From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #314 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 Friday, May 4 2001 Volume 01 : Number 314 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 12:35:51 +0900 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Divinity on Stage I was reading a scholarly introduction in a recent publication of Lew Wallace's Ben-Hur, and found some comments about 19th century laws and customs about depicting divinity on stage interesting, and wonder how they relate to Mormon ideas of the impropriety of depicting ordinances on stage or on film. I checked out the copy of Ben-Hur because I am reading Gerald Lund's Fishers of Men, the first in his series of novels about people who came into contact with Christ during his ministry. I figured Ben-Hur (1880) is the Ur-novel of the genre in English. In the 1998 introduction, David Mayer writes, "Ben-Hur's success also made it an immediate choice for dramatic adaptation. Wallace was besieged by theatrical managements and dramatic authors who applied to prepare versions for the stage. In every instance Wallace refused these early requests on the grounds that it was impossible to represent Jesus, a problem intensified by American local ordinances which had been activated in the 1880s to suppress Passion plays and by a British Act of Parliament which forbade the portrayal of a reigning monarch or the representation of deity on the stage. . . . At some point in the 1890s the American theatrical managers Marc Klaw and Abraham Erlanger persuaded Lew Wallace that Ben-Hur might be adapted successfully for the stage and avoide litigation and censorship if the appearances of Jesus were represented not by an actor, but by a beam of intense blue limelight. . . Ben-Hur opened at Manhattan's Broadway Theater on 29 November 1899. Having reassured the Lord Chamberlain, the British censor, that the drama contained no blasphemy, Ben-Hur was brought to London's Drury Lane Theatre in April 1902." (Ben-Hur, Oxford UP, 1998, p. 19-20). An unauthorized film version was made in 1907, but a suit by Wallace's publishers resulted in its suppression. The 1925 silant film version was the first authorized version, and I assume an actor playing Christ appeared in it. It was a blockbuster. Of course most of us know the 1959 version. Apparently many hold the 1925 version to be better. So these things about 19th century aversion to depicting divinity on stage is interesting. I wonder if this impacted Mormon ideas, and then, because of Mormon conservativism, they remained in Mormon culture longer than in the mainstream culture (like many other cultural habits). Of course the Church itself didn't make many films before the 60s, but I doubt any of them dipicted Christ's physical form. There have been lots of pagents, I wonder when, say the Manti and Cumorah pagents began having actors playing Christ onstage (without lights or something else partially obscuring the actor). The first film to do this in a public venue may have been The First Vision (mid 70s?). Now it is common. Still there is some nervousness about dipicting ordinances on film. We have talked here on the list about some negative reaction to God's Army's depiction of the healing and the baptisms, and now some reaction to Brigham City's scene depicting the passing of the sacrament. I was talking to a missionary about it on Sunday, and he seemed nervous about having those kinds of scenes in a movie. (Although Church-produced films often have those kinds of scenes these days. Baptisms and the sacrament in Restoration of the Priesthood, healings in Legacy). I'm sure it relates to official Church policy against filming or recording real ordinances. Any comments? Andrew Hall _________________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 2 May 2001 12:56:03 -0700 From: "Frank Maxwell" Subject: Re: [AML] Church Problems in Lit Margaret wrote: > Serious question in this vein: One of my good friends is struggling with > the fact that Joseph Smith gave different versions of the First Vision. > Since my first husband was deeply into anti-Mormonism, I am very > familiar with all of that--and much, much more. I have been hesitant > to enter into debate with her. I've seen LDS historians' responses > to the different versions, and I can easily give them to her, but > I know anti-Mormon literature well enough to understand that one > question leads to the next. I believe that the debate can be endless. > I've mentioned this friend on the list before, and my sense > is that she wants to leave the church for other reasons, and is finding > reasons for leaving via anti-Mormon literature. As of now, I have mostly > expressed my love for her and not entered into the fray. I believe the > Spirit is the answer, and many questions become pretty irrelevant when > one is firmly grounded in faith (which is not an oxymoron). It is not foreordained that the debate will be endless. Or even that any discussion would become a debate. But your choice of these words shows your apprehension about entering a possibly contentious situation, one in which the outcome is not guaranteed. If you chose to address her questions directly, you might not be able to answer them adequately. She might not accept your reasoning. Your friendship might be damaged. These are significant concerns. Can I tell you a story? A number of years ago I used to work in downtown Palo Alto, not too far from Stanford University. As I would walk on University Avenue from the Caltrain station to work and back, or as I walked to restaurants or used bookstores at lunchtime, I would see lots of unsafe pedestrian behavior. I'd see people crossing the street after the traffic light turned red, ignoring the cars that were about to accelerate. Sometimes these pedestrians were locals, but often they looked like tourists -- people visiting Stanford and Palo Alto for the day. (For some reason, tourists on foot don't pay attention to traffic signals. Do they assume that the normal rules of behavior don't apply when they're on vacation?) Usually I would just shake my head, or mumble "sheesh", and then walk on. One day I decided I wasn't going to do that anymore. If I saw someone about to do something unsafe, I would open my mouth. This wasn't a major, drawn-out decision. It was something I just spontaneously decided to do. And so that's what I started doing. If I saw someone about to step into the street when the light was red, or when a car was coming, I would say "Watch out!" in a loud voice. And then they would stop and look. I can still remember one of the first intersections where I did that, half a block from the Stanford Theater (where they show the great old movies on the big screen) and kitty-corner from Burger King. It was interesting doing this because although there were often lots of people around, nobody else ever said anything. Nobody tried to warn their neighbor about oncoming traffic. They just saw, and thought, but they didn't speak up. So my point of view seems different than yours, Margaret. If someone comes to me with theological or intellectual questions, and I'm familiar with the issues, then I need to tell him or her what I know. It is an opportunity to help. And if I don't share what I know, then I'm not living fully in that moment that God has given me. It's good to express love. But sometimes people also need -- and want -- to hear the intellectual reasons why we think or believe a certain way. Sometimes when people challenge our beliefs, they do so not because they believe in their own objections. (They may only be trying on the objections for size, to see how it feels to think that way.) Rather, they want to see how solid *our* beliefs are. And if we wimp out, and fail to address the intellectual content of their objections when we could have done so, we are doing them a disservice, because they will walk away disappointed, thinking that we don't know the answers. They may erroneously conclude that there are no good reasons to discard their objections. And that would be very unfortunate. I'm not saying that it's bad to say "I don't know". I'm not saying we should make up intellectual arguments on the spot just so we can rebut someone's objections. But if we do know something solid that could help, we should say something. I think we too often assume that answering anti-Mormon objections requires antagonism on our part, or that we will be drawn instantly into a Bible-bashing mental and verbal mode. Maybe that's how some LDS deal with challenges to their faith. But we don't have to be overbearing or argumentative. If I were directing the scene, so to speak, I would tell the person answering the questions to do so in a kind, gentle way, without indignation or negative energy. I know it's unusual, but I think it's possible to talk about theological controversies in the same tone of voice that one would use to comfort someone dealing with personal trauma. The calmness comes from within. And it's a gift to those who are prepared to deal with the issue at hand. Sometimes having love means speaking in a loving way about topics which don't fall under the rubric of love. Sorry I'm so long-winded here. Does any of this help? Ironically, I myself am now at the intersection of choice, where *your* intellectual question meets my understanding. Thom, Harlow, Jacob and others have already spoken up. Here's my 2 bits worth to add to their suggestions. 1. Don't LDS historians often deal with the issue of multiple accounts of the First Vision by comparing it to the Four Gospels? Rejecting the First Vision because of multiple accounts is like rejecting the New Testament's testimony of Jesus because the Gospels differ in details. (I don't recall if Donna Hill addresses this. Maybe Richard Bushman does in his _Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism_.) I recall that years ago, at a Mormon History Association meeting -- in Kirtland, I believe -- that James Arrington read aloud a unified account of the First Vision, drawn from all of Joseph's versions. I think that version was subsequently printed in Dialogue or BYU Studies. Maybe reading that with her would help? I also think before a person decides that Joseph Smith lied because he didn't say exactly the same thing in all his accounts of the First Vision, he or she should do their own due diligence and study the conclusions reached by historians who have spent much more time on this than he or she has. Being offended at Joseph's words when one has not done a close textual reading of the totality of the evidence is not a solid intellectual position. 2. I think it's also important to look at all of Joseph's accomplishments before rejecting his witness. For instance, how does one explain the anomaly that is the Book of Mormon? I like Hugh Nibley's short piece, "The Book of Mormon: A Minimal Statement" in "The Timely and the Timeless", which was originally printed in a scholarly Catholic journal. I also like Orson Scott Card's essay, "The Book of Mormon--Artifact or Artifice?" in _A Storyteller in Zion_, in which he uses his experience as a novelist to examine whether Joseph could have written the BoM as a work of fiction. I enjoyed reading the positive remarks about Joseph by non-Mormons such as Nathan Hatch in _The Democratization of American Christianity_, and by Harold Bloom in _The American Religion_ (though I don't consider Joseph a Gnostic). It's as though these honest thinkers are admiring the exterior of a beautiful building, and saying "Wow!" But they don't why or how the building was built. For that, I would go to Truman Madsen's thoughtful essays in _Joseph Smith the Prophet_. 3. I agree that stories & personal experiences may be useful, too. I've been helped by the first-person accounts collected by Hartman & Connie Rector in Volume 1 of _No More Strangers_. Before someone gives up on Joseph Smith, he or she might try reading John Staley's account of how he went from being an ordained Benedictine monk to a baptized Latter-day Saint. Surely a Catholic monk, or a Protestant minister, would have serious theological problems with believing Joseph Smith or joining our religion. Reading how such individuals wrestled with their objections has been helpful to me. Sorry, Moderator, if this has been too long! (I did try to mention some literary stuff at the end!) Regards, Frank Maxwell Gilroy, California - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 14:16:53 -0600 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Church Problems in Lit On Tue, 01 May 2001 13:24:26 -0600, Thom Duncan wrote: >Another reason I can't believe it is because of what such a belief says >about those who aren't of our faith or are and have fallen away. To me, >it seems to say that there must be something wrong with you as a person >if you don't believe or no longer believe. I know there are people >who've left the church who were offended by a Bishop, or felt >constricted by the teachings of Boyd K. Packer, etc. But I also know >people who've left who, while sitting in Sunday School, had the same >reaction that I do when I listen to Pat Robertson: "What nonsense." >They just flat out don't believe the doctrine anymore.=20 Um. If there is such a thing as a "True Church" then there *is* = something wrong with a person who falls away from it. If people will leave the = True Church because they are offended by a bishop, felt constricted by Boyd K. Packer, or because they think that Sunday School lessons are "nonsense" = then there is, by definition, something wrong with them. That said, since we are all human and we all fail, there is *something* wrong with all of us. The trick is to keep in mind that we are all = children of God and we can all benefit by drawing closer to Him. Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 14:41:53 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Church Problems in Lit "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" wrote: > > Margaret wrote: > >Serious question in this vein: One of my good friends is struggling with the > >fact that Joseph Smith gave different versions of the First Vision. > > It fascinates me that the same event can build the testimony of one person, > and destroy the testimony of another. > > I take strength from different versions of the First Vision. It has been my > experience that when liars fabricate stories, the details don't change. They will over time. Liars have no better memories than people who tell the truth. > People who are less "ingenious" live complex lives, and find layers and > layers of meaning in signficant events. To me, Joseph's varying accounts > testify that the event was meaningful to him on a personal level when it > first happened, and took on different meaning and greater public > significance as he matured. On this, I agree completely. > > I've had tremendous experiences in my own life -- and I surely don't tell > the stories the same way now as I would have earlier on. Details that > seemed meaningless at first -- not worth mentioning -- have taken on DEEP > significance as I've seen new connections and learned more about God. > > Joseph's story -- every telling of it -- happened. I know it happened, > because it was hugely significant, multi-faceted, and incredibly profound. > And because he doesn't tell it the same way twice. The fact that it changes from time to time doesn't convince me it's true and, I would hope, it would not be the sole convincing factor for anyone. (President Clinton's account of involvement with Monica Lewinsky varied over time, so the changeable vector of a story shouldn't go to "proving" its accuracy.) Only the most die-hard anti-Mormon can still claim that the First Vision was entirely made up. Objectively, however, it is clear that something happened to Joseph of incredible, life-changing power. - -- Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 14:34:13 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] LA Book Festival - --- Elizabeth Hatch wrote: > >Margaret Young wrote: > >I wanted Oprah to drop by. (Didn't happen.) > > Margaret, > I'm so fired up after reading your post that I'm > tempted to start > calling Chicago to get you on the Oprah show myself! > > Does anyone know how to accomplish this? Does > anybody know someone with > enough influence to pull this off? > > I've even wondered about having someone send Oprah a > copy of your post. > Wouldn't she have to be curious? > > -Beth Hatch A quick unsatisfying answer. To get on the show, send a pitch letter to: Harpo Productions P. O. Box 909715 Chicago, IL 60607 The problem is I'm sure that the show receives hundreds of pitch letters each week so the subject would have to appealing enough to pass through the first level of assistant producers or interns or whoever reads the things. I think Darius and Margaret's story is compelling, but somebody at the show would have to get past the initial 'Mormon' thing. I think that if put in the right context, or given the right hook, it might work, but shows like Oprah have a national audience and national advertisers, so the question isn't so much is the story compelling to the producers personally, but would it be compelling to all those out there who watch Oprah religiously? But it never hurts to try. As with all pitches (and similar to book queries), the pitch letter would have to be short (one page), be compelling (but easy to understand), establish credibility and show how well it (the story) fits with the program's format and themes. My guess, though, is that you are right to bring up the 'influence to pull this off' question. If there were someone who had Oprah's or one of her producer's ear and could informally pitch the story, the chances of us seeing Darius and Margaret on national television would jump tremendously. Nobody has a nephew/niece/cousin/neighbor's child interning at the show? ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 16:26:42 -0600 From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] Church Problems in Lit Thom wrote: To me, it seems to say that there must be something wrong with you as a person if you don't believe or no longer believe. I know there are people who've left the church who were offended by a Bishop, or felt constricted by the teachings of Boyd K. Packer, etc. But I also know people who've left who, while sitting in Sunday School, had the same reaction that I do when I listen to Pat Robertson: "What nonsense." They just flat out don't believe the doctrine anymore. YES! Hopefully though, these people don't keep shadow boxing with the church the rest of their lives. The people that visited us kept rehashing their differences with the church, rehearsing their disaffectedness. They don't leave it alone. If you just don't believe anymore, it seems to me that you'd walk forward without having to wrestle, fight, find fault and fuss over the doctrines and practices. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 16:35:00 -0600 From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: Re: [AML] LA Book Festival > > >> Margaret Young wrote: >> I wanted Oprah to drop by. (Didn't happen.) > Elizabeth Hatch wrote: > > Margaret, > I'm so fired up after reading your post that I'm tempted to start > calling Chicago to get you on the Oprah show myself! > > Does anyone know how to accomplish this? Does anybody know someone with > enough influence to pull this off? > > I've even wondered about having someone send Oprah a copy of your post. > Wouldn't she have to be curious? > > -Beth Hatch > I also thought this would make a great show for Oprah. "MORMONS & BLACKS." (or something to that effect.) While I don't know anybody with pull or influence, I DO know the conventional procedure for getting on her show. Go to her website at: http://www.oprah.com/tows/intheworks/plugs_716.html and click on "fill out the form." (and include the AML Post in the submittal.) They're always looking for new Show Ideas. And if you just happen to have a Great Book! that goes along with the Idea, then there's a VERY good chance that she'll pick it up AND add it to her Book Club. (Send them a copy of the book, with a copy of the Show Idea submittal included.) I submitted a Show Idea, along with a book, to them several months ago. They responded within a week, via e-mail, to let me know that they had received my submittal and would be reviewing it. Later they responded again, thanking me for my input but kindly turning down my idea as something not quite right for their show. At any rate, it's certainly worth a try. They won't just ignore you, like some do. Go for it! - -BJ Rowley > - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 17:43:42 -0600 From: Lee Allred Subject: Re: [AML] Favorite Moments in LDS Lit. Looking at the short list of favorite moments I compiled just off the top of my head, I realized that my favorite ones are (to borrow an oft-quoted test of "good" poetry) ones that made the hairs on the back of my neck stand straight. A few of those moments: 1) Harlow Clark's storylet regarding the Book of Job. (Sorry, Harlow, I'm blanking on the title just now), particularly the ending which goes along the lines of "Yes, He did. Oh, indeed He did." I still think this story one of the strongest Mormon speculative fiction prose stories I've read yet, although Shayne Bell's "And All Our Banners Flying" printed in the latest IRREANTUM may have judged edged past it. 2) All of Michael Colling's Camlelot/Nauvoo poetic cycle "Taliesin: Epyllion in Anamnesis" definately is in the running for my castaway's bookshelf. Many great moments -- "But when he fell, and we pursued his dream...,/She stayed behind, and would not follow him" (Arthur and Guinevere); "It was...and was not. Even before walls/Rose sunset-high..." (Arthur's Great Hall) -- but my favorite is the devestation of Joseph's/Arthur's death in "Taliesin Overlooks the Ruins of Camelot": And now that he is gone, where is the whiteness on the hill? or stone suns and moons and stars he willed to be? ... 3) Just about all of the play TRAIL OF DREAMS, particularly the Rocky Ridge scene. (Sharp readers might notice I lifted one particular line from TRAIL OF DREAMS in my Draka story: Governor Ford's Machiavellian smirk: "That will have the desired effect.") 4) The pre-FARMS version of Hugh Nibley's THE MYTH MAKERS, particularly the scene where the Moderator/Judge reads through in one clump the entire contradictory litany of anti-Mormon descriptions of that wascal and arch-tweasure digger Joseph Smith, Jr. (Strange how only supposed contradictions by Joseph matter; those made by his critics do not.) I've many other favorite moments, but I truly suspect with the rapid advances Mormon lit is making, many others lie unread (and as yet unwritten) far in the future. - --Lee - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 21:13:34 -0500 From: "thomasb5" Subject: Re: [AML] MN Dutcher to Film Joseph Smith Movie in Palmyra:Rochester NY WHEC TV10 Actually, I was more amused by what he said when I realized that he is speaking as a normal 19 or 20 year old missionary who probably has not seen much of the world. Actually, I want to know if he received flack from the mission office for giving the quote because to me, it seemed that he was speaking to the media and they were quoting him as though he was speaking for the Church. Rick > I find it very interesting that this missionary only feels that making = > money from a movie is "evil". I wonder if he feels the same way about The = > Work and the Glory or all of the music, videos, plays and "art" that is = > produced by church members. I wonder if he ascribes more acceptable = > motives (faith promotion) to everyone except Dutcher. > > Peter Chamberlain - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 07:54:59 -0300 From: "renatorigo" Subject: [AML] Genealogy in Literature Do you have literature books where genealogy is the central theme? __________________________________________________________________________ Acesso f=E1cil, r=E1pido e ilimitado? Suporte 24hs? R$19,90? S=F3 no AcessoBOL - http://www.bol.com.br/acessobol/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 08:36:43 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: [AML] GLENN, _One in a Billion_ Just read Sharlee Glenn's ONE IN A BILLION and felt like sharing a = billion cheers. It is a lovely text, and I liked the way the book was = presented with the selected dialogue on the jacket. There are some = classic lines! Especially when the daisy tells the geranium, "I do not = need you." The geranium asks, "Why should I go? You and I could be = friends." However, a classic jealousy hits the little flower--one not = only children feel, that's for sure--one that says "If someone else is = filling the space, there is no place for me." However, it is that = FEELING of jealousy that hurts the daisy. We ALLOW negative feelings to = hurt us! And Sharlee's little sentence hits you hard, "And for the first = time in her life, she felt lonely." Although she was alone, she wasn't = lonely until SHE herself refused love! Also, another of my favorite = lines is: "You cannot get the sunlight you need if you droop." How TRUE! = I am a classic escape artist when it comes to reviewing, but I just = wanted to cheer for this graceful piece. Good going, Sharlee. Sincerely, = Marilyn Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 09:29:28 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: Re: [AML] LA Book Festival When we did the _Jane_ play at Marilyn and Bill Brown's theater, several people tried to contact Oprah. The system is this: You go to her website, send her an e-mail, get an immediate response that it will be read by SOMEBODY (resumably the janitor) and then you never hear anything again. Famous people have to have all sorts of gates around their offices and lives or they're inundated. It's understandable, but it does make access hard. [Margaret Young] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 12:11:41 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: Re: [AML] LA Book Festival Gee, I feel so loved and supported. Thanks y'all. My honest sense is that the TRILOGY will get national attention at some point. Book 1 is basically an introduction to our characters. The hard issues are only hinted at. Book 2 has information which has surprised even me as I've discovered it. (For example, did you realize that Confederate General Sterling Price was one of the Missouri Militiamen who drove the Mormons out [Chariton Militia], and later refused to "share grub" with members of the Mormon Battalion in Mexico? Did you know he was one of the guards--so named by Parley P. Pratt--who delighted in describing all the vile deeds done against the Mormons, whom Joseph Smith rebuked in Liberty Jail? [Incidentally, Price had just lost an infant daughter at the time of the incident, so I suspect he wasn't his most gentlemanly self.] Did you know he fought side by side with General Sidney Albert Johnston [as in Johnston's army] in the Civil War? And that he gave a rousing Confederate speech in the tiny little Missouri town where Darius Gray's ancestors lived? Did you know that the "Mother of California Civil Rights"--Biddy Smith Mason--was a slave of a Mormon family, and wouldn't have been in San Bernardino to sue for her freedom (a case she won the year before Dred Scott would have made it moot) without the Mormon migration? The more research I do, the more I see that the trilogy is not just Mormon History but U.S. history, and I fully expect it to get national attention when it's completed--or at least when Book 2 is out. I actually want to wait on pursuing the "Big" guys until Book 2 is published (February--Black History Month). I rather think we will get on Oprah, and if we can bring some of our fantastically talented Genesis friends, I think we'll be a hit. [Margaret Young] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 13:18:24 -0600 From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: Re: [AML] LA Book Festival >>> rareyellow@yahoo.com 05/02/01 03:34PM >>> > >My guess, though, is that you are right to bring up >the 'influence to pull this off' question. If there >were someone who had Oprah's or one of her producer's >ear and could informally pitch the story, the chances >of us seeing Darius and Margaret on national >television would jump tremendously. Nobody has a >nephew/niece/cousin/neighbor's child interning at the >show? =20 I bet Gladys Knight could get their attention. Now you just have to get = Gladys Knight's attention. MBA - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 13:00:57 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Church Problems in Lit > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Cathy Wilson > > Thom wrote: > > To me, > it seems to say that there must be something wrong with you as a person if > you don't believe or no longer believe. I know there are people > who've left > the church who were offended by a Bishop, or felt constricted by the > teachings of Boyd K. Packer, etc. But I also know people who've left who, > while sitting in Sunday School, had the same > reaction that I do when I listen to Pat Robertson: "What nonsense." > They just flat out don't believe the doctrine anymore. > > YES! Hopefully though, these people don't keep shadow boxing with the > church the rest of their lives. The people that visited us kept rehashing > their differences with the church, rehearsing their disaffectedness. They > don't leave it alone. If you just don't believe anymore, it seems to me > that you'd walk forward without having to wrestle, fight, find fault and > fuss over the doctrines and practices. > > Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson I used to think that pretty much every person who left the church, or who decided that he or she didn't believe in it, had a struggle with some sin that was causing the problem. The church encourages this point of view because we believe that as people sin, they lose the promptings of the Holy Ghost which will keep them alive to spiritual truth. I also think that if people are involved in a behavior (sin) that is not allowed in the church, that deciding not to believe is one way to solve the cognitive dissonance that results. However, I now think that I was wrong before. I agree with Thom that sometimes people do honestly and ethically take issue with the belief system. I don't think it is in any way easy to leave a belief system that has the social dimensions of Mormonism. Membership in the church means connections to other human beings. What about the nonbeliever's mother, who is (probably) daily praying and weekly fasting that her child will return to the fold? What about the angst and pain of the rest of the extended family? What about the well-intended concern of neighbors, friends, and church leaders? All these people are no doubt people the nonbeliever cares about. Nor does he (usually) want to hurt anyone. This causes tremendous dissonance. If one is true to oneself then one has to hurt the people that are most important in one's life. That is why I think people continue to wrestle and fight. It is not like choosing which brand of toothpaste to use. Leaving the church is seen in our doctrine as a true tragedy. To walk away from one's covenants and the promptings of the Holy Ghost is a terrible thing. So, if someone decides to do it, that person has a fight on his hands, probably both external and internal. Gae Lyn Henderson > - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 10:47:22 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Church Problems in Lit (Mod Note) Hi folks, I had written a great, lengthy post about this thread and how it relates to the List's topics, then had my e-mail program crash just when I was about to send it. Oh, well. The short (well, not so short) version is that I'm aware that this thread has the potential for getting into out-of-bounds areas for the List. I think it mostly has avoided doing so thus far, and can continue doing so if we think about the following areas of connection: * What is the effect of different types of text/literature on personal belief--including doctrinal works, history, narratives (true or fictional), etc? Different for different folks, but everything we can say about how this works for us and those we know potentially illuminates some element of Mormon letters and what it can/should accomplish. * How do different people see the same experiences differently, and how is that reflected in the accounts they share of those events? How do we ourselves see and/or describe events differently over time? As several people have pointed out, this is an issue that relates to texts ranging from the Joseph Smith story to Martha Beck's _Expecting Adam_. * What is the nature and origin of the type of personal commitment that is involved in being Mormon? How ought this to be depicted through characters in a literary work? I would remind us all that arguing about what Mormon doctrine is, or whether it is correct, is off-topic for the List. Sharing our own perspectives on our own beliefs, however, and what we have observed of others' beliefs, can be on-topic, in that it helps us understand better the full range of what "being Mormon" entails--surely a worthwhile goal for a List where part of the business is to talk about literary works that attempt to depict Mormons as characters and reflect the Mormon experience. It's largely a difference in tone and emphasis rather than substance. So long as we can avoid becoming either confrontational or judgmental, there's a good chance we won't stray far from our basic area of emphasis. Which means I can continue enjoying the conversation, and not intervene too heavily... Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 13:29:41 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Church Problems in Lit Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > Um. If there is such a thing as a "True Church" then there *is* something > wrong with a person who falls away from it. May I suggest that, should you ever be called to re-activate someone in your ward, that you do not let them know you feel this way. One of the most common reasons less actives give for not associating with other Church members is that they (the actives) possess this idea and are often guilty of actually letting the inactive person know they feel this way. As a Seventy who for years ministered to the less active, I heard this complaint more than any other. > If people will leave the True > Church because they are offended by a bishop, felt constricted by Boyd K. > Packer, or because they think that Sunday School lessons are "nonsense" then > there is, by definition, something wrong with them. I contend that, if we are ever able in our works of literature, to hope to touch someone's heart so that they might consider coming back into the fold, we must be able to look upon inactivity or apostasy as one might look upon a person who chooses to join another political party, or goes to a different college than we did, or who is left-handed. As long as we attach a stigma to the "other," it will show up in our writing, despite our best efforts to hide it behind tolerance. There is and always will be the "other" but they are neither better or worse than we are. > That said, since we are all human and we all fail, there is *something* > wrong with all of us. The trick is to keep in mind that we are all children > of God and we can all benefit by drawing closer to Him. But with a belief that, somehow, because I am active, I am "closer" to God than a less active may be, is to re-argue the same question the Apostles had when they asked Jesus, "Which of us will be on your right hand." His answer to them is the same to us. - -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - -------------------------- Shameless Plug - ------------------------------- Don't miss the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival at UVSC! *J. Golden* - a one-man play by James Arrington, starring Marvin Payne *SFX5* - 5 original short science fiction plays *Peculiarities* - a new full-length play by Eric Samuelsen For more information about the Playwrights Circle and our summer festival: http://www.playwrightscircle.com - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 13:41:26 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Church Problems in Lit Cathy Wilson wrote: > > Thom wrote: > > To me, > it seems to say that there must be something wrong with you as a person if > you don't believe or no longer believe. I know there are people who've left > the church who were offended by a Bishop, or felt constricted by the > teachings of Boyd K. Packer, etc. But I also know people who've left who, > while sitting in Sunday School, had the same > reaction that I do when I listen to Pat Robertson: "What nonsense." > They just flat out don't believe the doctrine anymore. > > YES! Hopefully though, these people don't keep shadow boxing with the > church the rest of their lives. The people that visited us kept rehashing > their differences with the church, rehearsing their disaffectedness. They > don't leave it alone. If you just don't believe anymore, it seems to me > that you'd walk forward without having to wrestle, fight, find fault and > fuss over the doctrines and practices. This is a phase in a person's disaffection. It's similar to what some people experience when they first join the Church (my wife and I among them): Everyone they meet is a potential convert, and it takes a while to come to an understanding that not everyone will believe just because YOU do. Those who become disaffected often feel betrayed, much like a spurned lover. Their emotions are keen. They suffer from separation anxiety. They are using you to get the Church out of their system. I know you've been divorced but I don't know if you went through what some divorced people have: initially, all they can think about is the "wrong" done to them by the other person. Eventually, they learn to deal with their new situation and move on. I submit that this is what is happening to your friends. You just happen to be there at the point when the "divorce" is fresh. - -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - -------------------------- Shameless Plug - ------------------------------- Don't miss the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival at UVSC! *J. Golden* - a one-man play by James Arrington, starring Marvin Payne *SFX5* - 5 original short science fiction plays *Peculiarities* - a new full-length play by Eric Samuelsen For more information about the Playwrights Circle and our summer festival: http://www.playwrightscircle.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 #314 ******************************