From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #167 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, October 9 2000 Volume 01 : Number 167 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:46:11 -0600 From: Steve Subject: Re: [AML] (Biblio) Plays Published in Sunstone on 10/4/00 12:20 AM, Morgan Adair at MADAIR@novell.com wrote: > Biblio File: Plays published in Sunstone > by Morgan B. Adair > >> From its first issue (but with a break from '77-'87) Sunstone has been one of >> the > few publishers of Mormon drama. Here are some notes about the plays they have > published. Morgan, Thanks for taking time! S. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:29:13 -0600 From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: [AML] Autobiographies (was: conservative hatred) Re Rex's comment about an autobiography (or other work) putting bread on the table: The tricky part of a book's popularity is marketing. You may be aware that _The Christmas Box_ was marketed extremely heavily, including bus ads and radio ads. _I Don't Have to Make Everything All Better_ by Gary and Joy Lundberg was marketed the same way; both sold amazingly well. I guess you can get a Harry Potter series that sells like wildfire because the stuff is fascinating, but in my experience marketing is really key. You may have written a dynamite book but if it doesn't get marketed, nobody knows. I have to comment about ghostwriting: since I ghostwrite and edit for a living, I would comment that a ghost tries to write as if she were you :). It's partly intuitive and partly just work. It's actually the part of my work I enjoy most--trying to sense and render the author's voice. IMHO many ghostwriters out there in the world miss it, so you sense something out of whack when you read the book. Cathy Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 15 East 600 North Price UT 84501 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 13:32:55 -0600 From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: [AML] Autobiographies (was: conservative hatred) >>> prairydog@hotmail.com 10/05/00 12:19PM >>> > >I want to write essays, inspirational stuff, related to my life, but = more=20 >principle-based than telling a chronological story. So write a 10-page summary of your life--names, dates, and places. Then=20 add essays that give your feelings on philosophical matters. Date them, = so=20 as you add to them it will show your growth and learning. Add a few = selected=20 poems or short stories, if you do those. It would be a lot more interesting= to=20 read than "I was born Oct 5, 19whatidy-three in Lizard Bump, Arizona.... MBA - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:19:53 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Moral Issues in Art >Looked at it this way, we can say God is the consummate artist. His >works of creation can teach us all sorts of things, but none of them >have a "message." We are free to glean whatever message we can perceive >from them. It's only in his essays (i.e., scripture and revelation) that >God teaches messages directly. In his art, his didacticism is as subtle >and open-ended as many of us seem to think our art should be. I both agree and disagree with this. First, I'm not sure it's accurate to say God's "art" doesn't have a message. I think it does. But the message is multifaceted, multileveled, etc. I agree that we are free to take from it what we take from it--but that is not the same, IMO, as saying His art is "open-ended." I think there are particular things we OUGHT to learn from God's art--things He wants us to learn. IOW, I think there's a message (multifaceted as it may be). Just because we're free to miss it, misconstrue it, mistake it for something else, etc., doesn't mean it isn't there. And this goes for ALL God's art--"essays" and landscapes, etc. I don't think God teaches any less-directly when he creates the four seasons than when he has one of his prophets talk about life, death, and resurrection. Jason _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:29:14 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] What Should the Critic Critique? > > But each > > critic is entitled to his or her own set of criteria--and Thom's (and >mine > > also, by the way) apparently do not include much concern for the >author's > > intent, or what he or she "was hoping to accomplish." > >I never said anything about the author's intent. I was speaking strictly >of the author's choice in material. Actually, if I remember correctly, you were talking about judging the work based on what the writer was trying to accomplish, not on the choice of material. To me, that translates, at least in part, into authorial intent. >I don't see how that can possibly be >included in any reasonable set of critical criteria. It seems completely >self-evident to me that if the critic can dictate what subject matter >the artist can choose, art suffers. If an oppressive government were >dictating such a thing, we would consider it abhorrent. Just because the >critic has less power to enforce his dictations doesn't make the concept >any less abhorrent. That seems quite a leap to me. The critic doesn't "dictate" anything. He/she just critiques--it's only an evaluation, a judgement, an opinion. You are, in fact, doing now precisely that which you're abhorring: as a critic of the critic, you are attempting to "dictate" the material a critic can critique. If it's okay for you to say "the critic can't criticize subject Y (when subject Y=the author's subject matter)," then why can't the critic say "the author can't write about subject X (when subject X=whatever subject the critic doesn't consider valid/valuable)"? > > > Not liking the subject > > matter of what's in front of me is a perfectly valid critical reaction. > >But that's not what Thom said. He went beyond that to say the author >shouldn't be writing about what didn't interest Thom. If a critic says >that the author violated point of view and shouldn't do that, the critic >is well within his jurisdiction. If the critic says the author shouldn't >write about fantasy lovers, he has overstepped his bounds. Only in your opinion, which--as I point out above--is as dictatorial (to use your label) as that which you're condemning. If the artist is free to write about anything, why isn't the critic free to do the same? Art and criticism are not so mutually exclusive, you know... Jason _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 17:29:41 -0500 From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] What Should the Critic Critique? D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Then let _him_ write about the things he considers more important than > x, y, and z, and not complain that author Q wrote about x, y, or z. Then a person who complains about critic Q and what critic Q has written should not complain either, and should instead write their own criticism. ME: "Who's to say what the critic's business is or isn't?" D. MICHAEL: "Me. I'm as intelligent as the next guy." That's not my point. I meant that critics ought to have some liberty to write as they see fit, and that it's NO ONE'S place to determine what is or isn't okay to criticize. > A critic should actually apologize that he has a prejudice against the > material, and nonetheless strive to be as objective as he can in his criticism > of the methods of presentation. The reader of a review deserves to know that a > critic is lambasting a work because that critic doesn't like love stories, not > because the work was actually bad. Objective criticism? It's not possible. Not in art. - -- Todd Robert Petersen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 04:46:26 JST From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: Re: [AML] (Biblio) Plays Published in Sunstone Thanks, that was great. You left one out, however. Lauer, Robert Frederick. _Digger_. Sunstone, Nov. 1988. Originally performed at BYU in 1982. About Joseph Smith living with the Hales and his moneydigging. So Lauer is the only one to have had two plays in Sunstone. Andrew Hall _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 16:02:06 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] (On Stag) PRADO, _Sy's Girl_ (Review) ON STAGE Sy's Girl Eric Samuelsen Natalie Prado's _Sy's Girl_ is the freshest, most insightful and intelligent = comedy I've seen in LDS Theatre for years. Prado, a current undergraduate = at BYU, is very young. But I believe that she is a talent to be reckoned = with in years to come. I'll be honest; in writing this review, I find myself in an awkward = position. Natalie Prado is a student of mine, and the kind of hard-working= and bright student that professors tend particularly to enjoy teaching. = Natalie workshopped _Sy's Girl_ in the BYU WDA workshop, which I teach. My = favorite director for my own material, AdreAnn Sundrud, directed this = production, on my recommendation. And Eric Snider, of the List and of the = Daily Herald, reviewed the play negatively. I think his review is = mistaken, and so I'm writing one of my own in response. So you're welcome = to dismiss my comments as special pleading. So be it: I think this play = is something very special indeed. I want to share with you just how = valuable and insightful I find it. =20 The story is deceptively simple: Moira is a college student who has = maintained a long-term romantic relationship with Sy, her boyfriend, who = unfortunately does not exist. Her roommate Delia introduces Moira to her = cousin, Quinn. And Moira begins the painful process of weaning herself = from a fantasy, and forming a relationship with a real person.=20 Although the play is about Moira and Sy, theirs is not the central = relationship of the play. In fact, the play focuses far more on Moira's = friendship with Delia, and becomes a very interesting and powerful = examination of the lives of these two single women, who in some ways come = to represent the difficult choices faced by single women in today's = culture. In many ways, in fact, the secondary figure of Delia is the more = fascinating of these two characters. She's complex and interesting; plot = wise, she may only exist to introduce Moira to Quinn, but she's central to = the main dynamic of the play. In psychological terms, she might be termed = an "enabler," in that she is actively complicit in maintaining the Sy = fantasy. (My wife wondered, in fact, which of the two of them, Moira or = Delia, is crazier). But Delia's own history reveals her thematic = centrality to the ideas of the play. She is, we're told, the product of a = divorce. She was raised by her mother, a particularly doctrinaire = feminist, with significant input from her grandmother, a particularly = fervid devotee of Fascinating Womanhood. As a result of this upbringing, = Delia has struggled to form some kind of lasting relationship with men. = She has dated a long string of loser men named Ryan, whom she refers to as = a series of nicknames: "Ryan can you loan me five bucks," "Ryan tortured = artist" and so on. =20 So we have Delia the feminist, but oddly attracted to a book called _Being = Wonderful_, a thinly veiled satire of _Fascinating Womanhood_ or more = contemporary how-to-bag-a-man manuals. Delia is alienated from her family, = but deeply fond of her cousin, whom she mockingly calls a sexist pig, but = who may be the only family member who makes any effort to be her friend. = Delia, the psychology major, who nonetheless supports and encourages and = enables her best friend and roommate's increasingly unhealthy fixation on = Sy. In this character, Natalie explores with great insight and compassion the = position some young women find themselves in today, torn between the = competing demands of independence and loneliness, romantic attraction and = fear of intimacy; sexual feelings, and also corresponding vulnerabilities = and insecurities. And yet Delia is also a real character; her every line = rings true--even the funny ones. Delia is simply an extraordinary = creation. =20 In performance, Rebecca Connerley captures all the contradictions at the = heart of this lonely, compelling young woman. Rebecca's Delia is = genuinely lonely--all the more so when Moira's disaffection from Sy begins = to complicate the fantasy life all three of them share. And yet Rebecca = stalked the stage with the physical self-confidence of the self-proclaimed = feminist. Delia, in this fine actress's version, is confident, determined = and world-wise--and also vulnerable and lonely. She's capable of mocking = the banal pretensions of _Being Wonderful_, while strangely attracted to = the notion of attracting a man. She defines her life in forthright = defiance of societal conventions; and she dresses up like an elf to = deliver Christmas presents to children. She is a strong, capable = woman--with a history of dating losers named Ryan. And as a young woman, = Delia has yet to reconcile those oppositions in her own heart. =20 Eric's review of this show criticized Natalie for making Delia a psych = major who doesn't object to her roommate's fascination with the unhealthy = fantasy Sy represents. But this is an essential aspect of Delia's = character. Delia has intentionally retreated from the world. Rejecting = the polar extremes represented by both her mother and grandmother, Delia = has chosen to withdraw from the battle. Richard Clifford's intentionally = prettified set emphasizes this; these girls live in an idealized environmen= t physically, as well as psychologically. Sy represents a safe haven, a = way for Delia to experience romance vicariously, while still consciously = internalizing her mother's world view. And yet, it is Delia who reaches = out--grumbling all the while--to her frat boy cousin, Quinn. She chooses = to tell Quinn about Sy in an effort to enlist a third--make that fourth--pa= rty in the fantasy. And I believe that she would major in psychology--she'= s honest enough to want to figure out how human beings tick, while still = too frightened to apply her college lessons to her own feelings of = inadequacy and contradiction. Why does Delia tell Quinn about Sy? I suggest that Delia has finally = reached a point of crisis where she's actually trying to merge the two = worlds of the play. Natalie's script even allows a moment when Delia toys = with forming her own relationship with Sy. She chats with him, while = wryly commenting on the fact that she's talking to someone else's = imaginary friend. =20 Moira is the less flamboyant character of the two, and yet she's compelling= in her own right. Moira is, quite frankly, close to a complete mental = breakdown. The stakes are high in this play; at one point Sy threatens = Moira, saying "I'm taking over now," and we shudder at what that might = mean. The innocent romantic attachment she formed when twelve has become = threatening and unhealthy, and in some of the most powerful moments of the = play, Moira is forced to carry on a conversation with Quinn and with her = parents, while Sy almost overwhelms her with his own threats. Sy is = real--he is romantic fantasies turned psychotic and dangerous, and even = when he's funny--and at times, in production, Sy's poses (Lawrence of = Arabia, Wesley from the Princess Bride) are enormously funny, there's an = edge to the humor. Jessica Mockett captures the loneliness and desperation= of Moira's descent towards madness with great clarity and insight. In production, Moira's parents were weakly performed. It's too bad, = because Natalie has created two wonderful characters. Moira's parents are = a good deal older than most parents of college age children would be. = They had been married for fifteen years when Moira was born, and she is an = only child. The distance children feel from their parents is exacerbated, = in this case, by a further age difference, and to watch them slink around = Moira's apartment, looking for her journal, in a desperate attempt to = learn something about their distant and uncommunicative daughter is to = feel, once again, the helplessness of parents everywhere. The week I saw _Sy's Girl_, my teenage son, who is now a freshman in = college, stopped going to classes. He wouldn't say anything about it, but = stayed in his room, playing his guitar and talking for hours on the = telephone. My wife and I spent hours trying to talk to him, but he would = just smile sadly, and tell us that everything was fine and that there was = nothing we could do. Finally, yesterday, he told us that he was very = attached to a girl he'd met at work. They'd dated a few times, and she'd = become the first girl he'd ever kissed. They went to a dance one weekend, = and stayed afterwards in our living room, talking till three in the = morning. He'd then gone to work the next day, and saw her, and she'd told = him that after she'd gone home from their date, an ex boyfriend of hers = had stopped by her house (four in the morning now), asked her to marry = him, and she'd accepted. And so my son was a little depressed by it. =20 You feel so helpless as a parent. You want your kids to be happy, and you = want to be there for them, and you want to know about their lives. But = early adulthood is a difficult period, and one in which kids need to find = their own way. And so, when Moira's parents snoop (and I quite agree that = reading your daughter's journal is completely inappropriate), you = understand why they're forced to. And why Moira is so furious--and why = she's justified in her anger. It's a wonderful moment in the play, when = Moira catches them snooping, and a crucial moment for Moira, who has just = rid herself of Sy, and who now is faced with the prospect of losing = everyone else too--Delia to _Being Wonderful_, Quinn, who supports her = parents, and her parents themselves. =20 I've made this play sound serious and dark. In fact, it's wonderfully = witty and clever and fun. Natalie has the rare talent of taking current, = important issues and ideas and putting her own odd twist on them. _Sy's = Girl_ is a quirky play. It's not for everyone, perhaps. But it's still = one of the most impressive debut dramas I can remember. Remember that = name, Natalie Prado. She's a wonderful young writer. One final note: Eric Snider gave the production a C-minus. I give it an = A--except that I don't give grades to productions. I think the practice = of grading the work of artists utterly degrading and condescending and = ultimately meaningless. (In my writing classes, I grade on effort, not = results). But that aside, I will admit that this play may not be to the = taste of everyone. Natalie's style is offbeat, unusual. But she has a = voice; already she's formed her own voice, and that's wonderful for a = young writer. If you have a chance to see this show, do so. =20 Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 09:18:55 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] What Should the Critic Critique? I see another slippery slope: >The "Was it worth doing?" question is a highly subjective one -- I=20 >think it's even more subjective than the other standard review=20 >questions. What I think is very much worth doing, someone else >might=20 >consider absolutely stupid, and vice versa. But when critiquing --=20 >especially in our own personal critiques, and not official, >published = ones -- it's an important question to ask. Why is this a judgment we get to make? What constitutes an invalid reason = to do something? And why do we presume, and what business do we have = presuming, that anything done by anyone claiming to be an artist has been = done for any other reason than to do some good in the world? I really dislike the example of the mechanic ripping off a customer as in = any way describing anything done by any artist. Who are we ripping off? = How precisely does an artist rip people off? (I think Barbra Streisand is = ripping people off by charging 2500 dollars for tickets to her final = concert. And I also suspect that no one paying that kind of money for = that concert feels ripped off.) Okay, so in Utah right now, there's a lot hooraw about rap music, and = about a recent concert in which Eminem and Dr. Dre and some other rap = artists performed. And their performance was full of foul language, = graphically sexual language and graphically violent language. Why? What = are they trying to accomplish? To make a fortune by titillating teenagers?= Maybe. Or to reflect, as serious artists, inner city life, which is = full of graphic violence, foul language, and violent sexuality? Is Eminem = the Emile Zola of our time? =20 I don't know. But I do think it's our obligation to presume good will on = the part of artists. I think the relevant questions are what are they = trying to accomplish and how well did they accomplish it. But was it = worth doing? With all due respect to Herr Goethe (if in fact he did = formulate the Three Questions--I've never found the source for it), I = don't think that's a valid question. =20 "Virtuous, lovely, of good report and praiseworthy." To paraphrase those = last two clauses: if someone, anyone, thinks a work of art is good, has = actually benefitted them, been a force for good in their lives, we must = accept that testimony as valid, for them. And then make up our own minds = about whether it's likely to benefit us. =20 Eric Samuelsen =20 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 03:08:59 JST From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] KELLY, _Self Interest_ >From the BYU Universe: (http://newsnet.byu.edu/noframes/show_story.cfm?number=11479&year=current) Student-written plays to be performed Friday By Lee Champion lee@newsroom.byu.edu NewsNet Staff Writer - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A BYU student takes two original one-act plays to the stage Friday, Oct. 6, in American Fork. "Self Interest" and "Existence" will be playing at the American Fork Amphitheater at 8 p.m. Brigham Kelly, 23, from Highland, Utah, majoring in English, put this night of local talent together. Kelly wrote both pieces and said they were inspired by the relationships and situations he faced growing up in Utah. Preparation for this performance started three months ago, Kelly said. He finished the scripts and approached two of his friends to direct the plays. Kelly is putting these two shows on to help local talent find new ways to become recognized. This is Kelly's first project to help local art, theater, music and film talent, he said. Kelly started a production company to help promote local talent called Hurdy Gurdy Produtions. Darron Johnson, 22, from American Fork, Utah, majoring in linguistics, was asked to direct "Self Interest." Johnson said he thinks what Kelly is doing is important because it gives people different outlets besides the school and local productions that already exist. Johnson said he didn't believe Kelly was serious about this project until he read what Kelly's work. "Once I read through the script and saw its potential, I got excited," Johnson said. The two pieces are comedies but do contain some drama, Johnson said. The situations in both pieces are circumstances that most college students can relate to, Johnson said. Both shows are completely cast with nine BYU students. The show begins at 8 p.m., with a pre-show at 7 p.m. The American Fork Amphitheater is located at 850 E. 700 North in American Fork. Tickets can be bought at the door and are $3 per person. This story was posted on Thursday, October 5, 2000 _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 18:22:37 -0500 From: Ed Snow (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] (Curiouser & Curiouser) Mormon Evolution CURIOUSER & CURIOUSER: MORMON MUSINGS Mormon Evolution by Edgar C. Snow, Jr. Whenever I visit my parents and our conversation stalls, there is one guaranteed way to rev it up again. All I have to do is say the "e" word: "evolution." It can even be as sneaky and as subtle as: "I just read an essay by Stephen Jay Gould and he says evolution is a fact." Now this may be a morbid thing to say, but just to give you an idea what I'm talking about, if I'm asked to resurrect my mother on the morning of the first resurrection (President Kimball once said resurrection is a priesthood ordinance), I think I could get the job done simply by whispering "evolution" over her grave, and then she'd immediately come forth arguing her way out of the dirt. In fact, coincidentally, I'm currently reading Stephen Jay Gould's _Dinosaur in a Haystack_, one of his many collections of natural history essays. For those of you unfamiliar with Gould, I guess it would be an understatement to say that he's a born-again evolutionist with fussy literary pretensions. I first saw his books in the BYU bookstore in 1981 and knew someday I'd have to read them, if for no other reason because of some of their clever titles and enticingly illustrated book covers: _The Flamingo's Smile_, _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_, _The Panda's Thumb_, and _Ever Since Darwin_, to name just a few. But there was another, more serious, reason drawing me to these books in 1981. At that time, as a freshly returned missionary, in my mind I was a Mormon Jedi Knight, and Gould was Darth Vader tempting me to come to the dark side of the Evolutionary Force. Before and during my Swiss mission, I had been moderately interested in resolving evolution with the Genesis account of creation, but just plain too stupid to understand the arguments. But when I came home from Switzerland, I developed a friendship with a fellow southerner at BYU named Julie who was nearly a disciple of Carl Sagan, and she forced me to come to grips with the significant evidence for an ancient earth and the process of organic evolution. I borrowed her copy of _Cosmos_ and compared it to some essays written by Melvin Cook. Cook, a Mormon metallurgist, tried to cast doubt upon radiocarbon dating accuracy and the process of evolution. I also recall Cook had tailored a little bathtub conundrum he claimed disproved radiocarbon dating somehow. I can't remember his argument exactly, but I think he suggested that if you kept the drain open and the faucet running the tub would never fill up, or something like that. Again, I was too ignorant to follow his logic and how it applied to radiocarbon dating. But my ineptitude didn't stop me when I met again with Julie and tried to use Cook's bathtub scenario to disprove not only radiocarbon dating, but also evolution, uniformitarianism, survival of the fittest, communism, socialism, the JFK lone gunman theory, and the Democratic party. And I'm sure I explained the bathtub "proof" with the same force and clarity to her as I have explained it to you. I remember sitting on the floor of her apartment after our discussion, dazed and confused, as she decided to go to bed and left her roommate to console me. To Julie's credit, she was still willing to be my friend after this little incident. I avoided the topic of evolution for several months, fearing that my acceptance of it would make me question several cherished beliefs. Here's an example. Since my parents had tied their genealogy into British royalty in the 1500s and thence all the way back to at least Adam, I used to think my genealogical work was over and done with. However, now that I was entertaining the possibility of evolution being true, I feared I would have even more work to do--stretching back not just thousands, but millions of years. Then one day I stumbled onto _Faith of a Scientist_, by Henry Eyring. Brother Eyring, a chemist, gave me the helpful perspective that Genesis is not a scientific text nor was it intended to be. If God were to give a full, detailed explanation of the creation other than through the sometimes poetic imagery contained in Genesis, we wouldn't even be able to lug our scriptures to church in a wheelbarrow. He also helped me understand that it is the job of science to explain how things work and have developed in the universe, not to explain who started it all or why, whereas the job of religion is to explain who started it all and why, not how it works and has developed. And I've since learned that on this point, Gould nearly agrees with Eyring (see Gould's _Rocks of Ages_). I for one would have benefited from a debate between Eyring and Gould when Brother Eyring was still alive, if just to test the principle of survival of the fittest in action. Or better yet...a wrestling match. My money would have to be on Professor Eyring. I knew one of his former students who said every year Eyring challenged all of his students to at least two contests: (i) a foot race, and (ii) a jumping contest in which you jumped flatfooted from the floor up onto a waist-high table. Brother Eyring apparently never came in last in the foot race and was always able to clear the table without barking his shins. Now, I'm not suggesting that Gould would have been out of shape for such a contest. For all I know, he's an Olympic quality bi-athlete, body builder or curler (perhaps excelling as the one who launches the huge hockey puck with a handle on it or the one who sweeps in front of it). My guess is, though, if you compared professors Gould and Eyring while each of them was in their prime, I suspect Gould wouldn't have been as spry as Eyring. Again, my source of information is one of Gould's graduate students. Tim, my acquaintance--a very nice guy--spent seven years writing his Ph.D. dissertation under Gould's tutelage about the evolution of a kind of prehistoric mouse (a sabertoothed mouse?) over a period of a couple of million years. It would be like studying the evolution of Mickie Mouse by watching all of his cartoons and charting his physical development over time, except maybe not as exciting. I don't know, but I can't imagine anyone who sits around long enough to do this type of research, or, like Gould, who has to read a lot of it, could even finish a race or jump flatfooted off the ground. They wouldn't even need those skills, so there was no need for them to have evolved. Now as we all know from our high school chemistry experiences, Eyring, as a professor of chemistry, would be required to be extraordinarily nimble in order to duck and run from exploding student science projects and jump up onto tables to avoid spilled beakers of hydrochloric acid, which explains his extraordinarily evolved athletic state. Two additional matters finally got me more comfortable with accepting evolution as a valid model for explaining the current evidence for how life on earth got the way it is today. The first was seeing a picture of James Talmage standing with his arm around what I initially thought was J. Golden Kimball. Upon closer viewing and reading the caption, I realized that Talmage had his arm around a pile of erect reconstructed dinosaur bones. Second, through my own study of Mormon history, I have discovered significant evidence showing that Mormons themselves have evolved over time. And now I'd like to end this essay by sharing a few of my own discoveries which I believe will demonstrate to the reader the fact of Mormon evolution. I trust that the following random samples will be self-explanatory and convincing. 72 hour kits Although not an official part of the LDS food storage program, 72 hour kits have been traditionally viewed by many Mormons as an important first step in preparing for every needful thing. Here, for instance, is a list of a few items typically found in the modern 72 hour kit: "1 gallon of freeze-dried water; MREs (to be used for fuel or vermin control); 173 function knife (trying each function provides hours of distraction from real life emergency); handcranked AM/FM radio/wheatgrinder/pasta maker/badger trap; 5 lbs. of wheat; 37 boxes of Pop Tarts; Ronco Pocketfisherman/Sewing Kit/Thigh Master/Flobie (caution--not all functions can be safely used at the same time); Navy Seal Survival Audio Tape Seminar (8 cassettes--6 hours total), tape player and batteries; and 99 hour candle (not to be used in church-owned buildings)." Compare this to the original list of items in the first 72 hour kit developed by Porter Rockwell in 1850: "Bacon; beans (not to be used in church-owned buildings); and biscuits." Rockwell devised this early version of the 72 hour kit shortly after taking one of several baths in 1849. According to a recently discovered journal, unbeknownst to Rockwell, he had been carrying a supply of bacon, beans and biscuits around in his beard sufficient to last one person approximately 3 days. Shortly after this discovery, Rockwell began marketing his "Beard Chock Full O' BB&B." Then, in 1852, Hosea Stout published his groundbreaking preparedness recipe book entitled: Hosea Stout's Hat, Saddle, Boot and Other Leather-Ware Jerky Recipe Book. The development of the storage of the modern 72 hour kit in a back pack rather than in a beard can be traced to the gradual decline of facial hair among Mormon men (and, in some cases, women). Swimsuits The earliest swimsuits in use among Mormons before 1846 mirrored those of their Gentile contemporaries and consisted of what swim suit historians have labeled the "hydro-suit," or "water suit" (aka the "birthday" suit) and were used primarily by boys at waterholes and rivers. Pioneers in early Utah rejected the hydro-suit. By most accounts they apparently did not distinguish between swimsuits and regular clothing, although tweed suits were generally disfavored as swimming wear. By the turn of the 19th century, swim wear among Mormons became more specialized and continued to follow national trends. A good example of post-frontier Mormon swim wear used by General Authorities and their wives can be seen in a fascinating picture reproduced in William H. Slaughter's _Life in Zion_, page 129, featuring J. Golden Kimball, George Albert Smith, James E. Talmage (smiling even--J. Golden must have said something), and young Joseph Fielding Smith in need of a nap. My confidential source in Salt Lake City informs me that after the date of this picture, church policy no longer allowed GAs to be photographed in swimsuits. By the 1940s, however, the development of Mormon swim wear lagged behind national trends, at least respecting women's wear. For instance, up until circa 1980, at BYU--a Mormon fashion trend-setting institution--women's swimsuits featured pants legs extending at least two inches below the derriere, often with sufficient material for the swimsuit pants legs to be cuffed. This style soon became labeled the "Utah Cut" in order to differentiate it from the "French Cut" style. After the removal of the pants leg from the swimsuit in 1990, one anonymous BYU official criticized the change, saying, "Brigham Young were alive today and took one good look at the evolution of Mormon swimwear over the last 100 years, he'd have a heart attack." Horns Until a few months ago, Mormon historians consistently maintained that early Mormons did not have horns. This interpretation was defended for many years, even though non-Mormon sources frequently said early Mormons sported horns, on the grounds that no Mormon source could be found to corroborate these claims. In fact, the standard defense by Mormon historians has always been that the Mormon horns rumor arose from anti-Mormon taunts to missionaries who had left their wives in Utah, a state in which supply (potential wives) could not meet demand (plural wives). The reference to horns came from popular legend in England to the effect that a cuckolded man will grown horns. However, this position is no longer tenable in light of a recent discovery of an unambiguous horn admission by none other than J. Golden Kimball. My confidential source in Salt Lake City claims that Gerald and Sandra Tanner are at this very minute busy writing an extensively documented expose about this shocking coverup, to be titled _Horngate: The Tremendously Huge Mormon Horns Coverup_. In an entry in a controversial personal journal that was locked up in the First Presidency's vault, Kimball makes the following shocking disclosure. On one occasion while missionarying in the South, Kimball presided over an outdoor baptism while Ku Klux Klan members gathered on the other side of the river, whooping and hollering, stirring a pot of tar and breaking open feather-filled pillows. Midway during the baptismal service, the Klan made so much noise that J. Golden had to interrupt the service and address the Klan. He said, "Now I respectfully request that you all keep it down over there. The quieter you are the sooner we'll finish up over here and you can then begin your business. Oh, and one thing. Now you know we Mormons have horns, and if you cross this river and try anything, why we'll gore the hell out of ya!" Relieved by the discovery that Mormon horns grew as an adaptation for self-defense rather than as a result of the adultery of missionary spouses left at home, BYU professors have now begun conducting extensive studies of early Mormon skulls in order to provide data to chart the disappearance of horns from Mormon heads. Preliminary studies suggest that over a long period of time, the horns, although necessary at one time to ward off anti-Mormons, were eventually replaced by church PR programs, and, like the appendix, dwindled away from lack of use. Luggage Only the most ardent anti-evolutionists question the fact that Mormon luggage has evolved over time. The first distinctively Mormon item in this category for our consideration is the handcart. Even handcarts themselves evolved during the few years in which they were in use. For instance, early models generally came in one design and had the following options: wood. Later models carried options such as rack and pinion steering, remote access, and airbags. Later handcarts also came in a variety of models, many of which were modified by teenage pioneers with the addition of flame decals, bumper stickers, and fuzzy dice. With the coming of the railroad, handcarts disappeared of course. The next big innovation in Mormon luggage came with the advent of the scripture tote bag. While many historians trace the tote bag back to the linen table cloth used by Joseph Smith to carry home the golden plates from Hill Cumorah, the first documented case of a recognizable modern tote bag appeared in 1973 in a Laurel class in Sandy, Utah. Sister Johansonjohnsonson transformed a worn-out gunny sack dress into a small bag to carry books to church. Shortly thereafter, entrepreneurs in Utah began marketing similar tote bags through Deseret Book outlets. Today, consumers may purchase scripture tote bags from among the following variety of designs: the Stewardess Model (has extendable metal handles and wheels at the base--fits in all airplane overhead compartments); the Wild Wild West Hip Holster Model (ideal for scripture chase and missionaries); the Fanny Pack Model (for soccer moms on the go); the Phalactery Model (ideal for Jewish converts--quadruple combination easily attaches to your forehead); the Standard Works-Out Model (scriptures form the ends of a barbell for working out anywhere); and the CIA/FBI Shoulder Holster Model (for carrying concealed scriptures). What is the future of Mormon Evolution, you might ask? Stephen Gould is annoyed when people ask him this question. He says the question presupposes that evolution can be charted, as if it is a form of progression, a serious misunderstanding of the fossil record, he claims. I, on the other hand, am not annoyed and will gladly hazard some guesses with respect to the few examples of Mormon evolution I've cited here. If you'll pardon me using some inductive reasoning, based upon the evolution of my very own waistline over the last couple of years, I predict the following: (i) 72 hour kits will no longer be necessary since many of us will carry our own portable fat supply and could easily skip 9 meals; (ii) swimsuits will become unnecessary since you wouldn't even be able to see my swim trunks if my gut continues to evolve at its current rate; (iii) we will no longer need horns or a PR department since we will become a subculture of Sumo wrestlers able to wrestle or, if the need arises, roll over the enemies of Mormonism; and finally, (iv) handcarts will make a come back as "posterior carts" to assist us in hauling our rear ends to church. ===== Among best sellers, Barnes & Noble ranks _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon_ in its top 100 (thousand, that is). Available now at 10% off http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=5SLFMY1TYD& mscssid=HJW5QQU1SUS12HE1001PQJ9XJ7F17G3C&srefer=&isbn=1560851368 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ - - 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 #167 ******************************