From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #123 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, August 7 2000 Volume 01 : Number 123 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 13:30:12 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Margaret YOUNG, _I Am Jane_ (Review) On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:52:46 -0600, Margaret Young wrote: >My co-writer had a hard time seeing his name on the cover, and >told me he felt embarrassed. Not by the book--we're very proud of = that--but >just by having his name there so prominently. I said I = understood-especially >when the book was something so dear to us. I told him that when we have= our >names under the two titles and the beautiful picture Tim Robinson = selected >from archives somewhere, that it feels somewhat like a neon sign. Since= I've >published before, it doesn't hit me that hard, but I'm wondering if = others of >you have had that reaction to seeing your name as an author--that sense = of >embarrassment or of "attention getting." I always do--and I have had very little published, and certainly nothing major like a book. I don't know why, since I've never published anything I'm ashamed of. I suppose it feels as though everyone is looking at me = when what they should be looking at is what I've written. I felt most comfortable when I was writing for Gnusweek, the honors newsletter at = BYU, and my name was hidden away in the back somewhere and not attached to any= of the articles. This is probably an irrational feeling that will go away = when I actually write something good. :) I thought I was alone in this, = though. I'm so glad _One More River to Cross_ is out now! I've been eager to = read it. Time to go spend money at the bookstore again.... Melissa Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:19:14 -0600 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Query on Donny & Marie Show [MOD: Kudos to Marny for providing this list. I guess it really is true that you can find anything on the Internet!] >For that matter, I also mention which celebs the JWs have got and >the Christian Scientists. The >only JW I could think of was Michael Jackson, and CS would be Tom >Cruise, John Travolta, and Nicole >Kidman(?). Anyone confirm these or add to my list? If you really want famous Christian Scientists, go to http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_chrsci.html The list includes Marilyn Monroe, Jim Henson, Val Kilmer, Alan Shepard, Tommy Vardell, and others. The Adherents.com site does not have a list of JW's but does have a page with links to other famous people of specific religions, including LDS (http://www.adherents.com/adh_fam.html). It also has a list of specific religions mentioned in sf books (http://www.adherents.com/lit/index_adherents.html) including references to Mormons (http://www.adherents.com/lit/sf_lds.html), and the religious affiliation of many sf authors (http://www.adherents.com/lit/sf_other.html) including a list of Mormons and people who live(d) in Utah or wrote about Mormons (http://www.adherents.com/lit/sf_other.html#LDS). Marny Parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:48:08 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] re: MN "Between Husband and Wife" Makes National News Ivan Angus Wolfe wrote: > > Unfortunately, many of the other manuals you reccomended were onew I would not > suggest to anyone because I feel they offer unrealistic advice and make anyone > who is not having ecstatic experience after ecstatic experience feel like a > loser. Both the "Act of Marriage" and "Between H&W" at least don't give that > false impression, though I prefer the way "The Act" handles it. > --Ivan Wolfe > IMO, the 80's book, _The Joy of Sex_ is still the best sex book around. Unfortunately, for some Mormons who may mistrust their own ability to choose between right and wrong, the book takes a neutral stance on all sex acts. One has to decide for oneself, for instance, if the information on foreplay is appropriate to one's taste. This may require that LDS couples actually discuss sex among themselves -- what they like and don't like -- rather than expecting some BYU professor to decide that for them. It is has pictures -- well, drawings at least -- of rather normal-looking people, so the arousal level is rather low, unless you're French. - -- Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:44:07 -0600 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:09:37 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: "Does our theology preach against all forms of nudity, or is that a cultural heritage?" To a great degree, I believe many Mormons' attitudes toward shunning any and all nudity is cultural. Two examples: I lived in Finland for three years, and while there viewed movies according to their rating system. As I was pretty young, we rented only the equivalents of G and PG movies. Upon returning to the States, I discovered I had seen several movies rated R in the US, which had gotten the rating because of nudity. Ironically, one of the movies--I am not kidding--was rated the equivalent of G over there. To Finns, the body is simply not the big deal it is here. The other experience was, for me a bit disappointing and showed how drastic the cultural side of this is. A friend and I went to see Kenneth Brannagh's "Much Ado about Nothing" in the theater and loved it. For those who don't know, there is a bathing scene near the start of the movie--lots of skin, no body parts. To me, it was perfectly innocent, and not in the least erotic or sensual. The entire tone is pure excitement and fun as a group of women and a group of men (separately) get ready to see each other. When my friend told her mother about the scene, her mother, horrified, made her promise to close her eyes during that part if she ever saw it again. My friend was an *adult* at the time. Since it's one of her favorite shows, she has seen it several times since, each time closing her eyes so she won't see Kenneth Brannagh's behind. Sheesh. I am the first to admit that the body is sacred, and it should be protected. But at the same time we don't need to be prudes who pretend we aren't naked under our clothes. Annette Lyon ________________________________________________________ 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 13:09:52 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] PETERSON, _Moroni--Ancient Prophet_ (Review) At 10:29 AM 8/3/2000 -0700, you wrote: > >>And so I humbly repent of the number of reviews I post . >> >>(N.B. My opinion -- the number of reviews isn't nearly as important as the >>quality of the reviews. As a non-member, I'm always working at a >>disadvantage, lacking the knowledge and familiarity needed to really work >>up a good review of many of the books I've read. You all are a great help >>to me as I work my way through this religion.) > >Your reviews are excellent, Jeff, so don't repent--write more! > >barbara hume > Muchas gracias, my friend. - --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 19:59:05 -0600 From: "Devin Thorpe" Subject: RE: [AML] Nudity Is a test of "appropriate" nudity whether or not it is intended to arouse erotic emotions? Is it possible that someone could create art that is not intended to arouse, but that does arouse someone? I think so. If so, then who bears the responsibility to avoid arousing, erotic images, the artist or the viewer? I think the viewer. Devin Thorpe - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 20:54:31 -0600 From: Neal Kramer Subject: Re: [AML] Query on Donny & Marie Show Marny Parkin wrote: >>For that matter, I also mention which celebs the JWs have got and >>the Christian Scientists. The >>only JW I could think of was Michael Jackson, and CS would be Tom >>Cruise, John Travolta, and Nicole >>Kidman(?). Anyone confirm these or add to my list? Travolta, Cruise, and Kidman belong to the Church of Scientology. Neal Kramer - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 19:58:42 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Margaret YOUNG, _I Am Jane_ (Review) >I'm so glad _One More River to Cross_ is out now! I've been eager to read >it. Time to go spend money at the bookstore again.... > >Melissa Proffitt How very true! I'm really pleased this will be available. I'm really looking forward to this read. - --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:08:47 -0600 From: "Richard C. Russell" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity - ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Hansen" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 12:32 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity > I've found it hard to show examples of movies or live theater where nudity > would be appropriate. Any suggestions? > > [David Hansen] Schindler's List. The stark vulnerability and intimidation of the Jews under Nazis could be shown in no other way. Jesus was stripped naked on the cross as was every criminal executed in that way. That nudity is appropriate IMO. ********************************************* Richard C. Russell, SLC UTAH www.leaderlore.com, www.keyscouter.com "There is never the last word, only the latest." ********************************************* - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:10:26 -0600 From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: Re: [AML] Jos. F. EVERETT (Painter) >>> ViKimball@aol.com 08/01/00 07:24PM >>> >We have a water color painted by Jos F. Everett in 1937 that belonged to = J.=20 >Golden Kimball. It is sentimental value and not a painting I would = hang=20 >otherwise. Anyone out there ever heard of this painter? Was he considered = a=20 >good artist? I'm really curious and would appreciate any info. >From _Artists of Utah_, by Robert S. Olpin, William C. Seifrit, and Vern = G.=20 Swanson, Gibbs Smith, 1999: Everett, Joseph Alma Freestone (1883-1945), was a Salt Laker whose=20 parents had emigrated from England as LDS converts. He studied with=20 John Hafen, J.T. Harwood, L.G. Richards, and L.A. Ramsey; he went=20 on to study watercolor with E.A. Smith at the Kensington School of Art,=20 then under no particular master in Paris, and finally with the muralist=20 Kenyon Cox in New York. After this, Everett went to work for the Oregon Short Line Railroad in its Salt Lake engineering department as a draftsman.= =20 Nevertheless, he pursued the more supple and portable medium of=20 watercolor in his off hours to quickly apprehend chance occurrences in=20 nature. In time, Everett gave up his job with the railroad when his=20 department was transferred to Omaha, and made the attempt to support=20 his family via the opening of a school. It was tough, but he managed=20 by teaching at the Lion House and also giving private lessons to the=20 children of such notables as President Heber J. Grant. He finally=20 became successful enough that a Joseph Everet Art Society was=20 founded by devoted students who wished to retain, through fellowship=20 with former classmates, at least a small degree of what had existed=20 in painting sessions conducted by the master. >>> ViKimball@aol.com 08/03/00 09:22AM >>> > >BTW, if any old book collectors are out there you might be=20 >interested in an experience Stan and I had in Nauvoo last night to see = City=20 >of Joseph. We went to the only book store in town--it reminds me of = Sam=20 >Wellers place--and in the main case they had the Deseret Alphabet, pub. = in=20 >1868. We asked them what they were asking because we had two. They said = maybe=20 >we should sit down. The price was $350. Stan picked up two in the = church=20 >office building about 45 years ago for 50 cents. They wanted to get rid = of a=20 >box full which they had out with a note saying "take what you want and = leave=20 >50 cents." We have made a good $1 investment. The temple in Nauvoo has = a=20 >long way to go and it looks much smaller than I thought it would. There were 4 books published in the Deseret Alphabet: 2 "readers" = (written=20 for young students of the Alphabet, 1st Nephi, and the complete Book of=20 Mormon. The first 3 are not too hard to find, and usually are in remarkably= =20 good condition for their age (they didn't get used much). They typically = sell=20 for $200-250, depending on condition. The primers command a slightly = higher=20 price if they have an errata sheet "tipped" in near the back. The $350 = price=20 is a little steep, but may be justified if the copy was in particularly = good=20 condition. More likely, the dealer probably thought the higher price = was=20 justified because copies are hard to come by in the Midwest (but show = up=20 on Ebay every couple months). The full Deseret Alphabet Book of Mormon is scarce. A copy sold at=20 auction in Salt Lake about a year ago for $6000. MBA - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:43:05 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing I sense that Jason and I could go back and forth on these issues for quite = some time. And I also sense that we probably agree more than we disagree. = I do want to respond, very briefly, to a couple of points. I took the admittedly extreme position of arguing that all art is Good. I = still think this is a defensible position, but what I would prefer to say = is that almost all art works can be defended on moral grounds. If they = can be so defended, they oughta be. And to label a certain work of art = 'good' or 'bad' is to judge, perhaps unrighteously. =20 Let me illustrate. A friend of mine is a seminary teacher, and he asked = students to bring in the works of art that, to them, were the most = spiritual, the most inviting to the Holy Ghost. This was to be an oral = presentation to the class, and the first girl brought in a tape recorder, = and played Billy Joel singing Uptown Girl. Uptown Girl is a fun, bouncy = little rock number. I don't personally think it's one of Billy Joel's best = songs, and would hardly consider it 'spiritual.' Then the girl explained: = her father had loved that song, and he used to sing it to her when they = rode in a car together, and he'd sing it to her as a bedtime lullaby. And = then her father died, and she was terribly distraught, and then, at the = funeral, she prayed for peace and for an assurance that she would see her = father again. And then, in her ear, she heard him again singing Uptown = Girl. And so, for her, that song was associated in an immediate and = direct way with the plan of salvation. Now, in Jason's last post, he talked about absolute vs. relative values = and truths. But I do not consider Uptown Girl a song that invites the = spirit, or that speaks of eternal principles. When it comes on my radio, I = turn it off, because I don't like the song. And yet, for this teenager, = Uptown Girl spoke of spiritual matters more clearly and directly than any = other work of art in the world. So what is it? Good art or bad art? Now, as it happens, I teach creative writing. I teach playwriting at BYU. = I have the professional responsibility of telling students that this = scene or that scene doesn't work, and that the play, as a result, is less = effective than it might be. And I have to grade the plays that students = turn in to my classes. I have awards I give to the 'best play' in a given = year; actual cash awards. I judge contests. Professionally, I spend my = day make judgments about works of art, saying, in effect, this work is = 'better' than that work. And I also think that I can, in fact, make such = judgments. I couldn't define my criteria, but I can say that this play is = effective that that play is less effective, and I can usually tell both = writers why. So my relativism, as Jason calls it, isn't absolute. =20 But I am very very very reluctant to question anyone's testimony. If = someone tells me that a certain work of art has done them good, or caused = them to do good, I think it would be the height of presumption to say = they're wrong. =20 >But your claim that all art is good and/or valuable=20 >runs (IMO) counter to my Mormon sensibility, which is fraught with = >notions=20 >of absolute truth (as opposed to the relativism you proclaim here). Absolute truths, in a gospel context, are very very rare. And are, = without exception, reflected in almost all works of art, IMHO. One can = make a case for any work of art reflecting the profoundest truths of the = gospel. And if such a case can be made, sincerely, by someone, then that = is that someone's testimony.=20 >Granted,=20 >it is difficult--VERY VERY difficult--to discern that truth, and to = >make=20 >judgements, but nevertheless we are commanded to do so (it's >"judge = not=20 >_unrighteously_", not "judge not"). IOW, I think it's our >responsibility = to=20 >judge what is good art and what is bad art.=20 I would argue instead that it is our responsibility to look for the good. = Always. "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, OF GOOD REPORT, or = praiseworthy, we seek after these things." I think it is always our = obligation to look for the good, to seek the face of our brother or sister = in the work of art he/she has created, to understand his/her testimony and = respond to it. (I do make an exception for pornography, but it is an = exceedingly uninformed exception, because I don't know enough about = pornography to know what it is I'm talking about.) =20 Having said that, I suppose I'm also convicting myself of hypocrisy, since = my job involves telling people 'your work of art isn't working very well.' = But I strive never ever ever to tell a student that his/her work is = morally degrading, or anything like that. I prefer the word 'effective.' = I say 'this is what I perceive you trying to do. I don't think you're = succeeding. Here's how to make it better.' I think that's a responsible = way to react. >Art is action, it is thought, it=20 >is attitude and world view--and as Mormons we know that it is not >just = possible, but _necessary_ that there be both good and bad >actions, = thoughts, attitudes, and world views. And it is part of our >existence/expe= rience to learn to judge between the good and >the bad. I agree. And, yes, there are works of art that reflect a world view that = might and should be condemned. I'm mostly speaking from my own experience,= understand, and have never actually read any pro-Nazi art (to use an = extreme example.) If there are works of art that are directly didactic in = their approach,and which preach evil, those works should be condemned. I = agree. I don't know any works like that (well, one does seem them = periodically on MST3K), but am willing to admit to the theoretical = possibility that they exist. But I do think that the nature of art is = such that these sorts of works are likely to be pretty rare. =20 >I understand (and even, to some extent, applaud) the reluctance >to judge = wrongly, the hesitency to dismiss what might in fact be of value.=20 Good. This is a common ground on which we can build. >But I don't think turning to "anything goes" is the answer.=20 I'm not quite saying anything goes. I just want to defend works of art = that aren't often defended. I don't know that I've often seen an immoral = movie. I suppose I have seen a few that I thought were pretty questionable= . Mostly forties and fifties musicals. I think I do think there's something qualitatively different between an = attempt to encompass the human experience into a philosophic system, and = an attempt to explore the world creatively in a novel or play, but that's = probably not an area where we're going to agree. =20 Eric Samuelsen =20 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:41:29 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity David Hansen wrote: > I've found it hard to show examples of movies or live theater where nudity > would be appropriate. Any suggestions? Off the top of my head: _The Abyss_. A woman has drowned, but still has a chance of being resuscitated. They rip her shirt open so they can put the paddles on her bare chest. Her breasts are exposed, but at no time is any big deal made of them. No shot ever emphasizes the breasts--they appear only incidentally. And there is absolutely nothing sexual about the whole scene. In fact, it's a powerful and moving scene. _War of the Buttons_. The children of two towns in Ireland are feuding with each other. They have a "war" where victory is measured by how many buttons you can cut from your enemy's clothes. The leader of one of the groups gets a bright idea: attack nude, and they _can't_ cut off any buttons. So a bunch of nude boys ambush the other group in a series of long to medium shots--no close-ups. No sexual implications are present. _The Mission_. The Catholic Church is threatening the existence of a rainforest tribe in Brazil. Lots of religion bashing, but the nudity is the natural, "National Geographic" state of the natives, including complete front and rear nudity of a prepubescent girl. Nothing sexual about any of the scenes. _Schindler's List_. Situations where Jews were forced into nudity at the hands of the Germans. These scenes are historical and without sexual content. On the other hand, there are scenes of immoral sex where nudity also appears. An interesting contrast in appropriate and nonappropriate nudity within a single film. _Braveheart_. Wedding night of newly married couple. The woman's breasts are exposed. Even though this is an obvious prelude to sex, the scene does not evoke sexual emotions, but rather feelings of tenderness and love. And certainly the sex depicted is moral. _Romeo and Juliet_, the one with Olivia Hussey. The young couple are shown waking up after their wedding night, he from the rear, and she a quick view of her breasts. Nothing sexual about the scene itself, and the nudity in the story is completely appropriate to the situation. _The Bible_. Adam and Eve. Need I say more? I suppose it's debatable how "appropriate" the nudity in any of these cases is, depending on one's point of view. But the obvious distinction in these scenes is that the nudity is not intended to be sexually arousing. Even those scenes associated with sex (_Braveheart_ and _Romeo and Juliet_) were done tastefully and did not include actual acts of sex, and the sex involved was moral. On the other hand, I've witnessed scenes of nonsexual nudity (shower scenes particularly) which the filmmaker deliberately made sexually titillating. As with so many things in life, it's all in the intent. - -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:17:23 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: [AML] _Blair Witch Project_ (was: Query on Donny & Marie Show) I thought the Blair Witch Project was a FANTASTIC movie, one that stayed = with me and really made me feel empathy for the characters. I found it = very convincing and moving (in more ways than one, considering the camera = style). I don't remember much about the bad language. We're right to = protect the name of diety, of course, but other than that I think we make = too big a fuss about language and give it negative power that it needn't = have. Chris Bigelow * * * * * * Read my novella about Mormon missionaries at http://www1.mightywords.com/as= p/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=3DEB00016373. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:26:29 -0400 From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies I have an idea: how about telling us the funniest movies that have Mormon characters portrayed? I'd vote for the old movie, "Paint Your Wagon". Besides, in it Clint Eastwood sings, beautifully. Melinda L. Ambrose - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:12:16 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity D. Michael Martindale writes: Nudity is considered by many LDS members to be one of those things that automatically make a film, a photograph, and other art, evil. Just what attitude toward nudity is appropriate for LDS people? Is nudity inherently evil, or does it depend? Does our theology preach against all forms of nudity, or is that a cultural heritage? I think this is an excellent question. My two cents (not necessarily an answer, but at least a contribution to the discussion): I'm not sure our theology has much to say about nudity, per se. But certainly our belief system and the ways in which we interpret doctrines and scriptures (as well as a long cultural heritage, especially in America, with that Puritan background) may contribute to an aversion to nudity. After all, Adam and Eve were given skins to cover their nakedness, with at least some implication that nakedness was something that ought to be covered. And one of the explicit functions of garments is to cover nakedness and to maintain a level of modesty. And, since our culture (presently, at least, if not historically) tends to present nudity in an atmosphere of sex (usually not within the relationship of marriage), sensuality, lust, etc.--well, it's easy to see why Mormons might develop a knee-jerk reaction to it. Is nudity ontologically evil? I don't think so. But let's face it--what percentage of the nudity that's 'out there' can we honestly claim is presented with respect, admiration (of a pure sort), and (yes, I'll say it) reverence? I'd venture to say the percentage is miniscule, if it exists at all. Again, I'm not trying to answer any questions here--just asking more, maybe. I truly marvel at the human form (Hamlet says it best in his "What a piece of work is a man!" speech). But I wonder if the Word of Wisdom approach isn't maybe the best, considering the contemporary climate. By the WofW approach, I mean: maybe it IS a good idea to abstain (or at least avoid as much as possible) from nudity, seeing as most of it probably isn't reverent in nature, and may simply be too much for most people to handle. (This is the rationale behind the WofW to some extent--alcohol, etc. may be okay in moderation, for many; but because it can lead to so many bad things for so many others, it is "banned" outright.) Now, as for a scene of nudity making a film "evil"--that may be a bit extreme. Certainly there are excellent (and decidedly "good"--i.e. not evil) films that may contain a scene or scenes of nudity. But, again, how many of those scenes of nudity are CRUCIAL to the artistic integrity of the film? Some are. Many--probably most--are not; and arguably they may detract from the "goodness" (in the sense of "not evil," not in the sense of "good movie") of the work. I really don't think nudity is inherently evil; but I do think that the vast majority of the situations/contexts in which it is presented are forms of temptation, at least, if they're not themselves inherently evil (it's an interesting philosophical question, whether or not temptation is itself inherently evil, or if it is only the giving in to it that is evil). At any rate, because most of these presentations are temptations--then whether or not they're "evil" is on some level irrelevent. We're to avoid temptation, no? So, perhaps in most cases, the knee-jerk tendency of Mormons to avoid presentations of nudity is not such a bad thing... I don't know. Jason ________________________________________________________________________ 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, 4 Aug 2000 16:03:31 EDT From: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Jos. F. EVERETT (Painter) In a message dated 8/4/00 1:50:55 PM Central Daylight Time, MADAIR@novell.com writes: << Everett, Joseph Alma Freestone (1883-1945), was a Salt Laker whose parents had emigrated from England as LDS converts. He studied with John Hafen, J.T. Harwood, L.G. Richards, and L.A. Ramsey; he went on to study watercolor with E.A. Smith at the Kensington School of Art, then under no particular master in Paris, and finally with the muralist Kenyon Cox in New York. After this, Everett went to work for the Oregon Short Line Railroad in its Salt Lake engineering department as a draftsman. Nevertheless, he pursued the more supple and portable medium of watercolor in his off hours to quickly apprehend chance occurrences in nature. In time, Everett gave up his job with the railroad when his department was transferred to Omaha, and made the attempt to support his family via the opening of a school. It was tough, but he managed by teaching at the Lion House and also giving private lessons to the children of such notables as President Heber J. Grant. He finally became successful enough that a Joseph Everet Art Society was founded by devoted students who wished to retain, through fellowship with former classmates, at least a small degree of what had existed in painting sessions conducted by the master. >> This is great. I now have more respect my painting than before. I'll put this info on the back of the painting. I appreciate the information you sent, and maybe we'll sell our books on ebay. The book store owner in Nauvoo is RLDS and has a big collection of old books and memorabilia. He said one of the worst book dealers he works with is Deseret, and the best was Bookcraft. Violet Kimball - - 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 #123 ******************************