From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #1002 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 Tuesday, March 18 2003 Volume 01 : Number 1002 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:23:01 -0700 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Found Alive Or someone could write a story very much like Levi Peterson did in _Canyons of Grace_. A young Mormon woman, accustomed to obeying priesthood patriarchal authority, is accosted by a self-proclaimed prophet who lays his hands on her head and seals her to him for his wife. The physical experience of the laying on of hands sends the same sensations through her body that she had experienced in her mainstream church experience. Because she has always been taught to trust emotions, physical "burnings", etc., and because she is used to complying to male authority, she is vulnerable to the power of this man who uses scriptural language and all the trappings of her regular religion. Also see Margaret Young's _Salvador_ for another very similar example. And then ask, could mainstream experience be just as controlling? Do we create our spiritual answers because we have been trained to do so? [Gae Lyn Henderson] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:06:18 -0800 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory [MOD: I'm going to allow this post through, but have to reluctantly point out that theoretical physics per se is not actually on-topic for AML-List. If any of want to make further comments that reconnect this to Mormon letters, feel free to do so; however, if not, we need to set the physics part aside.] Yes, but now with the vaguerities of particle physics and some of the implications of string theory, the acceptable probability of multiple realities is scientifically accepted. So even scientists are having to face a breakdown between a clearly definable objective and subjective reality. "Psychological structures" and "physical structures" are getting blurry in the world of modern science. This is why you are seeing so many physicists publishing highly philosophical (even religious) meditations on their science. Ultimately, science and religion will confront the same difficulties, as there is no real division between them. Hmmmmm..... And then you bring up a fascinating point: thinking about reality changes it? Yes indeed! Jon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:21:18 -0700 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory I'll do my best to keep the below related to literature and not descend into a philosophical tangent which I'm sure would bore most here. However some philosophical introduction is necessary to get to the literary ties. So feel free to skip this if the thought of metaphysics and epistemology bores you. ___ Michael ___ | The scriptures say that truth is knowledge of things as | they were, as they are, and as they will be. This is a | clear endorsement of the objective reality model of truth, | along the lines of Ayn Rand, who erred mainly in denying | the objective existence of the spiritual realm. ___ First off Ayn Rand made *many* errors. I can see people agreeing with her politically. But as a philosopher. . . Well she really wasn't much of one and no one takes her seriously. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "objective reality model" but given your reference to Rand. Rand takes the somewhat extreme position that not only can we know things about reality but that our reason alone is sufficient to know all reality. (Even most hard core realists suggest a strong intrinsic fallibilism in our knowledge that Rand denies) Her "objectivity" also rejects anything other than "reason" as a way to know. (i.e. feelings, direct apprehension, and so forth) Please recognize that almost all philosophers believe in "objectivity." (i.e. a reality that exists independent of our thinking of it) Even the most radical idealists, such as Berkeley, still ended up with something similar due to the nature of God. So in many ways Rand is chasing a red herring. Only the most radical skeptic or sophist would disagree with her general aim. Anyway, enough Rand. On to the scripture. The typical way of discussing truth and reality is known as "representation" or "corresponsdence." i.e. we say things that represent an external reality and our "thoughts" or "words" correspond to those external things. If our thoughts correspond then the content of the thoughts are true. If they don't then they are false. Because of this most define knowledge as justified, true belief. (i.e. you believe X, you have some justification - perhaps reason - for believing X, and X is true.) Now lets look at D&C 93. If doesn't say that we know truths. Rather it reverses this and says truth is knowledge. So in terms of literature we have the inversion of how most (including Rand) discuss things. Of course if the scriptures fit into the context Joseph asserted, we should be surprised that such revelations don't fit the "modern" way of discussing things. What does it suggest? Well there was a philosophical movement called neoPlatonism which did discuss things in many similar ways. It influenced a lot of different movements. Indeed the general approach to knowledge could be seen in neoPlatonism, hermeticism, Gnosticism, and Jewish Mysticism. It was a general approach that was behind a lot of masonry and the so called hermetic-movement that survived passed the Renaissance. Some, such as Michael Quinn in _Mormonism and the Magic World View_, have suggested it influence Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I think that rather overstated, but there are some interesting parallels. In these various movements you have a direct apprehension of "truth." These truths are eternal platonic forms or ideas. All matter arises out of these underlying 'things.' It isn't knowing the way we typically think of it, since it isn't thinking or representation. Rather there is a direct connection to these truths. (It is very hard to wrap our modern mind around, but it was a very popular way of thinking in late antiquity) Truth then, is this connection between the knower and the known in the act of knowing. It is a direct apprehension or connection. This general rhetorical approach can be seen in other surrounding texts, such as how God can be in and through all things. Now I *personally* think that pushing this rhetoric too far is dangerous. There are many, many kinds of neoPlatonism. One of the more interesting to Mormons was that of Bruno who was a major influence behind masonry and developed a materialistic form of neoPlatonism. (Quinn mentions this in passing, but without mentioning the name or his relationship) Bruno's ideas were very significant as a kind of proto-science and his approach probably significantly affected Spinoza and Leibniz. Most of his ideas arose out of reading Kabbalistic and hermetic texts. My point is, however, that if we discuss truth in this manner, we must be careful. After all it isn't truth in 'objectivity' of the sense we typically discuss. Certainly it isn't reconcilable to Ayn Rand. Indeed Ayn Rand is actively working in the opposite direction - she outright rejects what might be termed the 'mystic approach' to knowing. Yet if we read D&C 88 and 93 literally that is the approach they suggest. I don't think we should read them literally, btw - or at least ought to read them with caution. Once we must point out that there was a lot of diversity in this general "neoPlatonic" movement. So hopefully no one goes out and assumes too much. In my mind a lot of neoPlatonism is very incompatible with Mormonism. Even Bruno, who is very interesting, was not Christian and many of his ideas are opposed to our fundamental beliefs. ___ Michael ___ | As Mormons, this verse seems to require us to adopt the | objectiveness of reality, so the source of any fuzziness | we find in truth can only come from indivual perceptions | of imperfect mortals. ___ Actually I'd say the verse, if read literally, suggests that "objective reality" is in fact the result of individual intelligences knowing. Thus it reduces the objective to the subjective. Truth, normally considered the 'objective' is in fact defined not as correspondence to things, but as "know-ing" things. That is a rather radical transformation, as I suggested. It has some echoes. I mentioned Leibniz. If you are interested Leibniz had a "relational" view of physics opposed to the "objective" view of Newton. This approach of Leibniz was only fully achieved by Einstein in general relativity. (Quantum Mechanics actually adopts a more Newtonian approach) ___ Michael ___ | If perfect knowledge results in identical opinions and | perceptions, that sounds like a pretty boring existence. ___ Technically the scriptures don't say that. That arises out of a mixing of views of knowledge. A western 'representational' approach and a more near-eastern 'direct apprehension' or near-mysticism. When you interpret the texts of one in terms of the other problems arise. (I had a similar discussion on this phenomena elsewhere relative to omniscience and omnipotence) Clark Goble - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:43:31 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Surprise Endings Melissa Proffitt wrote: > Spoiler space.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh, YEAH. How on earth could the destruction of the planet be a surprise? I agree--how could it be a surprise the way Card set it up? But I still maintain that Card _intended_ it as a surprise by the way he handled it. Whether that or "the games are real" was supposed to be the bigger surprise could be debated, but it still looks to me like he wanted the planet-busting to be a surprise. - -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:01:01 -0600 From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart At 11:01 PM 3/12/03 -0700, Eric R. Samuelsen wrote: >That wasn't the best, though. The best was the interview one reporter had >with the woman who spotted Mitchell walking down the street, remembered >seeing him on America's Most Wanted, and pulled out her cell phone. The >reporter pointed out that there was a two hundred and fifty thousand >dollar reward for information leading to the capture of the >kidnapper. Was she aware of that reward? What was she hoping to do with >it? The woman who had called in (who quite properly was referred to as 'a >hero' by several talking heads) looked at this reporter like she was >something she'd just gotten on her shoe, and said, quietly, but with real >dignity, 'a fifteen year old girl has been restored to her family. The >money doesn't matter.' [Agreed!] >So, okay, it's a miracle. How? Where do we see the hand of God here? > >I have a nine year old daughter, same age as Mary Catherine Smart. I love >her with all my heart. But she's nine. Miss Short Attention Span >Theatre. And yet, somehow, six months after the event, Mary Catherine >Smart was able to properly and accurately identify a photograph of >a man she had seen only once before in her life, six months earlier, a man >who had been working on the roof of her home. Don't tell me God is not a >God of miracles. [Hopefully not too far off-topic.] As some people have asked, though, where was that God of miracles in the days following the abduction when Elizabeth was "camping out" in the hills above her home and the searchers came close enough for her to hear them calling her name? [Also, the above is not necessarily my question, but it is a question many have been asking.] - -- Ronn! :) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:35:39 -0800 From: "Kathy and Jerry Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Fw: Banned Book from Cedar Fort A lot of us were afraid this sort of thing would happen. So one person who is "uncomfortable" with something can make such a sweeping decision? Or does this go on all the time anyway and may have nothing to do with the moral or otherwise content of a book and could simply be someone who doesn't like a certain author or subject and wants to supress it? I really like and respect Sheri Dew. I read with interest her explanation of this policy in an interview in the Jan/Feb issue of LDS Living magazine. She reiterated that they would carry books that dealt with issues of good and evil, as long as evil was not made to seem good. How does the description of the afore mentioned banned book not meet this criteria? What will she say to explain this I wonder? Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:33:00 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices I don't like the idea of censorship of things that might potentially offend, unless they are at the level of personal attack, but I do really appreciate AML-List's maintaining its focus on literary things. Otherwise it would probably just turn into an all-purpose Mormon list. I personally don't want to read a lot of off-topic stuff on this list--I have to delete enough literature-related stuff as it is because it doesn't interest me or I don't have time for it. I've heard of something called flame wars and how they have destroyed other lists, and I'm glad that AML-List has stayed pretty civil. I think overall the list manages to be pretty provocative without getting into personal attacks. I wouldn't want to have to be in the position to judge, and I think we need to be kind and appreciative regarding our moderator or we might find ourselves becoming a completely open forum that gets overrun with off-topic stuff and personal attacks. Or maybe the AML board would shut down the list before it allowed it to be unmoderated, so let's not make the moderator job too difficult or thankless. Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:32:11 -0800 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart You got that right. It's pure hubris I don't know how many "testimony" type books I've read where folks claim some miraculous rescue, and credit God with the rescue, without ever mentioning the ones who weren't rescued. Was God mad at them? I don't doubt that miraculous interventions do happen from time to time, but it's better not to claim them, in my opinion. - ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com > -----Original Message----- > I don't want to sound crass here (though I probably do) but by claiming > it's a miracle from God that Elizabeth was found, what are we saying > about the hundreds of children who are never found. That God hasn't > answered the prayers of those parents? > > Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:49:29 -0700 From: Knudsen family Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Oh, I hate, abhor, find disgusting, these types of models. My 22 year-old son, returned missionary, came home yesterday from his Single's Ward. He was livid. He said that the Sunday School teacher, apparently a wife of one of the Bishopric, talked about how men and women are so different, how men are so insensitive, have only one thing in mind (and it wasn't food), and how they will do just about anything to manipulate a woman to get what they want. She said this is usually by doing something the man thinks the woman wants. She also talked about how socially and emotionally inept men are and how women need to learn how to manipulate men to get what they want! All of this in Sunday School class - aren't we supposed to be studying the New Testament in SS? I'm finishing up my thesis right now, looking at LDS women within the culture and their relationships with their children. As I've studied women's roles within the LDS culture I've discovered that there is this tendency to almost dumb down men as in - "well, men need the Priesthood because they wouldn't be nurturers without it," "men have to have the control in the church to be forced to be leaders, women automatically know these things," "men, can't count on them for anything, don't ask one to be in charge of a ward party, we'll all be out baling hay rather than doing anything civilized," etc. It's men and women who are saying these things. What are we saying about ourselves, our spouses, our brothers and sisters, our culture, and what are we saying to others, when we make statements such as this? Can't both sexes be strong, be independent, be emotional, be appreciated? Why do we always have to put down one sex to make the other look good? Why does one have to look bad, weak, stupid in order for the other to look strong, good, smart? In writing this type of stuff in novels, LDS literature, often/usually purchased and read by women, are we using models from our culture for these positions or are we modeling our culture after these characters? OK, I could go on and on. I'm worried though by what is being portrayed and what is being lived. Are they the same? Should they be the same? What does this say about our culture? Whew, Ronda W. Knudsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:54:50 -0700 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward D. Michael wrote: ? But aren't racism and self-righteousness two sides of the same coin? No, they're the same face. They're both label we use to express our own fears of inadequicy. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:28:19 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Read Your Own Posts Folks, Just a quick comment here. Because of my method of inserting moderator notes at the beginning of some posts, it's important that you LOOK AT YOUR OWN POSTS when they come out over the list, just to make sure I didn't include something you may need to know as part of the general discussion. Sorry I can't inform you all individually when this takes place, but that just gets too time-consuming. So please, just glance at least at the top of the post to see if there's one of those sneaky little "[MOD: __]" messages there. Thanks! Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:50:03 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart [MOD: I'd like to take the opportunity to point out here one of the limitations of the electronic medium. Eric made a comment which Jared interpreted as sarcastic, or at least ironic. Eric now informs us that he meant this seriously, and not ironically at all (and I have no reason to doubt his statement). Others commenting on this post have made comments interpreting Eric's original comment both ways. This underscores, for me, the fact that (a) Nothing is so clearly written that it cannot be misunderstood; (b) We need to be cautious in our attributions of motivations to people to whom we are responding--it's better to ask, "Did you mean to suggest __?" than to assume that we know; (c) We need to not take offense when we are misinterpreted; (d) Irony and sarcasm, in particular, are very tricky to try to convey in an electronic medium, and once their presence is suspected, communication becomes all that much more difficult. Probably there are other messages that could be tacked on too, but these are the major ones. So please, let's all remember to meet each other more than halfway in our interpretations and reinterpretations and responses and all that...keeping in mind that the goal is true communication, and that communication requires effort.] Jared, Uh, what are you talking about? >I find it interesting that you're criticizing the media for covering = the=20 >early stages of the Elizabeth Smart story by their piecing together=20 >tidbits of info as they came I found the media coverage utterly addictive. I couldn't get enough of it. = I thought that the different local news stations, even that early on, = took very different approaches to how they handled the story. I was just = pointing that out. I also thought they did a terrific job, with little = information, piecing together a difficult and complicated story, and that = they mostly got it right. And I also thought, and said this in my post, = that TV gets a bad rap way too much of the time. Times like these, TV = creates a wonderful sense of community, which I really appreciated. And I = said all that. Clearly. >I have to take issue with playing the racial/social class card with an=20 >incident like this. I do agree that racial bias does still exist in = the=20 >media and our culture, but you're oversimplifying the Smart case by=20 >simply saying it's news only because it involved a rich white girl. Well, Ed Smart was insisting that this story wasn't being covered any = differently than any other kidnapping story. Cutting the poor guy all the = slack in the world, that just isn't true. =20 >If I worked for CNN or MSNBC and saw=20 >all these kidnapping stories, I would sort through and pick the most=20 >intriguing one that would get people's attention.=20 And, like CNN and MSNBC does, you would inevitably decide that the most = intriguing stories are those involving attractive upper class white = children. That's just reality. I mean, obviously what made this a = compelling story last Tuesday was the fact that Elizabeth Smart survived, = at a time when essentially everyone had given her up as dead. That's a = remarkable story and obviously worth covering. But it had been a major = news story off and on for 9 months previously, which is what I was = responding to. >To make groundless speculation when it's way too early in the=20 >aftermath is not unproductive, but a disservice to a family and their=20 >teenage daughter who have just experienced a psychological hell on=20 >earth. What groundless speculation? What are you talking about? Re-reading my = post, I didn't groundlessly speculate about anything. I said she was = obviously the victim of some sort of Stockholm syndrome psychological = state that made it impossible for her to ask for help. That's all being = confirmed now. I said that there were some serious unanswered questions = about law enforcement errors. There are more such questions today. And I = really wondered about all the people who saw her in public over the last = nine months who never put it together. That still seems to me the = strangest aspect of the entire case. =20 >I'm sorry you fail to see the miracle in this case. =20 Re read my post. I said I thought it WAS a miracle. I specifically = talked about just where I saw the miraculous element in the case. =20 >Why was Elizabeth spared while other innocent=20 >children are taken from this life too soon? Does God pick and choose=20 >favorites? Maybe you have the answers, but I don't. =20 I don't either and I never said I did. I don't know why God allowed a = miracle in this case when he hadn't in others like it. I'm inclined to = treat that entire subject with genuine reverence and humility and = gratitude. >With all due respect to your lovely daughter, I don't think you can=20 >fairly base your suspicions of Mary Catherine on the mental traits of=20 >your own daughter. =20 I have no suspicions whatever regarding Mary Catherine Smart. I did not = 'pass judgment' on Mary Catherine Smart. I believe, and I said this = clearly in my last post, that I thought that the fact that Mary Catherine = was able to identify a picture of Mitchell as the kidnapper, months and = months after seeing him for just a few hours, leading directly to his = arrest and Elizabeth's rescue, is a miracle. I think that a miracle is = something outside our normal experience, for which divine intervention is = the best possible explanation. Basing my opinion on my experience with = nine year old girls, I believe that Mary Catherine's ability to identify = Mitchell under those circumstances qualifies as a bona fide miracle. This = is not in any way an attack on Mary Catherine. Could any of us pick a guy = out of a photo array who we'd only seen once, for a few hours, months = before, and then again one more time, in the dark, in a time of extreme = emotional stress? I couldn't. I think God led her to be able to do it. = That's something for which we should all be grateful. But that's not = intended in any way as an attack on Mary Catherine. I don't attack nine = year olds, nor did I do so in my last post. =20 Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:49:17 -0700 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices I don't write much anymore, but at one time I was a prolific poster. I've had lots of posts either sent back for editing or rejected. I don't mind and I honestly think that keeping the tone is a good idea. I've been a member of lots of mailing lists since *way* back in the days of Mormon-l and Morm-Ant at BYU. (Actually I believe there is a list with the name Mormon-l still around - but I'm speaking of the original one run at BYU) One thing I've noticed is that with email it is easy to not realize what your tone is. Further I recognize that some subjects always cause heated debate without much light. The biggest problem for a list is either too much mean-spirited speech or too much noise relative to information. A moderated mailing list avoids that. Having been on many unmoderated mailing lists I can assure you that this is a much better format. It is easy to not realize how others would take your words or not realize how some subthread leads the discussion. To those who want more freedom I can just say one thing: private email. I get lots of private responses to things I've said. Some supportive. Others more "flame bait." So I'd just suggest that a little moderation may seem confining, but it is definitely better than the alternatives. You really have to see the ebb and flow of lists to realize this. ___ Scott ___ | A sort of seige mentality based on the belief that one's | opinion is not being heard. Which is my personal definition | of hell: to be functionally ignored and essentially | irrelevant. ___ The other problem is an all too human inclination that others don't understand you unless they agree with you. This all too frequently leads to "discussion by bludgeoning." I've fallen prey to that too many times in the past. It isn't a successful discussion until someone cries "uncle." I've (hopefully) matured. I now realize I can say a few things and let people take it as they will. I recognize that the majority of people on this list aren't interesting in the same sorts of aspects of literature as I am. But who cares? I recognize that not everyone "thinks" the way I do. I find that a very skeptical mind that analyzes in accordance with science and logic is best. Others prefer feeling. Others just disagree with me when we are analyzing. There's room enough for everyone. I heartedly encourage those mislead and wrong people to post. Having said that though I think we have to realize that *convincing* others tends to be secondary in a list. Make your case and then don't worry about recognizing how your case went. The responsibility is on the reader at a certain point. Not you. And if the moderator decides not to pass it through - so what? So someone may not have learned what you wanted to say. Probably they wouldn't have agree with you anyway. . . [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:15:58 -0700 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices I have to agree with Richard Dutcher when he says that censorship is destructive and unnecessary. (This does not mean I don't appreciate the hard word that Jonathan has been and is doing to keep the list within the guidelines.) But it certainly is worth asking why we have these guidelines. The AML as an organization has tried to steer very clear of anything that might be construed as criticism of the church or of the church leaders. Therefore the list is also moderated to achieve that kind of careful discussion. I worked for BYU for 10 years and experienced the same kind of censorship. I didn't realize how careful I had to be about what I said until I left. The fact that it is considered apostasy to criticize the church or its leaders is an interesting thing. Normally one doesn't get excommunicated for just saying things to their friends and neighbors. But if one published criticism of the church then one could get excommunicated. So on the list we are publishing, aren't we? I think the AML mission should be separate from the mission of the church. I think that the AML should encourage artistic expression that is HONEST. A particular artist might be full of testimony and faith or a particular artist might be full of doubt and anguish or a particular artist might be disallusioned and disbelieving. All these are expressions of what it means to be part of the Mormon culture. And I believe it is absolutely necessary for people and artists in the Mormon culture to have an avenue for honest self-expression, simply for reasons of mental health and to allow personal growth. IMHO, a culture that cannot be criticized is NOT a healthy culture and I don't think that spirituality can flourish in an arena of silence and censorship. Gae Lyn Henderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:08:18 -0700 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture ___ William ___ | I've been thinking a lot about LDS scripture, political discourse | and expression in the U.S., and building community. The conclusion | I've come to is that there are certain issues that are so divisive | that it would be better if Mormons discuss them using strictly | 'secular' arguments. ___ While I can certainly understand this relative to the list, I hope you don't mean that in general. I say that because it seems like Mormon scripture, especially the Book of Mormon, has so much to say on the subject. Further I think that LDS, while certainly adopting ones culture's politics, also adopts a uniquely Mormon perspective. Take, for instance the issue of wealth. Who can't read King Benjamin's comments and then wonder how to handle the homeless? It is a difficult issue and somewhat paradoxical. When hearing the national media criticize the Smarts for bringing home a homeless man to do work, I sincerely wonder if he wasn't trying to follow Benjamin's admonition. I recognize that, given what has appeared the past decade, picking up hitchhikers, hiring the mentally ill and often homeless, and so forth, are dubious decisions. But doesn't that mean we are relegating them off in neglect - something condemned by the Book of Mormon? I hear the debate on this when we study Mosiah and find myself fascinated by the debate. All people on all sides are sincere. I further honestly think that all sides are trying to inform their decisions via readings of the scriptures. Certainly the cultural background they bring to the scriptures inform their readings. But both liberals and conservative Mormons seem to place the scriptures first. Even with respect to war the issues are fascinating to me. Not because of what the people are arguing *for*. Rather it is *how* they argue. Harlow's discussion of literature was fascinating to me because of how different a view he has relative to my own. To me the Book of Mormon teaches not that we shouldn't fight but how we ought to fight and the dangers we encounter when fighting. What is especially interesting to me is how few easy answers there are. Take Teancum, the infamous general/assassin with the javelin. Was he a good guy or a bad guy? What about Moroni? Did he do everything *right* as general? Of course not. He made hasty decisions about his own government and then more or less engaged in an attempted coup and civil war - until he discovered his error. This is what I love about the Book of Mormon. How complex the scenarios actually are! The fact is that most controversial topics are controversial because there is no clear cut answer. Afterall, there isn't a whole lot of debate over whether murder is good. But there is about invading Iraq or dealing with the homeless because cases can be made on both sides. They are passionate to the degree we feel them important. And they are, for a Mormon, typically important because of our religious commitments. Having said all that, I recognize the danger of discussing politics. But then lets be honest. There is a great danger in discussing religion for the same reasons. There is a reason why most people say politics or religion are dangerous discussion topics. As for how to deal with them here, I think our moderator has done a good job. Perhaps he errs on caution a few times. But by and large I think he does try to keep the topics on literature and not to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of particular political positions. Perhaps we, as authors, ought to keep that in mind. Even in Harlow's post (which I enjoyed) I found lots of political assumptions that most might now accept. If there is something to keep in mind, it is to read our posts as if we were someone we disagreed with. A valuable step in reaching understanding and also in persuading others. Clark Goble - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:31:56 -0700 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Richard Dutcher asked: Has the Mormon male been neutered? \ Probably because men have the priesthood they are irrevocably linked to hierarchy and the power structure. The women escape that to some degree and can therefore be curious, quirky and interesting. However, how often do the women become "converted" over to blandness by the end of the book? I'm thinking of _Testaments_ where an exciting woman becomes an appropriate woman. In Margaret Young's _Salvador_, the protagonest Julie escapes the domineering apostates but plans to go back to Utah and become a Mother. Or, another theory might be that men are biologically programmed to "spread their seed around" and women are programmed to create a nest and settle down. If, and I say if, that is true, then religion is in some ways always the domain of woman, despite the priesthood, because it protects her interests. Therefore, the males in Mormon culture are neutered in a way because they have to succumb to a system that is not to their biological advantage. Joseph Smith tried to fix this problem but of course we latter-day mormons are not nearly as sexually liberated as he was. Not to say that I think polygamy was fair for women, far from it. But some of the women in Joseph's time had more than one husband--they had their first and regular husband, and then they (under prophetic instruction) had Joseph. Of course if in the story the woman is spiritually strong and the man is weak, then it is playing into the gender stereotyping that has been around for ages--that woman are somehow more pure and that poor weak males can't help themselves because their sex drives are so much stronger. [Gae Lyn Henderson] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:57:34 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward A couple weeks ago my daughter was home with four of her friends from college. (They were eating lunch at our house before heading back to school after their stake's conference, the stake center of which is located about 20 minutes from my house, but almost 2 hours from their campus.) One is a recent convert--about six weeks. One a young man, 18-19ish. A couple of young ladies, probably 24ish, and my 19 yr-old daughter. It was interesting when the subject of Single's Ward came up. They have all seen it several times, and were a little surprised to hear I had heard some negative comments. Here are a few of the thoughts expressed by them. (Quotes are approximates.) I said that there had been some objections to Cammie. They said "Well, I know. I just couldn't believe her clothes. I mean, sleeveless and everything." I mentioned the comedy scene. Val, my daughter, said, "I was laughing at the jokes and thinking they were really funny. Then she got all hyper about it. I felt really sorry for her." The young man's main comment had to do with, I believe, the cameos. "I was watching and thinking, do they really expect me to laugh at that." But the consensus was, they all love it. They are very forgiving of the flaws that, if brought to their attention, they acknowledged, but in their own minds were willing to gloss over. The oldest student said, "It's us. And it doesn't make a mockery of anything sacred." That seemed to be the most important thing to them. They didn't feel that it made a mockery of their religion. Tracie Laulusa - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #1002 *******************************