -0600 This is in the way of a heads-up post. There's been a bit of heat lately about postmodernism and American Universities and since that seems to me a topic of interest on the list I thought I'd pass them along (oh, and links to my own take on the thing). Do with them as you will :). Erin O'Connor, a professor at Penn, has been blogging lately about the state of academia under postmodernism. She isn't a fan of it and her points are well-considered and I have to say that they match up well with my observations while an undergraduate and that the problems extend "even to BYU." Her first post is at http://www.erinoconnor.org/blog/blog071202.shtml and worth a look. I think I commented on my own blog on each one. If you want to follow my fan-boy nattering it's at www.jacob.proffitt.com/blog/ -- look around the date she posts hers. Interestingly, Orson Scott Card recently had an article along the same lines. He posted it at http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2002-07-08-1.html and likens American Professors to Muslim Imams. It's an interesting comparison. Naturally, I blogged it to, with my own analysis of Card's proposed solutions (http://www.jacob.proffitt.com/blog/archive/2002_07_14_archive.html#79099830). Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] GATES/SUNDGAARD, _Promised Valley_ (Deseret News) Date: 23 Jul 2002 10:21:46 +0000 Deseret News Saturday, July 20, 2002 'Promised Valley' full of heart, humor By Ivan M. Lincoln PROMISED VALLEY, Old Social Hall, This Is the Place Heritage Park, 2601 E. Sunnyside Ave. (800 South); 8 p.m., July 20 and 22-27; tickets, $21.95 for adults, $11.95 for children, including Dutch oven dinner at 7 p.m., call 582-1847. Running time: one hour, 10 minutes (no intermission) A classic "Mormon musical" that first premiered 55 years ago just a few blocks down the hill (in what is now Rice Stadium) is being revived in an appropriate setting =97 the Old Social Hall, a faithful replication of one of the Salt Lake's pioneer gathering places. Director Michael Jesse Bennett, who performed in Crawford Gates and Arnold Sundgaard's landmark musical when it was moved several years ago to the soon-to-be-razed Promised Valley Playhouse, has done considerable downsizing =97 both in the script and the casting =97 to make the show fit on the Social Hall's miniscule stage. When the hall's air conditioning system isn't working (it can be very sporadic), the atmosphere in the tiny building is stifling. Think of it as a true "pioneer" experience. What Bennett's cast lacks in size, it more than compensates for with energy and talent =97 especially the leading players. In keeping with the revived Deseret Dramatic Association (first organized by Brigham Young in 1852), the playbill for this production is modeled after the printed programs of the period =97 one vertical card, printed on both sides, with the "dramatis personae" (cast names) listed with only their last name and initials. The 45-member cast, including Jamie Belnap's finely honed chorus and Karee Cannon's small group of dancers, more than fill the small stage. The show's central characters =97 Jedediah and Celia Cutler - are played by two superb performers. R.K. Galloway Jr. of Orem, as Jed, has an operatic, shake-the-rafters baritone. He's also tall and handsome, reminiscent of Harve Presnell in his 20s. R. George is also perfectly cast as Celia, left to help her mother and ailing father make the trek across the plains, while Jed joins the Mormon Battalion. S.D. (Scott) Morgan, who's usually busy at Hale Centre Theatre, has the "comic relief" role of Fennely Parsons, the lackadaisical, widowed father of five young boys. Celia's parents, Emma and Caleb Faraday, are nicely played by M.S. McKinney and D. Lowden, with J. (for John) Morgan as Bishop Quimby Leighton, and R. Johnson as Major John Broderick, who can't understand why the early Saints want to stay in the dry, inhospitable Rocky Mountain desert, when the lush, green hills of California are beckoning. Even in its pared-down state, with generous cuts in the dialogue and some abbreviated songs, this "Promised Valley" is full of heartfelt emotion, drama and humor. The setting, surrounded by pioneer cabins and dirt roads, also adds a realistic touch. Mindi Stevens' piano accompaniment is also true to the pioneer Social Hall period. (For "Promised Valley" purists, there's a CD version available with full symphony orchestra and such celebrated voices as Robert Peterson and Joann Ottley). 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: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 23 Jul 2002 10:16:25 -0600 > ---------- > From: Morgan Adair > > The people of Enoch "solved" the problem of scarcity, they didn't > eliminate it. The scarcity axiom of economics says that there is a > limited supply of goods. If I have something and give you some of it, > there is less for me. > > I put "solved" in quotes, because the scarcity axiom still applied to > them. The people of Enoch still had demand for goods. They ate. They > needed to stay warm and dry, etc. There was still a limited supply of > goods. You could eliminate the scarcity problem by tapping into an > infinite supply ("Earl Grey, caffeine-free, hot"), but I don't think > that's how they did it. > I should have said eliminated scarcity as the driving factor of their economy. Outside of Star Trek some things will always be scarce. However, some won't be, and markets don't handle abundance well. That's why we pay people _not_ to grow food in our country--so that it remains scarce enough to be economically viable to be a farmer. That's why, say, to produce more expensive pants we stick brand names on them to artificially reduce the supply of brand-name pants. In order to maximize profits, you don't shoot to produce as much as you can, you produce to maximize profit. I also think you can eliminate scarcity for a lot of things without an infinite supply. If people were content with what they need, no one would feel the need to hoard an infinite number of pants. You just have to have enough to meet demand. If righteous people were to self-control, I could envision a way all needs could be met--and many wants as well. Right now, if supply and demand are equal, value soon drops to zero. It's not that simple in real life, I know, or in real economics. But for purposes of fiction and discussion, it seems worth thinking about. > Solving the problem of scarcity means to find an optimal match of a > limited supply of goods with everyone's demand. A socialist system could > achieve this ideal with an omniscient central planner, but OCPs are > notoriously scarce (!), so I don't think that's how Enoch's people did > it, either. Besides, about the only other thing that we know about the > people of Enoch was that they were righteous enough to be taken up to > heaven, and having an OCP doesn't imply anything about a people's > righteousness. > There's only one that I know of, and Enoch did have pretty direct line to him. I don't think he has to do all the detail work, though. > I think it's safe to say that there's a direct connection between the > righteousness of the people of Zion and the fact that there was no poor > among them. The people achieved a level of empathy and compassion that > they were able to recognize and provide for one another's needs as if > they were their own. "I have two loaves of bread, but I see that he > doesn't have any. I'll give him one, and I won't feel any sense of loss, > because fulfilling his needs is as satisfying to me as fulfilling my > own." > > The city of Enoch would still have been subject to natural disasters or > other forces that create shortages of goods (unfilled demand), but > everyone would suffer equally. Everyone would also grow equally wealthy > in good times. > > Presumably, the people of Enoch (being people) would still vary in their > demand for various goods. Not everyone would want identical houses or to > drive the same car, but no one would feel envious when they looked > across the fence. > That's the point I was trying to get to. I don't think everyone would be the same in their needs and wants. I hope not, that would be boring. But I think because the people in Enoch were different, if they had a free market system it would act different as well--because the profit motive would not be the only "invisible hand" controlling the market. Charity and righteousness would be driving factors as well, and it feels to me that that would change the economic realities as well. Russell Asplund -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Mormon Letters: Mid-Year Observations Date: 23 Jul 2002 10:58:42 +0000 I had stopped looking at my email for a few weeks to finish a dissertation chapter. I just turned it in, and gobbled up many of the posts and reviews I missed over the course of a couple of days. Here are a few observations about Mormon publishing so far this year. I thought the latest Irreantum was great, really great. The Robert Smith excerpt was very funny, as was Alan's "memoir". The short stories were all excellent. The first three all gave me insight into women I am interested in. Inactive but still morally observant older single women (I have some friends like that), a teenage mother giving up a baby for adoption (like my son's birth mother) and a mother giving birth (something we probably won't experience). All three were very well written, and moved me. My wife too, although the last story made her cry very, very hard. Also the story about the Methodist woman in heaven was lovely. I haven't read the Kroupa story or Welker excerpt yet. Great job guys. Here are the numbers of Mormon novels published by Mormon publishers so far this year. Covenant: 14 Cedar Fort: 6 Deseret: 3 Signature: 1 (or at least it should be out soon). The Signature web site says that Margaret Young's novel "Heresies of Nature" should be out this month. It is a prose version of her play "Dear Stone", based on her sister-in-law's MS and how it impacted the family. I thought it was a great play (it was posted on the AML web site for a while a few years ago and we discussed it), so I am excited to read it. Is it out Margaret? Signature also is scheduled to release a comic novel by Linda Hoffman Kimball later this year. Covenant sure is putting out a lot of novels. Many of them have been reviewed by fellow-Covenant author Jeannie Hansen for the web magazine Meridian. She seems to like more of a softer touch than I do (she was offended by Card's Sarah and Rebekah), and I think she goes pretty easy on her house-mates, but she has interesting things to say. I was convinced by her review of Kerry Blair's book, because she says it is one of the funnier Mormon books lately. I could use that. Margaret Brown and Marilyn Arnold have new novels out recently at Cedar Fort. Arnold used to be a Covenant author, and has gotten good reviews. Kathryn Kidd claimed in a message at her Nauvoo discussion board that Deseret Book is having financial trouble, and cancelled many recent book contracts, including a children's book series that she had completed. I am sorry to hear Cornerstone is close to death. It will join Aspen and Hatrack River on the pile of Mormon publishers who have tried to provide interesting material between the spaces occupied by Signature and Deseret Book. Rats. There have been a lot of well-reviewed nationally published juvinille novels by Mormon authors last year and this. I'm excited to hear about Thom and Scott's new theater. Best of luck. 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: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance Date: 23 Jul 2002 11:08:50 -0600 Margaret Young wrote: > In regards to past institutionalized racism, Scott Parkin said we believe in > continuing revelation and repentence. Big question. I'll even link it to Mormon > letters. Scott, HOW do you suggest we repent AS AN INSTITUTION? I have to admit that I'm very conflicted on this issue, and my response is as much emotional as reasonable. I guess I have two questions: 1) How does an institution repent; and 2) is the institution guilty of a sin or merely of an insufficiency of diligence? The reason I ask is that we expect different things of individuals depending on their foundations. Is the institution really different, and should it be held to a different standard? To be baptized, a person needs to confess their sins privately, turn away from those sins, and enter a new covenant. We don't require that they fall on their swords before the congregation. I think there was quite a bit of cognitive dissonance among Church leaders--both great and small--for quite some time before the policy on the priesthood was changed, officially ending institutional racism in the Church. But even then, the Church as an entity preached tolerance and love. Though many individuals used strained interpretation of scripture and a lot of folklore to justify their personal hatred--and some general authorities supported those speculations and may even have tried to give them the weight of doctrine (it seems like Bruce R suggested that blacks would never hold the priesthood and that he perpetuated the fence-sitter idea)--the institution itself did not teach that hatred as doctrine. It's the individual members who are in need of repentence. Maybe that's a semantic hair-split. What it comes down to is that I think the institution of the Church probably did all that it was required to do when it changed the policy and continued to preach tolerance with increasing vigor as the years went by. On receiving new light, they instituted the policies that reflected that new knowledge, changed the institution's behavior, and have not regressed since that change. That's all we expect of any penitent when given new light and knowledge. Understanding that I'm not sure the institution is required to do more, I have to admit that I wish it would do a couple of things--whether required or not--to directly acknowledge errors of the past and further facilitate active healing. 1--Issue a direct apology and/or explanation. Whether the Church admits to sin or not (again, I'm not sure the Church sinned so much as it stopped a step short of full valiance on that principle), the fact is that many people suffered deep inner turmoil and felt that the institution questioned their inherent righteousness and spiritual worth. While there can be no valid recompense for that loss of esteem, issuing a strong statement of regret for what we now know to be mistaken behavior would be a clear sign, a direct acknowledgement and promise of future respect. It becomes a base document from which all members can build--both black and non-black members. The 1978 announcement stops a little short of the kind of acknowledgement and regret that I think is strong enough to function as that kind of new foundation. 2--Institute specific teachings on the matter. I would like to see a set of explicit Sunday School and/or Prieshood/Relief Society lessons that directly address the issue of racism and the Church's teachings against it. Clarify the fallacy of the doctrine on the mark of Cain and directly refute the fence-sitter doctrine to the general membership through the official programs of instruction. It's possible to teach the correct principle without reference to the prior policy. Better yet, offer an explicit acknowledgement that the Church did in fact receive additional light and knowledge and as a result changed its policies. To me this illustrates in clear terms that we believe that new revelation can directly replace prior beliefs and practices and shows that even the institution can be instructed to turn away from some practices in light of new knowledge. ----- The general authorities have been quite diligent in teaching racial equity, and I applaud that. But I think a direct gesture of recognition and regret would draw a bright line for a new generation and give all of us a clean place to start from in building a modern Zion. > Can we as Mormon writers/artists help that process along? > Can we do it better than we are now? Of course we can help a recognition and healing process along. But in response to your own post of June 24, I have to ask what exactly you think we should do? Should race be a specific issue in Mormon fiction? Do we need to tell stories of overcoming racial intolerance, or merely include the fact of racial diversity as background to stories about people? Or both? Is part of drawing that clear line between then and now that we directly acknowledge past behavior and justifications at the same time that we emphatically show a new and better behavior? Or does that trivialize and demean? I have no idea. I want to do whatever will facilitate true community, and if that means that I as an individual need to apologize and acknowledge the historical inequity of behavior by my white brothers and sisters toward my black brothers and sisters, I'm more than willing to do so. Of course some of us will do it ham-handedly while others of you do it with style and grace, but the core impulse is the same--to directly create a new world through our literature of hope and belief. The problem is that I don't know what the right answer is, though I desperately want to find out. I do know that I've become incredibly self-conscious about race issues where I don't recall being so before. The one time that I attended the Genesis Group I was more aware of the fact of racial difference than I can ever recall, because I was so anxious to actively create a sense of expanded community that I became hypersensitive to difference. Of course that sensitivity made me miserable, because all of a sudden I didn't know what the right thing to do or say was. I was so frantic to fix what I saw as a problem that I started seeing others as symbols instead of people. I was so focused on a failure to be remedied that I had stopped being me and instead became an activist for a cause. Somewhere in there my honest desire got buried under too much expectation, and the result was that I completely failed my own desire to do what I considered right and good. Not because my desire was insufficient, but because it was too strong. I once criticized Jack Weyland for a short story he wrote where he raised racism in the Church as an issue. I accused him of trivializing the issue by giving it too little exploration, by tossing off the fact of racism without making any attempt to address the problem. Whether that criticism was fair or not, I do have to admire the fact that he addressed it at all. As with anything else, I think there are many approaches and many levels of skill. But just as I learned when I put too much expectation into my effort to help create a better community by attending the Genesis Group, I also wonder how much we might fail our best hopes by trying too hard to pack a social development message into our fiction. The problem is that for every sensitive, intelligent handling of race issues you'll end up with a dozen well-meaning but poorly executed lectures. Are we willing to tolerate the dozens of misses in order to get the few hits? > Can we be vocal about a need without "rocking the boat" and risking the > "Gene England" fate? Or is it necessary for us to be vocal about it in our > writing and speaking? I think it is necessary to be vocal--or at least to explicitly and directly state both the (perceived) problem and a set of reactions to it. If we don't name the demon we can't defeat it, and if we don't make direct reference to cultural racism we give it permission to continue to exist. In my opinion. On the "Gene England fate" idea... I know that Gene was forced to leave BYU, but he never left the Church (that I'm aware of) and he never lost his personal testimony of the Brethren or his hope for a better Mormon social community. Yes, he suffered a great deal of heartache at the hands of those who should have supported him. Yes, he functioned as the conscience of a community at a time when that community was starting to recognize the possibility of its own error--thus making himself the target of rage for a generation forced to confront its own poorer behaviors. But Gene's fate was to continue to build a vision of a better community, and to see that vision begin to come true. He suffered persecutions, but was never silenced. I would gladly be the target of the rage of inflamed consciences if the result was a better Mormon community, and I think Gene gladly filled that role (some times more gladly than others, I'm sure). His personal honesty and humility meant that he often came into disagreement with people, but he also earned their respect. So yes, I think questioning behaviors that don't add up is necessary--even (perhaps especially) if it touches a tender spot in the hearts of people. But that doesn't mean being overbearing or judgmental or screaming in peoples' faces. Simply being different and talking about why--and showing those kinds of behaviors in fiction--strikes me as our most effective method. Leading the cats is always easier than trying to drive or herd them. On the specific issue of institutional racism in the Church, I think there are still a lot of tender sensibilities on the issue. People generally believe those behaviors were wrong and feel guilt about it. They're in the process of changing their behavior--and sometimes their own best hopes get confused under too much personal expectation. They want to show that they really are trying to change their thought patterns with the result that some overstate that change in an effort to make it understood. They do still have the disease and sometimes credit Colin Powell with being a credit to his race--whether he's purple or green or blue; but they're also trying very hard to change a behavior learned many years ago and supported by society for much of their lives. I'm not trying to defend racist behavior, but I do suggest that we be charitable when working with brothers and sisters who have lived with conscious or unconscious racism throughout their lives. I believe the best answer is direct discussion with clear institutional support of the Brethren--which is why I would like to see an explicit apology (or at least statement of regret) and an institutionally supplied lesson plan (or series of plans) for a direct and approved discussion on historical racism in the Church, the change in policy, the new understanding, and how to best show our love and appreciation for all our brothers and sisters. The direct discussion needs to happen and we need to be patient in dealing with the often difficult process that accompanies a change in mind. Literature can help that, because those are the stories that we read in private and that allow us to confront our own errors in the safety of our closets or other closed rooms. They give us the cognitive safety and distance to rethink our beliefs without the harsh glare of judgment from our community. Combine that private rethink with the public lesson plan and I think the issue is finally raised to the point of active discussion and awareness--and change. Supported by continued direct counsel by the Brethren during General Conference, and I think we do what we can to change the hearts of people in a relatively short time. Many of us feel awkward and a little silly at this transition point in our communal history. We want to support change but aren't sure what to do because we perceive a need for active healing in addition to normal passive righteousness. But our fear of overstating and being offensive, of irritating the very injury we so very much want to help heal, causes some us to overreact and try too hard. Direct discussion can help ease that. Of course if we as a community knew how to be that kind of patient and compassionate and forebearing, we would be able to resolve most of the social issues that remain in the Church. I still hold out hope that we can learn to do so and that we will learn to cut each other some slack while we work to change our hearts and minds to become better than we were. Literature is one of many tools to aid in educating our community both to a need for change, and a method for it. Some of that literature will be simple, didactic, and obvious. But I think it's all necessary. Recognition of sin is the first step to repentence, and learning a new way to behave is the next. With time and love one for another, hearts will change. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathy Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance Date: 22 Jul 2002 22:03:33 -0600 Margaret asked: > Scott, HOW do you suggest we repent AS AN INSTITUTION? I remember a General Conference some years ago when this fellow stood up and strode to the front to take the podium, ready to call the church to repentance. Fortunately security got hold of him before he ascended :). It is the mindset of extremists of every persuasion that we know better and we gotta tell them. Very problematic, a huge manifestation of unrighteous pride. Our favorite book this year has been Zanders' The Art of Possibility. The authors make a fascinating point pertinent to this discussion: that practice changes policy. In other words, if through reading lifechanging books? seeing examples? feeling a 100-monkeys groundswell of the spirit? the Saints learn to live with more compassion and charity, that could easily affect the way we do things as an institution. Perhaps this segues into Margaret's suggestion that the Priesthood wasn't given to the blacks till the general church membership could receive everyone with love--and sadly that seemed to take a very long time. So it all comes back to. . . .to me. There's no escaping the condition of my heart :), no matter how much I want to deflect any discomfort by discussing things. It's my responsibility to repent and become a Zion person. Times that by however many people are willing to do the same, and we're on the road to Zion. Cathy Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance Date: 23 Jul 2002 13:13:17 -0600 > ___ Margaret ___ > | Scott, HOW do you suggest we repent AS AN INSTITUTION? > ___ > And Clark Goble wrote: > What does it even mean to repent as an institution? I mean I understand > that institutions change, which is the essence of repentance. But I > honestly don't quite fathom what we mean by institutional repentance. I think I know what she means, and institutional repentence has already been tried. Stalin did it when he censored and rewrote history books and cause the new history to be taught. We (Mormons) have done it too. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] David Wilcox Lyrics Date: 23 Jul 2002 13:13:38 -0600 Wilcox is actually a role model of mine. He's a devout Christian but he's not a sap. He can talk about Christ from the stage and liberals don't throw up. That's who I want to be when I grow up. You should really see him live. He's an amazing storyteller. -- Todd -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] Family History and Genealogy Conference at BYU Date: 23 Jul 2002 13:20:31 -0600 For those who are interested... Marny Parkin Family History and Genealogy Conference July 30 - August 2, 2002 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Keynote Speakers: * Elder Bruce C. Hafen * Susan Easton Black * Scott Woodward * Jay Verkler Tracks: * European and Nordic Research * Family History Center Operations * Genealogical Computing * Writing and Publishing * Research Methodology * United Kingdom Research * U.S. Localities * U.S. and Canada Records Sponsored by: BYU Religious Education, BYU History Department, Family History Library, and BYU Conferences and Workshops For further program or registration information, please contact: BYU Conferences and Workshops 136 Harman Continuing Education Building Provo UT 84602-1516 or call (801) 378-4853 or e-mail us at cw136@byu.edu web site: http://ce.byu.edu/cw/cwgen/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 23 Jul 2002 13:26:56 -0600 ___ Kathy ___ | In your estimation and conversation, does prophecy that is not | in the four standard works, or even prophecy that *is* in the | four standard works, equal folklore? ___ The problem is that the standard works are fairly ambiguous. Further the "manner of prophesying of the Jews was such that sometimes the straightforward reading wasn't the important one. So we have traditional "readings" of the scriptures which I'd call folk doctrine. Somethings aren't folk lore but more formal doctrine. Say that Jesus will return. But that leaves a lot of wiggle room. We *assume* that it will be this big Hollywood-like appearance. Most GA readings of scripture portray it like this. I don't think the scriptures present that. To give a good analogy there were plenty of prophecies about the coming of Jesus to Palestine. However the way he came and the way the Jews expected him to come certainly didn't match. I half wonder if, with regards to the second coming, we won't be equally surprised. For all the scriptures dealing with the amazing events of the second coming there are many that say most won't know about it. (It'll be as a thief in the night) How do we reconcile these two accounts? I think the righteous will recognize it *not* because it matches their preconceptions but because when they see events the spirit will tell them that this is fulfillment. If you don't have the spirit then reading the signs of the times is impossible. To adopt both a Renaissance and Book of Mormon term - it is a sealed book. That's why I don't take all that literature on the last days too seriously. I've not a clue how things will unfold and I don't particularly think anyone else does either. I get a kick out of books like Crowther or Giliadi because they take themselves so seriously and their "readings" of scripture (or better yet 19th century GAs). I think I am far too aware of my fallibilism to trust my readings as much as others do. To me what is more important is to be aware of the many *possibilities* of prophecy. That way we are prepared for fulfillment and realize the necessity of not being tied to our expectations. (As happened with Jesus in Palestine) It is here that I think Mormon fiction of the last days (or even Utopias) can be of great help. Say what you will about Card's _Folk of the Fringe_, but the "surprises" in it certainly made me rethink a few ideas I had about scripture. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. Date: 23 Jul 2002 13:50:40 -0600 ___ Jacob ___ | She isn't a fan of [postmodernism] and her points are | well-considered and I have to say that they match up | well with my observations while an undergraduate and | that the problems extend "even to BYU." ___ Just to make a point as diplomatically as possible. I'm not sure most in English departments are equipped to handle philosophically difficult texts. When they do they write things that *sound* similar but are without much content. I don't want to generalize and say everyone in English departments are like this. (Christopher Norris, for instance, is primarily in English but has written some good books on Deconstruction) However the problem is I think training and background. By the same token I *cringe* when I hear English majors discussing thermodynamics as they love the idea but typically misunderstand it horribly. I should add that while many equate relativism and postmodernism this is *very* unfair and wrong. Relativism is one of those "boogey men" that get passed around along with "nihilist" or "pyrrhic skeptic." In general it is hard to find real *philosophers* who advocate such positions. Unfortunately it is easy to find people who have made na=EFve readings of philosophers who adopt these positions. I know this sounds like elitism. (Sort of like physicists making fun of the statistical analysis within the social sciences) And perhaps there is some. However most attacks on postmodernism attack not postmodernism but simply bad scholarship and shoddy thinking. I'm all for attacking those. However instead of looking at individuals ability to think they attack a movement. Often these attacks make misreadings of major philosophers nearly as egregious as the sloppy papers coming from various humanity departments. This often happens even with philosophers who ought to know better. For instance Habermas misreads Derrida quite badly in _The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity_. Indeed a lot of his "reading" of Derrida is actually dependent on an other person's readings while making an attack on post modernism - Ellis. I'll note, with apologies to Pres. Bateman's inaugural address, that this sort of plagerism of misreadings is rather common in attacks on postmodernism. Few seem willing to try and grasp the texts in their context. This is especially true in Sokal's recent book. (For those of you not familiar with it - Sokal produced a "fake" postmodern critique of science that was nothing more than mumbo-jumbo and then said it was a hoax after it was published. The resultant firestorm still hasn't died down. Unfortunately instead of taking the supportable conclusion that many humanity journals publish based on style and not content and that their "review" process is shoddy, he leaps to the conclusion that all postmodernism is unrigorous mumbo jumbo. A rather questionable leap of logic for one critiquing supposed irrationalism. I'm not suggesting that everything in postmodernism is correct. Obviously people make mistakes. But that is true of *any* movement. Heavens, in the sciences we expect mistakes. We don't damn an entire movement because of a few isolated mistakes. I should also add that I think the postmodern movement has a lot to offer Mormonism. Alfred Whitehead, the famous mathematician created a form of postmodernism called process thought in the 1920's. Some, such as Blake Ostler, suggest that this is very close to Mormon thought and can illuminate many aspects of Nauvoo thought. Others, such as Jim Faulconer at BYU, are very into Heidegger and feel that concepts such as Daesin explain the Mormon position. Indeed I think that many early Mormon ideas are closer to postmodernism than they are traditional analytic thought. I notice from my reading and discussions with various philosophers at BYU that postmodernism is very popular there. One big problem is that "postmodernism" is such a giant rubric. Even if you think folks like Richard Rorty or Jacques Lacan are full of it, does that justify throwing Whitehead or Ricouer out with the bathwater? -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BroHam000@aol.com Subject: [AML] Education Week Get-Together Date: 23 Jul 2002 15:56:19 EDT Before this goes into serious production, I think we ought to give penetrating consideration to the idea of not having a get-together on Monday. While it's all very well for those of us who are there without family, I think it manifestly unfair to request of those whose families live in the area, to decide between family home evening and an AML get-together. Better that the rest of us sacrifice some couple hours of Education Week, if you ask me. That said, while I really look forward to meeting you guys (if I can get past the personal sense of inferiority and trepidation), since my daughter's baby - our first grandchild! - is due that week, I may not be able to make it no matter what the chosen date. So for me, attendance at the wingding depends on little Abby Diniz. If I can't make it, I hope it will be enlightening and uplifting - and fun - for all. Linda Hyde -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Princess and the Pea Premiere Date: 23 Jul 2002 15:18:38 -0500 The long-awaited premiere of "The Princess and the Pea" will be on August 16th. This is an animated feature film for the whole family. I've checked out the trailer and I must say -- the animation is absolutely stunning and fresh. Really a quality-oriented piece of work. Although the film does not have Latter-day Saint characters, most of the key filmmakers are Latter-day Saints, including director Mark Swan, producers Forrest S. Baker III and Don Judd, and composer Alan Williams. Local voice actors include Frank Gerrish and Chrystine Potter Hyatt. - Preston Hunter www.ldsfilm.com Here is the press release: July 23, 2002 Swan Animation is proud to announce the premiere theatrical showing of it's first animated feature, Princess and the Pea. Gateway Megaplex 12 165 South Rio Grande Street Salt Lake City, Utah (801) 304-4636 http://www.megaplextheatres.com Friday, August 16th Premiere Gala & Showing 7:00 P.M., Tickets $25.000 Saturday, August 17th 5:00 P.M., Tickets $5.00 Sunday, August 18th 7:00 P.M. Tickets $5.00 Monday, August 19th 5:00 P.M., Tickets $5.00 All proceeds from these showings will benefit the Children's Justice Center. See an image of the poster: http://www.princess-and-the-pea.com/newsletter.html -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 23 Jul 2002 14:14:51 -0700 Hi Eric You wrote: >snip >When I wondered if there were any GA's who rocked, I >intended to implicitly challenge those assumptions. I >think those assumptions are inherently false. I think >there's just music. >snip I still believe that there must be some GA's who grew up listening to and dancing to Rock. I think it might make an interesting theme for a short story or even a documentary. "The Musical Pasts of our General Authorities." I'm well within the median age group of the GA generation, and although I spent a lot of time listening to Mozart, Brahms, Beethoven, and Bach, I also spent a lot of time listening to Elvis, Buddy, The Comets, The Everly brothers, Sachmo, Ellington, Stan Kenton, Lionel Hampton, Ella, and Ertha Kit. My musical tastes like most people's are eclectic. You are absolutely right, "there is just music," and we all have our agency to determine what we listen to based on how it effects us. I firmly believe that music can be spiritually uplifting or it can drag our spirits to the depths of despair, if we let it. How it effects us depends entirely on how or what our spirits are tuned in on. Rock on Bro' Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Institutional Repentance Date: 23 Jul 2002 14:27:50 -0700 Scott Parkin wrote: >>Of course if we as a community knew how to be that kind of patient and >>compassionate and forbearing, we would be able to resolve most of the >>social issues that remain in the Church. I still hold out hope that we = can >>learn to do so and that we will learn to cut each other some slack = while we >>work to change our hearts and minds to become better than we were. >>Literature is one of many tools to aid in educating our community both = to a >>need for change, and a method for it. Some of that literature will be >>simple, didactic, and obvious. But I think it's all necessary. = Recognition >>of sin is the first step to repentance, and learning a new way to = behave is >>the next. With time and love one for another, hearts will change. Cathy Wilson wrote: >>Perhaps this segues into Margaret's suggestion that the Priesthood = wasn't given to the blacks till >>the general church membership could = receive everyone with love--and sadly that seemed to take a=20 >>very long time. So it all comes back to. . . .to me. There's no = escaping the condition of my heart >> :), no matter how much I want to = deflect any discomfort by discussing things. It's my=20 >>responsibility to repent and become a Zion person. Times that by = however many people are willing >>to do the same, and we're on the road = to Zion. There are two key parts in both Cathy and Scott's posts that I want to = emphasize here: With time and love one for another, hearts will change. So it all comes back to. . . .to me. There's no escaping the condition = of my heart :), no matter how much I want to deflect any discomfort by = discussing things. It's my responsibility to repent and become a Zion = person. I learned the weekend of July 13th that the love of one special man can = truly melt your heart. My wife and I went to see "I am Jane" here in = Southern California. Darius was there. During the intermission Kathy and = I walked back to see him. We knew he would be busy signing books so we = held back a little. When he saw us he said: "There are the Tyners!" He = took my hand, pulled me into his bosom, and picked me up off the ground. = At that moment my heart melted. I had known he loved us because you = cannot meet him and not feel that love but there was something special = about what he did that I cannot describe. You just have to experience = it. I know Darius knows why but he is waiting on the Lord to be able to = teach that knowledge. To me he is one of the greatest examples of = patience I have ever met. I cannot express in words how grateful we as a = family are for his friendship and love as well as Margaret's. As writers and members in the LDS community we have a great = responsibility maybe even overwhelming at times. That is to express our = testimony of the continuing restoration (not just revelation) of the = Gospel. Things are going to continue to be revealed line upon line = whether we are ready for it or not. Things that will rock us as members = to the very foundation on which we stand. Are we ready? It is said our = testimony needs to be alive but think about what that means. I happen to agree with Margaret's assessment as to why the Priesthood = was withheld. Even when "The Revelation" was given in 1978 the Church = membership (not the Church) struggled with this. I'm sure all of us have = stories to tell about that day it was proclaimed and the days that = followed. Like I said before many mistakes were made over the years but = none of the books that have been mentioned which teach false doctrine = about the black members and the Priesthood were ever canonized as = Scripture so my personal testimony is intact. I was even told on my = mission not to take the book "Mormon Doctrine" as literal because there = were concepts not supported by revelation or scripture. Someday we will = be told why and maybe an apology will be made for false = doctrines/understandings which were taught but not until the Lord feels = it is time (ready or not). The best thing we can do as a people and as = writers is to prepare for that day and write in such a way as to promote = a Zion feeling in our own hearts and do all we can to spread that to = others. Zion is the Pure in Heart. What are we doing to promote that? 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: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 23 Jul 2002 15:59:07 -0600 >So when I wonder if there are any GA's who rock, I mean, are there any >GA's who deeply love hard core rock and roll, and have enjoyed the same >deep communion with the Spirit while listening to the Who, or Pink Floyd, >or The Clash, or Elvis Costello, that I have felt. 'Cause I know some of >'em have felt the same communion with the Spirit that I have felt while >listening to the Rachmaninoff Third, or to Brahms German Requiem. Your post makes me wonder whether a piece of music can be good for one person and bad for another. I remember giving a ride to a 17-year-old male while I was playing a heavy metal album. Okay, it was a Krokus party album. I liked their sound, all right? So of course I had it cranked. This boy looked at me ( a middle-aged, middle-class Mormon matron), then at the stereo, then at me, then at the stereo -- then he took a chance. "You got any pot?" Obviously, in his mind this music was associated with drug use, while it had no such connotations for me. (Who knows what it would if I could understand the words.) Anyway, what he got was a lecture on how pot-smoking destroys your sexual vitality and that's God's way of ridding the world of potheads. (I wanted him to be really, really sorry he mentioned pot in my presence. I'll bet he never hitchhiked with a little old lady again.) I found that music energizing, which is good when you have to do something tedious like housework. Same music, different effects. I thought myself really cool to be still into rock music on into the eighties. But when it deteriotated (pardon the opinion word) into grunge and alternative (don't hate me, Parkin), I mourned the end of true rock and roll. But never, from Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock on to The Scorpions, did I think of it as evil, or think I should give it up when I joined the Church. You know, the waltz, now considered suitable mainly for the old poops, was considered scandalous and fast when it was first introducted to English society around 1814. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 23 Jul 2002 16:30:59 -0700 Kathy Fowkes wrote: > Given all the prophecies regarding Zion that exist, and aren't very hard to > find, really (D&C is a great place to begin), and after reading all your > commentary regarding what y'all seem to deem folklore, I have one question. > In your estimation and conversation, does prophecy that is not in the four > standard works, or even prophecy that *is* in the four standard works, equal > folklore? Because if it does, I object to the definition. Given what's been > said in this discussion, I haven't seen a big distinction made between the > two, and it's confusing the heck out of me. Kathy, you need to make two distinctions. First is between canonized prophecies and uncanonized prophecies. The latter must be treated with a grain of salt, either because they may be flat out incorrect, or they may not express what is supposed to happen accurately enough. The second distinction is between the words of a canonized prophecy and the interpretation of that prophecy. A canonized prophecy means what it says, though that meaning is often intentionally vague and may, in fact, describe more than one historical event. Interpretations of prophesy are the specific province of prophets, so if Pres. Hinckley (or someone else who was the prophet at the time) hasn't said it, it may simply be a personal opinion, to which the General Authorities are as much entitled as the rest of us. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance Date: 23 Jul 2002 17:11:17 -0600 (MDT) Thom wrote: > We > realize now that Mormon Doctrine by McConkie contained thousands of > doctrinal errors and even though it was initially quashed, it was eventually > published. Several generations of Mormons were influenced by MD and its > personal opinions posing as official doctrine. The institution (meaning the > Church) could have insisted that the book never be published and even now, > could insist that it be taken off the market. > > Thom And if they had, wouldn't we be decrying them now for censorship? --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 23 Jul 2002 18:32:15 -0500 > > I see no reason to believe that the whole eleven million of us will trash > > what we have and migrate to boring Missouri. This planet is covered with > > children of God who need what the church has to offer, and they'll need it > > even more in the dark days. The faith will be where the stakes of Zion >are. > > The church has not spread over the earth only to contract to a single > > (overcrowded) space at some point. > >> barbara hume >Kathy F.: >In your estimation and conversation, does prophecy that is not in the four >standard works, or even prophecy that *is* in the four standard works, equal >folklore? Because if it does, I object to the definition. Given what's been >said in this discussion, I haven't seen a big distinction made between the >two, and it's confusing the heck out of me. Kathy, Let me try to break it down. You're not as confused as you think. :) Barbara's quote (above), I feel, is accurate, and so are yours in your post. It has been stated in General Conference that the "gathering place" for Mexico is Mexico, for Siberia is Siberia, etc. I am no good searching for quotes, though I probably have it somewhere on my computer--but I distinctly remember this being said. And yes, the *scriptures* *do* testify of the building of a New Jerusalem (in Missouri) in the latter days. The timing is actually somewhat iffy. But even our Articles of Faith affirm this principle. And I love the imagery of the Center Stake raising the tent: >Zion is the pure in heart, and Zion the City, the New Jerusalem, is >more correctly called the center-stake or center place of Zion. Like putting >up a tent, the stakes of Zion in which we all live have been placed before >the center stake goes up, raising the tent, to be semi-symbolic. >_The Coming of the Lord_ I'll have to get this one. It sounds like a fair treatment of what has been written. I like hearing that Lund makes little commentary, just reports actual statements. These, I hope, are also given in fair context. That's important. Now, to break down folklore vs. scripture: Scripture says: New Jerusalem will be built in Independence, MO in the Last Days or thereabouts (it could perhaps come simultaneously with, or even after, the Second Coming, however). During the *Millennial Reign,* the Word of the Lord (doctrine) will come from Jerusalem and the Law (government) from New Jerusalem. Unless I've mixed them up. Someone will correct me if I did. :-) Therefore, the seat of government, the location Christ physically will reign from, is to be in this Center Stake, Zion, the New Jerusalem. Common Folklore says: Missouri will be cleared out by some destructive force, after which the Saints will return to the place we were once kicked out of and build up our prophesied Holy City. We will migrate en masse (and very likely on foot) to accomplish this tremendous feat, from all over the world, to Gather to Zion. Current counsel from General Authorities *has* tried to dissuade these ideas, which are unfounded in modern or ancient prophecy or revelation, by stating that Zion is built in *each* organized stake and that *each* stake of Zion is a gathering place, and reminding us that Zion is a condition of purity and NOT a specific ideal location. (Again, I can't find that quote right now, I'm sorry.) The origin of this folklore comes mainly from second-hand reports of statements Joseph Smith may have made, and from early speculation (*not* prophecies, but ideas) by the Saints who moved West as to how they were ever going to get back to Missouri--something difficult for them to comprehend. These include a statement the Prophet reportedly made to _Alexander Doniphan_ that _Doniphan_ would see the day when Missouri was devastated and ruined, which did happen during the Civil War and has been fulfilled. His actual statement, much like when you play "Operator" at a party, has been warped over time and added to by others, including the "not a yellow dog left to wag its tail" part. Joseph F. Smith [before he was President] related how he *thought* things might or could be when the Saints returned--again, this was not actual prophecy, but his concept--and this is where the images of broken, rusted trains and Saints migrating on foot from Utah to a desolate land come from. He added that he imagined traveling by train wouldn't refine the people sufficiently enough to perform the task. It is in no way reported as "I have seen a vision..." or any such thing. (My source for this info. comes from _Behold, I Come Quickly,_ by Hoyt W. Brewster Jr., pp. 155-157, Deseret Book 1994--a good book for debunking a lot of the folklore compared to revelation. For these particular stories, he quotes from an article by Elder Graham W. Doxey, "Missouri Myths," _Ensign,_ April 1979, p. 65.) Now, it's possible all this could come to pass, sure. It's not _out_ of line with any scriptures. But it certainly isn't the only way to shake it down, and it's a very 'sensational' scenario besides, with great appeal to early Saints carrying bitterness for Those Evil Missourians who deserved their comeuppance. Considering that the Lord prefers to work with small and simple things, I personally don't feel this is the scenario that is actually going to take place. Yes, people will be called here to build it. Some may already be here (Jackson County) and in place for when the time comes. The injunction to buy land or build the Temple (in the Doctrine & Covenants) has not been rescinded, and it is a known fact that the Church is the largest single landowner in Jackson County (it drives developers nuts). But in no way do I think that everyone, or even a humongous mass gathering of Saints, is going to be necessary to build this prophesied Center Stake. There are already six bulging stakes full of Saints in this general area. We have recently built the St. Louis, Winter Quarters, and Nauvoo temples in a relatively short time period without requiring Extra Saints to move here to accomplish the task. All it would take to build it today is an announcement. (Well, and a few other small things, like hiring the architects and buying certain pieces of land back from the Community of Christ [RLDS] Church and other smaller splinter groups, but I think you get my point.) The bottom line is, lots of things are possible. There's also a lot of spurious fluff out there that is only precepts of men mingled with, shall we say, the actual modern revealed Word of God. You have to study the actual scriptures to sort through which is which. That's not so difficult (and I know Kathy--she does her studying! that's why she's asking questions)--but many LDS are not doing this simple, basic thing and are more easily influenced by stories unfounded in actual truth. For a religion which stresses finding truth out for one's self and praying to receive personal revelation, there are surprisingly large numbers of members who take this more sensational stuff for granted, doing no research to learn what has actually been said. But that goes back to D. Michael's excellent commentary on "pseudodoctrines," which he stated much better than I could here. I guess my Mormon Lit connection on this post goes back to that I wrote the book that started this thread. And it was interesting to do a booksigning and have potential readers ask me if my book was True. (Yep, that really happened.) :-) Linda Adams P.S. Kim, I'm happy to hear your book group is enjoying the read. Thank you! I look forward to your report on the List. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] LARSON, _Wake Me When It's Over_ Date: 23 Jul 2002 20:19:28 -0600 I'd like to thank Nan for this sensitive review. I shared her assessment = of the play. =20 Aesthetically, Melissa probably erred in directing the play herself. I = thought the performance was occasionally and unnecessarily flat, not = because the relationship is poorly written, but because Melissa is an = inexperienced director and didn't know how to direct actors to build = scenes from moment to moment. And Nan is also right about the curtain = raiser, which just isn't as strong a work, or a compatible one with the = main piece. But this is educational theatre, and Melissa hopes to direct = her own work someday. So educationally, her decision to direct was = obviously the right one.=20 =20 The play, in my opinion, is a gem, an intelligently written and sensitive = exploration of a marriage we come to care about, by a young writer who is = mature beyond her years. Thanks so much to Nan for taking the time to see = it. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kathy Fowkes" Subject: Re: [AML] English Departments Etc. Date: 23 Jul 2002 20:02:56 -0700 >Erin O'Connor, a professor at Penn, has been blogging lately about the >state of academia under postmodernism. What's a blog? Is that like b-log, only the hyphen's been dropped? What does the "b" stand for? Can't seem to figure it out. Kathy Fowkes, displaying her woeful ignorance yet again :-) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] 3 LDS Lit Queries Date: 23 Jul 2002 23:30:52 -0700 The "Five Kinds Of Mormons" essay" is in a Robert Kirby book entitled "Sunday Of The Living Dead". Can't remember the publisher offhand, but they've done other books of his as well. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 24 Jul 2002 10:26:01 -0600 At 11:44 PM 7/22/02 -0700, you wrote: >The building of Zion, the people as well as the city, was the prophet >Joseph's main goal -- sanctify the people so they could build the City of >Zion and be ready for the coming of the Lord. It's so well documented it >isn't funny, so how is this folklore? I don't think the concept of the building of Zion is folklore. But some people apparently think that all the Mormons in the world are going to move there. Your statement agrees with my thinking that some members will be needed in that place, but not all of us. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Gerald Lund's Fiction (was: Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_, Review) Date: 24 Jul 2002 11:12:48 -0600 Kathy Fowkes wrote: > I know many of you have little respect for Gerald Lund's fiction. I have to respond to this. I respect Gerald Lund as a writer. He tells a very good action adventure story, especially when he sticks with non-modern settings. More importantly, he reaches a very large audience with his work and does so in a manner that has strengthened their hopes and desires and beliefs. I admire his success, his integrity, and his vision. I respect his fiction as meeting its primary goals and successfully reaching a particular audience on its own terms. But I don't like some of the stories he's tried to tell. I don't think he's done a very good job of deeply exploring some of the issues he's raised. I don't accept some of his political or social assumptions, and thus don't like or agree with some of the messages some of his stories offer. I don't like many of his metaphors ("her eyes were twin volcanoes belching fire"). I don't like the way he builds many of his characters, find many of his situations strained, and just plain disagree with many of his speculations. I will not likely pick up one of his novels to read for enjoyment. I don't like broccoli, but I respect it as a healthy vegetable with an exceptional calcium content--but I particularly respect it as a vector for cheese sauce and ranch dressing. I don't like haggis, but I respect it as the best they could do under the circumstances. I don't like spiders, but I respect their place and value in an ecological chain. I don't like Gerald Lund's fiction. But that's not the same thing as having no respect for it, and it says nothing about my respect for the man. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Chaim Potok Dies (Comp 1) Date: 24 Jul 2002 17:10:09 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post from many who have sent in news of this sad event.] >From hpalaw3@wasatch.com Tue Jul 23 14:32:30 2002 Just thought I'd pass this sad note along. Chiam Potok died today, a victim of cancer. He was 73. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020723/ap_on_en_ot/obit_ potok_7 Dave Hansen >From rrasband@yahoo.com Tue Jul 23 19:06:45 2002 Chaim Potok, author of "The Chosen" and other novels about religion and life, dies at 73: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/books/AP-Obit-Potok.html ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com >From AEParshall@aol.com Wed Jul 24 08:22:08 2002 Chaim Potok has just died, of brain cancer. Here's an obituary from the Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/3724245.htm I thought this was an appropriate topic for AML because from time to time list members say they "want to write about Mormon culture the way Chaim Potok did about Jewish culture." For most of us I think that means we want to write about our own world view unapologetically, but in such a way that others outside the culture can understand and in some measure feel a part of it. Some phrases from this obituary that might resonate with list members: "... opened up Orthodox and Hasidic life in America to readers around the world ... a novel that came from a person on the inside, a believer, one who is not a skeptic ... Mr. Potok decided then that he wanted to write fiction about traditional Jewish life in its American context, even though his family and teachers opposed that ambition ... Asked once about being referred to as a Jewish American writer, Mr. Potok remarked that he preferred to be described as 'an American writer writing about a small and particular American world.' ... Ardis Parshall >From kathy_f@cox.net Wed Jul 24 11:49:56 2002 Deseret News article gives details: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,405019716,00.html I love his books. It sure would be something to see an LDS novel of equal caliber. Kathy Fowkes -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Acting vs. Performing Date: 24 Jul 2002 15:07:27 -0600 On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:09:17 -0600 "Clark Goble" writes: [snip] > I suggested that many in film tend to distinguish between acting and > performing. [snip] > people see "real" acting as portraying on screen (or stage) a > fully nuanced real person. [snip] > This isn't to say that comedic actors like Jim Carrey, Groucho Marx, > Jim Belushi or others aren't skilled performances. Rather it just says > that in many of their performances they aren't really acting in the sense > that some see "real" acting as being. [snip] > I think that the difference which I designated as performing vs. > acting (for simple need of words for discussion) really relates > to the issue of "embodiment" that we'd discussed last month. > There is a certain question of authenticity. Considering myself at least a minor authority on this subject I will hazard an opinion on its. The word authenticity caught my eye. Here is how an actor acquires authenticity: They believe everything they're saying and doing. Whether the style of the performance is presentational, representational or just plain abstract doesn't matter in the least as long as the performer believes in what they're doing. If they are committed, that is fully invested in what's happening, it's real acting. Take for example Jim Broadbent's performance as Harold Zidler in "Moulin Rouge." Over the top? Absolutely. Brilliantly and believably so? You bet your sweet bippy. Another example: (I know that it's fashionable to hate Keanu Reeves, but open your hearts and minds for a moment and trust me) Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix." Understated. Sure. And perfectly so in my opinion. He is fully committed to that piece. That level of commitment is what makes a movie like "Strictly Ballroom" (another Baz Luhrman project) such a delight. > Now for the (somewhat strained) LDS connection. It often seems like > in our literature, even written literature, our characters are less > "acting" than they are "performing." I believe that's because of one of two things. Either the author is forcing the character to serve the plot, in which the case the character may not be committed to the story, or the author has created a world that is so unbelievable to you that no matter how committed the characters might be, you simply can't believe they would behave as they behave in any reasonable universe. This is what happened for me with Rachel Noones's first Ariana book. I just couldn't make myself believe that there existed a place where a girl could join the church and then convert virtually everyone with whom she spent more than ten minutes of conversation. 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: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 23 Jul 2002 20:34:59 -0600 As usual, Jacob and I agree as much as we disagree. Our disagreement = centers on a few main points: >Problems of poverty and ignorance aren't solvable via programs no >matter >how intelligently conceived or adequately funded. The belief that they >are is contributing to those problems. =20 Demonstrably false. A great many governmental programs to alleviate = poverty are quite successful, provided that they are adequately funded and = intelligently administered. =20 >They are personal problems and >must be solved on a personal basis, and even then solutions are only >possible if people are motivated to solve them. =20 This sounds very much like blaming the poor for their poverty. It is = quite true that the motivation of someone in poverty is a key to escaping = it. But the working poor I've met (and in our old ward, they were very = much the majority), work a good deal harder than I do, and are highly = motivated to escape poverty. They can't, not because they're not smart = enough, not motivated enough, not driven enough, but simply because it's = next to impossible. And the programs which could help aren't adequately = funded. This is an article of faith on the right, that programs intended = to alleviate poverty don't work and make bad situations worse. It's not = true; never has been. Obviously some programs work better than others. >Again, I like the >church's methods of handling poverty and ignorance because however >flawed the decision-makers involved are, they're at least personal, >available, and start from a position of intimate knowledge of the real >situation. It's a tough system to defraud, and one that is often >eschewed for the easier options available from other sources-->preventing >the long-term solutions that would truly alleviate suffering. I'm a big fan of the Church welfare program. It helps. In conjunction = with government programs to alleviate poverty, it can make a difference. = Up to a point. >King Benjamin's solution to poverty wasn't governmental at *all*. He >didn't tell his people, "You aren't doing enough to help the poor so I'm >going to take your stuff away and do it for you." He *could* have done >so (he *was* king) and he might arguably have done some actual good if >he had. Instead, though, he worked by example (by refusing to live a >life of leisure) and by entreating his people to care for the poor among >them. He rallied them to their personal duty, not to some governmental >program. He *had* force he could have employed, he chose instead to >teach and leave people to their responsibility. We don't know that. His great talk, the greatest ever given on the = subject, doesn't address issues of taxation at all. It doesn't say = anything about the existence of government programs or the lack thereof. = We can conclude that what he's talking about urging greater private = support for private charity, or we could just as easily conclude that he's = urging his people to be less grudging in their support of public assistance= . The text supports either interpretation. What I think he's saying is = "I'm the king, but look at my palace. Pretty shabby! I've kept your taxes = pretty low when it comes to supporting me. That was so tax dollars could = be spent where they're most needed, to support the poor. So get with the = program and pay up what you owe." Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] August Movies Date: 23 Jul 2002 16:34:33 -0500 Mark your calendars. In August over a period of 11 days no fewer than 4 movies by Latter-day Saint directors and/or with Latter-day Stars will premiere. August 12th is the premiere of University of Utah film grad Joseph Osborn's first feature film "No Dogs Allowed." The film, made in Utah, stars Latter-day Saint actor Dalin Christiansen in the top-billed role. Some people will remember Christiansen from his starring role as J. Golden Kimball in the video "J. Golden" (2000), available at LDS bookstores. LDS actor David Stevens has a major supporting role as well. Stevens will gain more exposure as one of four Latter-day Saint brothers who are Adam Sandler's nemesis in the upcoming feature film "Punch Drunk Love." A number of other Utah/LDS actors are in "No Dogs Allowed" in smaller roles, including Lincoln Hoppe, one of the supporting players in "The Singles Ward." K. Joseph Osborn, the director of "No Dogs Allowed", grew up in a small farming town north of Salt Lake City. His mother encouraged him, "So if things turn for the worse, remember this... never forget who you are, and what gifts you've been blessed with." August 16th marks the world premiere of the long-awaited feature film "Possession," directed by Neil LaBute and starring Aaron Eckhart, both of whom are Latter-day Saints and graduates of Brigham Young University. Eckhart stars opposite Academy Award-winning actress Gwyneth Paltrow. Neil LaBute's fourth feature film his adaptation of A.S. Byatt's popular novel about literary sleuths (Eckhart and Paltrow) discovering evidence of a love affair between the 19th Century English poets that they each study. August 16th ALSO marks the world premiere of another Latter-day Saint director's feature film. Animator Mark Swan worked on a number of Disney and Don Bluth animated films before opening his own studio, Swan Animation, in St. George, Utah. "The Princess and the Pea" is his first feature film, and was a joint production with the folks at Feature Films For Families. The movie was produced by Forrest S. Baker III and Don Judd. Latter-day Saint composer Alan Williams provided the musical score. One of the voice actors in the film is Frank Gerrish, who has been in tons of movies, but may be best known for playing Ralph the construction foreman in Richard Dutcher's "Brigham City" (2001). The following week, on August 23rd, is the nationwide premiere of the Columbia TriStar release "Little Secrets", a live action family film directed by Latter-day Saint (and BYU graduate) Blair Treu. This is Treu's first theatrical release, although he has directed 5 previous feature films that were TV movies or direct-to-video movies. Many of the key cast and crew on "Little Secrets" are Latter-day Saints, including composer Sam Cardon ("Brigham City"), director of photography Brian Sullivan, and supporting actors such as Tayva Patch, Jan Broberg, Rick Macy, and Caitlin E.J. Meyer. ALSO on August 23rd is the world premiere of "Serving Sara", starring Matthew Perry and Elizabeth Hurley. Okay, this one wasn't directed by a Latter-day Saint and doesn't actually feature any members in lead roles, but Latter-day Saint actress Alaina Kalanj has a small role as a receptionist. So if you go see, watch for her! Also in August, but not in theaters: Latter-day Saint novelist Chris Heimerdinger's first film, the documentary "Lehi's Land of First Inheritance" that he scripted and directed, will go on sale. And if you can find it... Look for Christian Vuissa's absolutely stunning short film "Roots and Wings," which is supposed to go on sale in LDS bookstores in August. I haven't seen "No Dogs Allowed," "Possession", "The Princess and the Pea", "Little Secrets" or "Lehi's Land." Maybe they're all great. Maybe they all stink. I don't know. But I HAVE seen "Roots and Wings", and it is amazing. The extremely realistic and beautifully shot story of a Mexican Catholic immigrant who finds his wife and children becoming distant as they assimilate American ways and Latter-day Saint faith, "Roots and Wings" is the work of a filmmaker who is obviously destined for great things. Every shot is thoughtfully and meaningfully framed. The acting is so natural and the emotions so raw that the film often seems like a beautifully shot documentary. Vuissa serves up no easy answers or platitudes, he simply serves up a glimpse into a fascinating and though-provoking story. At only about 25 minutes long, "Roots and Wings" is more of a film than most anything you'll find in the multiplex this summer. [Preston Hunter] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Irreantum Cutbacks Date: 23 Jul 2002 17:40:02 -0600 Irreantum's printing costs have recently increased by 75% at BYU, and the AML's finances have reached drought status. As a result, we are now forced to regress the magazine to staple binding, reduce page count, and stop sending out as many free sample copies. We still expect to have the same high quality of content, with the forthcoming summer issue exploring an environmentalism theme and featuring Terry Terry Williams as our cover interview. In the past, Irreantum has drawn upon proceeds from AML events to subsidize subscriptions and dues allocations, which do not amount to enough for book-style binding and other extras. If anyone has any money they could donate to the AML, now would be a particularly good time. The AML is recognized as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, so donations are fully tax deductible. If we get some donations and/or this November's AML writers' conference is a big success, that would give the AML the extra funds needed to pump Irreantum back up to 100+ pages, perfect bound. By the way, we are still setting aside the grant funds from the Utah Arts Council for next year's Irreantum contest, with prizes totaling about $1,000. If you want to donate anything or otherwise assist, contact us at irreantum2@cs.com. Following are the PayPal links several people have already started using to interface online with us financially via credit card. Full AML membership, $25. This includes 4 issues of Irreantum, a copy of the book-length AML Annual, and discounted preregistration to AML events. Click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=irreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=AML+annual+dues&amount=25.00 Irreantum-only subscription, $16. For those who don't want full AML membership but want to receive 4 issues of Irreantum, click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=irreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=Irreantum+subscription&amount=16.00 Irreantum sample copy, $5. Unless you specify a specific issue, you will receive the current issue. Click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=irreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=Irreantum+sample+copy&amount=5.00 AML donations. Tax deductible! Your donations help us defray the costs of running AML-List and other services. Click here: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=irreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=AML+donation Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rjwillia@uci.edu Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 23 Jul 2002 21:48:33 -0800 On the one hand, Eric is right. There is absolutely nothing inherently evil about "music" one way or the other. Drums are drums, harps are harps, and an E minor chord is pretty much the same whether it's played by a drugged up psycho killer or your Aunt Nelly--it's all just sound in the air. And this is a fairly easy concept for most (at least most younger) audiences to accept. Of course, when you begin to distinguish between "music" and the lyrics in music, then it becomes a little harder to conflate the "good" and the "bad." But it is, of course, still the same--just sound in the air. Swear words are just more sound in the air (have you ever noticed how non-threatening a cuss word in another language sounds?). But here's the point, our interpretive community, that is, our Mormon interpretive community, has decided (based on certain moral virtues that we all accept) that it's not good to go around shouting certain things like, say, "F---!" (In speech or otherwise). The connotation attached to this word--even though, as a word, it's relationship to the event is necessarily arbitrary--is something we all accept is "bad." This is, of course, what gives the word it's magical power, why certain movies get certain ratings when it shows up. Now, you may feel that those particular letters, strung together like that, have been unjustly ascribed this terrible connotation (well, denotation, really). Maybe your last name is F---. Whatever. But it would be an act of supremely forced innocence to declare that those letters placed together--considering the enormous interpretive power of our language community--are neither "good" nor "bad." (A bit like continuing to use the word "gay" when calling someone happy). One would have to be supremely confident in one's spirituality to begin using the F-word on a regular basis, and not experience at least SOME spiritual backlash, mainly because one NEEDS an interpretive community in order to progress spiritually (if you are a Mormon, it's difficult not to accept that point). The point here is that Eric Samuelson's assertion that "there's just music." And that there isn't "anything particularly edifying or spiritual about Mozart or the Tab choir," in contrast to AC/DC et al seems either inanely true or absurdly false. True because, yes, of course, all of it is just *sound* moving through the air, it's meaning assigned in a rather arbitrary fashion; and false because the messages (and people) linked to these sounds are entirely different, sometimes blatantly so. It's like saying there isn't anything especially spiritual or evil about "books." Duh. But this raises a rather interesting point that I have been thinking about lately, namely, my own capacity to overlook or otherwise re-interpret messages that do not square with my own belief system (usually so that I can enjoy the medium of their transmission). There are literally hundreds of songs--lyrics I mean, lyrics!--that I listen to on a regular basis that were undoubtedly written under less-than-Mormon conditions, intended to convey something specifically condemned by our religion. And I have several ways of getting around this: 1) I do what I tell my Mom I used to do: "I'm not listening to the words, just the music!" In a sense, actually, this is very true. It was difficult for my Mom to understand the argument, of course, but it is basically correct. When some lyrics advocate, say, adultery, I ignore it. I don't go commit adultery. Really. So why would I listen to a song like that anyway? Because I don't think the devil should get all the good tunes (this, by the way, was Martin Luther's justification for his using Catholic melodies with Protestant lyrics). 2) I deliberately sing something else OVER the "bad" lyrics. This is hard-core euphemism, I know, but it sure feels a lot better than shouting along to something with which I entirely disagree. 3) I intentionally mis-interpret the lyrics, allowing songs that are obviously about drugs to "mean" something else, like love, or whatever. 4) I really DON'T understand the lyrics, a method that, as I get older, is getting a bit harder to employ, but it works well with bands like The Stone Roses and The Trash Can Sinatras (who you can barely hear what they are saying anyway). Really, growing up I thought Depeche Mode's "Personal Jesus" song was about as uplifting as you can get. In answer to Eric's earlier question about the advent of the Rockin' General Authorities, my guess is that (in order to remain active members of the church) they will have employed some or all of the above methods of deliberate misreading. Notice, however, that all of the methods accept the idea that certain lyrics, based on the criteria established by my own Mormon interpretive community, are LESS uplifting than others. What else can you do? I look at as the most sophisticated way of being "in" the world but not "of" it (I think that's it, right? "In" but not "of"? I always mess up those prepositions, usually in a church talk--but you know what I mean). --John Williams UC Irvine -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "kumiko" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report July 19 Date: 24 Jul 2002 07:51:48 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of July 19, 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 --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 11 Minority Report 4,457,544 1,672 31 Gerald Molen (producer) 118,061,976 19 The Divine Secrets of the 768,452 572 45 Ya-Ya Sisterhood 66,600,470 36 ESPN's Ultimate X 85,285 40 73 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,292,207 55 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 23,204 8 808 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,567,501 57 China: The Panda Adventure 18,945 7 360 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,629,392 67 Galapagos 9,529 4 997 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,533,471 69 The Singles Ward 8,261 7 171 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 833,552 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, Wally Joyner, Lincoln Hoppe, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, etc. 71 The Believer 7,610 10 66 Ryan Gosling (lead actor) 243,634 74 The Other Side of Heaven 6,980 9 220 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,649,631 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 86 Mark Twain's America 3D 4,033 2 1480 Alan Williams (composer) 2,252,399 DONNY'S NEW SHOW: The Deseret News ran an article about Donny Osmond's new gig as the host of Pyramid, a syndicated revival of the game show popular during the 1970s and '80s. The article is at: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,405019382,00.html? ANXIOUSLY DELAYED: Movie producer Cary Derbidge ("Out of Step") has re-scheduled the release of his upcoming movie "Anxiously Engaged" from January to April 2003 -- not because of any production delays, but simply so that the release of Latter-day Saint-themed films will be better spaced out. Kurt Hale's "The R.M." is scheduled to open in January 2003, and Nathan Smith Jones' "The Work and the Story" should open in early 2003 as well. A few weeks ago Kels Goodman announced that the release of "Handcart" would be moved from July 24th to October 11th, 2002. (It's also highly possible that some of these delays facilitate the creation of larger numbers of prints and the arrangement of wider openings...) TRIVIA ABOUT BRIGHAM CITY: None of the actors or crew knew whom the real murderer was prior to the last scene being filmed. The actors and crew filming the scene had to sign a contract saying they would not reveal which one of them played the murderer, until after the movie was officially released. (Source: Amazon.com) MORE MOVIE TUNES FROM SEN. HATCH: Utah's Senator Orrin Hatch simply ROCKS, doesn't he? This week saw the premiere of the hit family film "Stuart Little 2." The soundtrack album features a song by Sen. Hatch, a lullaby titled "Little Angel of Mine." Sadly, the song isn't in this movie. But Hatch has songs actually in two recent movies: "Joshua" and "Rat Race." And of course he was in Soderberg's "Traffic," and, even better, will be appearing in Kurt Hale's "The R.M." next year. DANSIE: The production of Salt Lake City-based Latter-day Saint auteur filmaker Tucker T. Dansie's latest comedy short "The Dougs" has been postponed because 2 of the three female leads are pregnant. Their husbands are male leads in the prodution, but it was decided to wait until delivery rather than replace the expectant mothers with other actresses. However, work on Dansie's upcoming "Quarters & Rocks", the second in "The Lesson" series of films about little life lessons, continues. EMMYS FOR SAINTS: A 20 July 2002 Deseret News editorial (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,405018921,00.html) noted with pride that the 2002 Winter Olympics ceremony received 8 Emmy nominations. The ceremony which was replete with references both overt and otherwise to Church history, Latter-day Saint culture and belief, and Mormon pioneers, and featured a predominantly Latter-day Saint cast. The editorial notes: [QUOTE] Winner: Kudos to the organizers of the opening ceremonies of the 2002 Winter Olympics for pulling in eight Emmy nominations this week. And what a tribute to the great talent that exists along the Wasatch Front. Thousands of volunteers, including performers, helped it all come about. Maybe President Bush should get some kind of award, as well, for his impromptu decision to accept a cell phone from skater Sasha Cohen and speak to her parents while he was mingling with the athletes in the stadium. Hey, it was more entertaining that just about anything else that's been on television lately. [END QUOTE] PRINCESS AND THE PEA FINALLY OPENING: The long-awaited animated feature film by Mark Swan and his Swan Animation studio is finally scheduled to premiere. Here's the press release, and there is more info about it below: Princess and the Pea Newsletter, July 2002 July 23, 2002 Swan Animation is proud to announce the premiere theatrical showing of it's first animated feature, Princess and the Pea. Gateway Megaplex 12 165 South Rio Grande Street Salt Lake City, Utah (801) 304-4636 www.megaplextheatres.com Friday, August 16th Premiere Gala & Showing 7:00 P.M., Tickets $25.000 Saturday, August 17th 5:00 P.M., Tickets $5.00 Sunday, August 18th 7:00 P.M. Tickets $5.00 Monday, August 19th 5:00 P.M., Tickets $5.00 All proceeds from these showings will benefit the Children's Justice Center. BRIGHAM YOUNG ON THE BIG SCREEN: A number of news articles, including one in the Daily Herald (http://www.harktheherald.com/article.php?sid=54272&mode=thread&order=0) noted the screening of "Brigham Young: Frontiersman", starring Dean Jagger (Academy Award-winning actor who later became a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). "The 1940 film 'Brigham Young,' starring Tyrone Power and Linda Darnell, with Dean Jagger as Brigham Young and Vincent Price as Joseph Smith, will be shown at BYU's Harold B. Lee Library Auditorium at 7 p.m. Thursday." James D'Arc, curator of the library's Special Collections Motion Picture Archives noted that "Brigham Young: Frontiersman" was "the first positive portrayal of Latter-day Saints following more than two decades of stereotypical depictions in movies of Mormons as misfits in America." Articles also noted that audiences were aware of how the film was also about Nazi aggression against Jews, as it depicted early Latter-day Saints/Mormons receiving the same type of mistreatment from anti-Mormons that European Jews received from Nazis. See also: http://www.byu.edu/news/releases/archive02/Jul/Brighammovie.htm LEILANI LAND: Latter-day Saint filmmaker and playwright Melissa Leilani Larson is getting rave reviews for her play "Wake Me When it's Over", now playing at Thom Duncan's new Center Steet Theatre. It features chronic fatigue syndrome, chat rooms and us "well written, well cast and well directed", according to am AML-Lister. REG: Latter-day Saint novelist and online journalist has written an article about award-winning British Latter-day Saint photographer Reg Wilkins, who had a cameo appearance in the 1966 British movie "Blowup." The article is at: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/missionaryjournal/020722reg.html -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 24 Jul 2002 11:35:02 EDT Glen Sudbury writes: I enjoyed the remarks under the AML topic of Prodigal Journey by Kathy=20 Fowkes. Her remarks and summary of the scriptural support and well as= Gerald=20 Lund's book The Coming of the Lord about the literal building of Zion were= =20 first rate. I read Lund's book when it was first published and it is still= =20 one of my favorites on the topic. =20 Throughout the Church literature, and non-church, there has been a running= =20 debate between those who believe in cataclysmic, apocalyptic events, and= even=20 "dialogic revelations" for themselves and gradualists or naturalists. As=20 with the far right and far left on most issues, there is some truth in each= =20 camp and each group would benefit from rational dialogue without the using= of=20 testimony to try and prove of disprove past or future truths. As the 2nd=20 coming nears we see an intensifying of the debate, as in the Book of Mormon= =20 prior to the birth and resurrection of Christ and his visit to Mesoamerica. = =20 This debate itself over the "reasonableness" of past and future great events= =20 predicted by prophets is core to an understanding of history, scripture and= =20 even fiction. More naturalistic explanations always are there for those who= =20 do not want to have faith, hope in the good news (or the bad) in a real God= =20 as well as real angels who do really live here among us. =20 I have been reading and engaging others in conversation for 40 years on the= =20 events that will proceed the 2nd Coming, including the building of Zion (or= =20 the preparing for others to build it depending on ones bent on this action).= =20 Elder Bruce R. McConkie suggested that the entire difference of being=20 prepared or not is this looking with expectation for the signs and even=20 praying for them. =20 (I listened online, at LDS.org the other day to the birth of Christ, Book of= =20 Mormon account, As I listened to this surprising, literal, and very= dramatic=20 event I thought of the shock unbelievers in personal revelation and dramatic= =20 events in our day will feel when again the light comes into the world.) Hugh Nibley has clearly spoken for years, though with too many big words for= =20 some, on the building of Zion and the part we can and must do and the part= we=20 cannot do. =20 But the question remains, will these events, including the building of the= =20 Center Stake of Zion in Jackson County be literally accomplished or will= this=20 and other predicted events be only vaguely recognized as even being=20 fulfilled? It seems much of the difficulty arises with trying to make it one= =20 way or the other when often, as with the parables of Christ, events will=20 generally be both literal as well as symbolic. =20 For example we still debate in the Church were the lost tribes are lost and= =20 how and when they will be gathered and how dramatically or naturally. =20 Actually even one convert is grand miracle but this does not necessarily=20 eliminate the possibility of a the great highway being a literal possibility= =20 also. =20 One of the keys to understanding the manner of prophesying of the Jews, is= to=20 recognize both the natural and more dramatic levels in their writings. =20 A position statement from Neal A. Maxwell when he was working at bringing= all=20 to the round table of dialogue at the University of Utah, both believers and= =20 Humanists, may be helpful in the debate between the cataclysmic and=20 gradualists camps. He suggested that with rational dialogue we can learn=20 much from both. It is when we appeal to testimony as a club to beat others= =20 into submission that contention rears its ugly head and all become the= poorer=20 for it. =20 In the early history of the Church the very "keystone of our religion" was a= =20 thorn in the side of those who saw God as more a myth than a reality in our= =20 lives. Many then and today, both in and out of the Church, struggle with=20 what to with both its content and the stories of its coming forth. It would= =20 be easier for the masses to accept if Joseph Smith and we would quit=20 insisting that it came from an angel. Many, in and out of the Church, are= =20 increasingly recognizing the value of its doctrine, precepts, and discourse= =20 to the Christian world in our day. But we cannot be true to the Church,=20 Joseph, or the book itself and turn its origin into a mythical story. =20 The best book I have read on this larger issue of "dialogic revelation" even= =20 for "the common member" or nonmember is a recent publication written by=20 Terryl. L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon-The American Scripture that= Launched=20 a New World Religion. This book was published not by a traditional LDS=20 publisher but by Oxford University Press. This by itself shows a dramatic= =20 shift in the thinking of many in the world about the content of the Book of= =20 Mormon and a continual struggle with the big questions the manner of its=20 origin raise about the signs of the times we are living through. This book by Brother Givens ends with another prophecy about the last days= =20 that we await a fuller understanding of how it will unfold to the world, the= =20 church, and to each of us. Speaking of the coming forth of the 2/3rds portion of the Book of Mormon we= =20 do not yet have, the last sentence of Brother Givens book: "When the people= =20 of the Lord are prepared, and found worthy," wrote Joseph's scribe Oliver=20 Cowdery, "then it will be unfolded unto them." Will this be to unfolding be to individual members as they become worthy and= =20 prepared? Or will it be through English and other "literal" translations so= =20 all may read it if they want to? Or both? And which method would be a= greater=20 miracle? Glen Sudbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] S. Hudson OWEN, _Happiness Pursued_ (Review) Date: 24 Jul 2002 23:38:05 -0500 Tahoma TITLE: Happiness Pursued SUB-TITLE: Time-tested tools to turn anxiety into happiness AUTHOR: S. Hudson OwenArial0000,0000,ffff=20 PUBLISHER: Bonneville Books (Imprint of Cedar Fort Inc.) ISBN: 1-55517-598-8, Trade paperback PRICE: $8.95 =20 Reviewed by: Jerry Tyner =20 With the subtitle of the book being "Time-tested tools to turn anxiety into happiness" I had some preconceived ideas as to what this book would be about. What it turned out to be was one person's definition of happiness (anticipating the achievement of goals in life) and joy (completing the goals) which did not mesh with my way of thinking. With this said I will be as objective as possible. =20 For those who see their life in terms of a series of goals being set and achieved this is an excellent book. It is structured in such a way as to give a definition of what "Happiness" is and is not; what "Unhappiness" is; how goal setting effects happiness in life; and adjustment of those goals - timeframe or actual goal changing. It also points you toward what steps you need to take when you have achieved the goal and are ready for more challenges. It doesn't, however, tell you what goals you should set. An adult could use this book to assess where they are and work to reset their life goals but a youth would find this confusing. It would need to be used by a parent or mentor of some kind in order to get things in their proper perspective. Since Missions are very much about setting and achieving goals this would be a good book for a mission president to review and then boil the information down to the basics for his missionaries to use. Many missionaries do not know how to properly set achievable goals and many leaders in the mission field do not know how to help the Elders and Sisters properly set achievable goals so they feel the sense of achievement that can be felt when goals are met. Too many goals are set way out of reach and this can lead to the type of anxiety and depression this book is referring to. =20 One of the good things about this book was it is written generically so it can be applied to anyone who looks at life in this way. It claimed that through the use of these tools you can avoid frustration and anxiety in life. I would not say this would work for Social Anxiety or even Generalized Anxiety but anxiousness over not reaching the goals you have set for yourself or your family this book would help in breaking things down to more focused goals or even abandoning and then resetting goals. =20 Personal opinion of the book: =20 Met expectations? * (One Star - the title was misleading to me; subtitle needs to be changed or title modified) Achieved goal set by the author? *** (Three stars - If happiness in life is making and achieving goals this is a good book for you) Would I recommend the book? Yes, for those who see life as making and achieving series of goals. For any other purpose, no. Easy to read and follow? Yes. =20 However, I did feel that the introduction, preface, and rear leaf summary did not properly introduce the book and many will find this disturbing. It should be very clear this is written for those who feel they are unhappy due to not achieving goals. There are many people I know who would have thrown the book across the room because they are not suffering from lack of goal achievement. =20 =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] New Sugar Beet Date: 24 Jul 2002 11:54:17 -0600 In honor of Pioneer Day today, we dug deep into our archives and found an issue from 1860 that we trust will edify and uplift today's readers. It's guaranteed 20-percent anachronism free! http://thesugarbeet.com/ Clean-Shaven BYA Student Expelled One-Wife Families Struggle to Feel Accepted Don't Give Up Hope on the Sugar Beet Outhouse Is "Only Place a Body Can Get a Little Peace And Quiet" Unmarried 18-Year-Old Men Are a Menace to Society The Blessings of Being a Woman in Zion Latter-Day Saints Offended by "Mormon Crickets" Moniker Stiff-Necked Gentiles Almost Claimed This Valley Before We Did Catching Up with Our Long-Lost Sister, Emma Smith Latter-Day Saints Help Reverse America's Position on the Ignorant Heathen Red Man Plus the following departments: Views from the Trail Corrections and Retractions Ask Molly Mormon Ask a Gleaner Girl http://thesugarbeet.com/ Next regular issue: August 16 ----- Read about the Sugar Beet in the Ogden [Utah] Standard-Examiner: http://www.standard.net/standard/news/news_story.html?sid=000207192215222456 24 Make a donation to help with Sugar Beet web-hosting fees, currently paid by the volunteer editors: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=chris%40thesugarbeet.com&item_name=Th e+Sugar+Beet Want to try your hand at Sugar Beet reporting? Send your story to chris@thesugarbeet.com. Do you draw superhero comics? The Sugar Beet needs your help. Click here: 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: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Marilyn BROWN, _Ghosts of the Oquirrhs_ (Review) Date: 24 Jul 2002 14:40:51 -0700 Review ====== Title: Ghosts of the Oquirrhs Author: Marilyn Brown Publisher: Salt Press (imprint of Cedar Fort, Inc.) Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 208 Binding: Paperback ISBN: 1-55517-658-5 Price: $14.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle Here in San Diego we have a section of the city called Old Town, where visitors can see a bit of how the settlers lived. The old printing house, some adobe homes, the Mormon Battalion Visitors Center, and other reminders of old San Diego can be seen here. One of the most popular stops is the Whaley House, a famous "haunted house," where tourists can walk through a structure fabled to be haunted by ghosts of its infamous past. Naturally, I've gone through the house several times with guests. I have not, as of yet, encountered any ghosts, other than those I've been able to conjure up all on my own. "Ghosts of the Oquirrhs" tells the story of the McKinsey family, an early non-Mormon Utah family. As the book opens, a descendant inherits a charred, but still readable, diary of sorts, telling a fascinating story of how one town, Camp Floyd (but known to everyone as Sweet Pie), was reduced to ashes in a great fire. The events leading up to the fire make for fascinating reading. Cecily McKinsey is the young daughter of the local banker, a staid, serious man devoted to the building of his businesses and the advancement of his interests. The McKinsey family is populated by children so different from each other, one wonders that they were raised in the same home. One gets a hint of the eccentric nature of this book when, in the opening scene, Lottie Pickard, a resident of the town, dies, and we get to visit her funeral. Her dying wish was to be buried in a sitting-up position, so that she might be able to see the Lord when He returns, and be ready to go! The grave, however, is not sufficiently deep to bury her in this way; most of her body makes it into the ground, but her head doesn't make it all the way. Off in the distance, Cecily spies an approaching figure, a fiddle-carrying desert crosser approaching their town. How odd -- seeing someone cross the desert on foot was so rare in those days. Who is this man? Turns out his name is Brooker Rose. He's looking for a mine to work. When he learns that one of the local townspeople, Abraham Sawyer, had disappeared after working a mine unsuccessfully, he states his intention to continue digging, paying the owner his share should be ever return. The town comes to believe that Abraham Sawyer is dead, that his body is at the bottom of a dry well, and that Brooker Rose killed him. Evidence? None. Just one assumption building upon another, ultimately fed by the appearance of a stranger who doesn't fit the mold. In a series of curious events, Brooker becomes the focus of the town's suspicions about the fate of Sawyer. An entire criminal case is built against Brooker without a hint of evidence. And the effort to build a case against Brooker transforms this small town into a place of emerging evil. I wondered about the Lottie Pickard incident, but ultimately saw it as symbolic of what I saw as the central theme of the book -- the reality of human evil, and the inability of even a good (if odd) people to completely bury it in the ground of everyday life. Just when we think we've buried our depravity, a bit of it emerges and consumes us. As the story progresses, Brooker emerges as something of a Christ character. I struggled with how to express this without giving away the entire storyline, but ultimately could find no way to do this. He appears out of nowhere, utters unbelievable prophecies (as if they were comments on ordinary things), finds gold where there was none, etc. The symbolism is powerful and finely crafted. Brown wants us to know that Brooker is an extraordinary character. And yet this imagery never overpowers the story itself. This is the story of a town, a town that burns to the ground as the afterword to a remarkable journey. The relationship between Brooker and Cecily grows and matures as the town continues to drown in its own muck of self-interest and mistrust. Cecily comes in contact with everyone -- including the local madam, the lady who tells fortunes, and, of course, Brooker. We experience the fall of this town through Cecily's eyes. This book is the first in a projected series titled "Utah Witness," described on the back cover as "the first in a collection of both new and previously published novels offering Marilyn Brown's unique witness of Utah history." "Ghosts of the Oquirrhs," however, didn't seem to fit this category. While set in early Utah, I didn't find much of the story to be *unique* to Utah. I may be mistaken, but the story could have been told in nearly any setting in that period of America's history. Indeed, evil exists everywhere. Sometimes it lies just beneath the surface, and needs only a convenient catalyst to bring it bubbling up, wreaking havoc, ruining lives and spoiling families. Brown characterizes Brooker Rose as the innocent hero, the one to bear the burden of the accumulated frustration of an entire town. But "Ghosts of the Oquirrhs" is not so much a tale of darkness, but rather a dark comedy, a spooky morality tale that kept me reading into the night. Several times during my reading, I genuinely wondered if I really understood what this book was all about. Was it a real ghost story? Would I find spooks and spirits guiding me through this slice of history, or would I need to summon my own ghosts, my own connection with the supernatural, to fully comprehend the moral behind the story? In the end, the "ghosts" are mere shadows of our own inadequacies. Here we have a town filled with people with their own agendas, their own concerns in life, and their own very private sins. It seems that they were just waiting for the right person, a scapegoat, to come along. And this was Brooker Rose. But in Rose we find something of a hero, and the one through whom the redemption of an entire town might be brought to pass, even if by fire. This is a very good book. I look forward to the next installment. ----------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Letters: Mid-Year Observations Date: 24 Jul 2002 15:16:54 -0600 On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:58:42 +0000 "Andrew Hall" writes: > I'm excited to hear about Thom and Scott's new theater. See D & C 122:7 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance Date: 24 Jul 2002 15:31:40 -0600 On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 17:19:17 -0600 margaret young writes: > HOW do you suggest we repent AS AN INSTITUTION? > Can we as Mormon writers/artists help that process along? An interesting question that occured to me a few weeks ago in different terms. A friend of mine tried to get a job at Latter-day Creations here in Orem. This friend is placing herself on the market because her husband is unable to work consistanly right now. In the interview process the fact was exposed that my friend has two small children at home. A cloud appeared over the face of the interviewer. Then my friend explained that her husband can't work, whereupon the interviewr said, "Can't or won't?" I was livid. Then it occured to me that this is why I write. I believe that if I can infiltrate the culture with my enlightened ideas, I can combat this sort of prejudice and have fun at the same time. It's a slow way to change an institution, by changing it's constituents one by one, but it's probably the most effective way. scott -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 24 Jul 2002 16:09:22 -0600 On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:01:49 -0700 JLTyner writes: > As the article says it is possible to be both a > rocker and an active, faithful member. A friend of mine is producing a series of short documentaries for KBYU or BYU TV called "Every Walk of Life." Each segment focuses on an LDS individual who may or may not be famous but who has accomplished remarkable things with their life. As my friend was embarking on the project and explaing to me the types of people he would be spotlighting he mentioned that he would be interviewing Randy Bachman (of BTO and The Guess Who fame). I told my friend how I had missed an opportunity before my mission to go to a fireside where Randy spoke. However, the last date I went on before entering the LTM (yes, LTM, not MTC) was with a girl who had gone to the fireside. Much of our conversation was her telling me things that Randy had said. I told my friend that he was getting the story second-hand, but, he ought to ask Randy about the time that he met President Spencer W. Kimball. Randy had expressed to President Kimball his anxieties about being a rocker and a practicing Latter-day Saint. Randy said that the rock-and-roll business made it extremely difficult for him to live that double life as a rocker and a Saint. He said that he would like to get out of rock and roll. President Kimball said that he wanted Randy to stick with it. He said words to this effect, "We need to be examples to the world. And we need good Latter-day Saints to be examples in every walk of life." So my frind asked Randy if that story were true. Randy confirmed it. And that's where the title of the series comes from. Rock on dudes and dudettes. 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: William Morris Subject: [AML] RE: Postmodernism (was: English Departments Etc.) Date: 24 Jul 2002 15:34:42 -0700 (PDT) --- Clark Goble wrote: > I should also add that I think the postmodern movement has a lot to > offer > Mormonism. Alfred Whitehead, the famous mathematician created a form of > postmodernism called process thought in the 1920's. Some, such as Blake > Ostler, suggest that this is very close to Mormon thought and can > illuminate > many aspects of Nauvoo thought. Others, such as Jim Faulconer at BYU, > are > very into Heidegger and feel that concepts such as Daesin explain the > Mormon > position. Indeed I think that many early Mormon ideas are closer to > postmodernism than they are traditional analytic thought. I notice from > my > reading and discussions with various philosophers at BYU that > postmodernism > is very popular there. I'm pleased to see this response from Clark. Jim Faulconer wrote a great essay on postmodernism and Mormonism that was geared towards an educated, but general audience that appeared either in BYU Today or the Clark Memorandum. I can't vouch for complete authenticity but a draft of that essay is available here: http://www.nd.edu/~rpotter/pomo.html This quote from the essay captures my experience with postmodernism in the academy: "Some Latter-day Saint and other religious thinkers find postmodernism helpful because it helps them identify cultural and intellectual elements that we have taken for granted because we live in a world that is very much a creation of modernism, itself one of the effects of the apostasy." Although I've also experienced the ragged, shoddy applications of postmodern theories and theorists that Clark mentions in his post. That gets quite tiresome. Postmodernism helped create a divide for me between eternal and man-made verities and practices. That division is impossible to complete---everything gets mixed up. But being aware of the mixture has enriched how I approach aesthetics, philosophy, history and science and esp. in relation to my testimony of the restored gospel. Joseph Smith was an amazing deconstructionist, imo. He just had access to eternal truths so that his deconstruction didn't lead him to relativism or nihilism. And don't get me started on postmodernism and the narrative structure of the Book of Mormon. That said, it does seem like some elements of postmodernism aren't all that different from healthy, skeptical attitudes towards culture and language and power and authority that have been around for awhile. And I don't enjoy much art that is directly, self-awarely inspired by postmodernism. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. Date: 24 Jul 2002 16:37:50 -0600 Don't be so fast to edit my quote, Clark. I said "politicized postmodernism" very deliberately so that I could avoid the very arguments you make. If you had read her posts (or my responses), you'd know that Erin O'Connor isn't saying anything against *postmodernism*. But the politicized version of postmodernism (postmodernism that is internalized as a tool to advance a social agenda) has taken over much of academia--to our detriment. If postmodernists don't like being painted with such a dismissive brush, then it is time for you to speak out against the misuse of postmodernism in advancing academic agendas and not be so defensive about critics who aren't criticizing *actual* postmodernism. It happens that I agree with you about the usefulness of postmodernism and I would hate to see it disappear (just as I'd hate for traditionalist methods to disappear). At the same time, it sucks as a means of social organization and should not be allowed to dominate the academic sphere so uncritically. Jacob Proffitt ---Original Message From: Clark Goble > ___ Jacob ___ > | She isn't a fan of [postmodernism] and her points are > well-considered > | and I have to say that they match up well with my > observations while > | an undergraduate and that the problems extend "even to BYU." > ___ > > Just to make a point as diplomatically as possible. I'm not > sure most in English departments are equipped to handle > philosophically difficult texts. When they do they write > things that *sound* similar but are without much content. I > don't want to generalize and say everyone in English > departments are like this. (Christopher Norris, for > instance, is primarily in English but has written some good > books on Deconstruction) However the problem is I think > training and background. By the same token I *cringe* when I > hear English majors discussing thermodynamics as they love > the idea but typically misunderstand it horribly. [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Chaim Potok Dies Date: 24 Jul 2002 16:08:00 -0700 Just watched the DVD of "Fiddler on the Roof" last week and it stands the test of time, I loved it. On the same DVD, Norman Jewison, the director of "Fiddler" does a reading of some of Chaim Potok's stories. He is a role model for how many of us would like to write about the LDS culture and religion. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Programs for Poverty Date: 24 Jul 2002 17:32:18 -0600 ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen > > As usual, Jacob and I agree as much as we disagree. Our > disagreement centers on a few main points: > > >Problems of poverty and ignorance aren't solvable via programs no > >>matter how intelligently conceived or adequately funded. > The belief > >that they are is contributing to those problems. > > Demonstrably false. A great many governmental programs to > alleviate poverty are quite successful, provided that they > are adequately funded and intelligently administered. If it's demonstrably false, then you're gonna have to demonstrate. And you're going to have to demonstrate that the program was the cause of alleviating poverty, not like the breakfast cereal commercials where "part of a balanced meal" really means "beside a balanced meal." Now, since the Church has a Welfare program I'd better be careful to explain. I don't think that the Church *program* alleviates poverty. I think it helps change hearts and provides key resources in times of need, but I don't see that as alleviating poverty--the people who learn from it (both ministers and participants) alleviate poverty. Which is my way of saying that, like Mormon utopian governments discussed before, it isn't the program that has to change to alleviate poverty, it is the people within the programs. Just as some as-yet undiscovered government structure isn't going to create a Zion people, so too no program past or present is going to have the power to alleviate poverty--alleviate some of the more bitter effects, sure, but actually alleviate poverty, no. > >They are personal problems and > >must be solved on a personal basis, and even then solutions are only > >possible if people are motivated to solve them. > > This sounds very much like blaming the poor for their > poverty. It is quite true that the motivation of someone in > poverty is a key to escaping it. But the working poor I've > met (and in our old ward, they were very much the majority), > work a good deal harder than I do, and are highly motivated > to escape poverty. They can't, not because they're not smart > enough, not motivated enough, not driven enough, but simply > because it's next to impossible. And the programs which > could help aren't adequately funded. This is an article of > faith on the right, that programs intended to alleviate > poverty don't work and make bad situations worse. It's not > true; never has been. Obviously some programs work better > than others. In a lot of cases, the poor *are* to blame for their poverty. Being shy to say that is a part of what keeps people poor. Not that there isn't enough blame to go around--government programs, capitalists, businesses, and neighbors can all play supporting roles in keeping people down. Now, I'd be interested in the people of your old ward and how you'd define poverty. What constitutes "next to impossible"? And who are the poor? I suspect that our definitions of poor are out of sync. For example, I don't put any stock into comparative income evaluations which are a big part of claims that "the poor are getting poorer" (which I consider bunk). I'd be willing to bet that when you talk about "the poor" you aren't referring to the same folks I am when I talk about "the poor". That said, there are some people I consider poor with no blame to themselves. In those cases, I want to help them as much as I possibly can and will support any effort that will do the same. I don't see that in government programs, though. > >Again, I like the > >church's methods of handling poverty and ignorance because however > >flawed the decision-makers involved are, they're at least personal, > >available, and start from a position of intimate knowledge > of the real > >situation. It's a tough system to defraud, and one that is often > >eschewed for the easier options available from other > >sources-->preventing the long-term solutions that would > truly alleviate > >suffering. > > I'm a big fan of the Church welfare program. It helps. In > conjunction with government programs to alleviate poverty, it > can make a difference. Up to a point. Following the Church welfare program means not accepting government aid. You can't have them "in conjunction" within the policy of Church welfare. Exceptions might be made, but I haven't heard of them and would be surprised if they passed "official" muster. > >King Benjamin's solution to poverty wasn't governmental at > *all*. He > >didn't tell his people, "You aren't doing enough to help the poor so > >I'm going to take your stuff away and do it for you." He > *could* have > >done so (he *was* king) and he might arguably have done some actual > >good if he had. Instead, though, he worked by example (by > refusing to > >live a life of leisure) and by entreating his people to care for the > >poor among them. He rallied them to their personal duty, > not to some > >governmental program. He *had* force he could have > employed, he chose > >instead to teach and leave people to their responsibility. > > We don't know that. His great talk, the greatest ever given > on the subject, doesn't address issues of taxation at all. It > doesn't say anything about the existence of government > programs or the lack thereof. We can conclude that what he's > talking about urging greater private support for private > charity, or we could just as easily conclude that he's urging > his people to be less grudging in their support of public > assistance. The text supports either interpretation. What I > think he's saying is "I'm the king, but look at my palace. > Pretty shabby! I've kept your taxes pretty low when it comes > to supporting me. That was so tax dollars could be spent > where they're most needed, to support the poor. So get with > the program and pay up what you owe." Since all King Benjamin's examples were personal and his address was personal I think an assumption of personal (as opposed to governmental) responsibility towards the poor is warranted. He even makes it reflexive at one point (Mosiah 4:16 - "ye yourselves [should] succor those that stand in need of your succor"). Now, you can interpret it any way you want to, but if my interpretation is not a clear given, yours is less so. King Benjamin says (in so many words) that his responsibility is done, over. Not that we can't *both* be correct, really. I'm trying to avoid absolutes and I'd as soon avoid that one, too. Later on in the same chapter, he says, clearly referring to administering to the poor, "see that these things are done in wisdom and order"--which traditionally refers to church organizations (and is echoed in the Church welfare program charter if I remember correctly). I think that "see that they are" implies it won't be a governmental program (now if he had said "see that we can/do", that'd be different), but it could easily be so. At any rate, King Benjamin isn't threatening jail time or police action and his admonitions clearly advocate action by choice. All of which I take very seriously as a man with personal responsibility to care for the poor. And none of which I personally interpret as a call to support clumsy government programs that do at least as much damage as good. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. Date: 24 Jul 2002 20:09:52 -0600 Responding to Clark: I'm not sure most in > English departments are equipped to handle philosophically > difficult texts. > When they do they write things that *sound* similar but are without much > content. I don't want to generalize and say everyone in English > departments > are like this. I think you are right about English professors not being (on average) as thoroughly grounded in history of philosophy as those in the philosophy department. But nonetheless English departments use deconstructive criticism and most current literary theory is derived from poststructuralist, postmodern-kinds of (non)roots. Not only in English departments, but throughout the academy, postmodernism has changed the way we do business. So one way to respond to the critics of the changing politics of scholarship is to say that nobody really knows what is going on (except in the Father discipline of philosophy) so how can we be critical. Obviously though, the critics are observing real change and they don't like it (whether such change is true to Derrida or not). I think the critics are often just saying (perhaps as you note very ignorantly of the philosophical roots) that they don't like the new politics and the way power is shifting. No one likes to be left behind and as traditional approaches have become less popular, many people feel threatened. > I should add that while many equate relativism and postmodernism this is > *very* unfair and wrong. Relativism is one of those "boogey men" that get > passed around along with "nihilist" or "pyrrhic skeptic." In > general it is > hard to find real *philosophers* who advocate such positions. > Unfortunately > it is easy to find people who have made na=EFve readings of > philosophers who > adopt these positions. I agree with that postmodernism and relativism are wrongly equated. However, even the theory text that I used to teach first-year English majors clearly pointed out the fallacy of those naive readings. So in my experience the ones who do make that equation are reacting with angry political rhetoric--Rush Limbaugh style--that likes to lump multiculturalism, feminism, postmodernism and relativism into Satanic bag of horrors in oversimplified and ridiculous ways. > This often happens even with philosophers who ought to know better. For > instance Habermas misreads Derrida quite badly in _The Philosophical > Discourse of Modernity_. Indeed a lot of his "reading" of Derrida is > actually dependent on an other person's readings while making an attack on > post modernism - Ellis. I'll note, with apologies to Pres. Bateman's > inaugural address, that this sort of plagerism of misreadings is rather > common in attacks on postmodernism. Few seem willing to try and grasp the > texts in their context. I understand that the postmodernism seminar held at BYU a few years back spurred apostle Eyring to meet regularly with Jim Faulconer to take postmodernism lessons--just to avoid the kind of misreadings that conservative rhetoric likes to espouse (Bateman's inaugural address). Others, such as Jim Faulconer at BYU, are > very into Heidegger and feel that concepts such as Daesin explain > the Mormon > position. This is an interesting way to defend postmodernism and I have to agree that my limited study of postmodernism has enriched my thinking about religion. Interestingly, religious study is now much more academically viable. Previously you would never find religious approaches openly taken at national literary meetings such as the Modern Language Association. Religion is "in" again, along with all other marginal discourses, because scientific discourse has lost its absolute stranglehold on truth. However, (although for Mormons it is second nature), I don't know if I would like to judge the value, interest or even usefulness of a philosophy or a philosophical movement by how well it can be used to prop up the Mormon position. I think Mormons are very good indeed at finding correspondence between Mormonism and almost any philosophy we may find important. > One big problem is that "postmodernism" is such a giant rubric. > Even if you > think folks like Richard Rorty or Jacques Lacan are full of it, does that > justify throwing Whitehead or Ricouer out with the bathwater? Exactly. I agree completely. The changes that have occurred in ways knowledge is considered and approached in the university will play out over time. Not everything survives. But I think one reason that Lacan and Rorty appeal to English department people is because the metaphor and play of language they employ is so fascinating, so complex, that the poetic mindset is drawn in. What one might criticize as nothing but mumbo-jumbo on a first reading can, with study, become enlightening and symbolically rich. Is this kind of study elitist? No question. But interestingly the traditionalists who defend James Joyce and T. S. Elliot as kinds of gods in the traditional canon, might find the current poetic philosophers not absolutely different in approach. Gae Lyn Henderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Hugh Stocks" Subject: Re: [AML] Chaim Potok Dies Date: 24 Jul 2002 21:05:33 -0600 What a loss. And of course, for those who've read his _Book of Lights_ there's even a Mormon connection, since he writes about the Mormon Chaplain's assistant he had in Korea. The model for that character was Rowan Taylor, long a stalwart of the Mormon musical community in Southern California, and a member of the Canoga Park Stake. Hugh Stocks hstocks@vii.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: daryoung@juno.com Subject: [AML] Dutcher, Mitchell, Parkin, Duffy and Me Date: 25 Jul 2002 03:54:32 GMT I have been greatly enjoying the most recent issue of Irreantum. I loved Alan Mitchell's "Dutcher and Me," maybe because I recognize a little of myself in it. I feel I have some sort of claim on Dutcher by virtue of--oh, I don't know, sitting at the same lunch table with him at the writer's conference or something. Because here I am in Pocatello where no one has heard of him and I am trying to get my friends to watch _Brigham City_ on video. And, since the video has that horrible horror-type cover on it, my best persuasion tactic is to say it was "made by an AML friend of mine." (We ARE friends, aren't we, Richard? I mean Ricky? Dutch?) Anyway, I enjoyed re-reading John-Charles (Jack-Chuck?) Duffy's paper on _Brigham City_ and Scott (Scotty) Parkin's response to it. Both critics have excellent points with which I agree. But I have a few comments in response to a very small portion of Parkin's paper. Parkin complains that he's "not sure it's entirely fair [for Duffy] to condemn Dutcher for failing to deliver on Duffy's hopes for more complex storytelling." But I feel that it is not without value for a critic to encourage greater complexity and point out where the work could improve. It implies a respect for the artist and the audience. True, not all stories are complex by nature, but Duffy's point that the story COULD have been more complex is a form of praise. You wouldn't bother writing a formal paper criticizing the lack of complexity in a television soap opera, for example, because its simplicity (simple-mindedness?) is inherent in its form. Duffy obviously does not think it is out of the realm of possibility to expect more of Dutcher. Neither do I. Later, Parkin says, "Duffy seems to be looking for hidden messages that I'm not sure are really intended." Of one of the "hidden" messages of the film that Duffy discusses, Scott says, "Certainly it's in there and functions as a recurring theme, but I'd hesitate to say that it's a primary (or secondary or even tertiary) message of the story." Parkin seems to be saying that we should not use messages that were not consciously inserted into the work as support for criticism about the work. I have two problems with this: first, how can we prove which messages, themes, etc. were inserted consciously and which subconsciously? And second--and more important--in order for criticism to be criticism we must assume that all elements of a work are functions of the artist's will. Otherwise, of what use is criticism? I don't say that it's impossible that Dutcher made some "mistakes" in the film or that elements of his subconscious influenced it--but I do say that we cannot discount! a critic's argument (as Parkin seems to be saying of Duffy's) by saying that his evidence is based on "unintended" elements. Always I believe and always I say on the List that criticism has immense value to the potential improvement of Mormon letters and that we do no favors by going easy on each other when it comes to criticism. When Duffy accuses Dutcher of being simplistic, I see behind that a belief that Dutcher could do better--or at least that SOMEONE could do better. Criticism implies a belief in the potential of an art. When we examine a work, we must give the creator all the credit for every element of it as if each tiny part was placed thoughtfully (which I believe Dutcher deserves). Though on the surface Parkin seems to have higher praise for Dutcher than Duffy does, I believe that Duffy's response is the more complementary--for it gives Dutcher the credit for consciously crafting every detail of the film, and engages Dutcher in a conversation that could lead to even greater work. I must point out that these comments of mine address only a small portion of Parkin's response. His entire response contains many valid and important points and is very thought-provoking and worthwhile. 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: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Date: 24 Jul 2002 22:12:37 -0600 Kathy Fowkes wrote: > Given all the prophecies regarding Zion that exist, and aren't very > hard to find, really (D&C is a great place to begin), and after > reading all your commentary regarding what y'all seem to deem > folklore, I have one question. In your estimation and conversation, > does prophecy that is not in the four standard works, or even > prophecy that *is* in the four standard works, equal folklore? > Because if it does, I object to the definition. Given what's been > said in this discussion, I haven't seen a big distinction made > between the two, and it's confusing the heck out of me. I don't believe that either scripture or the words of modern prophets is folklore. But I do think some of those words have been remembered fuzzily, some unrelated bits of revelation have been combined to generate new ideas or support old ones, and some general facts are put into specific contexts where they don't always fit. I consider those efforts to be folklore. Folklore does not imply inaccurate or silly, only non-doctrinal. Let me try to clarify some of my thought process so that I can be corrected correctly. The two specific issues I suggested might be informed by folklore as much as doctrine were the establishment of the New Jerusalem and the literal gathering of the Saints to Jackson County as events that would take place in the Last Days prior to the Second Coming. The New Jerusalem 1: Timeline ============================== The fact of the New Jerusalem is referenced in many places throughout scripture. In terms of apocalyptic context it's the scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants, the book of Ether, and the book of Revelation that seem to have the most direct bearing. Ether and Revelation are quite similar. Both are speaking about events to occur after Christ has returned and the judgement has occured. Ether 13:3 says: "And that it was the place of the New Jerusalem, which should come down out of heaven, and the holy sanctuary of the Lord." Revelation 21:2 says nearly the same thing: "And I John saw a holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." One can argue that this is a literal reference, that the physical city of New Jerusalem will literally come down out of heaven after the judgement. Some suggest that the City of Enoch itself may be at least part of the city of the New Jerusalem (see JST Genesis 7:71). One can also argue that this is a figurative reference indicating that the word of God (aka revelation) will come down to the earth and cause the New Jerusalem (aka, the city of God) to be built by the faithful. In either case, the timeline suggests that the city will be restored *after the judgement* which occurs *after the Milennium* which occurs *after the second coming.* (See Revelation 20 and 21:1-2, and Ether 13:8-10.) In other words, I don't perceive that either of these scriptures suggests that the Saints will gather at any time in the future to build the New Jerusalem *before* the second coming. Which is not to say that the Saints will not build a holy city, a Zion, *a* new Jerusalem at any time or in any place. But it also makes no specific statement about what *will* be built before the judgement, though *the* New Jerusalem will most certainly be established after it. The JST offers a reference to *a* new Jerusalem, a Zion or city of God that will be built prior to his coming in JST Genesis 7:70-71 (partial): "And righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine own elect from the four quarters of the earth unto a place which I shall prepare; an holy city, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion; a New Jerusalem. And the Lord said unto Enoch, Then shalt thou and all thy city meet them there..." So the way I read it, one or more Zion cities will be built as a general element of building the literal kingdom of God on the earth (most likely built during the Milennium itself when Christ reigns personally on the earth). There will be a special city, the New Jerusalem, that is the literal city of God and that will be established after the earth has been renewed. But there is no reference to a timeline of the building of *the* New Jerusalem in Jackson County after the Saints failed the first time, and before the second coming of Christ. If there is specific modern revelation to that effect, I am not aware of it and am happy to be educated. Otherwise, I have to take the speculation as common assumption based on a non-doctrinal source--aka, folklore. The New Jerusalem 2: Jackson County ==================================== Of course the effort of the Saints to build the New Jerusalem in Jackson County in the 1830s is well documented, as are the specific revelations indicating that city as the New Jerusalem. (See D&C 42, 45, 84, 124, 133) A great many plans, hopes, and promises were made about building *the* New Jerusalem in Jackson County. The Saints failed to live up to their part of the bargain and the Lord eventually released them from the assignment to build that city and its temple until some future time (see D&C 124:49). Jospeh Fielding Smith addressed the question directly in Doctrines of Salvation (Vol. 3, page 78): "Nearly 100 years have passed since the site of Zion was dedicated and the spot for the temple was chosen, and some of the members of the Church seem to be fearful lest the word of the Lord shall fail. Others have tried to convince themselves that the original plan has been changed and that the Lord does not require at our hands this mighty work which has been predicted by the prophets of ancient times. We have not been released from this responsibility, nor shall we be. The word of the Lord shall not fail. If we look back and examine his word carefully, we will discover that nothing has failed of all that he has predicted, neither shall one jot or tittle pass away unfulfilled. It is true that the Lord commanded the saints to build to his name a temple in Zion. This they attempted to do, but were prevented by their enemies, so the Lord did not require the work at their hands at that time. The release from building of the temple did not, however, cancel the responsbility of building the City and the House of the Lord, at some future time. When the Lord gets ready for it to be accomplished, he will command his people, and the work will be done." That I'm aware of, no specific timeline has been set forth since then about how, when, or in what context that city and its temple will be built. *It most assuredly will be built,* and it will be built in Jackson County, but I know of no specific promise that it 1) it will take place before the Milennium, or 2) that a general gathering of the faithful to that New Jerusalem will take place before the Milennium. I grant that such revelation may have been given; I only said that I am not aware of it. If you are, please educate me with specific references. The scriptures are replete with discussions of the gathering to both Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem, but none of them require that it happen at a specific time, and most of the scriptural references are actually somewhat vague about whether those literal gatherings will take place before or during the Milennium. There has been explicit reference to a great gathering of patriarchs at Adam-Ondi-Ahman immediately preparatory to Christ's coming where The Ancient of Days (aka Adam) will preside and receive the reports of those given keys and stewardship over the earth (see Daniel 7). But this is a council of patriarchs--what I would interpret as a limited priesthood council of some or all of the general authorities--not a general gathering of all faithful Saints. I accept as doctrine that 1) a literal gathering of the faithful will occur (or perhaps already has); 2) the New Jerusalem will be built in Jackson County; and 3) that Christ will begin his earthly reign from Adam-Ondi-Ahman in fulfillment of prophesy. But the common insistence that there *must* be a literal gathering to Jackson County along with the building of *the* great city of New Jerusalem--including its temple--as the precursors to the second coming strikes me as conflating the great council of the Ancient of Days (pre-Milennial) with the literal gathering (timeframe unclear) and the eventual building of the New Jerusalem or City of God (Milennial/post-Milennial). In other words, it seems more like folklore than doctrine. At least based on my limited exploration of scripture and modern revelation. Again, I accept that I may be in error on that; please educate me with specific references if my understanding is incomplete. My Thoughts on Prodigal Journey ================================= This is the foundation I used when expressing my frustration with what I see as the common perpetuation of elements of folklore in Mormon apocalyptic fiction. I perceive the consistent repetition of a literal gathering to Jackson County and the building of the New Jerusalem as self-evident, generally accepted, required precursors to the Second Coming of Christ as speculations, not doctrine. If they are speculations, I wish Mormons would be a little creative and come up with some other speculations. The scriptures support quite a few different possible scenarios--but one thing we know for sure is that the vast majority of the world (and the Saints) will be caught unawares and unprepared at the Second Coming. This epic gathering that appears in so many Mormon apocalyptic novels seems to fly directly in the face of that wisdom. But more importantly, I wish Mormons would be a little more creative in their speculations as to the specific social and political and economic conditions that will lead up to the last days. Just today I generated a list of six different forms of social collapse that are specifically supported in scripture and that all allow for the same apocalyptic outcomes. If I can generate those with one friend in a little over a half-hour, how many more should people who are actually creative be able to generate? Yet I don't recall many variations on the right-wing despotic overlord theme. I don't dispute the possibility that the events of the last days will come off as described in the common vision, complete with a great city and temple in Jackson County and a massive literal gathering of the Saints just prior to the Second Coming. It's possible. But based on my reading of the scriptures I'm not convinced that specific timeline is either likely, or even directly supported. Based on that opinion, I believe that it's not only possible, but a good idea for authors to explore those issues directly using their own minds to devise unique speculations on what might happen rather than relying on what I perceive to be a vision that may be allowed by scripture, but certainly isn't the only possible (reasonable) interpretation thereof. I never once disputed the idea of the New Jerusalem or its establishment in Jackson County. But I do dispute the commonly accepted pre-Milennial timeline as being doctrinal. Not because I think scripture or modern revelation is nothing but a collection of folklore, but because my limited study of both has led me to a different conclusion. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kathy Fowkes" Subject: Re: [AML] Gerald Lund's Fiction Date: 24 Jul 2002 22:04:39 -0700 Scott, I guess I was a bit blunt in my adjective about Lund's fiction. I respect and admire him as a man and a brother for all the same reasons you state, and think he's a marvelous person. I was absolutely THRILLED when he was called to be a General Authority. Nothing could have been more right then that. I am also absolutely certain he was inspired to right the WATG series as well as his newest series, and think its fantastic the impact it has had on its readers. Which is why I am so frustrated by the quality of the writing itself which he's put his good name to. You pointed out just the kind of thing that drives me up a wall -- "her eyes were twin volcanoes belching fire." I've read far too many grade-b novels in my day, and his writing style just isn't polished, to say the least. Some of it is no better than a harlequin romance. And some of the harlequin romance junk is far better! Basically, what it all boils down to is I have so much respect for his ability and integrity, that I expected more from him than is there in the quality of his fiction, hence my disappointed criticism of his work's writing quality. Kathy Fowkes -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kimheuston@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Chaim Potok Dies Date: 25 Jul 2002 20:36:28 EDT In a message dated 7/25/02 6:00:20 PM Mountain Daylight Time,=20 jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net writes: [Chaim Potok] > is a role model for how many of us would like to write > about the LDS culture and religion You know, I'm not sure that is true, although it is a formulation that I=20 myself have used to describe the writing I want to do. But as I've thought= =20 about it more, I've decided that one of the reasons Chaim Potok was so=20 popular at a time when spirituality was not okay to talk about was that he= =20 told his stories from the point of view of young adults who were leaving the= =20 "fold," who ultimately believed that, despite its gifts of community and= deep=20 emotional resonance, traditional religion limited the range and power of=20 human understanding and accomplishment. He may have been sympathetic to the= =20 goals of Hasidism and to the goodwill of those who practiced it, but in the= =20 final analysis he believed that Believers were mistaken. I think this=20 argument is most obvious in _The Gift of Asher Lev_ which was written fairly= =20 late in his career. Although _My Name is Asher Lev_ is one of my favorite= =20 novels ever, I found its sequel to be deeply disturbing because of its open= =20 rejection of the relevance of both traditional religious and familial=20 relationships to the life of an "artiste." I guess what I'm saying in all= =20 these run-on sentences is that I loved his early stuff because it seemed to= =20 hint at the richness that I have always found in the creative tension that= =20 exists between my spiritual faith and intellectual endeavors. In the end,= =20 however, his argument seemed to be firmly on the side of individual=20 intellect, a position that I find sterile and predictable. IMO, of course. Kimberley (Heuston) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Letters: Mid-Year Observations Date: 25 Jul 2002 09:43:05 -0600 Hi. Just happened to be "lurking" and sorry, Margaret, (although of great benefit to me) Andrew got us "twins" mixed up again! It is Marilyn Brown, who is indeed "sixty-something going on sixty") (actually more) (And now feeling it, actually) to quote the brilliant Alan R. Mitchell and she has not been on the list for several months trying to catch up with MANY things (including lots of theatre problems left us by a board walk). And yes, my GHOSTS OF THE OQUIRRHS is out now from Salt Press/Cedar Fort--and here's hoping somebody will read it. Nice to see the regulars still posting! Sincerely, Marilyn Brown ----- Original Message ----- > > Margaret Brown and Marilyn Arnold have new novels out recently > at Cedar Fort. Arnold used to be a Covenant author, and has > gotten good reviews. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Blogging (comp 1) (was: English Departments Etc.) Date: 25 Jul 2002 21:57:22 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From Jacob@proffitt.com Wed Jul 24 16:42:17 2002 Blog is short for "weblog" which is a form of writing that has become very popular very recently (mainly with the explosion of "war blogging" that occurred after 9/11 when tons of people who lived in New York City decided to open a kind of online journal/news broadcast for family and friends). Blogging can be just about anything, though. Any topic, any form, limited only by the whim (and talent) of the author. You can see my blog as an example (with links to other blogs for contrast), or visit www.blogger.com for FAQs (as well as a tool used by the vast majority of, er, those who blog). Jacob Proffitt >From jremy@uci.edu Wed Jul 24 17:44:39 2002 Blog is an abbreviation of "Web Log" and refers to a regularly updated online journal. Blogs make up a category with very fuzzy boundaries, but they are typically daily postings of internet links and opinions, often focusing on a common theme. (see http://portal.eatonweb.com/cat.php for a whole mess of blog links indexed by category) Blogs have proliferated thanks to sites like http://www.blogger.com, which allows people with absolutely no prior knowledge of html and web design to have an online journal up in minutes. To add entries, the author simply goes to the Blogger.com site, logs in, fills in a form with their latest gripes, rants and raves, and clicks on the submit button. Their words are instantly available for the entire world to see. What's more, readers can submit their own opinions of the author's journal entries after reading them. Thus a blog is much more than a daily posting of personal monologues-it is an interactive experience. Writing in a diary can be a very private experience, but blogging can be a mix of very public and private at the same time. You could say that blogging is emotional exhibitionism. One drawback of the ease of blog creation is that the web is now cluttered with bad writing. For every fifty blogs out there, there is probably only one worth reading. On the other hand, some blogs are a rich blend of beautiful photography and graphic design and heartfelt, thought-provoking, and poetic personal revelations. Some form the cornerstones of entire online communities. I'll include links to a few blog sites here-visiting one of these will you a much better idea of what a blog is than my long-winded explanation. They are not representative-just places I'm familiar with. Warning: A lot of bloggers use colorful language or speak explicitly about topics which may offend some of you. Follow at your own risk. These two are by influential web developers: http://www.scottandrew.com/ http://www.zeldman.com/ For some reason this one is really popular: http://www.jish.nu These are personal blogs that I follow regularly: http://tycho.i8.com/ http://www.bluishorange.com My own blog is at: http://www.mindonfire.com Hope this clarifies more than it confuses! John Remy UC Irvine >From kcmadsen@utah-inter.net Wed Jul 24 23:16:18 2002 I know that blogging is what they call those personal webpages where the author rambles on about anything and everything...an internet journal, if you will. But I can't figure out where the term derives from--biography and log? blabby and log? Anyone know? Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 24 Jul 2002 22:25:32 -0700 on 7/23/02 7:34 PM, Eric R. Samuelsen at ersamuel@byugate.byu.edu wrote: >> Problems of poverty and ignorance aren't solvable via programs no >matter >> how intelligently conceived or adequately funded. The belief that they >> are is contributing to those problems. > > Demonstrably false. A great many governmental programs to alleviate poverty > are quite successful, provided that they are adequately funded and > intelligently administered. There is not a single government program that alleviates poverty, except for those who administrate the program. They would certainly be poor if they weren't consuming 73% of the welfare dollars. > >> They are personal problems and >> must be solved on a personal basis, and even then solutions are only >> possible if people are motivated to solve them. > > This sounds very much like blaming the poor for their poverty. It is quite > true that the motivation of someone in poverty is a key to escaping it. But > the working poor I've met (and in our old ward, they were very much the > majority), work a good deal harder than I do, and are highly motivated to > escape poverty. They can't, not because they're not smart enough, not > motivated enough, not driven enough, but simply because it's next to > impossible. And the programs which could help aren't adequately funded. This > is an article of faith on the right, that programs intended to alleviate > poverty don't work and make bad situations worse. It's not true; never has > been. Obviously some programs work better than others. > In many cases the poor are to blame for their poverty. King Benjamin said not to judge them but to give freely. So far so good. He did not say "I shall point a gun in your face and threaten you with ruin and jail unless you fund the poor with more money than you make working." Welfare programs in some states bring in more than $40,000 per family. That's a fabulous living in some of the places I've lived. When I was making $20,000 I was paying 15% of my pay so that someone who didn't work could get $32,000 per year (which is the AZ level). Utterly unfair because I was not given a choice. How can somebody who gets $32,000 per year in Arizona remain poor? It takes real work to manage that--this is a really cheap place to live. If the problem of poverty is to be solved by taking from productive and giving to the lazy, then what good is it? It has only made a change for the worse, which is why the pilgrims abandoned their little "communism" at Plymouth. >> Again, I like the >> church's methods of handling poverty and ignorance because however >> flawed the decision-makers involved are, they're at least personal, >> available, and start from a position of intimate knowledge of the real >> situation. It's a tough system to defraud, and one that is often >> eschewed for the easier options available from other sources-->preventing >> the long-term solutions that would truly alleviate suffering. > > I'm a big fan of the Church welfare program. It helps. In conjunction with > government programs to alleviate poverty, it can make a difference. Up to a > point. > The difference is that the Church welfare program works. Government programs aren't doomed to failure merely because they're administered by the government. Bureaucracy is the weakness of government, it is not inherent. The distance from the problem and the insulation of many layers below makes for foolish decisions and immoral behavior in the extreme. The federal and state welfare system is immoral because it operates by force and because it perpetuates problems to always get a yearly increase in funding. It requires the poor to continue to exist, so they will always remain among us. The weakness of all totalitarian systems is force and deceit--which are really the same thing. >> King Benjamin's solution to poverty wasn't governmental at *all*. He >> didn't tell his people, "You aren't doing enough to help the poor so I'm >> going to take your stuff away and do it for you." He *could* have done >> so (he *was* king) and he might arguably have done some actual good if >> he had. Instead, though, he worked by example (by refusing to live a >> life of leisure) and by entreating his people to care for the poor among >> them. He rallied them to their personal duty, not to some governmental >> program. He *had* force he could have employed, he chose instead to >> teach and leave people to their responsibility. > > We don't know that. His great talk, the greatest ever given on the subject, > doesn't address issues of taxation at all. It doesn't say anything about the > existence of government programs or the lack thereof. We can conclude that > what he's talking about urging greater private support for private charity, or > we could just as easily conclude that he's urging his people to be less > grudging in their support of public assistance. The text supports either > interpretation. What I think he's saying is "I'm the king, but look at my > palace. Pretty shabby! I've kept your taxes pretty low when it comes to > supporting me. That was so tax dollars could be spent where they're most > needed, to support the poor. So get with the program and pay up what you > owe." > > Eric Samuelsen > If our present government would say that there really would be no poverty in America. In the eighties when taxes went down charitable giving rose much more sharply than ever before. People don't like being forced. The most generous person in the world can get riled when somebody tries to force her to pony up. It makes on mulish. I dont' resent any of the charitible donations I've made, and I don't resent the people who benefit from them, quite the contrary. But I resent every single person on government welfare no matter how deserving because they are robbing me. I resent social security because three generations ago they voted my pay into their pockets by falling for that ridiculous ponzi scheme. Like I'm ever going to see any of that money back. I'd have had more fun burning it. Adam Smith did not invent capitalism. He didn't really invent anything. All he did was observe more lucidly than anyone had done before--or since. Capitalism was invented by Karl Marx, and reactionaries fell into the trap and took up the label. There is no capitalist system--it is just the natural order. A commercial republic like the USA has the rule of law and the absolute need for religion and morality to harness nature instead of trying to contain it. Every other system tried is just an attempt to subjugate the free decisions of free people. No society is free that does not have the freedom to spend money freely. Since God puts such a high value on personal responsibility it is impossible that any society where Jesus openly rules would be ordered in any other manner than freely. Freedom and responsibility are the same thing, and by accepting welfare from the government one surrenders freedom along with responsibility. I have lived in several areas where poverty is indeed difficult to escape, particularly in TN and Chile. People do it every day despite the difficulty. I've done it myself--twice. I know what it is to be utterly desperate and seemingly trapped, but it turns out that traps can be broken and desperation doesn't really last if you struggle on. Poverty will only vanish when vice does, so in the meantime it would be best for people to personally take an interest in someone they can help, instead of paying 10,000 bureaucrats to administer a program for 800 people. There is no lack of funding--if funding would solve the problem then the $6 trillion dollars spent so far would've made a larger dent. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 25 Jul 2002 08:13:14 -0700 > I thought myself really cool to be still into rock music on into the > eighties. But when it deteriotated (pardon the opinion word) into grunge > and alternative (don't hate me, Parkin), I mourned the end of true rock and > roll. But never, from Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock on to The > Scorpions, did I think of it as evil, or think I should give it up when I > joined the Church. You know, the waltz, now considered suitable mainly for > the old poops, was considered scandalous and fast when it was first > introducted to English society around 1814. I was with ya until the bit about grunge. (I grew up as a teenager in the Seattle grunge scene, got to see all the bands in little clubs before they got popular. It wasn't grunge that destroyed rock'n'roll--it was the major labels over producing cookie cutter bands left and right.) But don't dispair. There is still good rock being made, it's just not on the radio. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lynette Jones Subject: Re: [AML] Elijah Able Society Date: 25 Jul 2002 12:18:38 -0600 Rich Hammett wrote: >I've got a historical question, from somebody who lives in the south, >but was fairly young in 1978--wasn't this official Church doctrine? >I'm not quite sure what makes something "official", but I heard this >doctrine preached from the pulpit, and I'm pretty sure I read it in >lessons that had made it through the correlation committee. This is a long reply, but I have wanted to share this for a long time. I hope it will help us be able to heal this wound, to cease to continue to rip it open. I did live in the South from 1969 to 1980 and will never forget the joyous day of 1978 and the revelation on the priesthood and all worthy members. I know for a fact that when I was challenged in the school court yard on this issue which had never been taught in my home, I went straight to my father/bishop and challenged him. My father grew-up in the Avenues in Salt Lake City and had personally known several general authorities and one or two presidents. His father had actively proselyted the soldiers on State Street during WWII, with my father at his side. My father had served in young mens programs in Washington, New York and New Jersey, in a bishopbric in California, and as Branch President/Bishop in Illinois before being Branch President/Bishop in Asheville, North Carolina. He had served as a seminary teacher of early morning seminary in New Jersey and Illinois. Maybe that doesn't qualify him to know what church doctrine was then, but when I asked him my questions, he seemed to have been exposed to the question and comfortable in telling me his answer. While my father validated the restriction of priesthood authority for black members, he explained that we really did not know why this was so. He said that he expected that we would some day know, but that for now, it was not nearly so important as that we pray that the day would soon come that the rule would be changed. He expressed to me and reassured me that he was sure that the rule would change sometime soon. It was later that I came back because of a member's casual reference to the curse of Cain. Again, my father stated that we really did not know and did not need to know, so much as we needed to pray that the day for change would come soon. It was often a matter of prayer for me for sometime after that. I was 20 1/2 years and visiting/working for my aunt in Germany when that fateful June day occurred. Funny how it was June. I remember thinking how strange my convert uncle's reaction was to my happiness. His question was "Are you happy about this?" "Oh yes, we've waited for this for so long!" He walked away to ponder that one and I to wonder. Maturity has taught me about his concern, though it has not changed my viewpoint. I understand that many members of the church covered this issue and used such things as the curse of Cain theory to justify prejudices and/or concerns. However, it remained just that, a theory. There was never a revelation canonized into the accepted LDS scriptures that supported it. I think that even now in LDS church meetings I meet everything on the rule that we are all given as members the responsibility to ask for revelation. When I hear anyone, even a general authority speak, I am constantly evaluating what is said by what I read in all the scriptures and hear from the prophet. I have had many a personal revelation validated by what is said in General Conference. I have also heard things there occasionally and nearly every Sunday in my Ward that I put a cautionary flag on and post it in my "wait and see" shelf or my "experiment up the word" shelf. That, I was taught as a child, is the duty for each Latter-day Saint. It has been a wonderful journey to see the growing up of the United States under an inspired constitution and the LDS church under inspired leadership over the 40+ years of my life. How grateful I am for the miracles of God's handy work among men. And we are not done yet. President Hinckley has said that the United States Government will never again be able to stand apart and allow 20,000 of her citizens be forced from their homes in the dead of winter. Well, neither will she ever be able to tolerate slavery again. The next step is that we must still strive against the sex slave trade. It will someday be conquered, but only with the freewill of the people of this country. I would like to include the following if Jonathan does not mind: These are some earlier thoughts on the matter of the transition time of the 1970's. I often wonder if I will ever find a way to tell you what it is like to earn the respect of people who look upon you as a stranger. I was never one of them, but then I was a Yankee moving into southern town and a 8th generation Mormon among staunch Baptists, Evangelists and Presbyterians. I was a woman educated in world politics living brought into the back hills of isolated Appalachia by my father's job change. I was never one of any of them. However they respected me in spite of the choices I made to be peculiar and I was as happy as a teenage with my challenges could be. I made a choice to be so. I did not realize at the time that I entered Valley Springs Elementary School that I was entering upon an historic moment. I did know that I had left good friends behind in Moline, IL. I never again was able to form a friendship like those I had left behind. I have found as a mother that this is a problem typical to 11 years old who move out of reach of their old neighborhoods. But, at the moment, in my naivety, I sought out a friendship among my classmates. In the process, my differences where brutally brought into my awareness. There was not one piece of playground equipment for the fifth grade when we went out to recess. There was not even a bat and ball to use on the ball diamond. So the pass time, three times a day was to stand about in groups and gossip, discuss, interrogate and challenge. Watching each other, and learning a lot about the class distinctions in our groups were our daily fair. I just had no clue, not having grown up in such a situation. I had left a school that had been populated by mixed races and incomes. We had either brought our jacks, ropes Chinese jump ropes and balls from home or shared with those who had them. We rotated among the groups and had very loving and thorough adult supervision. Unlike the tails I hear from my children here in Utah, we were kept busy enough to avoid serious consideration of class or other distinctions. We all loved getting out for recess. Now, I was in a nearly all white school, though I did not realize it at first because I take such delight in seeing differences, even within families. The process of finding friends to associate with, peers who would let me join their discussions, and something to play with was frustrated by the fact that the children had grown up with class distinctions. I ruled my conduct by the standards of the gospel: 1. Everyone is a child of God. 2. Heavenly Father wants all of his children to someday return to him. 3. In order to return to Him, all of his children must have the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel. and then the last from my father, 4. If a person is not yet ready to accept what you have shared, they are still a child of God, loved by him and by me. 5. My own rule, no matter who was walking toward me, I would offer them a smile and a welcoming greeting. We didn't UNDERSTAND each other, but through my efforts to share the gospel and learn where each of them was on the path back to Heavenly Father, we did learn to allow for our differences. Things began to settle down. Little did most of us understand the history in the making of our own community. Finally, two and half years after I moved to North Carolina, the school district condemned the "Shiloh" school so that the black community would consent to permit their children to be integrated into the larger school. Our Elementary School (grades 1-8), was at last integrated. My class elected our first class president as eighth graders. Marvin Johnson was the best candidate and we thought the world of him. So what if he was black. (1971) When we graduated in 1976, he was the best singer and he sang our class song as well as doing a number of other things in the program. He was still the best. Well, we're ALL growing up now. All of us are learning to be happy to be ourselves, finally. We are also finding a self-respect in our ancestry and how it defines who we are. And isn't it nice that we're closer to the point where we can all CELEBRATE diversity! Hooray! Of course there are differences, and how wonderful differences are (even when they hurt or take away from us, we have such a wonderful opportunity to grow from pain ). Diversity keeps the world from being boring! It wasn't till I moved to Utah in the 1985 that I realized that there were actually LDS who were still apologizing for the church and Heavenly Father. I realize now that I probably met them in other places, but they never found it necessary to enlighten me. I have gradually come to understand the purpose of professional apologists. They have their place. We must as a church and as individuals answer criticisms and judgements of others. Through this process we will continue to define ourselves. That is part of growing up. I feel like Utah is behind much of the rest of the church in this matter. I feel like saying to a lot of 8th generation Utahns, "Get your head out of the sand!" Aren't we funny, how we think we have so much here in Utah. What if even funnier is how much we don't realize that we are missing out on. What troubles me most here in Utah is that even now, I have only met one black person in Utah that did not meet my smile and greeting with suspicion. I am very grateful that I finally met that wonderful young woman in the temple the other day. I hope to go to Genesis Group soon. May be that will be a good experience too. Just a few years after I moved to Utah, I had an interesting experience at a Stake Women's Conference. Our featured speaker was a African American woman in the Tab Choir who once marched with Rev. King and Rev. Jackson. I started to share with her some of my experiences and she stopped me and told me in her own words that love will conquer all. And so it is. Even after a heated discussion, that increase of love will allow both sides of any disagreement to agree to disagree. Parley P. Pratt has said of the South that there is more of the house of Israel there than any other part of the United States. My impression when I read the quote in context was that he was referring to the lost 10 tribes. They are a precious, devout group of people. My High School Graduating class reunions are fun time for me to return to the Appalachian Hills to celebrate the love I feel for a large group of diverse people, none of whom, to my knowledge ever joined the LDS Church, but I know the seeds were planted in the great faith of a little girl who trusted that all her pain and effort was not wasted. It just has not started to rain on the lost 10 tribes yet. [Lynette Jones] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 25 Jul 2002 14:37:18 -0700 John Williams wrote: >snip >Of course, when you begin to distinguish between >"music" and the lyrics in music, then it becomes a little >harder to conflate the "good" and the "bad." But it is, of >course, still the same--just sound in the air. Swear >words are just more sound in the air (have you ever >noticed how non-threatening a cuss word in another >language sounds?). >snip No! I've been sworn at in several languages while serving in the navy during the `cold war,' and in my years of working in construction or commuting on public transportation in San Francisco. Even though I didn't always catch all the ramifications, innuendos, references to genetics, connotations and denotations of the words being flung at me, It was unmistakably derogatory, threatening and offensive. >snip >Now, you may feel that those particular letters, strung >together like that, have been unjustly ascribed this >terrible connotation (well, denotation, really). Maybe >your last name is F---. Whatever. But it would be an act >of supremely forced innocence to declare that those >letters placed together--considering the enormous >interpretive power of our language community--are >neither "good" nor "bad." (A bit like continuing to use the >word "gay" when calling someone happy). One would >have to be supremely confident in one's spirituality to >begin using the F-word on a regular basis, and not >experience at least SOME spiritual backlash, mainly >because one NEEDS an interpretive community in order >to progress spiritually (if you are a Mormon, it's difficult >not to accept that point). >snip I wonder how Mr. Frick feels when he hears people saying things like, "The frickin' cop gave me a ticket." Unfortunately our signifiers are metamorphic by nature. Over time the meaning of words change. Sometimes it is difficult for older speakers to change their mental lexicons to suit the times. I got accused of being a sexist because I used the word housewife when discussing the availability of technology to the general public in our world marketplace. And I have been guilty of referring to myself, or worse yet, others, as feeling `gay' when what I truly meant was in a euphoric mood. As far as the F word goes I agree that it isn't advisable to go around using that word, nor any of its substitutes. If the message we intend to communicate must needs refer to sexual intercourse, then that is what we should say. However in our writing, especially in vernacular dialogue, it sometimes becomes necessary to write F_ _ _ (sorry). Not too many people know that this word is derived from a perfectly innocent acronym that became a word simply because it was easier to say it than say the letters of the notation on the London police blotter that went along with the offense of - For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. First they began writing in the logs- F._._._. then they began pronouncing it like it sounds, then people began using it to denote the act of soliciting or procuring the services of prostitutes. Now people who find the word too offensive use words like frick, freak, frig, etc. It's kind of like darn, heck, sugar, or Cheese and Rice. My point is if you have to think about the meaning of the inappropriate word long enough to come up with an acceptable euphemism then you've already tarnished your mind. But that is why we have repentance. I grew up on bad language. I didn't join the church until I was 17, and by the time I was 5, I could swear like a drunken sailor. When I was baptized and ordained I had to give the young men in the priesthood my permission to slug me as hard as they could on the shoulder every time I uttered an expletive deleted. And even now 49 years later when I'm alone and something happens that raises my ire, I might just utter a blue streak. In order to maintain a personal relationship with the Holy Ghost, I think we each should try, to the best of our ability, to keep our speech impeccable, and refrain from listening to, uttering, or writing offensive words. I realize that in our writing, when we are dealing with conflict or evil, it is sometimes necessary to write these kinds of words, just as it is sometimes necessary to get the point across on stage, on screen, or , I suppose, in music. When these occasions come up I think we (enlightened writers) need to take extra time to decide whether it is really necessary in order to make our point. Regards, Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Institutional Repentance Date: 25 Jul 2002 16:58:52 -0600 ___ Thom ___ | It allowed the untruths of certain very important Apostles | and their Sons-in-Law to be published with the apparent | agreement of the Church. We realize now that Mormon Doctrine | by McConkie contained thousands of doctrinal errors and even | though it was initially quashed, it was eventually published. | Several generations of Mormons were influenced by MD and its | personal opinions posing as official doctrine. The | institution (meaning the Church) could have insisted that | the book never be published and even now, could insist that | it be taken off the market. ___ I'm not sure how this relates to institutional repentance. You obviously don't *like* _Mormon Doctrine_ but I'm not sure how its existence is an institutional "sin" nor what you mean in the above relative to the notion of institutional repentance. Is there anything without error? Let us not confuse error with sin nor repentance with perfection. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. Date: 25 Jul 2002 21:13:35 -0600 ___ Gae ___ | I think you are right about English professors not being | (on average) as thoroughly grounded in history of | philosophy as those in the philosophy department. But | nonetheless English departments use deconstructive | criticism and most current literary theory is derived | from poststructuralist, postmodern-kinds of (non)roots. | Not only in English departments, but throughout the | academy, postmodernism has changed the way we do | business. ___ I think the problem is that it isn't an issue of being grounded in the *history* of philosophy but rather philosophical thinking. I personally don't think one can do deconstruction (at least of the sort Derrida and de Man engage in) without that philosophical background. While I think the line between literature and philosophy gets blurred, that doesn't mean that it reduced. Derrida in particular makes very careful readings. Postmodernism has changed the way literature and the humanities in general do business. However I think that the critics of postmodernism are able to make the attacks they do because the way it has changed business isn't always in a rational fashion. ___ Gae ___ | So one way to respond to the critics of the changing politics | of scholarship is to say that nobody really knows what is | going on (except in the Father discipline of philosophy) so | how can we be critical. ___ If no one knows what is going on and people admit that to the critics it establishes the critics point. The problem is that the originators of postmodernism required a careful, examined, reasoned reading of texts. This is true of Heidegger, Derrida and others. When you raise the statement/question of "how can we be critical" it can be read in two ways. The first is as a statement in which one is ironic. The point is to assert that we can't be critical. The second is the question which asks how to be critical. While I suspect your writing that in that manner was unconscious it is interesting how it does illustrate the issue. ___ Gae ___ | I think the critics are often just saying (perhaps as you | note very ignorantly of the philosophical roots) that | they don't like the new politics and the way power is | shifting. ___ I think the critics are actually saying that there is a lot more gobbly-gook out there. Further that postmodernism allows some to justify a rejection of rigor and the assumption that if you can fake the style that you've delivered the content. The fact that so many people *can't* tell the difference between solid work and questionable work suggests that perhaps many ought not to be writing in that genre. The problem with power and politics is that because people can't tell what is or isn't good that it is easy to hoodwink the ignorant. Thus you have lines of power developing which aren't based upon scholarship or reason. My criticism is simply to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Get people who *can* discern what is good and emphasize rigor. Don't simply give up on it. ___ Gae ___ | Religion is "in" again, along with all other marginal | discourses, because scientific discourse has lost its | absolute stranglehold on truth. ___ What do you mean by "scientific discourse?" I think that aspects of postmodernism have "rediscovered" the transcendent. However I'm not sure that relates to science. What *did* happen is that certain humanity departments, when science was so successful in organizing the world, tried to appropriate it to realms where it wasn't suited. However realize that I'm suggesting that a lot of philosophical discourse is being likewise misappropriated. Only it is even harder to follow than traditional science and has therefore greater degree of abuse. (Although I personally think most advanced physics is still more difficult than any postmodern text I've studied) I think that many of the critical schools of the first half of the 20th century epitomized this abuse of science. I think Marxist criticism and thinking in general is the epitome of this kind of misappropriation of "science." Karl Popper has written a great deal on that. While he is definitely in the modernist tradition, I think his comments about Marxism in several books applies in many ways to the "new" revolution of "postmodernism." Of course all of this is my view as an outsider to the humanities departments looking it. ___ Gae ___ | I don't know if I would like to judge the value, interest or | even usefulness of a philosophy or a philosophical movement | by how well it can be used to prop up the Mormon position. | I think Mormons are very good indeed at finding correspondence | between Mormonism and almost any philosophy we may find | important. ___ That's not really what I'm saying. While we might find correspondence (parallels) between any two systems of thought, the fact is that some systems can't explain others. So, for example, Newtonian determinism can't explain modern science nor can it explain the mind. I'll not go through why I think postmodern phenomenology or process thought is important for Mormons. It's quite beyond the scope of this discussion. However there are many elements of Mormonism (such as our view of spirits) which can't be explained by many kinds of philosophy. I think that the philosophy of modernity (roughly the manner of thinking after Descartes) tended to adopt a way of thinking about the world in terms of *things*. This has led to certain ways of approaching problems that makes some issues unclear. Further I think that the early form of this tendency to think of the world in terms of *things* also led to a lot of the problems (from an LDS point of view) in early Christianity. It is why such things as the notion of the Trinity arose. (The problem of the Trinity really is only a problem when you have a certain view of "substance" as a thing) ___ Gae ___ | But I think one reason that Lacan and Rorty appeal to English | department people is because the metaphor and play of language | they employ is so fascinating, so complex, that the poetic | mindset is drawn in. ___ Which can be fine. But then some people say the same about free verse. There is a lot of crappy free verse out there. Actually I don't mind Rorty. I think he is the modern heir to the skeptical school. I'm uncomfortable calling him a pragmatist, given his differences from some of my favorite philosophers, like Peirce. But I think some of his writings are interesting even if they turn out to be subtle reformulations of old skeptical arguments. Skeptics are important because they often drive the real creative thinkers to create their works. After all Kant wrote what he did in trying to avoid the nihilism that seemed to arise from Hobbes. Neitzsche both anticipated the nihilism contained in pushing modernity too far and then tried to overcome that nihilism. Heidegger too was trying to overcome that. Indeed a lot of philosophy and movements arise just out of that conflict. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. Date: 25 Jul 2002 21:30:06 -0600 ___ Jacob ___ | I said "politicized postmodernism" very deliberately so that I | could avoid the very arguments you make. If you had read her | posts (or my responses), you'd know that Erin O'Connor isn't | saying anything against *postmodernism*. But the politicized | version of postmodernism (postmodernism that is internalized as | a tool to advance a social agenda) has taken over much of | academia--to our detriment. ___ I don't see why the *use* of postmodernism matter. Why is "politicized postmodernism" worse than "politicized modernism." There's nothing inherently wrong with politics nor pushing an agenda. The authors (which I did read) simply tried to make it seem like there was. However the issue isn't politicalization but shoddy thinking. If we keep the focus on the quality of thinking I think the issue goes away. By saying "politicized" postmodernism is bad you really are drawing up a line of power in which different thinking is OK so long as no one acts on it. i.e. that there is a particular manner of thinking which is appropriate to action and the political sphere. This then is to emasculate the power of people who hold to some of the arguments found within postmodernism. This is odd since I think the "politicized" postmodernism has made quite a few very helpful political attacks. While it tends to get demonized as a "liberal" theory the fact is that it isn't. (I'm quite conservative, for instance) Further long before the fall of the Soviet Union postmodern criticism had seriously undercut if not destroyed traditional Marxist political theory in Europe. It pretty well devastated traditional psychotherapy (a bane on the face of the earth nearly the equal of Marxism IMO) Indeed Lacan is, in many ways, a thinker trying to rescue some remnant of a Freudian approach to humanity. Michael Foucalt is well thought of by such analytical thinkers as John Searle because they read Foucalt as showing the inherent relativity of Freudian inspired political thought. (Although Searle *hates* Derrida, somewhat justifiably) My point is that while postmodernism may advance a social agenda, it is a postmodern social agenda. And what is wrong with postmodernists advancing a postmodern agenda? Is it worse than the early mechanists in science advancing their Newtonian agenda against the earlier Aristotilean and Renaissance views of society and life? All I ask (and what I fear is ignored) is that we analyze the arguments rigorously and test them to see if they work. Instead of this being done we have cries that a social agenda is being advanced. Which tends to move the discussion from the realm of the strength and utility of ideas to the correspondence to dogma. ___ Jacob ___ | At the same time, it sucks as a means of social organization | and should not be allowed to dominate the academic sphere so | uncritically. ___ I'm not sure what you mean by "it sucks as a means of social organization." I'm afraid I can't quite wrap my mind around that. Was postmodernism ever *giving* a univocal guide for organizing groups socially? Perhaps I've just read the wrong texts, but most of the criticism of that sort I've read was coming from European Marxists who saw their views of dialectic being undercut and Freudians who saw their nice established codes from reading humans confounded. So it certainly does destroy the ability of some to organize others. But is that a bad thing? I'm all for a move to a Laissez Faire exchange of ideas that are decided on their individual merits rather than judged against some social organizing or organization. However, as with capitalism, it does require the vigilant and attention of those exchanging the ideas. Put an other way, postmodernism puts the responsibility on the reader not the social organizer. Caveat emptor. What I see going on in academics is akin to what is going on with the stock market. It is easy to pull the wool over the eyes of those who don't want to see. The only difference is that instead of money and high stock values the exchange in academia is published papers and prestige. So perhaps some regulation is in order when the body won't police itself. However what I think ought to be regulation is simply (in both cases) fraud and not the market itself. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Gerald Lund's Fiction Date: 25 Jul 2002 20:54:44 -0700 Okay, I'll ask. In what way was Lund "inspired" to write TW&TG? And in what way was he inspired to write this new series? Frankly, I fail to see inspiration working here. Nothing against Mr. Lund, but "inspired"?? -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Colin Douglas Subject: Re: [AML] RE: Postmodernism (was: English Departments Etc.) Date: 25 Jul 2002 21:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Please--I would very much like to get you started on this. ---Colin Douglas William Morris wrote: This quote from the essay captures my experience with postmodernism in the academy: "Some Latter-day Saint and other religious thinkers find postmodernism helpful because it helps them identify cultural and intellectual elements that we have taken for granted because we live in a world that is very much a creation of modernism, itself one of the effects of the apostasy." [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Dutcher, Mitchell, Parkin, Duffy and Me Date: 25 Jul 2002 23:05:14 -0600 Darlene Young wrote: >>> Parkin complains that he's "not sure it's entirely fair [for Duffy] to condemn Dutcher for failing to deliver on Duffy's hopes for more complex storytelling." But I feel that it is not without value for a critic to encourage greater complexity and point out where the work could improve. <<< If I suggested that one shouldn't criticize an author's/artist's work, that was far from what I intended. Heaven knows I've spent a fair amount of time recently criticizing both Gerald Lund and Linda Paulson Adams for taking easier roads to plot when I wish they had taken more complex ones. I don't argue that Dutcher's couldn't have told a more complex story--he could have, and I hope he will in the future. But it seemed to me that Duffy was rejecting the film as inadequate because of its perceived simplicity, where I believe the film succeeded on its own terms and was far more complex than Duffy gave it credit for being. And I'm guilty as charged for wanting to see positive comment on Dutcher's film--something I believe Duffy offered precious little of. I thought Dutcher made a very good film and that it deserves some praise in the midst of the calls for improvement. I tried to offer some of that in my comments. As a good friend of mine once noted about literary critique groups--only pointing out the flaws of a piece will eventually result in a piece with no errors, but that may lack any strongly successful qualities as well. My approach is to point out both what worked and what didn't rather than just focusing on what could have been better. I feel it's a more complete approach to encouraging more and better work in the future. >>> Later, Parkin says, "Duffy seems to be looking for hidden messages that I'm not sure are really intended." Of one of the "hidden" messages of the film that Duffy discusses, Scott says, "Certainly it's in there and functions as a recurring theme, but I'd hesitate to say that it's a primary (or secondary or even tertiary) message of the story." <<< I offered the opinion that I thought Duffy was examining hidden messages *at the expense* of more overt ones. I explicitly granted that such hidden messages may well exist, but thought Duffy overemphasized a hidden message that I don't believe was in the film--that Dutcher (and with him Mormonism) saw the world only in black and white terms. I thought the film said almost exactly the opposite, and I argued that interpretation through the rest of my comments. Just a different interpretation, and obviously not one that all readers will agree with. On the specific example, I was actually relating Duffy's reduction of the film to the statement "the Saints cannot afford to be gullible" to a similar reduction of _Gulliver's Travels_ to "it's dangerous to travel by sea." I think both statements are vastly oversimplified reductions of substantially more complex offerings, and argued not that such content wasn't in there, but that elevating this one idea to become the primary theme of the film was a stretch and not supported by other elements of the film. In other words, I thought Duffy really wanted to criticize the broad Mormon community and used Dutcher's film as a foil for that social criticism. In the process I believe he strained elements of the film to support his own preconceived criticism of Mormon society. Like every human on the planet, I think he carried a chip on his shoulder as he approached the film. Like Duffy, I carry my own chip; it's just shaped differently and rests on the other shoulder. In the end, it's just an opinion and of no more ultimate value than any other. >>> Parkin seems to be saying that we should not use messages that were not consciously inserted into the work as support for criticism about the work. <<< That was not my intent. I believe that often the most powerful messages occur at a level below the author's own conscious control, and that one of the many roles of criticism is to interpret a story through a variety of filters and worldviews. But I grant no critic unchallengeable interpretation of any story--not even when authors criticize their own work (perhaps especially when authors criticize their own work). I disagreed with some of Duffy's conclusions, but that is not the same thing as saying he's not allowed to have them. In fact, if the time ever comes when all viewers and/or critics agree on the ultimate value and interpretation of anything, I will argue that the story was so simplistic and bland as to be of no value to a thinking audience. Use whatever messages you want as support for criticism. And allow me the same privilege--and the right to disagree with both the examples and the conclusions. Though I am not trained in criticism, I had understood that part of the goal was to establish dialog, not only between one critic and the author, but among many critics that take different fundamental interpretive approaches. Theoretically, by analyzing a work from many different angles we have a better chance to reveal the work in all of its complexity. John-Charles Duffy's is only one of many possible interpretations--as is mine. >>>I have two problems with this: first, how can we prove which messages, themes, etc. were inserted consciously and which subconsciously? And second--and more important--in order for criticism to be criticism we must assume that all elements of a work are functions of the artist's will. Otherwise, of what use is criticism? I don't say that it's impossible that Dutcher made some "mistakes" in the film or that elements of his subconscious influenced it--but I do say that we cannot discount a critic's argument (as Parkin seems to be saying of Duffy's) by saying that his evidence is based on "unintended" elements. <<< I haven't asked anyone to discount Duffy's criticism. I came to different conclusions and argued my conclusions using Duffy's observations as a foil for that argument. Isn't that also part of what criticism is about--to argue different interpretations and worldviews? Of course I believe my interpretation to be more correct, but I claim no authority in that belief and deny no one their own interpretations. I strenuously disagree with the idea that "all elements of a work are functions of the artist's will." I don't hold that the artist has full control over his work, and never has. I believe it's often the unconscious subtexts that offer the most substantial and powerful messages. Again, in this case I just think John-Charles elevated a minor theme to primary status, and I disagree with the conclusions he drew as a result. I'm not sure how much value there is in trying to establish what elements the author intended versus those that came in subconsciously. If it's in there, it's in there--now we argue the relative imporatance of different points and which themes overshadowed others. In fact, I would argue that one of the functions of criticism is to reveal not only the overt messages, but the interpretted subtexts. Duffy did that quite well; I just disagreed with some of his interpretations and many of the conclusions based on those interpretations. I don't think that's at all the same thing as discounting his criticism. But I do have to ask: Am I required to accept Duffy's--or even Dutcher's--interpretations as untouchable? Am I required to accept his assumptions and his critical methodologies as the only valid ones? I don't think I am, though I do believe that I'm required to accept a well-argued criticism as one real and valid interpretation (of, hopefully, many). Which I do with Duffy's paper--at the same time that I interpretted it differently. As you read the two pieces side by side, you can't help but notice the substantially different styles and the fact that John-Charles wrote a very clean academic style essay, while I wrote a rambling pop-critical response. I'm more than a little embarrassed to see the two pieces together, because mine offers little of the style and panache and clear academic thinking that Duffy's does. Duffy wrote criticism; I wrote commentary on his criticism. Quite different things, in the end. >>> Always I believe and always I say on the List that criticism has immense value to the potential improvement of Mormon letters and that we do no favors by going easy on each other when it comes to criticism. When Duffy accuses Dutcher of being simplistic, I see behind that a belief that Dutcher could do better--or at least that SOMEONE could do better. Criticism implies a belief in the potential of an art. When we examine a work, we must give the creator all the credit for every element of it as if each tiny part was placed thoughtfully (which I believe Dutcher deserves). <<< Here we just disagree. I believe the artist has great control over his work, but I believe that there is both context and subtext associated with the artist's work that the author is largely unware of and that can only be fully and successfully revealed by an outside critical community. I believe a critic can help an author get *more* control over the explicit and implicit meanings of their work, but ultimately I think there will always remain one or more levels of interpretation that require a far larger context than any author can provide within the pages of a single work. I have to mention that while Duffy was criticizing Dutcher's film, I was criticizing Duffy's interpretation of it. So while my comments certainly reference and require a knowledge of _Brigham City_ my comments were more intended as an argument over interpretation, not a direct criticism of the film. I wouldn't even know how to begin a legitimate criticism of Dutcher's film; I'm at best a pop critic who just likes to talk about cool stories. Which is all I was really doing with my response to Duffy's paper--a response that I wrote as a long email post to the AML-List, not as an academic style critical essay. I have no idea how to write real criticism and happily leave that to the professionals. But I do think critics deserve to be challenged just as much as the storytellers do, and defend that effort as being nearly as worthy in establishing the critical dialog as the primary criticism itself. >>> Though on the surface Parkin seems to have higher praise for Dutcher than Duffy does, I believe that Duffy's response is the more complementary--for it gives Dutcher the credit for consciously crafting every detail of the film, and engages Dutcher in a conversation that could lead to even greater work. <<< Thank heaven for that. As I suggested earlier, Duffy wrote criticism and I wrote commentary on that criticism. Mine and Duffy's pieces tried to accomplish different tasks. I agree whole-heartedly that Duffy's paper has more power to spur Dutcher's development as a filmmaker and storyteller; I wrote with a different intent. Duffy wrote to challenge Dutcher; I wrote to challenge Duffy. Different goals. At the risk of beating the horse further, I would like to see more legitimate academic literary criticism in the pages of Irreantum and on this list. I would also like to see more pop criticism offered both in response to the academic work and in direct comment on Mormon letters. As you suggest (and I violently agree), Mormon letters will not develop to meet its full potential if we remain afraid to question the vision, techniques, and methodologies of our storytellers. Criticism of all types and at all levels is part of the dialog that will both improve the works of--and increase the interest in--our uniquely Mormon literature. And if we disagree...Great! It's in that dialog that a better future will be devised. It should be the goal of every Mormon author to start as many fights as possible, else they're not working hard enough. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Millennial Economics Date: 25 Jul 2002 00:52:40 -0600 "Richard R. Hopkins" wrote: > 6. The law of tithing was given to the Church to replace the United Order. > There is some scriptural indication that a tithe (10%) represents the > average amount that we would give back to the community (the excess over our > needs) if we were in the United Order. The law of tithing has been an eternal principle from the beginning. The United Order was an economic experiment Brigham Young performed, and in each city it looked different. The experiment also failed. Tithing, in fact, was still paid during the time of the United Order, but it was paid by the various orders. -- 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] Conflict in Fiction (was: Satan Figures) Date: 25 Jul 2002 01:00:36 -0600 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > Just because there's no conflict between people doesn't mean there won't > be interesting things to write about When a person achieves a level of righteousness that goes beyond choices between good and evil, a new sort of conflict enters that person's life, called the dilemma. This is a choice between two conflicting goods or between two evils with no alternative. How does one choose in such situations? I think dilemmas can be more interesting conflict than the battle between good and evil. The appeal of battles between good and evil (fresh on my mind, having viewed Lord of the Rings again this week) is that they allow average people to find greatness within them as they find themselves immersed in the battle. -- 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] Mormon Utopias Date: 25 Jul 2002 01:11:06 -0600 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > Scarcity is the central feature of *all* economic systems. Scarcity is > a primary feature of our mortal life and I believe deliberately so. > It's a little unreasonable to blame > capitalism for it--particularly when capitalism solves the problem of > scarcity better than any other system we've ever tried. What scarcity is that? I live in the most successful capitalist society ever, and I find very little scarcity when I go shopping. Sure, there are lots of things I can't afford the instant I get it in my head that I want it, but the item is not scarce--it's there at the store waiting for me to figure out how to get the funds to purchase it. Those societies that are truly suffering under scarcity are also those that have eschewed the capitalist system. -- 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: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Marilyn BROWN, _Ghosts of the Oquirrhs_ (Review) Date: 26 Jul 2002 08:47:04 -0600 In reply to Jeff Needle's astute review of GHOSTS OF THE OQUIRRHS. What can I say? I think Jeff Needle is a genius. My sincere wish for all Listers is that they would write their own novel and that Jeff Needle would write a review of it. This is the second one that blows me away. (Just one teeny correction--replace Camp Floyd with Mercur) Thanks, Jeff! Sincerely, Marilyn (AKA Margaret) Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Postmodernism Date: 26 Jul 2002 09:19:25 -0600 [MOD: I have to say that I read this article, and it was hilarious.] The Onion has a great sendup of English postmodernism, or something like it: http://theonion.com/onion3826/grad_student.html Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Utah Native's New Film: Austin Powers in Goldmember Date: 26 Jul 2002 10:49:50 -0500 "Austin Powers in Goldmember" starring Mike Meyers opens nationwide today. The producer is Moab, Utah native Eric McLeod. There are six producers listed on the film, including Myers, but McLeod is the actual hands-on producer. Interestingly enough, the opening sequence of the movie was shot in McLeod's hometown of Moab. McLeod, a graduate of the University of Utah, has produced (or executive produced) a number of other films, including: Showtime (2002), Bubble Boy (2001), The Cell (2000), Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999), Living Out Loud (1998), Wag the Dog (1997), Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997), Feeling Minnesota (1996), and Now and Then (1995). -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance Date: 26 Jul 2002 08:54:48 -0700 I think I'm as angry as Scott is about this incident. It would make for an interesting scene in an LDS novel where part of plot included a woman experiencing this attitude in an interview, and if she felt the need to explain her personal circumstances to the interviewer even though someone inquiring about such a thing is completely ILLEGAL. It is also illegal for anyone to ask in an interview if they have children of any age and if they will require daycare. But I wouldn't be surprised if that is often asked in heavily LDS communities, even though it sounds like Scott's friend has grounds to file a complaint with the EEOC and threaten a possible discrimination law suit. An interviewer ought to know better and the kind of action they're exposing themselves to. Two anecdotes come to mind that would also work in a story. We had a wonderful home teacher that was afflicted with a rare form of arthritis in his early thirties. He and his wife had a toddler son and his wife already had a good job because he had had other health issues so they both decided that he would stay home with their boy and she would be the breadwinner. It worked fine for them, he's very good with kids and she's the more aggressive one and could hold her own in the corporate world just fine. Yet, in spite of the obvious circumstances we had an older man who was called as Bishop and he kept chastising this guy about when was he going to get out there and start supporting his family. There was even someone in our ward in the medical field who saw our home teacher as a patient who tried to tell this Bishop this guy wasn't physically up to full-time outside work, but the mind-set was entrenched and he wouldn't listen. And this Bishop was a good and compassionate man. But he wouldn't set aside his preconceived notions. The Proclamation On The Family makes provision for adaptation of individual circumstances, what more did he want? In another case we have a dear friend who had a flake for a husband. He would get and lose jobs on a regular basis. She wanted to keep the marriage together and everyone supported her in that, if that's what she wanted and did their best to help the family, Bishop included. Eventually after several years she saw that it wasn't going to work and he had no intention of changing, so she dissolved the marriage and went to massage school and works for a chiropractor and on her own, have table, will travel. By no one breathing down her neck it has allowed her to conduct her life with a certain amount of dignity and make decisions not based on eveyone's expectations, but through reason and prayer what was right for her particular situation. My own mother was the breadwinner for a number of years when my dad suffered a back injury that required surgery and disability retirement from the police force. He eventually went into security work, but my mother's paycheck was larger for the rest of their lives. Fortunately, my mom has a combined personality of strength and amiability that has always allowed her to work in a man's world without some of the hassles women can experience. If someone had ever questioned her about the things Scott has mentioned, my tough little Italian mother would've handed them their heads with a smile, thank you very much. This is an institutional repentance that members of the Church need to make. It amazes me the pass some get for abominable behavior in the moral area of being oppresive sob's in marriage, and screwing people in business or having questionable practices to say the least, but by golly-you better fit the mold of dad working, mom at home, or else. Also, the attitude that some LDS men have that if a woman is divorced, then the law of chastity doesn't apply and they can legitimately pressure them for sex. Makes me want to burst a blood vessel. Scott is right, good writing is a way to help effect change. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA Who is fortunate enough to be home with her kids because she wants to, but knows what it's like to have to work outside the home too. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Perry Subject: Re: [AML] Chaim Potok Dies Date: 26 Jul 2002 09:48:03 -0700 (PDT) On Wednesday, Jul 24, 2002, at 04:08PM, JLTyner wrote: >Just watched the DVD of "Fiddler on the Roof" >last week and it stands the test of time, I loved it. > >On the same DVD, Norman Jewison, the director >of "Fiddler" does a reading of some of Chaim Potok's stories. Wouldn't these be the stories of Isaac Bashevis Singer, on whose stories "Fiddler" is based? S. skperry@mac.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 26 Jul 2002 13:14:20 -0600 With all due respect to the idea of music being neutral--hogwash. Who hasn't seen a baby calm down with a soothing lullaby? Hasn't everyone heard a particularly jammin' song and couldn't help but tap their feet when it came on the radio? Why do we sing hymns before the sacrament? (Granted, the intention isn't always successful, but the point is there that we sing to get into the proper frame of mind and mood). I could go on and on with examples, but the point is that those arbitrary sounds, when put together in certain ways, have a tremendous impact--*aside* from the lyrics (Mozart didn't always use lyrics, and his music certainly has a very specific influence, much different than, say, the Cure, which I admit to liking myself). I have certain CDs that I almost can't help but get into a good mood listening to, and I can guarantee that it's not because of uplifting lyrics. It's the actual music, the notes, the drums, the instruments, and so on. Music can affect a listener's heartrate--their entire body, and lyrics aren't necessarily why. By the same token, some music is depressing--in physical, emotional, and/or spiritual ways when I listen to it. That's the kind of music I have no desire to listen to, and I know I need to avoid for myself. Then there's the fact that only a few notes of a song can trigger emotions and memories buried by years and years. Last night my husband and I heard all of one bar of "our song" on the radio, and a second later we were holding hands and smiling like silly lovebirds because of the memories conjured up before the singer even sang a word. My husband loves _The Little Mermaid_, more for the memories and emotions brought on by the music than the show itself. I'm the same with _Beauty and the Beast_. Music is not neutral. We are all affected deeply by music, so we all need to be aware of how we are influenced by different kinds of music so we can make good choices for ourselves--which obviously will be different for everyone, but are important decisions nonetheless. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Institutional Repentance Date: 26 Jul 2002 12:29:41 -0700 My wife replied to this post from Scott but I wanted to put my two cents = in as well since I have been a manager for the last four years. When I read this on Thursday not only did my lips pucker but so did my = sphincter muscle. That guy who did the interviewing was totally brain = dead to not only ask the question but then make the comment he did. If = HR had been told what was said he would have been toast with at the very = least a written reprimand in his file because she could bring State and = Federal charges against the company for even allow that attitude to be = there. This damages an Equal Opportunity Employer's status in a huge = way!!! The company needs to send its people to interview skills training = and this individual needs to get a whack upside the head by one of Ted = William's bats as well as Sensitivity Training!! I do not care if this is a heavily populated LDS area this kind of stuff = should never be tolerated in today's society and especially within = Church members. Why can't or why won't the husband work is for the wife = and husband (and maybe the Bishop) to determine and not her potential = employer!!!!! Literary tie in? Hey, this could be a great book/short story about how a = corporation (Church magazine maybe) was brought down due to the macho = attitude of the hiring managers. What is the old saying: "I own you = now!" Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA Unbelievable righteous indignation over masculine attitudes these = days!!!! -----Original Message----- An interesting question that occured to me a few weeks ago in different terms. A friend of mine tried to get a job at Latter-day Creations here in Orem. This friend is placing herself on the market because her husband is unable to work consistanly right now. In the interview process the fact was exposed that my friend has two small children at home. A cloud appeared over the face of the interviewer. Then my = friend explained that her husband can't work, whereupon the interviewr said, "Can't or won't?" I was livid. Then it occured to me that this is why I write. I believe that if I can infiltrate the culture with my enlightened ideas, I can combat this sort of prejudice and have fun at the same time. It's a = slow way to change an institution, by changing it's constituents one by one, but it's probably the most effective way. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Chaim Potok Dies Date: 26 Jul 2002 13:28:59 -0600 At 09:05 PM 7/24/02 -0600, you wrote: >What a loss. And of course, for those who've read his _Book of Lights_ >there's even a Mormon connection, since he writes about the Mormon >Chaplain's assistant he had in Korea. I recently read The Chosen by Potok, and I'd be interested in anyone's take on that book. I think he accomplished what we have said on this list he models for us -- that is, he wrote about people living the life of their religion and made it compelling, without making it preachy or sacharine. I was fascinated by the characters, although I am quite glad not to have been born among the Hasidic Jews. I found the style a bit jarring because of the short, choppy, spartan sentences, but I know that style is favored for contemporary literature. And he avoided becoming didactic to such an extreme that I am not certain what his own attitude was toward Hasidism or to other flavors of Judaism. It was fascinating to read about the different attitudes the Jews themselves had to the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine. Anyone want to comment on their reactions to this particular novel, and what it might say to us as LDS writers? barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] 1,000+ Capsule Biographies of Latter-day Saint Film Personalities Date: 26 Jul 2002 15:02:20 -0500 The first stage of the "Brief Biographies of Latter-day Saint and/or Utah Film Personalities" section of the ldsfilm.com website is complete. The completed vesions of all of the pages are finished and online (except for "S", which will be online tonight). For most of the individuals listed we have additional biographical information not included in the capsule biography. The bio section is located at: http://www.ldsfilm.com/bio/ Well over 1,000 capsule biographies are provided, covering the majority of film personalities listed on the ldsfilm.com filmography pages (primarily actors, directors, producers, writers, and cinematographers, with some miscellaneous crew such as production designers, costume designers, etc.) There are no biographies for film composers, because the composer page includes links directly to each composer's website. The capsule biographies are listed alphabetically, one page for each letter of the alphabet. Feel free to take a look at your own biography, and feel free to write if you want any changes to it, or if you know of any individuals who aren't listed but should be. webmaster, ldsfilm.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Chaim Potok Dies Date: 26 Jul 2002 14:18:47 -0700 Kimberly Hueston writes: snip--"You know, I'm not sure that is true [using Potok's writing as a role model for LDS writing], although it is a formulation that I myself have used to describe the writing I want to do." and snip--"he told his stories from the point of view of young adults who were leaving the "fold," who ultimately believed that, despite its gifts of community and deep emotional resonance, traditional religion limited the range and power of human understanding and accomplishment." Although some of Potok's characters fit the mole Kimberly describes, and he himself seemed to struggle with religion vs. intellect in his own life, I still think his writing can be an excellent role model for LDS writers, in terms of the honesty of the characters portrayed and their struggles. I think what most mean when they use the words "role model" in regards to Potok's writing is the way Potok he wove the intrinsic Jewish-ness of his characters into the fabric of his stories without trying to convince the reader that their feelings and traditions were right, wrong or indifferent. Each of his characters behaved in very human ways inside the context of their unique culture, history and religious traditions. Some characters turned their backs on those traditions, others honored them, with mixed results on all sides. Life is messy. You deal with it. That's what I see Potok's characters doing in his stories. His last book, OLD MEN AT MIDNIGHT, was a collection of three related novellas. Even now I'm not entirely sure what a lot of it was saying (can ANYONE explain to me why the protagonist of the third story, the historian, saw his neighbor, the writer, as a beautiful, sexy creature when she wasn't writing, and as a frumpy, overweight fright when she was? Is he trying to make some sort of statement of "truth", with a "Shallow Hal" twist?), but it was mesmerizing in all aspects, and I felt as if I gained insights into the hearts of Jewish people who survived concentration camps, Russia under Stalin, and the ordinary-ness of 20th century America. In the end, the "Old Men" found they couldn't deny their roots and the hold those roots had on their lives and hearts. The young strain against traditions, rules, and what they perceive as restraints, but the old see the world in a very different light. Potok's body of work shows a similar shift in views over the years. His later stories focus on human relationships, people loving each other, or the damage done to lives lived without those relationships. Angst about worldviews turns out to be so much noise in the landscape. So I have to say that, yes, Potok should be a role model for Mormon writers--because as humorist Robert Kirby once put it "doesn't matter which herd you belong to, we're all still cows". When LDS writing can reflect the universal in human relationships without trying to convert, when our unique worldview and culture can influence our characters without making them inaccessible to non-LDS people, then we'll tell stories the world will love as much as they loved Potok's work. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: [AML] Request for Prayers Date: 27 Jul 2002 01:12:10 -0700 Friday July 26, 11:58 pm. I had a motherboard crash in early June, and finally got a new (fairly inexpensive) 1.2ghz AMD Duron (I thought it was an Athlon when I ordered it) with Mandrake Linux 8.1 (It really is guru friendly--now I've just got to find a guru), only to find the motherboard had no ISA slots, so I had to order a new modem, which just got here today (USB, which Mandrake recognizes, but I haven't fired up Linux yet--can't get the BIOS to recognize the secondary IDE master, so I have to plug the IDE cable into the Linux or Windows HDD depending on which OS I want to use), so now I can write a few much needed e-mails, instead of writing my news stories on a 486-66 with 4 megs ram and WP5.1 and taking them over to American Fark on my bike. I have heard bits and snatches of the conversation at the library and rejoice to hear of Margaret Young's granddaughter (I think). My father just turned 86 July 13, and it occured to me that if Margaret lives that long she could see her first great-great-grandchild. I spent three hours yesterday working in my father's garden, planting July 24th corn (ok, a day late, but the pioneers probably planted some the second day in the valley as well)--a 68-day variety, and grinding tree prunings and other stuff. "Here, let me show you a trick," and before I stopped him he had pulled the pullcord thrice. Gas in the carburetor and gas tank worked better. He is not as spry as he used to be. Hasn't been for 15 years, but even less so now. I walked into D.I. July 5 and found a copy of Henry Roth's _Mercy of a Rude Stream_, his second novel--published 60 years after his first, _Call it Sleep_ (also a hardback of _Edgar Mint_). Much as I wanted to keep it, I gave it to my father for his birthday. I guess he's halfway through. Broke my heart when he asked, "Have I read _Call it Sleep_?" I remember his enthusiasm for that novel when we read a section in AmLit, The Makers and the Making. OK, this started out with rejoicing and seems to have grown a bit melancholy. Will you forgive me if the mood gets even a bit darker? (I'll try not to sing out of tune.) On July 4 Donna's sister's daughter Sarah, who lived with us before and after her mission, went into labor, and gave birth July 10. As the gap in those dates might suggest, she wasn't supposed to give birth until Oct. 27, and David Jr. (aka Harley (David's son)) wasn't prepared to receive the gift. They had him in newborn ICU at Utah Valley for a few days, very disquieting to see this small person with palms big as the first joint on my finger (so we anointed and laid on fingers) his chest heaving ("That's the ventilator") but he had a heart valve that hadn't closed properly and had to be life-flighted on Sunday the 14th up to Pennies-by-the-Inch Hospital for surgery. They did the surgery Monday morning, the 16, between the time Donna and Sarah drove from Draper to Primary Childrens. Doing well at that point. This past Tuesday afternoon I was riding my bike down the street and my neighbor Larry asked if I'd take churchhouse lockup duty this week. I told him we'd likely be up at the horsespittle most days, but I wouldn't mind going around and rattling doors, but probably not by 10:30 each night ("Why did you tell Larry yes?" Donna asks). "Well, I've got to run over to the chapel and lock up." "Wait for a minute," David said in his sober news voice. "This morning as we were going into the ICU the nurse practitioner stopped us, and said David had developed an infection." And he already had strep throat. And the infection is worse, and not clearing up. So David and Sarah had to decide whether to keep fighting, or take their baby off life support. "We don't know if we can keep him alive even on life support," the dr. said. So tonight Sarah's sister (who wanted to have the baby she just delivered as a home birth--but that's another story), is flying in from TaXes, and her parents are driving in from Warshington. Sarah and David have been spending nights at my sister's place a few miles from the hospital. We had a picnic there on the 24th and her daughter Carrie, who had a baby (that's what going to visit your Kuwait-stationed husband in Germany'll get you) the same time as Sarah, said, "You might ask the baby what he wants." Carrie's baby, Oceana, was born with the cord wrapped around her neck, and it took some doing to revive her. She had also swallowed myconium. Anyway, they are going to take David off life-support tomorrow (actually that's today now, but I'm pretending I'm writing this all on Friday) in the early afternoon. I've been thinking about this for the last few days, that death is going to come at a certain time. It's a wrenching decision for Sarah and David, as it was for my sister Krista, whose husband, Brian, developed a mysterious illness less than 7 months after they were married, which turned out to be a several-years-incubating rabies. "My condolences. The man you married is no longer with us," the dr. said as she was contemplating whether to keep his heart pumping or let him go. (I've written about it in one of my better pieces, "Rock Canyon in January." If you'd care to read it drop me a note.) So by the time you read this we will be preparing for a funeral. Our neighbors have been so kind. One family, all adopted through an agency in Philadelphia, the youngest named Chancy after her prognosis (sickle cell anemia) came to the door with bags and bags of groceries, and gift certificates for gas. (We just had a funeral Monday for their next-door neighbor's preemie grandson who only lived an hour and was so tiny they couldn't get the ventilator tube down his throat.) Another neighbor called last night. She had seen a funeral dress for a two pound baby at Little Things Mean a Lot, and she would bring it over--but no offense taken if they wanted to use something else, she just wanted them to have it available. Anyway, thanks for listening. Good to be back. Any prayers you might send our way would be welcomed and appreciated. Harlow S. Clark, whose cousin Adam Soderborg was on KUER's Radio West this morning. (Adam is 17, has cystic fibrosis, and his Make-A-Wish was to visit the studios of NPR. My cousin Mark, his father, is a colleague of David's stepmother at Snow College in Ephraim, Utah. It looks like David Jr. will be buried in the family plot in Moroni. I would like to help dig the grave.) ________________________________________________________________ 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: "Free50Leads" Subject: Free 50 Opportunity Leads Date: 28 Jul 2002 21:16:36 -0500 FREE LEADS! Special Offer to MLM-Network Marketers=2E Get 50 business opportunity seeker leads=2E No purchase necessary=2E First come first serve=2E Click the following to send us a request=3A mailto=3Aleadsnmoreleads=40profitresponder=2Ecom=3Fsubject=3Dsend-more-info Removal Instruction =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D We belong to the same opt-in list=2E But if this message reached you by errors=2C we apologize for the inconvenience=2E Please click the following to send us a blank message to have your email address removed from our list=2E mailto=3Atakeoffromlist=40excite=2Ecom=3Fsubject=3DREMOVEmailto=3Atakeoffromlist=40excite=2Ecom=3Fsubject=3DREMOVE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: [AML] Unsavory Etymologies (was: "Choose the Rock") Date: 26 Jul 2002 16:19:56 -0700 > Not too many people know that this word is derived from a perfectly innocent > acronym that became a word simply because it was easier to say it than say > the letters of the notation on the London police blotter that went along > with the offense of - For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. First they began > writing in the logs- F._._._. then they began pronouncing it like it > sounds, then people began using it to denote the act of soliciting or > procuring the services of prostitutes. Now people who find the word too > offensive use words like frick, freak, frig, etc. It's kind of like darn, > heck, sugar, or Cheese and Rice. On a literary/etymological tangent, may I note that I don't buy the acronym theory of the F-word's origins. Even the venerable OED says its etymology is unknown. However, let me relate some information from a South African friend of mine which may shed light on this nasty word's origins. Remember that English is not only heavily related to German, but also to Dutch. Anyhow, you know the German aeroplane manufacturing company Fokker? (I think it's been swallowed up in mergers since, but any WWI or WWII fan will recognise the name.) Herr Fokker was of Dutch origins. In Dutch, the verb 'fokken' means 'to breed', as in a farmer who breeds livestock. So Herr Fokker presumably came from a family of livestock breeders. In South Africa, they speak Afrikaans. This was originally Dutch back when the first Boer settlers arrived in the 17th century, but it has evolved in the 3-4 centuries since, as languages do. However, in most ways, it's similar enough to Dutch that an Afrikaans speaker and a Dutch speaker could converse and mostly understand each other (like Norwegian and Danish, or Spanish and Portuguese). And, interestingly enough, 'fokken' and its derivatives have made the switch in Afrikaans to mean the same thing our F-word does, rather than its original meaning. Anyhow, that's my candidate for 'most likely origin of the F-word'. > > My point is if you have to think about the meaning of the inappropriate word > long enough to come up with an acceptable euphemism then you've already > tarnished your mind. But that is why we have repentance. I grew up on bad > language. I didn't join the church until I was 17, and by the time I was 5, > I could swear like a drunken sailor. When I was baptized and ordained I had > to give the young men in the priesthood my permission to slug me as hard as > they could on the shoulder every time I uttered an expletive deleted. And > even now 49 years later when I'm alone and something happens that raises my > ire, I might just utter a blue streak. I can relate, unfortunately. I'm getting better at it, though, but in moments of stress I will slip. At least I've learned to control it on the ice; I referee hockey games, and anyone who drops the F-bomb on me gets to have a nice long sit in either the penalty box or the dressing room for his troubles. So I have to be 100% sure that I *never* cuss at the players. Most I'll do is, if required, quote words back to them. "Hey Ref, why'd'ja throw out our guy?" "'Cause he cussed at me." "What'd he say?" "He said '^$#@%$'." "Oh, OK, thanks Ref." The thing I notice most frequently nowadays -- on the ice or off -- is how ingrained and unconscious swearing has become. I can't tell you how many times someone cusses at me on the ice, I give 'em a penalty, and then they say "Hey, I just said ''." I have to tell them "No, what you really said was ''." They honestly don't remember saying it. At all. And they spent 10 minutes shaking their head and thinking I'm some kind of idiot. We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming. 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: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Letters: Mid-Year Observations Date: 26 Jul 2002 16:47:47 -0600 I am going through e-mail in a total of 5 minutes. To the Tyners--I forwarded your sweet message to Darius. Thank you so much. I wish I had time to respond to so many interesting threads (I have saved several to look at more closely later--including Scott Parkin's really interesting response to institutional repentence), but honestly, all my energy is devoted to my grand-daughter at the moment. But I AM a grand-mother, so age is becoming less and less a factor in distinguishing me from Marilyn Brown. I think if I lost some weight and Marilyn dyed her hair red, we'd be identical. Let's do it, Marilyn!! Brown wrote: > Hi. Just happened to be "lurking" and sorry, Margaret, (although of great > benefit to me) Andrew got us "twins" mixed up again! It is Marilyn Brown, > who is indeed "sixty-something going on sixty") (actually more) (And now > feeling it, actually) to quote the brilliant Alan R. Mitchell and she has > not been on the list for several months trying to catch up with MANY things > (including lots of theatre problems left us by a board walk). And yes, my > GHOSTS OF THE OQUIRRHS is out now from Salt Press/Cedar Fort--and here's > hoping somebody will read it. Nice to see the regulars still posting! > Sincerely, Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 26 Jul 2002 16:54:51 -0600 > The difference is that the Church welfare program works. Have you ever actually had to accept Church welfare? I have and I don't mind admitting that, should the need ever arise again, I would much prefer selling my organs on the black market than to ever so humiliate myself and my family by accepting assistance from the Church. Getting the goods (food, etc.) to the needy (us) worked flawlessly. That wasn't the problem. It was the judging from other members (including the Bishop) that was the humiliating part. It was the RS President going through our garbage to make sure we weren't spending the money on Big Gulp's that was the humiliating part. It was the other kids in the ward calling my children "poor" that was the humiliating part. Give me state welfare anytime. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DiannRead@aol.com Subject: [AML] Harry Potter Question Date: 26 Jul 2002 18:59:06 EDT I suspect this may have been discussed some time ago, before I joined the List, so I request your forgiveness if it was over-worked at the time. An LDS guy I work with informed me today that in her efforts to be authentic, J.K. Rowling "used the actual runes used by Wiccans" for the spells the characters learn and use in the stories. That was news to me--though it won't stop me from enjoying and recommending them. Can any of you confirm that, and if it's true, what's the source of that information? Diann Read San Antonio, TX -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 26 Jul 2002 17:14:43 -0600 > Music is not neutral. As I understand your examples, you seem to be saying precisely the opposite. You site "Your Song" and it made you and your husband feel.. Would you have necessarily felt that way about that song if you didn't have good memories associated with it? My ex-wife's and my song was "We've Only Just Begun." Since she left me a year ago, I can't listen to it now without getting all choked up and wanting. It is now my least favorite song but a year ago I loved it. What has changed in the meantime? My marriage. IOW, the song was neutral. The only emotion attached to it what I had attached to it. I believe all music is exactly like this: completely, utterly without emotion, sentiment, or meaning except for what we as listeners impose on it. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] English Departments Etc. Date: 26 Jul 2002 16:49:02 -0700 on 7/25/02 8:30 PM, Clark Goble at clark@lextek.com wrote: > I don't see why the *use* of postmodernism matter. Why is "politicized > postmodernism" worse than "politicized modernism." There's nothing > inherently wrong with politics nor pushing an agenda. The authors (which I > did read) simply tried to make it seem like there was. However the issue > isn't politicalization but shoddy thinking. If we keep the focus on the > quality of thinking I think the issue goes away. > Politicized postmodernism is worse not because it is postmodernist but because it coopts postmodernist thought and argument into a deceitfully leftist political approach. I know a man who spent 8 years in a GULAG and even though he had a pretty easy time of it he witnessed some awful suffering and wholesale murder of many thousands of people (He wrote a book, too, _Dear America_ but it ain't Mormon Letters because he's still an evangelical--stubborn one, too). He was in the Communist youth movement in the 1930s when they decided to infiltrate religion and schools to bring about their desired change. They realized that they were getting nowhere by operating openly. Postmodernist jargon is a ready way to hide this sort of agenda, because as Sokol's hoax proved the jargon can be laughable and still be taken very seriously. One of my profs a few years back was teaching the whole deconstruction thing but approvingly deconstructed everything to a literally fascist point view (minus the overt racism). When I pointed this out it almost started a fight--he didn't want to be a fascist, though he was. Got unofficially withdrawn from that class suddenly one morning. My greatest criticism of postmodernism and philosophy both is the jargon. It's more offensive in an English department, however, because one would expect English criticism to be written in English. Philosophy comes from all over, so it has a bit more leeway, but is still way too full of jargon. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Marilyn BROWN, _Ghosts of the Oquirrhs_ (Review) Date: 26 Jul 2002 18:25:53 -0700 Oops! My mistake -- sorry. And thanks for the nice thoughts. I once thought that one day I'd be a genius. I have now settled into the comfort of being mildly functional. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 7/26/2002 at 8:47 AM Brown wrote: >In reply to Jeff Needle's astute review of GHOSTS OF THE OQUIRRHS. > >What can I say? I think Jeff Needle is a genius. My sincere wish for all >Listers is that they would write their own novel and that Jeff Needle would >write a review of it. This is the second one that blows me away. (Just one >teeny correction--replace Camp Floyd with Mercur) Thanks, Jeff! Sincerely, >Marilyn (AKA Margaret) Brown ----------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Millennial Economics Date: 26 Jul 2002 20:38:23 -0700 D. Michael Martindale disagreed with my statement, namely, > "Richard R. Hopkins" wrote: > > > 6. The law of tithing was given to the Church to replace the United Order. > > There is some scriptural indication that a tithe (10%) represents the > > average amount that we would give back to the community (the excess over our > > needs) if we were in the United Order. He wrote: > The law of tithing has been an eternal principle from the beginning. The > United Order was an economic experiment Brigham Young performed, and in > each city it looked different. The experiment also failed. Tithing, in > fact, was still paid during the time of the United Order, but it was > paid by the various orders. Richard responds: The law of tithing is, of course, an eternal principle, but the United Order was much more than an economic experiment performed by Brigham Young. Check D&C 104. For more about my statement, check D&C 119, and the historical setting of that revelation. About stewardship, I never mentioned the most important aspect about that form of ownership. Stewardship involves a recognition that the earth is the Lord's (and the fullness thereof...that is, the increase). Thus, God owns the earth. All lands and holdings on this planet are really His property. We are merely stewards of that property. That is the economic principle that underlies the United Order and the law of consecration and stewardship. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: "Choose the Rock" Date: 26 Jul 2002 22:37:13 -0500 John Williams : On the one hand, Eric is right. There is absolutely nothing inherently evil about "music" one way or the other. Drums are drums, harps are harps, and an E minor chord is pretty much the same whether it's played by a drugged up psycho killer or your Aunt Nelly--it's all just sound in the air. _______________ This is correct. By definition, an E minor chord is a certain set of notes at a certain frequency. However, I suspect I could use that innocent little E minor chord in such a way that it would knock your socks off and set your pacemaker back two or three strokes. It wouldn't be the E minor chord's fault. It would be the setting in which I placed it--how I used it--that would make the difference. This is also true with words. 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: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 24 Jul 2002 23:52:37 -0600 Someone said: >Again, I like the >church's methods of handling poverty and ignorance because however >flawed the decision-makers involved are, they're at least personal, >available, and start from a position of intimate knowledge of the real >situation. Whoever said that may know what they are talking about. They may have knowlege, observation and experience to back it all up. But from my experience that has nothing to do with the truth. The government is ten thousand times more responsive, caring and helpful than the Church. I first asked for help from the government--I think it was after I dropped out of BYU. They asked for medical records, had doctors examine me and had councilors interview me. They (the State government) agreed to pay my tuition and rent while I went to school. After school they (the Federal government) paid me a very small monthly allowance. When I went to a state run mental health clinic they took me without question. I was given medication at very low cost. And given a place to just hang out. The monthly allowance continued for several years after I was married. When my wife graduated and found a good job it ended. When I started at massage school the state government paid my transportation costs. They were also willing to hire readers to help me and paid for a special tape recorder and paid for a membership in special library that puts textbooks on tape for blind and dyslexic students. With their help it has been a huge struggle, but without their help life would have been impossible. I first asked the Church for help about the same time--I can't remember very well. I was having these horribly painful and terrifying flashbacks--I didn't know what was going on with me. All I was really sure of was I was going to die because I couldn't live anymore. I had seen too much and now I was seeing it again and again and again. It was too much. The first time I remember quite well. I went to the Bishop and explained what was happening and made specific requests--I asked for blood tests and psychological help. He said, "No, we can't do that." I asked for help with the same problems several more times over the next few years and was always told the same thing. I also remember the last time quite well. It was a few months before I went to the Timpanogis Mental Health Center. I went directly to LDS Social Services, explained the best I could (my condition had deteriorated and I was wasn't terribly coherant--sometime I get that way now) and asked for help. Same thing--can't do that. To be fair I probably didn't make a very good impression. I had been living on the road for a while and probably smelled of cigarettes. A few years later after I married, my wife was a full-time student and we ran out of money and food. I went to the Bishop--Annette Lyon's dad-- and he had boxes of groceries at my house that night. (I still get tearful about that.) So I'm thinking if we're considering Utopia it will probably look a lot more like the government than the Church. I don't want to give the impression that the Church is wholly negligent. That World Trade Center thing has been hard on me. Too many facets of it were like what I went through in Argentina for three years. There was too much blood to remember. You can't understand, but need to understand, but are too afraid to understand--so you just want to hide and cry. But there's no where to hide. So you just continue along, looking neither to the left nor to the right. Keep your eyes down--and for God's sake--don't stand out. Don't even wonder who will be next--or where. And don't wonder--what--could be next. So the World Trade Center thing has been hard on me. Sometimes I've crumbled and sometimes I've lashed out. I've made a few enemies. I've been a jerk. So I've made a lot of waves and some of them have been really big, and now the Bishop is sending me to a psychologist. My first visit was last week. It's not what I would ask for, but maybe it's what I need. The part that most curious to me--we're talking Church and government--is that all along the way there have been individuals who have helped out. A girlfriend paid so I could get a note from my doctor so I could get into Timp Mental Health. Friends have helped me work out some problems. Right now I'm reading a book that someone one this list gave me--it's helping a whole lot. Maybe it's individuals helping each other out that will be the power in Utopia. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: [AML] Re: Unsavory Etymologies (was: "Choose the Rock") Date: 27 Jul 2002 00:08:01 -0600 >>> bmdblu2@attbi.com 07/25/02 03:37PM >>> > >Not too many people know that this word is derived from a perfectly innocent >acronym that became a word simply because it was easier to say it than say >the letters of the notation on the London police blotter that went along >with the offense of - For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. First they began >writing in the logs- F._._._. then they began pronouncing it like it >sounds, then people began using it to denote the act of soliciting or >procuring the services of prostitutes. Urban legend. The first acronym is believed to be Seroco, which was an alternative name for Sears Roebuck Company. In any case, there are no acronyms recorded before the late 1800's, and few before World War I. The F-word came to English before the 15th century, and possibly as early as the 13th, from another Germanic language (a Middle Dutch word is sometimes cited as the ancestor of the English word). MBA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 27 Jul 2002 00:22:31 -0600 >>> dmichael@wwno.com 07/25/02 01:11AM >>> > >What scarcity is that? I live in the most successful capitalist society >ever, and I find very little scarcity when I go shopping. Sure, there >are lots of things I can't afford the instant I get it in my head that I >want it, but the item is not scarce--it's there at the store waiting for >me to figure out how to get the funds to purchase it. > >Those societies that are truly suffering under scarcity are also those >that have eschewed the capitalist system. When economists talk about "scarcity" they're not saying a good is rare or hard to find. Scarcity just means that there is more demand for a good than there is supply. The fact that the goods are in a store with a price tag on them proves that they are scarce. To an economist, corn is scarce in Nebraska, and coal is scarce in Newcastle. MBA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Unsavory Etymologies (was: "Choose the Rock") Date: 27 Jul 2002 08:17:35 -0500 Bill Willson wrote: >Not too many people know that this word is derived from a perfectly innocent >acronym that became a word simply because it was easier to say it than say >the letters of the notation on the London police blotter that went along >with the offense of - For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. [snip] Actually, this seems to fall into the category of folk etymologies that have no basis in fact. Use of this word dates back at least to the 15th century, according to my dictionary (and may date back a lot further than that--such words often don't make it into written sources nearly as early as they are used in spoken language), and the word appears to have links to Dutch and Swedish. My high school Latin teacher (who was also my mother) once told me that this word was a cognate (cousin) with the English word "pugnacious" (and "pugilist") that is formed from Latin roots. As I recall, the theory is that sounds that descended as "p" in Latin often came down as "f" in Germanic languages (see, for examples, "fish" vs. "piscis"). Similarly for "g" in Latin versus "k" in Germanic. And so the "pug" part of the Latin word "pugnare," meaning "to fight," would come down in Germanic as... But I find no mention of this in my dictionaries (my edition of the Oxford English Dictionary is too early to include the word in question), and so this may simply be another folk etymology. All of which does nothing to invalidate Bill's larger point about the arbitrariness of language... Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gideon Burton Subject: [AML] Final Call for Papers - AML at RMMLA in Arizona this Oct Date: 27 Jul 2002 11:25:38 -0600 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, by AUGUST 3, 2002. 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 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Postmodernism (was: English Departments Etc.) Date: 27 Jul 2002 17:20:59 -0600 ___ William ___ | This quote from the essay captures my experience with | postmodernism in the academy: "Some Latter-day Saint and | other religious thinkers find postmodernism helpful | because it helps them identify cultural and intellectual | elements that we have taken for granted because we live | in a world that is very much a creation of modernism, | itself one of the effects of the apostasy." | ___ Colin ___ | Please--I would very much like to get you started on this. ___ Some have argued that when Heidegger deconstructed Plato and tried to return in some ways to the pre-Socratics that he was actually "recreating" a kind of Hebrew approach to the world. I personally think that is pushing it a bit, although I'm not well enough versed on the arguments to say for sure. I know that Levinas, a rabbi and student of Heidegger, tried to reformulate the ideas he'd learned from Heidegger. (He was, as a Jew, deeply distraught by Heidegger's Nazism and apparent anti-semitism) I know Jim Faulconer has argued that the difference between Levinas and Heidegger isn't that pronounced. Thus Levinas misreads Heidegger and "corrects" it with Heidegger's own thought. (Albeit using very Jewish language and metaphors) I don't know how correct this is. However he did point out that the book that argues for Heidegger as a kind of Jewish critique of Hellenism is coming out in English this year. Unfortunately I can't recall the name off the top of my head. I know Caputo has argued similar things relative to Derrida, although Derrida denies having a "mystic Judaism" behind him. However quite a few people, like Umberto Eco, have noted the strong similarities between Derrida with the basic approach of Kabbalism. I think Derrida's response comes as a needed caveat for those emphasizing postmodernism as a return to a Hebrew view over a Hellenistic view. . . .at any rate, unfortunately or fortunately, as you like it, I am not mystical and there is nothing mystical in my work. In fact my work is a deconstruction of values which found mysticism, i.e. of presence, view, of the absence of a marque, of the unspeakable. If I say I am no mystic, particularly not a Jewish one as Habermas claims at one point, then I say that not to protect myself, but simply to state a fact. Not just that personally I am not mystical, but that I doubt whether anything I write has the least trace of mysticism. Insofar there are many misunderstandings not only between Habermas and me, but also between many German readers and me, as far as I can see. In part this is because German philosophers do not read my texts directly, but refer instead to secondary, often American interpretations. For instance if Habermas speaks of my judaistic mysticism he uses a book by Susan Handelman which in my view is certainly interesting, but very problematic regarding the claim that I be a lost son of Judaism. At any rate one never reads immediately. I know very well that one always reads from within certain schemes and mediations, so I do not demand that one read me - as if before my texts you could put yourselves into some kind of intuitive ecstasy - but I demand that one be careful with the mediations, more critical regarding the translations and the detours through contexts that very often are quite far away from mine. (1986 interview F. R=F6tzer conducted on German radio) Having said that though, there are many parallels. And I think that many of the critiques of Hellenism do point out what Mormons might consider effects of the apostasy. At the same time I think that while Hellenism (more particularly neoPlatonism and later Aristotileanism) may have enabled the apostasy, the bigger issue was simply a lack of revelation. When people felt the need to "fill in the blanks" in scripture it led to uninspired dogma. The dogma may have been Hellenistic in nature, but that wasn't the real problem. The problem was the "filling in the blanks." In think I think modern Mormonism is probably wise in how it avoids certain theologicizing tendencies. (As opposed to people like say Orson Pratt or perhaps even B.H. Roberts) At the same time we must read scriptures and when we read them to see what was "really meant" we often read them in terms of a culture that is largely the result of Hellenistic ideas which were foreign to the authors. Having said that though I think that Jewish mysticsm is pretty influenced by neoPlatonism too. So saying someone is "Jewish" doesn't imply that they aren't hellenized. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: [AML] Marilyn ARNOLD, _Fields of Clover_ (Review) Date: 26 Jul 2002 18:32:11 -0700 REVIEW Title: Fields of Clover Author: Marilyn Arnold Publisher: Salt Press (imprint of Cedar Fort, Inc.) Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 282 Binding: Paperback ISBN: 1-55517-601-1 Price: $16.95 Reviewed by Kim Madsen FIELDS OF CLOVER sets forth its theme in a quote from the Apocrypha included just after the dedication page: "My child, help your father in his old age, And do not grieve him, as long as he lives. If his understanding fails, be considerate. And do not humiliate him, when you are in all your strength." It's a book that tackles some important and timely themes: caring for aging parents, and the ties that bind a family together past all understanding. But in the end it was a book that frustrated me as a reader. "Uneven" would be my one word synopsis. The book reminded me somewhat of Barbara Kingsolver's PRODIGAL SUMMER. It changed point of view in each chapter, moving from the 93 year old Oscar Carpenter and his equally elderly wife, Edith, to each of their three off-spring, as well as some minor characters. The POV shifts weren't confusing, but it was obvious that the author was more comfortable in some minds than others. Some of the characters were fully fleshed out and compelling. Others seemed like little more than plot devices to tie something of an LDS theme into the book. Marilyn Arnold is at her best when writing the rambling thought processes of senile Oscar Carpenter. Edith, his wife, is also brilliantly drawn. In fact, many of Edith's musings were "a-ha" moments for me, making me want to read them again just to savor them. For instance, when she's mentally deconstructing her house and all the items her daughter, Stella, will be forced to sort through and dispose of now that Oscar and Edith have been placed in an extended care facility, Edith thinks about some old army footlockers in the basement. "Edith knew what the lockers contained, even though it had been years since she had bothered to clear their lids and open them. Ghosts, she muttered silently. Like the house itself, those lockers are full of ghosts from a life that died before we did." Arnold has captured the poignant winding down of two lives and deftly uses that passage to reunite the three estranged Carpenter children--Everett, Stella, and Joshua. However, the book is weakest when we spend too much time in Stella's point of view. Stella is a character with definite quirks, but they remained unexplained. Why does she have such poor marriages? She doesn't take much care of her physical self, often described as frumpy through the eyes of other characters. We really want to like her, to empathize with her, but in the end, the information is too scarce to really understand her. We know she writes trashy novels, that she has a history of being late on her pot-boiler deadlines, that she can't keep a marriage together (but whether from poor choices in mates, or her own deficiencies we're never sure), that she keeps dogs. Stella seemed to me the plot-device the author uses to make unnecessary pronouncements that come across in a natural way in the story and don't need to be reiterated to the reader. "On the instant, Stella knew, as if Edith Carpenter had appeared in heavenly robes and said it, the meaning of her parents' long and difficult journey to final release." And then the author tells us what she just spent 279 pages showing us. Moments like that frustrated me and made me less accepting of Stella as a character--a dangerous thing, since most of the book is told through Stella's eyes. But there were many strong moments in the book, moments that made me think about my own responsibilities towards my parents and in-laws. Moments that helped me see beauty in a fully-lived life and clarified what is truly important. One of the best changes of heart in the book comes though the oldest brother, Everett Carpenter. A stuffed-shirt academic, a snob, a satirical critic; one is set to dislike Everett thoroughly. In the end, he was softened by the experience. I liked Everett by the end of the book. He was real. In contrast, my feelings toward Stella remained ambiguous at best. One small time-line issue bothered me throughout the book. Everett, Joshua and Stella are described as "middle aged". Their parents are in their early 90's. If the Carpenter children are in their late 40's and 50's, that means Edith Carpenter started having children in her late 40's and 50's. If the author considers 60's to be middle aged, the children don't ring true. Their concerns with jobs/children/spouses lead me to believe they are in their mid to late 40's, early 50's, but not their 60's. If so, they are the most emotionally stuck and immature 60-something's I've encountered. One would hope life would teach a person more by their sixth decade. Why doesn't the author make this clear? There was no explanation offered as to why the Carpenters married and had children later in life, if indeed that's the author's intent. As a reader, I long for books that create a dream that I don't wake easily from. The age issue was one thing that continually broke into "the dream" for me and made me aware of the author, forcing me to question, to skim back to see if I'd missed something. Another thing that struck me as strange in a book of LDS fiction was the lack of any LDS references. I'm not sure how I feel about it. At first, I was impressed, thinking "at last, a book that weaves the LDS mindset so subtly into the plot, you don't notice it." But by the end of the book, I realized this book only has one very minor LDS character in it, and I was left wondering why the author felt the need to include that. Religion is not a priority in the book, but it is subtly present in the background. I don't mind that--in fact, I cheer it, but I was left thinking "Hmmm. I guess this is not LDS fiction after all." Perhaps that was Marilyn Arnold's goal, to write a book with more "universal appeal". It seems to me that the publishing house and distribution channels of this book may not jive with that goal. Or is it a "western" book--as in the Wallace Stegner western tradition? The book IS set in rural areas of Colorado and Arizona. But the sense of place isn't tremendously important to the book either. It's a book about aging, a human condition that could have taken place anywhere, with any set of cultural beliefs. Maybe that was the author's point. All in all, I would recommend any middle-aged adult with aging parents read the book. I'll bet you're more kind, patient and caring of those parents as a result. What more could an author aspire to--to change the world for the better? -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Kerry Blair Query Date: 28 Jul 2002 14:36:25 -0700 Friends, I got this from a friend of mine. I've never heard of this author. Does anyone here have information? Thanks! *********** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE *********** I know you read LDS fiction, which I basically don't. Do you know an author, Kerry Blair? Her most recent one has a giant thumbprint on the cover, called "Closing In", I think. I joined an LDS women's online writing group (gotta do something with myself) out of curiosity. There are several published authors of books, articles, songs, but most of the emails still sound an awful lot like Homemaking meeting. Sigh. Anyway, if you have read her, I'd appreciate comment -- is she just the usual romance/suspense, or can she write? *********** END FORWARDED MESSAGE *********** ----------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Folklore in Our Religion Date: 28 Jul 2002 17:54:06 -0700 Barbara Hume wrote: >snip > lake of fire and brimstone and the imps with the pitchforks. Maybe that's > why we didn't bother speculating. > > But this! Oh, my gosh! Families forever? What about mean old Great-Grampa > Fisher, who thought the right thing to do was to whale the tar out his > children to prove how godly he was? Plural wives, eh? Well, we'll just see > about that! Will there be libraries there, where we can read all the stuff > we didn't have time to read here? More do the point, will that information > actually stay in our celestial brains, rather than dribbling out like it > does here? Will we be resurrected fat? If we were when we died, that is. > Will the people who think they're the only ones who deserve to go to the > highest kingdom have their own space so they don't have to see the rest of > us? Will I mess up so bad that I will be condemned to that eternal servant > class, and have to endure an eternity of celibacy on top of the decades of > it I've had here? You call that heaven? >snip I have often been caught up in the -What ifs of eternity - and I'll say things like, "If there aren't any libraries - books - dogs - horses - there," Or, "If I can't design and build my own home there," or "if I can't write there," Or "if there aren't any computers and the Internet there, I'm not going!" Once I even said, "If I can't fish there, . . . " I have had quite a time trying to write a novel with spirit prison as one of the major settings, I'm not sure if I've even come close, but I've had a wonderful time speculating. I hope I'll not have to spend much time there, but I would like to see for myself, just how close my limited vision is. Finally I have reached the conclusion that regardless of what we think it will be like in the next life, and no matter how vivid or strong our speculations on what its organization or facilities will be like, we can be absolutely sure about one thing, and that is, even if we don't like it very much, it will be just, and perfect. Regards, Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Request for Prayers Date: 29 Jul 2002 10:09:21 -0600 I am so sorry, Harlow. My heart goes out to your family. Please know that our prayers are with you. Sincerely, Bill and Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Unsavory Etymologies Date: 29 Jul 2002 17:02:44 -0600 I consider myself fluent in obscene language. When I was younger (about 37) I took pride in being able to say S**t in several different languages (I'm still charmed by that ability). The origin F**k, as Robert Slaven surmised, is Middle German. It comes from the verb Fokkin, I'm not sure of the spelling, which means "to penetrate." Most words which are horrible and obscene have innocuous beginning, such as t**t, g*****j***v**m and sw****7**st. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Invitation to Genesis Date: 29 Jul 2002 17:05:40 -0600 Thom's post about "We've Only Just Begun" and Harlow's about the tragedy his family is facing have left me really emotional. Thanks for sharing, both of you. Not much more to say. Such things leave us all speechless, don't they? On another note entirely, I thought some AML list members might want to attend the upcoming Genesis meeting. Many of you have expressed an interest in seeing what we do, and August presents a good opportunity. Sheri Dew will be our speaker. The meeting will be on August 4 (it's always on the first Sunday) at 7:00 p.m. at 6710 S. 1300 E. Midvale, Utah. Feel free to invite your friends--especially those who may have a need for what Genesis offers. I'm hoping we will have another accompanist rather than me, because I really am too white to do the music justice. If you know anyone who can play by ear, can play gospel, and would be willing to accept a Church calling which would require monthly attendance at choir practice and Genesis, PLEASE let me know or let Darius (Graytesla@aol.com) know. I feel so inadequate, and would love to turn the responsibility over to someone who can do the music justice. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 29 Jul 2002 16:21:30 -0700 > Give me state welfare anytime. Have you ever had to accept state welfare? :) I've had both, and I'd rather go with church assistance now, if the need were to arise again. Of course my experience with church assistance wasn't as horrible as yours. But the feeling of being able to pay it back, of being expected to pay it back, even if it was only via an increased fast offering when able, was a great salve to my pride/self worth. State welfare is not only degrading, but when I was on it, it encouraged you to stay on it, not get off. I think things have changed in the last 12 years, but back then it worked in such a way that if you made too much money, your benefits were cut or dropped, so there was never any way of getting ahead just a little. And as far as I know, the amounts of benefits they give (in WA state) is all based on living standards from the 1970's. I really hope that's different now. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 29 Jul 2002 16:35:02 -0700 > Whoever said that may know what they are talking about. They may have > knowlege, observation and experience to back it all up. But from my > experience that has nothing to do with the truth. The government is ten > thousand times more responsive, caring and helpful than the Church. You know, I think how the church welfare system works depends largely on location. I had to get help from the Bishop once in a nice suburban area, and he told me to come to the church before seeking any government assistance. But when I lived in the inner city (aka the worst ghetto in WA state, at the time), the Bishop said get as much as you can from the government first. Because it was a very poor area and the ward couldn't sustain itself. Anyway, I'm glad you were able to find help with your mental problems through government assistance. My sister was schizophrenic for most of her life, and I know from her experiences that there just isn't enough being done for the mentally ill. In fact, there was no help for my sister unless it could be proven she was a danger to herself or others. She would get admitted to a half way house for about 18 months, but then released, because she wasn't improving. Move out on her own, stop taking her meds and try to committ suicide, then get in somewhere else. I think these things should be talked about more--and written about more--to help people be aware of what is needed, and not be so judgmental. Susan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. Date: 29 Jul 2002 17:39:02 -0600 I'll not reply to Jim's view of "politicized postmodernism" except to suggest that I disagree. I think it is getting a tad afield from Mormon letters and more into politics. However I think that the attacks on postmodernism or even "politicized" postmodernism are themselves hidden attacks on certain leftist political movements. It is simply a common tactic of *all* political movements that they "obscure" what is controversial about themselves and often attack straw men. I see it in political exchange from every point of view. ___ Jim ___ | My greatest criticism of postmodernism and philosophy both | is the jargon. It's more offensive in an English department, | however, because one would expect English criticism to be | written in English. Philosophy comes from all over, so it | has a bit more leeway, but is still way too full of jargon. ___ My actual sense is that for most people it is the jargon that is the problem. The problem is that the jargon comes in from philosophy departments where quite often the jargon arises out of texts coming from different languages. In the original papers the word makes sense. Thus the word "differance" that characterizes deconstruction for Derrida arises out of a pun in French between defer (to hold off for a time) and differ (to be distinguishable). In French difference and differance *sound* exactly the same but have a different meaning. In the context of Derrida's argument this is important. The term gets appropriated in English because of these original texts. Many other terms in postmodernism have similar histories. For instance Deconstruction arises out of a point Heidegger was making in German about unpacking certain Greek ideas to their original sources. There is no real English word to translate it. We then have a French philosopher reading a German philosopher reading Greek with the product brought over to English. I guess it doesn't bother me much as I'm in the sciences. If you want a field full of very technical words whose meanings don't match regular speech, well welcome to the world of modern theoretical physics. The problem is that if you want to make a technical point but avoid technical language you will almost always distort the message. Some, such as Richard Rorty do what you suggest. They write without jargon and indeed Rorty prides himself in writing using a common speech. Strangely though Rorty is a noted postmodernist and quite a few criticize his form of postmodernism as simply distorting philosophical points by *not* using jargon. i.e. he avoids the jargon and then suggests (by the missing "new ideas") that there is no difference between two views. I guess all I'm saying is that if you wish to write criticism that is very particular and in terms of philosophical or scientific structures, you *have* to use the jargon. You can make some general points using general language. But when you want to go farther, it gets harder and more technical. The problem is, I think, that in terms of criticism there are two approaches. Traditional (easy) methods of books not written about a lot or more difficult approaches of books everyone has written about. (i.e. like a deconstruction of Hamlet as we find in _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_) Given the number of PhDs and the "publish or perish" it isn't surprising that many choose to undertake difficult projects for which they are ill prepared. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 29 Jul 2002 17:57:39 -0600 ---Original Message From: Thom Duncan > > > The difference is that the Church welfare program works. > > Have you ever actually had to accept Church welfare? Yes. > I have > and I don't mind admitting that, should the need ever arise > again, I would much prefer selling my organs on the black > market than to ever so humiliate myself and my family by > accepting assistance from the Church. > > Getting the goods (food, etc.) to the needy (us) worked > flawlessly. That wasn't the problem. It was the judging from > other members (including the > Bishop) that was the humiliating part. It was the RS > President going through our garbage to make sure we weren't > spending the money on Big Gulp's that was the humiliating > part. It was the other kids in the ward calling my children > "poor" that was the humiliating part. > > Give me state welfare anytime. I am sorry you had such an awful experience. It was bad enough for me even though my bishop and other ward leaders are very mature. For me, the toughest part was my own recriminations and self-doubt. It certainly isn't something I want to do again. That said, it seems like a large part of the distress you went through came from the unrighteous actions of your ward leaders. As such, I rank it with other forms of anecdotal experiences and not something that I want to use to characterize the program as a whole. I would hope that you reported the abuse you went through to your Stake President, Area President and anyone else who might be responsible to make sure church programs are followed. And I hope you let them know how it affected your family. That kind of behavior should be no more tolerated than a bishop who steals tithing or has an affair. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Unsavory Etymologies Date: 29 Jul 2002 18:14:53 -0600 At 12:08 AM 7/27/02 -0600, you wrote: >the letters of the notation on the London police blotter that went >along > >with the offense of - For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. First they began > >writing in the logs- F._._._. then they began pronouncing it like it > >sounds, Some rock group -- Van Halen? -- AC/DC? -- named one of their albums For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. I thought that was just too smarmy. I have a few Van Halen albums, but I didn't buy that one -- I figured they were trying to trick people into buying a bad word! (Did I mention that I'm very cynical about marketing techniques?) Speaking of marketing techniques, allow me to bring this back to literature (in a sense). I may have mentioned on this list that I used to buy the Star Trek novels, but they became so formulaic and boring that I quit. Recently I've noticed a seven-book series of ST novels called Gateways, and all seven were in the library, so I checked them all out so I could read through them all. Turned out that the first six all ended with cliffhangers, and the seventh book (which came out in hardback) contained the endings to all six stories! I thought that a miserably manipulative method, but then it's all about cranking out money for the franchise, not about providing quality literature. Besides, I couldn't get into the stories at all, not even the one featuring the cool Mackenzie Calhoun. That's the sort of thing that makes me want to go back to the pond and simplify simplify simplify. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Folklore in Our Religion Date: 29 Jul 2002 18:53:50 -0700 Bill Willson wrote: > I have often been caught up in the -What ifs of eternity - and I'll say > things like, "If there aren't any libraries - books - dogs - horses - > there," Or, "If I can't design and build my own home there," or "if I can't > write there," Or "if there aren't any computers and the Internet there, I'm > not going!" Once I even said, "If I can't fish there, . . . " > > I have had quite a time trying to write a novel with spirit prison as one of > the major settings, I'm not sure if I've even come close, but I've had a > wonderful time speculating. I hope I'll not have to spend much time there, > but I would like to see for myself, just how close my limited vision is. My wife has taken this to dimensions I would never have imagined. She was saying the other day that she hopes they don't resurrect pigs. I asked why, and she explained that she would be very disappointed if she couldn't have pork spareribs in the Celestial Kingdom! Hope the thought helps trigger your imagination. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: [AML] Article about Annette Lyon Date: 30 Jul 2002 01:01:45 GMT This is Sharon Gholdston's Back Fence column for July 24. I noticed it when I was preparing my string. I've included the whole column because the third piece, about the unicyclist, is mine. Sharon publishes some pieces with contributors' bylines, and rewrites some for Back Fence, especially if they lend themselves to a chatty tone. I included the second story because of the cultural significance of Jell-O Harlow Clark The Daily Herald on Wednesday, July 24 Spanish Fork resident signing book Saturday Haven't heard the name Annette Luthy Lyon? If not, you might be on the lookout for her recently released novel, "Lost Without You," on local bookshelves. If you'd like to meet the Provo native, she'll be signing books Saturday at the Orem Seagull Book and Tapes, 111 S. State St., from 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m.; and at the Provo Seagull, 2550 N. University Parkway, from 2-4 p.m. She's a delightful lady who says she was first bitten by the writing bug in second grade when she began piling pillows on a chair to reach her mother's typewriter. She wrote (and a year later almost published) a non-fiction children's book at age 12. In high school she collaborated on a screenplay, and in college she and the same friend completed a fantasy novel together. She's written on her own seriously since the fall of 1994, in which time she's completed six other novels. She's also published dozens of articles in a variety of publications, and received several awards from the League of Utah Writers, including a publication award and second place in consecutive years for novels. Lyon has also served on the League's Utah Valley Chapter board for three years, including president for 2001-02. Lyon describes "Lost Without You" as an LDS romance novel. "The core idea was the result of a dream I had several years ago, and which was so powerful that it haunted me for days," Annette said. "At the time I hated the idea of my husband ever remarrying if something were to happen to me. In the dream I knew I was going to die (don't ask me how or why; the dream never explained that part). I had only one concern and one regret: I worried about who would raise my children, and I regretted that I couldn't tell my husband to find an honorable mother for them." She was born in Provo, and spent most of her childhood here except for three years spent in Finland with her family, where she learned to love her mother's homeland. She graduated cum laude from BYU in 1995 with a bachelor's degree in English. She currently serves in her LDS ward as a Primary teacher. In addition to writing, Annette says she enjoys scrapbooking, knitting, camping in the Uintahs, singing and spending time with family. She lives in Spanish Fork with her husband, Rob, and their three children. JIGGLE FEST: That's right folks, right here in River City, uh, make that Provo, we're having a festival to glorify the state's most cherished snack food. The festival is from 6:30-8:30 p.m. Friday at Provo's North Park, at 500 N. 500 West. If you haven't figured it out yet, the event's purpose is to celebrate the long-time love affair Utahns have with that jiggly gelatin of many flavors, Jell-O. The event is co-hosted by the Provo Teen Center and Kraft Foods, and admission is free. The first 200 revelers will be treated to free pizza from Papa John's. Events include gelatin twister, baseball, gelatin spoon relay, tug of war (I wonder how that one will work?), gelatin toss, gelatin eating contest, taste testing, gelatin fling, gelatin target toss and even a sculpture contest. There will be entertainment by a Brazilian martial arts group and Blind the Fold, a local band. Everyone's invited -- you don't even have to like Jell-O. Prizes will be given to the first-, second- and third-place entries in the sculpture contest. Sculptures must be dropped off by 3 p.m. Friday at the Teen Center, 222 W. 500 North. For more information, call 852-7635. To volunteer, call Stephanie at 852-7637. CYCLE MANIAC: Would you believe Lindon is home to a world-record-holding unicyclist? Actually, Guy Hansen holds six records in his somewhat unusual sport. Guy is in western Washington this week and next -- first at the unicycling nationals this week in Snoqualmie, North Bend and Issaquah, Wash., then in the same cities Thursday through Aug. 2 for the world championships. Unicycling is something of a family affair for the Hansens. Guy's wife, Karen, is a former cycler, and their two youngest children, Brian and Melissa, will be competing with their dad. In addition to competing, Guy started building unicycles at Brian's coaxing, and has built about 40, with another 10 in progress. Brian and his dad will race in separate age brackets, but Guy and Melissa will compete together in a pairs event. Guy has been unicycling since age 12 and has developed a skill few others at the nationals or world championships have -- hand pedaling his cycle. He learned the unusual skill while performing as Snow College's mascot in 1971-72. He makes it look easy, lying across the seat and moving his hands, but says the pressure on his stomach is incredible, very painful, and it is difficult to develop the muscles. "If I juggle in a parade, people clap. But about half the unicyclists in the world can juggle," Guy said. "If I ride on my hands people wonder what I'm doing. They don't know how rare that is." Guy said he hopes to set a world record in backward two-handed pedaling at Snow College's homecoming this fall. Not much competition for that record, but Guy says he won't try it unless he can build the coordination to do a couple of miles total and a quarter mile without stopping. Guy and his family also use their unusual talent to raise money for charity -- multiple sclerosis research. There's not a formal cycling group in the area, but anyone interested in starting one can call Guy at 796-1517. This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page C1. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Faith-Building Literature? Date: 29 Jul 2002 17:26:18 -0800 >===== Original Message From "Eric R. Samuelsen" >In part, the gospel is a never-ending search for truth, and of course we'll >read stuff that challenges previously held assumptions on a whole variety of >matters. But will it destroy a testimony, this constant process of >discovery and growth and challenge and change, this constant search for >knowledge and understanding? Will a life long engagement with the world of >ideas ultimately destroy a firmly held, spiritually based testimony? I'll >go to my grave insisting that testimony can only be enhanced by a search for >truth, and that a testimony that says 'this book disturbs me, these ideas >challenge what I believe, I will therefore read no more" is not, in fact, a >testimony at all, but only an opinion. My response: I just read a fascinating book, which I highly recommend, called _The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace_. It is written by Christian psychologist M. Scott Peck (of _Road Less Traveled_ fame). He presents a pattern of transformation that I think relates to the discussion here. He says there are four basic steps in the development of one's spiritual life. I can only write this from memory, as I don't have the book with me. 1: Chaos, egotism (meaning when someone is completely wrapped up in themselves, i.e. children) 2. Institutional, form (meaning that the person has found an institution or narrative that dictates life to them in a black and white way, giving them the direction they need to live a descent life, i.e. church, prison) 3. Skepticism, doubt (meaning the person has found that the world is not so black and white, and that their previous, simplistic view of the world seems woefully inadequate now to the point of superstitious) 4. Mystical (meaning that the person has doubted so deeply that he/she has even doubted his/her own doubting, and has found a wholeness that looks similar to what their religion was telling them during stage 2. But now those ideas have a new, and fluid meaning). He adds after describing stage 4 that this stage is only the beginning. Peck points out that few (if any) churches are equipped to help a person through the essential stage 3 of this process. He considers this lack of help to be a real flaw in institutional churches. He thinks many of the more vibrant spirits we have stay in stage three because their churches push them out. So the way this hooks up with Eric's thoughts is that many people probably perceive writings that challenge their deeply held beliefs as threatening to their testimonies. According to Peck's model, the doubt that these writings may cause is essential to the formation of a person who is really seeking for truth. I think one cultural element that makes it hard for Mormons in particular to handle constructive doubt is our penchant for quick answers. The stories, articles, sermons, etc. that come out of the more official channels of Mormondom are a lot like television shows, they introduce a problem, work with it for a moment or two and then solve it. There's a real emphasis on conclusion. It is hard to tell a story in Mormondom about a challenge (especially if it involves one's testimony) unless some conclusion can be tacked on at the end that lets the audience know that they don't have to worry about anything. It's all been taken care of. To me, if something is concluded, then it's dead. In order for something to be alive, it has to be changing. So doubt, to me, is a good thing. It means you're looking for something; you're changing. Non-doubt is the equivalent of "all is well in Zion." Of course, I have to look at this model with a bit of skepticism, as it made me feel a lot better about all the doubt that goes through my head. According to what I had learned from the Mormon culture, I am often slipping down into apostasy. I like Peck's idea that maybe I'm on my way to something higher. I hope that's what is going on. But I have learned to be suspicious of ideas that make my ways of thinking look too good. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Kerry Blair Query Date: 29 Jul 2002 19:45:47 -0600 Kerry Blair has published four books with Covenant: _Closing In_, _The Heart Has Its Reasons_, _The Heart Only Knows_, and _The Heart Has Forever_. They look like fairly standard Covenant-type romance/adventure books, but not having read any of them I can't say what her writing style is like. Marny -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dhunt_aml@juno.com Subject: [AML] Free LDS book for Proofing Date: 30 Jul 2002 01:39:57 GMT I am in the process of publishing my own LDS book, which is a novella featuring a modern Mormon version of _A Christmas Carol_. I have sent it around to a number of LDS publishers, only to be told that Christmas stories are hard to get accepted unless you already have an established reputation, because everyone wants to write a Christmas story and they already have their allotted Christmas slots filled. I think my adaptation of the Dickens story is unique and I also think the writing is good, so I am going to publish the book on my own through a print-on-demand service that will list the book with Amazon.com. I plan to give out copies to friends and family for Christmas and make it available for sale through my own efforts as well as through Amazon.com. I've read it over and over until I'm sick of it (you know how that goes), but I don't feel comfortable publishing it until other trained eyes have seen it. So I am offering a free copy of the published book to a number of AML members who would like to read it and check for stray errors and, if possible, give a short blurb about it, possibly for the back cover. The story takes place in Salt Lake City in the present time, featuring the main character of Edward Misor, who owns a string of pawnshops across the Salt Lake Valley and Utah County. I've tried to stay as true to the story as I can, but yet put a uniquely modern Mormon twist on the story. Plus added a few new features of my own. The published softback book with retail somewhere between $12 and $15. I'm going to offer about five copies to people who will read it and check it for errors. I reserve the right to hand pick those who will receive the book and prefer those who may have some sort of editing experience and/or be some sort of authoritative figure, but that's not necessarily required. I plan to have the book published in the next couple of months and be available for sale through myself and through Amazon.com by Thanksgiving. The name of the book will be _A Mormon Christmas Carol: The story of Belle's Christmas Bell._ I love the story of _A Christmas Carol_ and my yearly celebrations are never complete without a couple different renditions of the story. I hope to make this version a part of people's lives as well, as much as it has become a part of mine. If you want to help me out, get a free book, and experience a new version of the Dickens classic, please email me at this address, or preferably at DarvellHunt@Juno.com. Please respond immediately, as I plan to submit the manuscript to the publisher as soon as possible. Thanks, Darvell ________________________________________________________________ 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: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 29 Jul 2002 20:39:03 -0600 > I believe all music is exactly like this: completely, utterly without >> emotion, sentiment, or meaning except for what we as listeners impose on it. Thom, there is a song that illustrates your point: _The Song Remembers When_ by Trisha Yearwood. I could have written my life history by the lyrics of the songs I loved. When I wrote my history I did allude to music and lyrics all the way through. I want to write a shorter piece making use of some of the lyrics that spoke to my heart. My daughter-in-law dedicated a song to me in a tribute she gave me at a family reunion. It was Lee Ann Womack's _I Hope you Dance_. I don't think any of us will succeed at writing if we don't take to heart the words of this song. "When you get the choice to sit it out or dance, I hope you dance." I find that writers who have fully lived their lives are far more interesting than those who have just read about other peoples lives. Choose to dance, then choose to write. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jana Remy" Subject: Re: [AML] Kerry Blair Query Date: 29 Jul 2002 21:09:32 -0700 I know Kerry Blair from ANWA (American Night Writers Assoc), which is perhaps the homemaking-y group your friend is referring to. I've read only one of her books, which was a romance novel, and though it followed the typical Covenant romance formula, the writing and characterizarion were better than most. Jana Remy Irvine, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: RE: [AML] Programs for Poverty Date: 29 Jul 2002 21:22:29 -0500 In reply to a comment by Eric Samuelsen, Jacob Proffitt wrote: > >Following the Church welfare program means not accepting government aid. >You can't have them "in conjunction" within the policy of Church >welfare. Exceptions might be made, but I haven't heard of them and >would be surprised if they passed "official" muster. Jacob, I'm not sure what you mean here. There's no official policy I know of that in order to accept Church aid, you need to not be accepting government aid. The only such policy I'm aware of (from the various Church handbooks) is that Church welfare should not duplicate aid that people are receiving from other sources--which is not the same thing, as I see it, as saying they shouldn't be receiving that aid. I also asked our bishop, who said that so far as he knew, there was no such limitation. He added that in many cases, e.g., single parents, it would be very hard for families to make it without government aid. On a related topic, from time to time, I've heard some (not in positions of authority) claim that the "ideal" of the Church welfare program is to make it so that active Church members should never have to receive governmental aid. But if this ever was a goal of Church welfare, it's my sense that this is not the case now. But then, I may simply be misunderstanding what you meant here... Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance Date: 30 Jul 2002 13:57:08 -0400 Regarding Institutional Repentance and the 1978 Revelation, not only would I love to see some lessons giving the history and some underscoring the Church's new, proper, Christ-like attitude towards racial differences, I'd also like to read the actual text of the revelation. I have no doubt that there is one and that it's written down somewhere, but all we have is the Official Declaration that such a revelation was given. Why all the mystery about what was actually said? Frankly, I suspect the worst--that the Lord took the church leaders to the woodshed and gave them such a thrashing--and nobody wants to publish that. Of course this is pure speculation and it only arises in the absence of a text that we can all read for ourselves. I would be happy to be wrong about this. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Harry Potter Question (comp 1) Date: 30 Jul 2002 17:40:47 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From lajackson@juno.com Mon Jul 29 21:08:10 2002 Diann Read: An LDS guy I work with informed me today that in her efforts to be authentic, J.K. Rowling "used the actual runes used by Wiccans" for the spells the characters learn and use in the stories. That was news to me--though it won't stop me from enjoying and recommending them. Can any of you confirm that, and if it's true, what's the source of that information? _______________ In an interview Rowling gave several years ago, she denied this. She said all the spells and incantations were totally made up, just as were the names of people, places, and things. There is a list called Harry Potter for Grown Ups. Since it sometimes tops 300 messages a day, I don't subscribe, but I have searched it from time to time, along with other sources. In a FAQ on that list, it says that, "Most of the Wiccan members are in agreement that the Harry Potter books contain no references to Wicca (paganism) and that nothing in the books would suggest that witches & wizards within the Harry Potter universe are Wiccan." A footnote says, "Potter Charms Modern-Day Witches" (30 May 2000) (http://www.cesnur.org/recens/potter_024.htm) (quotes several Wiccans as laughing at the notion that the Harry Potter books promote Wicca; the books "don't have anything to do with Wicca"). Also J. K. Rowling said she is not a Wiccan in an interview with Jeff Jensen, "Fire Storm: Interview with J.K. Rowling." Entertainment Weekly (4 August 2000). Larry Jackson >From russa@candesa.com Mon Jul 29 16:43:50 2002 Snicker. Most of the spells in Harry Potter are a twisted psuedo-latin, so you can usually figure out what the spell does by what it sounds like. Unless actual Wiccans have a really good sense of humor, I doubt they are authentic. There is also no deity involved in the magic in Harry Potter, it's just a talent, so again, I think a connection to any kind of paganism would be stretching things. candesa Russell Asplund director of research and development 801.426.5450 russa@candesa.com >From workshop@burgoyne.com Mon Jul 29 17:21:36 2002 I don't recall there being any runes, Wiccan or otherwise, in the Harry Potter stories. The spells were recited, not read. Tolkien is the one who had runes. I'd recommend that you ask the LDS guy you work with for the source of his information. It sounds to me like one more piece of propaganda against the books. Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury workshop@burgoyne.com >From Melissa@proffitt.com Mon Jul 29 21:36:11 2002 It's untrue. J.K. Rowling has stated the the magic in her books is completely made up by her and NONE of the spells are real. She is not (again according to her own words) interested in being "authentic" when = it comes to magic. Rowling comes up with interesting ideas she would like = her characters to be able to do using magic, and gives them spell names = derived from non-English words that have similar meanings so they will sound appropriately magical. One good fan-created resource for the etymology = of HP spell names is: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/spells.html I found an even better one once, but didn't save the link. This one is = not "official" but is a cooperative effort, so I don't like to quote it and = say "this is definitely what Rowling had in mind when she named this spell." But it was very useful when I was researching things for My best guess for the rumor that Rowling got her magic from the Wiccans = is the books _Harry Potter and the Bible: The Menace Behind the Magick_ by Richard Abanes. He is at least the most well-focused and well-publicized= of the anti-Rowling crowd. (He is also notorious for not rigorously = checking his facts about things like, oh, the Mormon Church.) It's also possible that it's just an urban myth floating around and your co-worker heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who saw it written in some unattributed article. Or something like that. Melissa Proffitt >From jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Tue Jul 30 00:17:08 2002 This sounds like some reworked version I've heard a number of times about Harry Potter and witchcraft. My guess is your co-worker hasn't read the series and is passing this on second, third, fourth or whatever hand. I've read a number of articles and seen interviews with J.K. Rowling and she consistently denies her books have any basis in real witchcraft. She seems to be fond of using a mixture of latin words, old english, slang and cliches' to make for clever word play in the spells, names of plants and various characters. If there is any basis of fact in this Wiccan rune assertion, I'd like to know the source and a link to it. Not just something "someone who really knows about this stuff" said. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA One possible source for this person's misinformation about J.K. Rowling could be the fake "interview" of J.K. Rowling done in the satirical publication "The Onion" a couple of years ago. As I recall, this made-up interview had Rowling talking about how great Satan is, etc., etc. Of course, those who are familiar with The Onion would know that all of their pieces are spoofs. But I seem to recall that this article was cited as a serious source at the time, by some who (a) were concerned about Harry Potter, and (b) evidently didn't know what type of publication The Onion is. (Since it's available online, probably this is one of the items that would have come up as a natural result of searching on Harry Potter and Satanism. Sigh.) Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Kerry Blair Query Date: 30 Jul 2002 16:12:24 -0600 The current (spring '02) Irreantum has a review of Kerry Blair that discusses several of her books. If you want a copy of this issue, click below: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=irreantum2%40cs.com&item_name=Irreantum+sample+copy&amount=5.00 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 29 Jul 2002 16:50:27 -0700 We have had job losses and been on Church welfare, and we never, ever, had the judgemental, humiliating treatment you were subjected to. I guess our leaders also treated us with some dignity in that I don't recall but the few people who should know, knew our full situation. Is this primarily a Utah phenomenon? If so, I count myself blessed to reside in California. Concerning state welfare, that system is primarily for the bureaucrats who run it-they get 70 cents per welfare dollar, the needy get 30 cents, a sad disparity. The Church uses 90-100% of the welfare funds received on the food and the recipients in need of it. I also worked in the office of my local Deseret Industries for a year and got to see that part of the system in action. Not perfect, but they did a good job. I hope our hearts are changing individually so that the system works in the way a Zion people should make it work. And we should do what we can in our own individual spheres with our writing and personal generosity. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA Thom Duncan wrote: >Have you ever actually had to accept Church welfare? I have and I don't >mind admitting that, should the need ever arise again, I would much prefer >selling my organs on the black market than to ever so humiliate myself and >my family by accepting assistance from the Church. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 30 Jul 2002 08:27:33 -0700 on 7/26/02 3:54 PM, Thom Duncan at ThomDuncan@prodigy.net wrote: > Have you ever actually had to accept Church welfare? I have and I don't > mind admitting that, should the need ever arise again, I would much prefer > selling my organs on the black market than to ever so humiliate myself and > my family by accepting assistance from the Church. Good Grief! I have needed assistence but never took any--but I have worked at the other end. Your Bishop and RS Pres are WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. When my mom was a RS Pres when I was a kid she wouldn't tell anybody who she was working with and that's the way it's supposed to be. I've been up to my eyebrows on the distribution end and it's supposed to handled with discretion. There's a whole manual on how not to let the cat out of the bag. Pride is the source of all evil, no doubt. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 30 Jul 2002 13:48:26 -0400 Some time back, when the list was spinning a thread called "Censoring Ourselves," I posted how I'd just had enough of sitting quietly and had decided to speak up and the result was that now we have good discussions in our branch. Clearly I was asking for trouble...last week we got a new missionary from Provo where his dad is a BYU professor who simply freaked out. He sort of publicly said that I must not have a testimony. Sigh. So it is with fear and trembling that I share that in our little branch, there is such a paucity of musical talent that on occasion they ask me to do a special number. All I play is the guitar and that only passably. But I have played and sung for the Stake Presidency who seem to have no problem with my choice of instrument. Two weeks ago (just before the missionary arrived) I did another number on a (gasp) electric guitar. I won't say where I dug the song up from, but it was written by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber and dealt with Pontious Pilate. Hmmm. Again, it's always hard to tell if people are just too polite to say that they've been offended or whether they're not in the least offended. But I don't think anyone batted an eye when I plugged in the Stratocaster for a sacrament performance. It may have helped that I played very softly and sedately. If the pattern holds true, our next missionary (should I play again) will run out of the chapel, holding his ears and screaming to be saved from the idolaters. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Millennial Economics Date: 30 Jul 2002 14:48:40 -0400 I don't have much of an opinion on the Capitalism/Socialism debate, but there's one exercise I do in class that has provided me with years of entertainment. In "The Communist Manifesto" Marx gives 10 steps for converting a capitalist economy into a socialist one. He says these steps are gradual and probably wouldn't come all at once. So I have my classes scrutinize these steps and we discuss how many of the ten are actually in place in these good old United States. We always conclude that Karl would be very, very happy with the progress we have made since 1848. Depending on how you score, interpret, or count the dangling chads, we are about a 7.5. Writers of the world, unite! Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Unsavory Etymologies Date: 30 Jul 2002 12:00:35 -0700 Robert said: >The thing I notice most frequently nowadays -- on the ice or off -- is = how >ingrained and unconscious swearing has become. [snip] I can relate to these times when we get real upset. My daughter ever = once in a while wants to institute a "Swear Jar" in the house. I can = also relate to the "verbosity" of athletes. I grew up a wrestler from = high school and college then coached and eventually refereed since 1980. = It is amazing the language you hear on the mat from the boys and the = things you hear the coaches say as well. I have dinged team points and = match points on more than one occasion. This would include high school = and international style wrestlers. What is interesting is once you ding = them they shut up and make sure everyone knows who the ref is who will = not tolerate language on his mat. The funniest incident I ever had was = in a match out in Hemet, California. One of the boys was stalling on the = bottom and I gave him a verbal warning and he gave me the finger. He was = at an angle that no one except me could see this and it took me a second = to get my composure and then I blew my whistle and gave him an = unsportsman like penalty. The coach called me over and wanted to know = what he had done. When I told him he started laughing and then told the = kid to keep his fingers to himself. It is amazing what you see and hear = as an official. 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: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Unsavory Etymologies Date: 30 Jul 2002 15:04:38 -0600 At 05:02 PM 7/29/02 -0600, you wrote: > Most words which are horrible and >obscene have innocuous beginnings, such as t**t, g*****j***v**m and >sw****7**st. My e-mail program put two chili peppers on this message, so it must have learned how to extrapolate from asterisks! barbara hum4 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias Date: 30 Jul 2002 15:25:54 -0700 Susan Malmrose wrote: >Anyway, I'm glad you were able to find help with your mental problems >through government assistance. My sister was schizophrenic for most of = her >life, and I know from her experiences that there just isn't enough = being >done for the mentally ill. In fact, there was no help for my sister = unless >it could be proven she was a danger to herself or others. She would get >admitted to a half way house for about 18 months, but then released, = because >she wasn't improving. Move out on her own, stop taking her meds and try = to >commit suicide, then get in somewhere else. >I think these things should be talked about more--and written about = more--to >help people be aware of what is needed, and not be so judgmental. I take it from your "most of her life" statement your sister may not be = alive. That is a sad state of affairs when those things happen. The = really sad part is there is such a stigma in the Church (and even the = community) about mental sickness of any kind. Many of the leaders are = still struggling with my son having come home from his mission for = "Generalized Anxiety Disorder" and since I had served a mission and = suffered from this same condition (I had more anxiety over coming home) = there is a real strange cloud around the situation even now. I agree with your statement about talking and writing about this (mental = illness) more. Next week at the Sunstone Symposium my wife will be = participating on a panel discussing missionaries who return early and if = the Church is doing enough for them. I've told the moderator I would be = an alternate if they needed me due to both family and personal = experiences. I'm also working on a personal essay/book about my = experiences on my mission and in my personal life. This is another part = of building Zion that needs to be accomplished. We need to love everyone = in spite of our various weaknesses. Otherwise we will never be able to = stand accepted before the Lord. 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: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. Date: 30 Jul 2002 16:30:07 -0600 ---Original Message From: Clark Goble > > I'll not reply to Jim's view of "politicized postmodernism" > except to suggest that I disagree. > However I think that the attacks on postmodernism or even > "politicized" postmodernism are themselves hidden attacks on > certain leftist political movements. I'm not hiding attacks on leftist political movements, I'm stating them outright. The leftist political movement has taken over Higher Education, at least in the liberal arts. Further, liberal arts has become a self-screening haven for the most extreme elements of leftist political movements. It is to the point now that you cannot receive an English Ph.D. from most Universities without the right (left) *politics*. Since 90% of current tenured professors are "liberals" (or at least registered Democrats), and the 10% that are conservative are older, often marginalized faculty due to retire soon, tenure committees are dominated by "liberals"--enough of whom are politicized to the extent of actively preventing tenure to conservative professors that liberals are assured of *remaining* and even *increasing* their majority. And since postmodernism is the tool they are using to formulate their evaluations, postmodernism is, not surprisingly, itself under attack. Since postmodernism cannot be used adequately against itself and lends itself better to liberal than conservative arguments, it leaves conservatives who wish to pursue the liberal arts with a frustrating dilemma--compromise their integrity or find other work. Eric Samuelson tells us how hard it is for him to be liberal at BYU (though I'd wager he'd have to buttress his liberal bona fides at most any other University). Well, at least he's resisting administrators and other outside influences and not faculty complaints about his academic theatrical credentials. He faces possible firing from BYU, yes, but he does *not* face the potential destruction of his *career* by politicized forces in his field. So. Be liberal and have a bit of a battle at BYU, or be conservative and face bitter, on-going battles everywhere *but* BYU (and maybe there, too, as they attempt to boost their academic--i.e. liberal--reputation). > It is simply a common > tactic of *all* political movements that they "obscure" what > is controversial about themselves and often attack straw men. > I see it in political exchange from every point of view. It doesn't make it okay just because every point of view does it. And it certainly doesn't mean it should be allowed to go unchallenged--whatever the origins. I expect people to challenge me when they think I am wrong (as here). If I'm "obscuring" controversy about myself, then I expect to be called on to explain. I value postmodernism and recognize that it is very useful from the unique perspective of Mormon ideology. The emphasis on individual experience and interpretation is very LDS and gives us tools to communicate our perspective in ways that have been frustratingly absent since, well, forever. Further, it allows us to break down authoritative traditional and historical regimentation that prevented us from communicating in the past. Those are good things that are laudable and should be supported. But I also recognize that postmodernism has some serious weaknesses that make it harmfully non-LDS as well--like the absence of even potential absolutes or standards. Mormons believe strongly in standards and moral absolutes even amidst our call for individualism, personal choice and moral responsibility. As such, while postmodernism is valuable to us, we should never rest solely upon it because doing so will weaken our important contributions as much as it will enhance them. And since postmodernism isn't in trouble or even under threat of *waning*, I choose to decry the abuses that do harm. Particularly when those abuses violate core postmodernist principles by setting up an unofficial standard based on a particular political philosophy. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Kerry Blair Query Date: 30 Jul 2002 15:33:13 -0700 Thanks for the info! I'll pass it along to my friend. ----------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: [AML] Re: Programs for Poverty Date: 30 Jul 2002 19:04:58 -0400 It could be a heavy burden on the members of the church to have to fully support church members on church welfare, while at the same time supporting government welfare with their tax contributions. I have mixed feelings about how both government and church welfare work. But I feel a sort of group shame when I hear stories such as Thom's (I think it was Thom) about the shame he was made to feel while needing church welfare. In most wards we've been in we've never known about people who were on welfare unless they told us. I'm a member of the RS presidency now, and still don't know who receives assistance unless somehow I need to help provide it. On the other hand, Thom's comment about garbage being searched for a Big Gulp brought to mind my own parents feelings about government welfare. They were often quite hurt I think when I was growing up, to be working hard to support their family on a navy pay, when people down the street were living to a much higher standard on government welfare. I can imagine them wishing there was some 'garbage sniffer' employed to be sure there was really a need and not extravagance in the program. Tracie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 30 Jul 2002 17:02:12 -0700 Apparently, Thom wrote: > > I believe all music is exactly like this: completely, utterly without > >> emotion, sentiment, or meaning except for what we as listeners impose on > it. This is obviously not the same thought as you had in mind in saying this, but I think it may be of interest to this discussion, because I think music can, and in fact should, have a powerful emotional content. I had the privilege of taking piano lessons for a short while before I went on my mission from a man trained at the Vienna Conservatory. His name was Josef Rosenfeld, and he was a rather famous teacher in Southern California. He used to say that the emotion had to be in the music and not just in the musician. He spent a great deal of time teaching me various techniques for putting emotion in music. It is all a matter of technique, according to him, and naturally, I would agree. If you know how to put emotion in music, then the listeners will feel it without imposing anything on it. This can be a very powerful influence. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report July 26 Date: 30 Jul 2002 18:33:16 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of July 26, 2002 Report compiled by: Tom Baggaley, 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 --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 9 Minority Report 3,124,360 1,365 38 Gerald Molen (producer) 123,375,096 21 The Divine Secrets of the 445,261 411 52 Ya-Ya Sisterhood 67,653,127 36 ESPN's Ultimate X 78,844 40 80 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,450,995 59 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 20,382 8 815 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,616,464 62 The Singles Ward 17,085 11 178 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 862,185 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, Wally Joyner, Lincoln Hoppe, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, etc. 68 China: The Panda Adventure 13,527 6 367 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,661,888 75 Galapagos 7,706 4 1004 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,551,853 84 The Other Side of Heaven 4,525 5 227 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,659,787 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 95 Mark Twain's America 3D 2,936 2 1487 Alan Williams (composer) 2,257,656 96 The Believer 2,885 4 73 Ryan Gosling (lead actor) 251,622 YEAH, BABY: "Austin Powers in Goldmember," produced by Utah native Eric McLeod, opened in the Number 1 spot nationwide, taking in over $71 million at the U.S. box office over the weekend. This made it the highest-ever opening for a comedy, and the 5th highest opening for any film, coming behind "Spider-man", "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", "Star Wars: Episode 1: Attack of the Clones", and "Lost World: Jurassic Park" (produced by Latter-day Saint producer Jerry Molen). McLeod, who graduated from the University of Utah before embarking on a career as a Hollywood movie producer, brough the "Austin Power" production to his hometown: The opening sequence of the movie was filmed in Moab. (We suppose the big question about McLeod is... Is he or isn't he? Answer: We don't know. Sorry.) MOLEN/MINORITY REPORT: Once films drop from the Top 10 in weekend grossing totals, they rarely return. With new films being released weekly, and a reduction in the number of theaters where the film is playing, it is unlikely that a film can climb back up the rankings. However, this weekend, "Minority Report" (Producer - Gerald Molen) beat the odds and came in at the number 9 spot after finishing number 11 the previous week, although it played in over 300 fewer theaters this weekend. SMOOT: Another impressive number is the number 1000 now attached with "Galapagos" (Cinematographer - Reed Smoot). As of this week, "Galapagos" has been playing in theaters for over 1000 days - equal to just under 2 3/4 years. Granted, IMAX films do tend to play longer than typical theatrical releases. Still, this is a very impressive milestone. Another film with Reed Smoot as cinematographer, "China: The Panda Adventure" passed the one year mark this week. HALE, DANSIE, DeVILLIERS, KIRN: "The RM", the next LDS-themed comedy from HaleStorm Entertainment has begun production. The film, which stars Kirby Heyborne, as a young man who returns from his mission with big plans for the future, only to have his life fall apart around him, is scheduled to be released in January. In other production news, Tucker T Dansie's latest short film "Quarters & Rocks" is set to film tomorrow (Wednesday July 31, 2002) and Rocco DeVilliers' children's film "Up in the Air" is scheduled to film beginning in September. Funny thing to note: "Up in the Air" is ALSO the title of a novel by lapsed Latter-day Saint novelist Walter Kirn, which has been optioned to be made into a feature film directed by Jay Roach, the director of the "Austin Powers" movies. Meanwhile, shooting is reportedly under way on the movie version of Kirn's novel THUMBSUCKER. The movie stars Elijah Wood (star of "Lord of the Rings") in the central role. In the novel, Elijah Wood's character meets missionaries, joins the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and serves part of a mission. "Thumbsucker", which will be released in 2003, is the feature film directorial debut of Mike Mills, who should NOT be confused with Latter-day Saint director Michael Mills, the director of "He Took My Licking", which was written by Elizabeth Hansen and photographed by "Handcart" director Kels Goodman. BIOS: The first stage of the "Brief Biographies of Latter-day Saint and/or Utah Film Personalities" section of the ldsfilm.com website is complete. The completed versions of all of the pages are finished and online. Well over 1,000 capsule biographies are provided, covering the majority of film personalities listed on the ldsfilm.com filmography pages (primarily actors, directors, producers, writers, and cinematographers, with some miscellaneous crew such as production designers, costume designers, etc.) There are no biographies for film composers. The LDSFilm.com composers links directly to composers' websites. The capsule biographies are listed alphabetically, one page for each letter of the alphabet. The bio section is located at: http://www.ldsfilm.com/bio/ GOODMAN/HANDCART: Kels Goodman's long-awaited "Handcart" was given a "preview" showing at the Scera Theater in Orem on July 23rd. It was a video projection, rather than film, and some of the sound work is still not done. But those invited were able to see the film essentially in its final form. Kels and company still have some time before the scheduled October 11th official release, scheduled for 20 theaters in Utah, Arizona, Idaho and Nevada to polish the final product. LDSFilm.com co-webmaster Thomas C. Baggaley was there. For Thomas, highlights of the film were the relationships between the characters, and the acting, especially a strong performance by male lead Jaelan Petrie. Although the video projection was not as clear as film would have been, it is clear that this will be a very good looking film as well as a nice tribute to the handcart pioneers. At the preview, Kels announced that he is going to begin working on his next film immediately. It will be an action/adventure film about Boy Scouts. SWAN: The long-awaited premiere of "The Princess and the Pea" will be on August 16th. Although the film does not have Latter-day Saint characters, most of the key filmmakers are Latter-day Saints, including director Mark Swan, producers Forrest S. Baker III and Don Judd, and composer Alan Williams. Local voice actors include Frank Gerrish and Chrystine Potter Hyatt. PERRY/MASTER OF DISGUISE: Next week sees the nationwide release of "The Master of Disguise" (2002), a family-friendly film that marks the directorial debut of production designer Perry Andelin Blake. Blake (a practicing Latter-day Saint) is best known for his acclaimed production design work on all of the Adam Sandler feature films. "Master of Disguise" stars Saturday Night Live alum Dana Carvey. Look for it EVERYWHERE. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Programs for Poverty Date: 30 Jul 2002 17:36:04 -0600 ---Original Message From: Jonathan Langford > In reply to a comment by Eric Samuelsen, Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > > >Following the Church welfare program means not accepting government > >aid. You can't have them "in conjunction" within the policy > of Church > >welfare. Exceptions might be made, but I haven't heard of them and > >would be surprised if they passed "official" muster. > > Jacob, I'm not sure what you mean here. There's no official > policy I know of that in order to accept Church aid, you need > to not be accepting government aid. This is sort of true. I'll explain below. > The only such policy I'm aware of (from the various Church > handbooks) is that Church welfare should not duplicate aid > that people are receiving from other sources--which is not > the same thing, as I see it, as saying they shouldn't be > receiving that aid. I couldn't find this in the handbook so I don't know about duplication of needs. It makes sense at any rate. > I also asked our bishop, who said that so far as he knew, > there was no such limitation. He added that in many cases, > e.g., single parents, it would be very hard for families to > make it without government aid. It *is* hard for single parents to care for their families both materially and spiritually. I *think* it's possible without aid, even with limited resources, but I don't know that, really. At any rate, church policy doesn't mention government aid and specifically says that the church should do all it can in pretty much any situation. Interestingly, though, there *is* an injunction against activism under the aegis of leadership responsibilities: "Church leaders should do what they can to help meet the basic needs of members in any of these circumstances and to help the members become self-reliant. But in their work as Church leaders, they should not concentrate on solving economic and political problems in their communities or nations. Rather, ward and stake leaders should concentrate on helping people overcome those causes of welfare need that the individual or family can remedy. Individual Church members, as citizens, may work toward solving economic and political problems by participating in worthy projects sponsored by their communities." > On a related topic, from time to time, I've heard some (not > in positions of > authority) claim that the "ideal" of the Church welfare > program is to make it so that active Church members should > never have to receive governmental aid. But if this ever was > a goal of Church welfare, it's my sense that this is not the case now. Oh yeah, that's a stated goal of Church Welfare. Or rather, the stated goal is "People who receive assistance should use it to release themselves from the bondage and limitations of their need, becoming more self-reliant and more able to give to others." > But then, I may simply be misunderstanding what you meant here... I don't think you misunderstood what I meant, but I was wrong in what I said. As you can see above, one thing notably absent from official church policy was any statement about government aid, right or wrong. The relevant passage from where I'd expect such a statement goes: "When Church members are doing all they can to provide for themselves but still cannot meet their basic needs, they first should turn to their families for help. When this is not sufficient, the Church stands ready to help. Members who need such assistance should call on their bishops." No mention of government at all. Now, my *interpretation* of that (and the interpretation I heard from my leaders) is that if the family cannot then the Church will--which leaves little room for the government. Your *material* needs should be supplied by one of You, Your Family, or The Church (in that order of precedence). Now, because Paris brought it up I looked up mental health issues as well. It turns out that mental health is not in the Welfare section at all--there is a whole 'nother (lengthy) section for it and a quick perusal indicates that the bishop is to be more of a spiritual advisor than anything else. Wards are to have compassion, gain understanding, and support members with mental health problems in any way they can based on what they learn about what is going on. I break it down into three steps: 1) Get to know the person individually, 2) Learn everything you can about their condition and diagnosis, 3) Give as much support (spiritual, physical, emotional) as possible based on that combined knowledge and the needs of the situation. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Unsavory Etymologies Date: 30 Jul 2002 13:53:25 -0700 You had a lot of fun with this post, didn't you Paris? ;-) Kathy Paris Anderson wrote: >I consider myself fluent in obscene language. When I was younger (about 37) >I took pride in being able to say S**t in several different languages (I'm >still charmed by that ability). The origin F**k, as Robert Slaven surmised, >is Middle German. It comes from the verb Fokkin, I'm not sure of the >spelling, which means "to penetrate." Most words which are horrible and >obscene have innocuous beginning, such as t**t, g*****j***v**m and >sw****7**st. > >Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Little Secrets (Movie) Date: 30 Jul 2002 20:02:03 -0500 The official website for Latter-day Saint film director Blair Treu's new Columbia TriStar release "Little Secrets" is online at: http://www.littlesecretsmovie.com/ "Little Secrets" and "Possession", both helmed by BYU grads, will soon be duking it out at the box office. Here are some quotes from people who have seen the movie. I lifted them from the official website, so I'm sure they are accurate and objective. 'Little Secrets' is beautifully crafted. It is fun and full of good values which are revealed rather than stated. Everyone learns forgiveness, kindness and love. 'Little Secrets' has something to tell the world, and it needs to be seen by all." - Ted Baehr, MOVIEGUIDE=ac=c6 "Undeniably affecting thanks to some strong performances. Evan Rachel Wood gives a touching performance. =ac=ddMichael Angarano is a scene-stealing delight." - Stephen Farber, Movieline "An uncommonly smart, intellegent film aimed at young audiences and families." - Bonnie Britton, Indianapolis Star Tribune "The most popular movie we have ever shown. A resounding hit with kids and their parents." - Jeff Sparks, Heartland Film Festival "LITTLE SECRETS is an irresistible charmer full of heart, soul, surprises and fun. Fourteen-year-old Emily is an enchanting character, sketched with rare sensitivity and insight, and portrayed by a supremely talented young actress, Evan Rachel Wood. Delightful viewing for the whole family!" - Michael Medved, " Eye on Entertainment," SRN Radio Network, or KRLA "One of the Finest Family Films! Bound to be a Classic." - Elaine Blythe, Film Advisory Board -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Harry Potter Question Date: 30 Jul 2002 17:50:30 -0700 =46rom: DiannRead@aol.com > An LDS guy I work with informed me today that in her efforts to be authentic, > J.K. Rowling "used the actual runes used by Wiccans" for the spells= the > characters learn and use in the stories. That was news to me--thou= gh it > won't stop me from enjoying and recommending them. Can any of you = confirm > that, and if it's true, what's the source of that information? I doubt it, for a bunch of reasons: 1) Runes aren't words, they're letters. Specifically, IIRC, 25 lett= ers of the Old Norse alphabet. They were eventually supplanted by the Roman alphabet, of course, but two runes for the 'th' sounds (=FE and =F0 -= - use alt+0254 and 0240 respectively, or 0222 and 0208 for the capitals) su= rvive in the Icelandic language as supplements to the Roman letters. 2) Wiccans use the runes the way numerologists use numbers. Each run= e is supposed to have 'magic' connotations, many of which differ from grou= p to group. It's pretty obviously bogus. 3) The words used by Rowling as spells seem to be mostly Latin words,= or made-up words based on Latin. Consider the 'Lumos' spell to turn you= r wand into a flashlight, which stems from a Latin root (see the English wor= ds 'luminous' or 'illuminate'). Or 'expelliarmus' to disarm an opponent= of his/her wand; again, from the same Latin root that gives us the Engli= sh word 'expel' and its derivatives. In fact, a little Googling finds the fo= llowing article in the Houston Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/potter/984689 (There's a related story at http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/potter/984711, too.) which lists a buttload of those spells, and their apparent roots. (S= ome are =66rom the Greek -- e.g. 'Petrificus Totalus', where the root is the = Greek 'petra', or rock, with related English word 'petrify'. This last der= ivation, of course, all LDS should at least be marginally aware of.) I suspect Ms. Rowling either knew a smattering of Latin, knew enough = about English origins to be aware of Latin roots, and/or had a Latin dictio= nary to hand when she made up the words for these spells. (She was a teacher= , apparently, so this should be no huge surprise.) But they have absol= utely nothing to do with runes or with Wicca. I also suspect your co-worker doesn't know what an 'urban legend' is,= nor how to refrain from passing one along. %-) Finally, may I recommend the useful article at http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.htm, where letters circulat= ing claiming that Potter is leading kids to witchcraft quote unknowingly = =66rom a satirical article in The Onion (www.theonion.com). The Snopes articl= e closes with the following sentences, which are indeed most valuable: "If The Onion's parody has demonstrated anything, it's that we should= be worrying about adults not being able to distinguish between fiction a= nd reality. The kids themselves seem to have a pretty good grasp of it." ObMakingFunOfAmericans: Who knows the reason why the original title = of the first book was changed for the US market? (And *only* the US market;= my Canadian-published edition has the original title.) Five points to t= he house of whoever answers this correctly first. Ten points if you're a Yank yourself. Robert the muggle *********************************************************************= * Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.c= a =2E..with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin to= o '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: "Richard C. Russell" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Date: 30 Jul 2002 19:01:20 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- > > This is correct. By definition, an E minor chord is a > certain set of notes at a certain frequency. > > However, I suspect I could use that innocent little > E minor chord in such a way that it would knock your > socks off and set your pacemaker back two or three > strokes. > > It wouldn't be the E minor chord's fault. It would be > the setting in which I placed it--how I used it--that > would make the difference. This is also true with words. Are there some chords that would NEVER be appropriate? Is that the same with words? ********************************************* Richard C. Russell, SLC UTAH www.leaderlore.com, lderlore@xmission.com "There is never the last word, only the latest." ********************************************* This e-mail is a personal communication sometimes intended merely for the sake of discussion. Its contents represent solely the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of the author's employer nor those of any organization with which the author may be affiliated. It is specifically not intended to be a representation of LDS Church doctrine. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Harry Potter Question Date: 30 Jul 2002 17:57:28 -0700 (PDT) --- Jonathan Langford wrote: > From: jlangfor@pressenter.com > > One possible source for this person's misinformation about J.K. Rowling > could be the fake "interview" of J.K. Rowling done in the satirical > publication "The Onion" a couple of years ago. As I recall, this made-up > > interview had Rowling talking about how great Satan is, etc., etc. Of > course, those who are familiar with The Onion would know that all of > their > pieces are spoofs. But I seem to recall that this article was cited as a > > serious source at the time, by some who (a) were concerned about Harry > Potter, and (b) evidently didn't know what type of publication The Onion > is. > (Since it's available online, probably this is one of the items that > would > have come up as a natural result of searching on Harry Potter and > Satanism. > Sigh.) > The source document for what Jonathan is referring to above, along with a link to the Onion article is available at: http://www.urbanlegends.com/ulz/harrypotter.html Warning: The Onion article does use some harsh language and sexually graphic (albeit it comic, exaggerated) descriptions. For those of you who haven't heard this before, both urbanlegends.com and snopes.com [ http://www.snopes.com/ ] are excellent resources for urban legends of a religious, political, Internet, business or sociological nature. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] Re: Unsavory Etymologies Date: 31 Jul 2002 00:04:48 -0600 Bill Willson wrote: > > >Not too many people know that this word is derived from a perfectly innocent > >acronym that became a word simply because it was easier to say it than say > >the letters of the notation on the London police blotter that went along > >with the offense of - For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. > > [snip] Jonathan Langford wrote: > Actually, this seems to fall into the category of folk etymologies that > have no basis in fact. Use of this word dates back at least to the 15th > century, according to my dictionary (and may date back a lot further than > that--such words often don't make it into written sources nearly as early > as they are used in spoken language), and the word appears to have links to > Dutch and Swedish. My favorite version of the origin of this word can be found on any joke page if you do a search on "pluck yew" (and actually many people have taken this one seriously). Someone sent it to me in 1997, my first year on the internet, so most of you on the list have probably seen it as well. Here it is: (I thought we could all use some comic relief and concentrating too hard on my Astronomy class to contribute anything listworthy anyway.....) "Strange But True" Daily Feature The Historical Origin of the Middle Finger Before the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the French, anticipating victory over the English, proposed to cut off the middle finger of all captured English soldiers. Without the middle finger, it would be impossible to draw the renowned English longbow and therefore be incapable of fighting in the future. This famous weapon was made of the native English Yew tree, and the act of drawing the longbow was known as "plucking the yew." Much to the bewilderment of the French, the English won a major upset and began mocking the French by waving their middle fingers at the defeated French, saying, "See, we can still pluck yew ... ... PLUCK YEW!" Over the years, some 'folk etymologies' have grown up around this symbolic gesture. Since 'pluck yew' is rather difficult to say (like "pleasant mother pheasant plucker", which is who you had to go to for the feathers used on the arrows for the longbow), the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodental fricative 'F', and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute are mistakenly thought to have something to do with an intimate encounter. It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows that the symbolic gesture is known as "giving the bird". Jana -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Kirtland, Nauvoo Documentary Videos Date: 31 Jul 2002 17:31:40 -0500 Videos you may have never heard of yet: Kirtland and Nauvoo videos available from Steve Lemmons' "The Studio" (based in Hurricane, Utah). http://www.historickirtland.com/ "Kirtland Temple: The House of the Lord" documentary, plus a CD-ROM available. http://www.historicnauvoo.com/ "The Rebuilding of the Nauvoo Temple", VHS documentary, plus associated tapes, CD-ROMs. http://www.themountainmeadowsmassacre.com/ "The Mountain Meadows Massacre" documentary video webmaster, ldsfilm.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature