From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #66 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, June 12 2000 Volume 01 : Number 066 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:44:52 -0600 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Divorce in LDS lit. On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:14:38 -0600, Clark Goble wrote: >(I'll keep this on the literature and avoid most tangents) > > ___ Jacob ___ >| A divorce says something negative about you whether you are a >| man or a woman. Even if that someone was not at fault in the >| divorce. If you are divorced, it is clear that something >| likely *was* wrong with you. You made an eternal choice and >| were unable to keep it eternal. > ___ > >Remember though that saying 'something is wrong with you' tends to have = the >connotation that you did something wrong or you are a defective person. >Lets change the situation to a very similar one. Each of us is divorced >from God because of *our* acts. We are at fault. However because of = *our* >acts something is wrong with God. His family is separated and broken = up. >Now take a step back from that and ask yourself - are you comfortable = with >saying there is something wrong with God? I'm not. > >I think we do need to watch our rhetoric in these matters. Connotations >often communicate what we don't intend. If you are going to be careful about the connotations, then you need to = make sure you are comparing apples to apples. We are *not* divorced from God. We didn't break a covenant to come here. A separation is not a divorce = :) Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:51:55 -0500 From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: [AML] Effects of Literature (was: Divorce in LDS lit) Larry Jackson wrote: > Well then, he was fortunate. But, since I only had to > handle one of them, how on earth do I write that story > without destroying a few lives? Will somebody give me the title of one of these seriously-written novels that has destroyed somebody's life? (This is just a rhetorical favor.) I'm not sure that the problem is as serious as the town criers are making it out to be. In fact, there are much more important things for us to watch out for. 1) The over abundance of credit 2) Video Games (especially 1st person shooter games like the ones the Marines use to train their soldiers in urban warfare: Duke Nukem and Doom) 3) Internet Porn (which allows pornography to march right in to the home) 4) A culture which degrades women and motherhood in favor of economic growth for the military-industrial complex 5) Self-interest in goverment at all levels How many times is fine clothing mentioned in the book of Mormon as the cause or early symptom of downfall versus the problems of serious literature? Perhaps Satan wants our attentions turned away from the serious issues. Perhaps if we are decrying art as the villain, he will have more freedom to work because he won't be under our direct scrutiny. Todd Robert Petersen [MOD: Any responses should focus *not* on which are or aren't our most serious societal problems, but on whether--and in what ways--literature is a problem, or part of the solution, or both, or neither, or...you get the idea.] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 13:01:01 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: [AML] Mormon Lit for Women (was: Divorce in LDS lit.) On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 16:21:24 -0700, Barbara R. Hume wrote: >It occurred to me that that's the main problem I have with Mormon = fiction. The characters seem to be >manipulated by the writer to prove a point rather than to be developed = and >fleshed out so that they story they live seems inevitable given their >characters and personalities. =20 >Another problem I have with it, I think, is that the lifestyle set forth= as >the ultimate happiness would be heck on wheels for me. I recently = checked >out the last page of a Mormon novel to see what kind of ending it had. = The >protagonist is deliriously happy because now she's a pregnant housewife. This character is certifiably insane. Speaking as a heavily pregnant housewife who can't remember what her feet look like. :) >Please tell me that there are other heavens for females! That one would= not >be mine! We are not all all the same! Stories about housewives are the = dark >underbelly for more of us than you might think. Just so there's balance, I think. Since it's true there are women who = are pining after being married and pregnant, it's not that this isn't a realistic ending, just that it's not the only realistic ending. I = wonder, Barbara--do you think this kind of lifestyle is actually over-promoted in Mormon novels, or does it just feel like it because you dislike it so = much? (I don't read enough of this sort of novel to know.) I think I see your ultimate point, though--that a good portion of what is published as Mormon fiction is geared toward an audience that doesn't include you, but implies that it *should* include you. Is that an = accurate guess? Let me speculate a little further: in my last ward, I was more or less responsible for any book reviews we did in homemaking (back when = that's what it was called) and in choosing titles, the majority opinion was that books were for escapism. In examining what they liked, it was obvious to= me that their favorite books had characters whose general attitudes and = beliefs were congruent with theirs, regardless of the historical period the book = was set in. In other words, they wanted to read about women who had = experiences like theirs, or women who had experiences that *could* be like theirs = (i.e. they'd read about a woman who miscarries even if they'd never miscarried themselves). I don't want to generalize too far based just on this ward, but assuming that they're a representative population, it suggests to me that one of the biggest markets for LDS fiction is this kind of woman, = who doesn't much care about things like well-fleshed-out characters because that's not what they're reading for (and possibly because they're unconsciously putting themselves in the place of the protagonist). Just a tangential thought. Melissa Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:32:13 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Divorce in LDS lit. Todd Robert Petersen: > So is it possible to look without wallowing? Yes. > Unfortunately, one man's attempt to right wrongs > is another man's wallowing. Aye. There's the rub. And there's now way to change that. It's simply incumbent upon us all to ALLOW that others will not always see things as we do. And allow the spirit to work through art as it will, whether we think it should or not. Heck, I once wrote a pretty awful play from which many people seemed to derive some kind of spiritual sustenance for a time. Go figure. J. Scott Bronson--The Scotted Line "World peace begins in my home" - -------------------------------------------------------- We are not the acolytes of an abstruse god. We are here to entertain--Keith Lockhart - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 14:04:35 -0600 From: Mike South Subject: [AML] Re: Race and Culture in LDS Lit. Todd Robert Petersen said: > Still, there are Mormons from Compton, Watts, DC, Philly, Southside Chicago, > etc. They have something to say, but regular LDS audiences won't be ready > to hear it for a while. When I was a missionary I had a companion from Compton who had a lot of gang experience earlier in his life. He had scars in his leg from bullet wounds and had many stories about growing up where he did. He had a cousin in our same mission who grew up in a poor part San Jose (I think), had a lot of gang experience, and who had to return home briefly to testify as a witness in a kidnapping trial. Yet the church was very much a part of their lives growing up. My companion had a best friend named Mahonrimoriankumr (sp? I really should look this one up). They called him Mahoney for short. You don't get much more Mormon than that. These young men were now fully converted to the gospel and felt the zeal and need to share it. My youth experiences (my teenage years were spent in Northern Ca., Southern Ca., Arizona, and Utah) were wildly different from theirs, and followed along the more "traditional" lines. Yet, we believed in the same Heavenly Father and taught the same Gospel as missionaries. The Spirit was as much a part of my companion's life as it was mine. There must be room to share the stories of those who grew up outside the happy valley culture. I suspect that the choice my companion made to follow the Lord's plan presented a lot more immediate risk to him than my choice did to me. And I think that kind of story is worth hearing. - --Mike South - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:47:48 -0400 From: Richard Johnson Subject: [AML] Re: Race and Culture in LDS Lit. At 07:22 PM 6/8/2000 -0500, you wrote: >I think that many would love to hear these narratives, but I think that the >general body of the church in America, at least, has a real hard time with >folks who aren't white, not that we're racist necessarily, but we haven't >learned to make room in our culture or our literature for these people. > >It has been my contention for a long time that if there were ever a black >member of The Twelve, one-third of the members in Utah, Idaho, and Arizona >would apostasize within a half hour of the announcement. I'm sorry, but as negatively as I have spoken of Happy Valley and its culture, I think you are totally mistaken. I remember members making the comment that they could never go to church with a black person (when I first came to the south in 1970) Some of those folks are happily sustaining black bishops and having black temple workers take them through the veil. There is a bit of racism in everyone but it is really surprising how faith overcomes it. I think the calling of Apostle would wipe the race right out of most minds. Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www2.gasou.edu/commarts/puppet/ Georgia Southern University Puppet Theatre - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 14:20:59 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: [AML] Re: Race and Culture in LDS Lit. Todd wrote: >I'm going to steal a thread from Clark. He posed the following question >and >observation. > > > Consider a suburban Mormon trying to write _Boyz in the Hood_. Probably > > wouldn't come off terribly well. > >Still, there are Mormons from Compton, Watts, DC, Philly, Southside >Chicago, >etc. They have something to say, but regular LDS audiences won't be ready >to hear it for a while. > >A suburban Mormon generally doesn't think about African Americans. I'm >sorry but this is true. You admit you're speaking in sweeping generalizations, and I think this is one of them. I also don't think there's enough truth to it to allow it to pass, even as an admitted "sweeping generalization." Or, perhaps I should say "necessity" rather than "truth." What I mean is this: the way I see it, either "suburban" America IS becoming more aware of different races/cultures within the greater American culture, or it is not. If it is, then we can say suburban America IS thinking (at least more and more) about African Americans (just one of those races/cultures considered to be 'different' from the one we've decided is the 'norm'). And if this is the case, then your generalization is false. Or, if suburban America is NOT becoming more aware of these 'other' groups, then it seems to me unnecessary to single out "Mormon" suburban Americans as particularly guilty of this. The only other possibility is that you want to say Mormon suburbanites are different from non-Mormon suburbanites. (And the assumption seems to be that we're talking about white people here, which is interesting--interesting, I mean, that we assume "a suburban Mormon" is white, when in fact there are many suburban Mormons who are Hispanic, Native American, Asian American, and, yes, even African American...) If this is the case--that Mormon suburbanites are different from non-Mormon suburbanites--I'd be interested to know how so, or why so. The suggestion, of course, is that we're more racist than our non-Mormon counterparts. Is this true? > >Margaret Blair Young is involved with a wonderful group called Genesis (if >I'm not mistaken), which is a group of African American Saints who are >doing >some wonderful work in recovering and preparing texts that address the >issues of these faithful members. > >I think that many would love to hear these narratives, but I think that the >general body of the church in America, at least, has a real hard time with >folks who aren't white, not that we're racist necessarily, but we haven't >learned to make room in our culture or our literature for these people. Isn't that racist? How do we differentiate between "racism" and "not making room in our culture for others of another race"? And again, I'm not sure I agree with the statement--I think either white people in general (including Mormons) are overcoming (slowly, slowly) racist tendencies, or they're not--unless we want to say that Mormons are slower at it than non-Mormons, and then, again, I'd like to hear thoughts on why this may be so. Certainly it's a possibility... Personally, I think one explanation might be that we, as Mormons, have traditionally been a marginalized group (like African Americans, or Native Americans, etc.), and as such we have fought to maintain rigid boundaries that define our sense of identity. Because we also were originally, and perhaps have been traditionally, a predominantly "white" group, those boundaries may have gone up against "other" races/ethnicities as well as against non-Mormons. And perhaps we're slower to deconstruct those boundaries than the larger group of "white" suburbanites, because we still desire a sense of identity that demands boundaries... On the other hand, as people who claim to have the Truth, to know God, and to believe that we are all brothers and sisters, etc., etc., one might think we'd be first in line to embrace those around us, no matter their "differences"... > >It has been my contention for a long time that if there were ever a black >member of The Twelve, one-third of the members in Utah, Idaho, and Arizona >would apostasize within a half hour of the announcement. This is funny, a sort of joke, maybe. But I don't like it. Humor has many functions--I won't even try to mention them. But one of them is to facilitate assimilation. In other words, when we encounter an incongruity, our reaction can be humorous, in which case we are facilitating the assimilation of that incongruity. Or, we may react with hostility, in which case we resist the assimilation of the incongruity. Take Sue, who is in high school. Sue is popular, and one day wears an odd hat to class. Her friends laugh at the hat, thus allowing for Sue's incongruous actions--making room for, or assimilating her odd hat. But Barb is not a part of Sue's crowd, and when she wears the same hat, Sue's friends might laugh, again, but this time it is hostile. Barb and her actions are being alienated from the group, not assimilated. If we compare Sue's and Barb's experiences, only Sue's is humorous; Barb's is tragic (thus, the division of comedy and tragedy). In this way, humor functions as a facilitator of assimilation. The joke about a black apostle, and what would come of it, is also the presentation of an incongruity--but the incongruity is NOT the black man among white men. It is the racism of the members in Utah, Idaho, and Arizona. In other words, we all KNOW we shouldn't be racist, thus the idea that so many WOULD be, or ARE, is incongruous to how we SHOULD be. This is the real source of the joke's humor. The problem with this, as I see it, is that by laughing at this incongruity (the existence of racism), we facilitate its assimilation. By joking about it, we let it slide. We make it, on some level, okay. Now, I'm not suggesting this was your intention--I'm merely making an observation about the joke itself. And, of course, the joke itself is an observation on Mormon culture...which may be what you're referring to when you say "the point is sound": > >Okay, so that's a bit over-dramatic, but I think the point is sound. We're >not over our past relationship with slavery and the priesthood rights of >black members. Twenty-two years is not all that long. > >Of course, I am speaking in sweeping generalities. Broad strokes. > >Todd Robert Petersen True, 22 years isn't a lot; but for many, it's enough. For many, I think issues of "race" were transcended long before then. And for many the opposite is true. In other words, we Mormons are a fairly close-knit group, but we shouldn't be deluded into thinking that "close-knit" means "homogenous." Though Mormonism has its boundaries that firmly establish identity, those boundaries don't include skin color or ethnic background, or the attitudes one holds with regard to differences in these things; so, as always, I'm not sure talking in "sweeping generalities" is a good thing. It's possible to do, sometimes (we can say, for example, that Mormons believe in God)--but even generalities that seem obvious are often dangerous (a good example: we can't really say all "black" people are, in fact, black-skinned; there are many African Americans who consider themselves as such, but who are light-skinned enough to "pass" for "white"). So, for these reasons, I'm hesitant to agree with the truthfulness, or the necessity, of a general claim that Mormons are racist, or that we don't, generally, "think about African Americans." But I would be VERY interested to hear others' responses to these issues. (And wouldn't it be interesting, just out of curiosity, to know the demographics of the Church membership? There are more members, now, outside the U.S. than in--and it might be very enlightening for the categorically "white" members to see just how many of the Saints are categorized as "not white"...the ways these categories are constructed is another issue altogether...) Jason Steed ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:03:28 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] Re: Race and Culture in LDS Lit. VERY quick response. (Todd knows I can't resist this line. And I've tried e-mailing Todd personally, but must be doing something wrong. The messages I've sent have been returned. Todd, could you e-mail me your address?) Todd Robert Petersen wrote: > I'm going to steal a thread from Clark. He posed the following question and > observation. > > > Consider a suburban Mormon trying to write _Boyz in the Hood_. Probably > > wouldn't come off terribly well. You bet it wouldn't. I have been amazed at my own ignorance. It has been absolutely vital to have a black co-author for my currrent project. > > > Still, there are Mormons from Compton, Watts, DC, Philly, Southside Chicago, > etc. They have something to say, but regular LDS audiences won't be ready > to hear it for a while. Absolutely disagree. And I guess we're putting that somewhat to the test with the forthcoming trilogy. Wish I had time to go into detail. > > > A suburban Mormon generally doesn't think about African Americans. I'm > sorry but this is true. But it ought to change. We are perpetuating divisions which are NOT consistent with the scriptural mandate to be "of one heart and one mind." > > > Margaret Blair Young is involved with a wonderful group called Genesis (if > I'm not mistaken), which is a group of African Ameircan Saints who are doing > some wonderful work in recovering and preparing texts that address the > issues of these faithful members. All sorts of good stuff--including recovering slave records and performing temple ordinances for people who were listed as "property" in many censuses. My co-author is planning on doing the temple work not only for his slave ancestors, but for their owners. > > > I think that many would love to hear these narratives, but I think that the > general body of the church in America, at least, has a real hard time with > folks who aren't white, not that we're racist necessarily That sounds like racism to me. > , but we haven't > learned to make room in our culture or our literature for these people. > Who is "we"? Most of "us" in the Church are Spanish speakers by now--with not quite white skin. I think when we have Salt Lake presses, we're likely to produce Salt Lake stories. Now Todd, as editor of the Cimarron Press, has opportunities to publish Native American literature, which I believe he has done. > > It has been my contention for a long time that if there were ever a black > member of The Twelve, one-third of the members in Utah, Idaho, and Arizona > would apostasize within a half hour of the announcement. And that ABSOLUTELY sounds like racism. Sadly, there are Mormons in all of those states who believe a doctrine of white supremacy and find no inconsistency with their Mormonism. I think at least one more question needs to be added to the temple recommend interview: "Do you harbor in your heart any dislike or suspicion of your brothers and sisters of color?" > > > Okay, so that's a bit over-dramatic, but I think the point is sound. We're > not over our past relationship with slavery and the priesthood rights of > black members. Twenty-two years is not all that long. > Most of the readers on this list would probably be appalled to hear some of the things I've been privy to in my Genesis associations. Racism is alive and well. [Margaret Young] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:29:42 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: [AML] Movie Ratings (was: Movies in 2000) [MOD: Anyone planning to proceed with this thread, please see my note below.] I think 30% of the AML-List archives consist of debate about R-rated = movies. I don't know if we want to subject our new moderator to another = round of that yet (I don't remember how often previous moderator Benson = allowed it--one a year?). Needless to say, this is a very sensitive = cultural subject and I could rant and rave but would probably just be = repeating myself from 1997, 1998, and 1999. Chris Bigelow * * * * * * Interested in novels, stories, poems, plays, and films by, for, or about = Mormons? Check out IRREANTUM magazine at www.xmission.com/~aml/irreantum.ht= m. [MOD: Too late! Counting this one, there were 6 posts in my in-box by end-of-day Friday on this topic. So it seems it's time to have this one again. (I think it's been about a year, and once a year is about right for this topic, I think. You'll notice, though, that I pushed off getting things started until the beginning of the next week...) Rather than taking up an additional slot in today's mail, I'm going to highjack Chris's post here and share a few guidelines/suggestions for how I think we can make this discussion a more cordial and productive one. (I'm saying more in advance on this topic than Ben typically would, but that's partly because I haven't moderated this thread before and I want to try to make life easier for myself.) * First, keep in mind that there is a wide range of intelligent and well-considered opinions on this issue. Be respectful, and listen as well as speaking. * Whatever your views--conservative, liberal, difficult-to-describe--it is appropriate to share your own criteria for choosing and evaluating the movies you watch. We want to hear your views, even--or especially--if they're different from what other people have been saying. * It is also appropriate to talk about broader issues, such as what an LDS esthetic/ethics of movies and movie-viewing ought to be; how Mormon audiences do and should react to various types of movies; and how we can encourage great movie-making by, for, and about Mormons (and how "great" should be defined in this context). * It's not appropriate to discuss the righteousness of others, nor to belittle their views, tastes, and literary judgments--particularly (but not solely) those of other List members. * It is appropriate to cite and discuss statements by General Authorities as they affect Mormon views of movies. However, * It's not appropriate either to defend or to attack the positions of the Church or of Church leaders. That's not what this List is for. * Do your best to compose one post that spells out your views, then post additional messages only as needed to add clarification or make new points that haven't yet been raised in the discussion. "Less is more," you know. * I'd like to encourage all of us to thoughtfully consider what we say as we're writing our posts. Generally speaking, I find it more constructive (and easier to moderate!) if you focus on sharing your own thoughts rather than trying to convince others or refute their arguments. Finally, please don't take any of this as a discouragement from entering into a vigorous discussion. And now (as Max would say), let the wild rumpus start!] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #66 *****************************