From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #392 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 Thursday, July 12 2001 Volume 01 : Number 392 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:35:21 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Realistic Newspaper Reporters William Morris: > >If you want to >make your reporter a little more sympathetic you can >foist the evil characteristics on to the editor >(Although I'm sure Eric's editors aren't in the least >bit evil). A major tension for the reporter is >balancing his/her feelings of simpatico (or hiding >dislike) with the subject/person(s) being reported on >with the demands of the story. Yes, although I take issue with the notion that my editors are not evil. All newspaper editors, by definition, are evil. I agree with everything else William said in regards to real-life reporters, with a couple adjustments.... > >Yes. Passionate about their beats is a must for any >literary representation of a reporter if he/she is a >minor character. The sincerely believe that by >reporting the news that they do (whether their beat is >education, business or city hall), they are doing a >public service. One caveat: Often because they are >so passionate about their beats they develop certain >prejudices about the topics they cover which means in >any interview they will focus in on the topics and >attitudes that will fit their prejudices (which they >often consider to be simply the beliefs and concerns >of their average readers). What this means in >depicting a scene of a conversation between a reporter >and a source is that often what the source thinks is >crucial to the story, the reporter will see as a minor >point and want to focus on other aspects of the story. > True that reporters (like all human beings) will develop biases. One thing I've been impressed with in working for newspapers, though, has been how hard they try to fight them. The public tends to think that newspapers consciously let their biases influence everything they do, but my experience has been the opposite: They know what their prejudices are and try not to let them show. Nothing makes a reporter bristle more than being accused of being biased. They really strive for fairness. I think that's something many people misunderstand about them, and something many people reading this probably won't even believe. But it's true. Also, in regards to sensationalizing: Real reporters hate that, too. We love it when a story actually IS sensational, of course, because it means people will read it and follow it. But reporters object to making a story more fantastic than it is, because it goes against their inherent desire to present the facts. > > > One more thing. Reporters are way underpaid. See > > what you can do > > about that, will you? > >No comment. > >~~William Morris (Actually reporters are underpaid-- >although I hear Eric makes the big bucks. Didn't you >just buy a nice house right next door to Stephen >Covey's large, white, night-lighted manse-trosity?) > Yes. I'm his pool boy. Eric D. Snider _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:28:38 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Writing About "Good" Mormons On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:10:26 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Amelia Parkin writes: > Below is what Kellene Adams wrote about writing about good > Mormons in literature. I would like to foreground what I think is > the central issue at hand. Kellene asks why it is that writing > about "good Mormons" has to be boring and sappy. She goes > on to tell the story of some "good Mormons" who have > experienced plenty of problems. So here's my question: why > is it that we continue to insist on breaking Mormons up into > categories like "good," "faithful," "bad," "unrepresentative"? > To do so is ridiculous. Just wanted to let you know that I really like the way you think and express your thoughts. Often times you beat me to the punch with a comment and say it much better than I would. Thanks. J. Scott Bronson -- Member of Playwrights Circle - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --- "The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent upon it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the universe to do." Galileo - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:25:34 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Morality and Art Chris Grant wrote: > > I wonder if that isn't selling their statements a little short. > The way they frame many of their General Conference statements on > the arts suggests to me that they feel they are talking about > something objective and not just a matter of their own personal > preference. May I also suggest that, because they are "General" authorities, their remarks are meant to reach the largest cross-section of people. It's like writing in outline form -- a lot of mitigating details are left out. Consider recent talks about working women for instance. The larger principle of stay-at home mothers is presented as the ideal while allowing for individual variances based on personal circumstances. So while a GA may suggest that we avoid offensive movies, it is up to us in good conscience to determine that for ourselves. We've heard enough on this list to know that what some people find offensive others love. For instance, I like Stephen King, Barbara Hume despises him. To me, he's not offensive. To her, he is. But I further suggest that we are both in accordance with the suggestion to avoid offensive material as we understand that to be. > Perhaps the difference between words is greater than the > difference between musical keys. Perhaps the choice between > words that aren't vulgar and those that are is more akin to the > choice between performing a concerto at a normal volume and > having it amplified to a volume that is literally deafening. Again, though, what is vulgar can be individually discerned, based on all kinds of things, like one's upbringing, the part of the country, one comes from or the part of the world, for that matter. FWIW, "pissed" in England means drunk, while it has a much more vulgar connotation in America. - -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - - - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:04:15 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Kent HUFF, _Brigham Young's United Order_ (Review) BRIGHAM YOUNG'S UNITED ORDER by Kent W. Huff Published by Bonneville Books (date not listed), distributed by Cedar Fort, Inc. Trade paperback, 313 pages $16.95 "The United Order Will Never Be the Same, Part Two" What _Joseph Smith's United Order_ was, _Brigham Young's United Order_ is even more so. Plenty of descriptive argument for those who only want to understand what Huff is saying. But copious amounts of evidence is interspersed for those who want to dig through it. And its scope is much more sweeping than the first book. The evidence is used in service of the premise that the United Order of the Utah period was an experimental system implemented by Brigham Young under circumstances of extreme survival. He was the leader of an exiled people literally carving a civilization out of nothing. For a while he was governor of the territory, but that rug was soon pulled out from under his feet. As the de facto leader of the region, but with no legal authority to back him up and nothing but hostility emanating from the titular legal authorities, Brigham Young was obliged to resort to extraordinary measures to govern his people. Their lives and their society were at stake. It was literally a matter of life an death that he succeed. Although Huff focuses on the United Order, his hypothesis actually accounts for all sorts of thorny legacies in LDS history, which is the beauty of it. From the Adam-God theory to blood atonement to polygamy, Huff demonstrates that the unique and dire circumstances of nineteenth century Utah required drastic measures. Lacking the normal tools of civilization-building, Brigham Young employed the only source of authority he had--ecclesiastical--to forge a society with proper law enforcement and economics. Living in the midst of a desert and impoverishment, and with the army of the United States knocking at their gate, embodying the desires of that country to exterminate the Saints, Brigham Young's goal was the messy business of survival at any cost, and let future generations sort out the details. These two books had a profound effect on me as I read them. I felt as if a number of significant puzzle pieces fell into place in my understanding of LDS history. I had one of those "Ah ha!" experiences where troubling dilemmas that wouldn't go away were finally resolved into a picture that made sense. Huff's hypothesis, in my opinion, resolves many difficulties from our history that have plagued us for over a century, and still plague us as our enemies wield them as weapons against us. And all for the price of giving up a mystical economic system that is more the stuff of wish-fulfillment than reality. It was a price I gladly paid, even at the expense of retracting enthusiastically argued public stands I'd taken, even at the expense of a cool LDS science fiction book I would have written. In his zeal to convince, Huff first wrote _Brigham Young's United Order_ as a monstrous tome stuffed with everything he could think of to include. After some wise editing advice, he split out the cream of the book and put the rest into a third volume, which was never widely published or distributed. I've read this third volume and, although it contains some relevant information, especially about the issues beyond the United Order, it definitely was the secondary material, and you're not missing a great deal by reading only the first two volumes. The third volume is almost exclusively page after page of speeches from Brigham Young and other church leaders of the time. I don't know if _Joseph Smith's United Order_ and _Brigham Young's United Order_ will have the same effect on you that they did on me. I don't know if Kent Huff's premise about the United Order will convince you. But I think I can state with assurety that, from now on, any treatise on the United Order that doesn't address the evidence Huff presented in these two books is an incomplete treatise. Huff has added a remarkable dimension to our understanding of the United Order that cannot be ignored. - -- 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: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:39:26 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Writing by Mormons and Non (comp) >From marianne_hales_harding@hotmail.com Wed Jul 11 10:58:10 2001 >BTW, did you know that there's a movie of Left Behind? When did that come >out? I missed it. It came out to video only and it says on the back of the box that when they make enough money from video sales they will release it into the theaters. I, too, have really enjoyed the Left Behind series (though I skipped the movie--I can't picture Kirk Camerson as Buck. Just doesn't fit my image of him.) You kind-of have to let some of that Born-Again exhuberance roll off your back (how many times can someone dramatically fall to the ground, overcome by the spirit, in the span of five pages?) but it does get you thinking about what the scriptures say about the end times and what it might be like in terms of the world we know. I've read all that are out now and I am anxiously awaiting the release of the next one (well, I'm not losing any sleep over it, but this is one of several series that I am following and it'll be nice to see what happens!). Marianne (Who *is* losing sleep over when the next Harry Potter book will be out :-) - --------------------------------------------- >From rexgoode@msn.com Wed Jul 11 11:17:14 2001 Barbara, Thanks for your comments about Christianity and fiction. Christian films tend to be Catholic. Christian characters in horror films also tend to be Catholic. Evangelicals may wear crosses, but you don't tend to think of them as wielding a crucifix to keep a vampire away. I once pondered how a vampire would fare in a predominantly Mormon community. I have not read the _Left Behind_ books, but I have seen the movie with Kirk Cameron. To tell the truth, I don't remember it much. When I try to remember it, I end up getting it confused with The Langoliers (Stephen King). :) There really hasn't been much in the way of Protestant Evangelical films that I can recall. I did enjoy _The Omega Code_ with Michael York, whom I always love, and Casper Van Dien. Michael Ironside was cast in his usual role, but well played. I mean, really, how stupid is a character who doesn't see Michael Ironside and think, "He must be the bad guy?" I've noticed that there is a part two in production, called, _Megiddo: Omega Code 2_. Michael York returns in his role as "The Beast" and is joined by Michael Biehn (_Terminator 2_ and "The X-Files"). Prior to that, the last one I remember was from my teen years. It was called, _A Time to Run_ and was more or less a Billy Graham tract, with Reverend Graham doing an altar call from the screen after the end credits. Seeing it made me curious to see what happens when you answer a Billy Graham altar call. They tried to get me to recite this canned prayer that asked Jesus into my heart. When I wouldn't do it, they took my name and phone number down and called me for the next few weeks. I don't include films such as _The Late Great Planet Earth_ because it was more of a documentary based on Hal LINDSAY's book. The very Catholic "The Omen" series was rather frightening, although I could not stay awake for any but the first. The Evangelical view of end times does not seem to bear much resemblance to the Mormon view, but then the Mormon view is not laid out so succinctly. For us, the main events are things like the coming of the Ancient of Days and the return to Jackson County. I think it's interesting how fiction about end times from the rest of Christianity seems to be done from a global point of view, but fiction about end times from the Mormon viewpoint tends to be centered around the Rocky Mountains. I remember an enjoyable short story by Thom Duncan that I read in a release of Zion's Fiction when I was still getting it. It was a small town in Utah. When, as a teen, I was heading in a direction that was taking me away from the Church, it was Duane S. CROWTHER's, "Prophecy: A Key to the Future," that fascinated me enough to want to change. It didn't scare me. I thought it would be fun to live through all of the stuff he gleaned from the writings of latter-day prophets and apostles. I just didn't think it would be as much fun living through it on the wrong side. I've since come to be highly skeptical of Crowther's timeline, and take with a large grain of salt, many of the opinions expressed by Mormon leaders about the events leading up to the return of the Savior. Even with my skepticism, I find the Mormon model more likely than the interpretations of the Bible we see. Rex Goode - ----------------------------------- >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Wed Jul 11 12:20:34 2001 I've been reading the Left Behind series too and have been enjoying it. Is there any fiction out there about the Last Days from an LDS perspective. I've read Ephraims Seed and Jacobs Cauldron, but they just stopped. There's supposed to be two more at some point. And they started in the middle of things. Ephraims Seed doesn't explain why LDS people are on the run, or why the government is doing what it's doing. Left Behind, although doctrinally incorrect, explains things right from the beginning of things changing, and does it well. You can see how people get from one point to another. Anna Wight - ---------------------------------- >From ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Wed Jul 11 13:13:38 2001 At 05:03 PM 7/10/01, Barbara R. Hume wrote: >He never says anything about Mormons, so I can only assume that we are all >translated! ha! The fundamentalist Christians are the heroes. More likely burned. - -- Ronn! :) - ----------------------------------- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:46:18 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Fiction in Church Mags At 11:20 PM 7/9/01 -0500, you wrote: >"Children should know that they learn the truth in Primary. >If a person uses a make-believe story or situation to >teach a gospel principle, he or she should explain that >the story is make-believe." When my daughter's first son, at the age of seven or so, asked her the truth about Santa Claus, she said that what he had heard was true--Santa Claus was an interesting character that added fun to the season, but he wasn't a real person. He thought about that for a while, and then said, "Hey! What about the Easter bunny?" The reason she didn't insist on trying to force the kid to believe in Santa Claus is that she didn't want him, somewhere down the road, to say, "Hey! What about Jesus?" Barbara R. Hume, Editorial Empress Complete range of writing and editing services High-tech a specialty TechVoice, Inc. (801) 765-4900 barbara@techvoice.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:39:03 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: (Andrew's Poll) Church-Sponsored Art (comp) >From skperry@mac.com Tue Jul 10 20:37:29 2001 on 7/10/01 6:55 PM, Jonathan Langford at jlang2@pressenter.com wrote: > Favorite: Everything painted by Minerva Teichert. BY sent her to France to > study with the masters. There were several painters sent by Brigham to study in France, but Minerva Teichert was not one of them (she was still alive in 1970). She did study art in Chicago and New York, however. She's always been one of my 2 or 3 favorite LDS painters. She also painted murals for one of the temples--forgive me, I don't have time to look up which just now--and she painted a beautiful work called "The Sacrament" for the cover of my new CD. Okay, she painted it for other reasons, but BYU is letting us use it. In fact, why not go to: http://stevenkappperry.com right now and have a look? And buy a CD? :-) Go Minerva! Steve Perry - ------------------------------------------------ >From andrewrhall@hotmail.com Tue Jul 10 20:43:04 2001 It has been a long time since I've seen it, but of the films I think I liked "How Rare a Possession" best. It was released around 1987, and was about the Book of Mormon. Both the two main stories were well written and acted (Parly P. Pratt and the Italian minister who found the coverless BoM and gained a testimony of it long before he found the Church). It powerfully presented the message of the importance the book in these people's lives without being manipulative, like Together Forever was. Like Thom, Minerva Teichert is my favorite Mormon artist. I saw the exhibition at BYU on her Book of Mormon paintings, and was blown away by them. I think at least some of them were painted for churchouses, so fit under my "instituional" rubric. Certainly her mural in the Manti Temple World room fits. It is an amazing work, I was very surprised by it when I first went. The Salt Lake and other world rooms usually show animals attacking each other, but when she repainted the room in 1947 she did an amazing, vibrant representation of the history of the world from Babel to the establishment of Zion in the rockies (the origional, more traditional mural by CCA Christensen had flaked away). There is a very interesting article in BYU Studies (1999, 38:3) that I just read about the creation and symbolism of the mural, with detailed color pictures. But she came after Brigham Young's day, so I think Thom is mixing up her training experience with those four or so artists that BY sent to Paris in the 1870s or so to prepare to create the origional temple murals. She studied in NYC and Chicago. And I don't think her style was Impressionist. Thom wrote: >Favorite: Everything painted by Minerva Teichert. BY sent her to France to >study with the masters. As an Impressionist, she didn't paint to tell a >story, >but to make you feel what was going on, which she did with wonderful >mastery. >Also, she lived a lifestyle that was about as Bohemian as a Mormon in good >standing could get. > My least favorite temple rooms are the terrestrial and celestial rooms in the SLC temple. I find them strangely garish and ornate. Pagents: Cumorah was pretty good, but I was put off by a lot of the Manti pagent (1990). Especially depicting Brigham Young agreeing to create the Mormon Battalion out of patriotism, followed by a fit of flag waving. That was a pretty serious misrepresentation of the history; the Mormons were not feeling especially patriotic in 1848. I'm not sure exactly who puts that on, the stakes in Manti? Andrew Hall - ------------------------------------------ >From skperry@mac.com Wed Jul 11 10:57:08 2001 on 7/10/01 2:30 PM, Rose Green at hvozdany@hotmail.com wrote: > I don't know if they were commissioned or not, but I really dislike those > C.C.A. Christensen paintings of the trek west. The form is just so folk art > Americana that I feel distracted. It doesn't make me think of the > heroicness of our heritage; it makes me wonder why they are so cutesy. I > believe Christensen was a contemporary of the period, but I still don't care > for the paintings. I like those paintings for the history involved. Also, that the painter knew he wasn't world-class, but still not only painted them, but hauled all those huge murals around "Zion," as then constituted, telling the saints their own history. Some of the paintings even have smoke damage from candles held up to them during the expositions and retellings. Seeing them all together in a recent BYU Museum of Art exhibition was grand. :-) Steve Perry - -------------------------------------- >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Wed Jul 11 12:38:05 2001 (in comparison to those smarmy recent paintings > by various artists of a girly-looking Christ with little kids and lots of > fuzzy light all over the place). Hey, I like those pieces. I don't think Christ is girly looking and I love paintings of children. Greg Olsen and Simon Dewey are among my favorite artists. There's a warmth and gentleness in Christ's face that so many artists don't show. Recently in Edmonton Alberta there was a display about Jesus in the museum that recieved rave reviews from various churches and individuals. I paid my money and went through it. I hated it. It was dark and depressing. Most of the images were of Christ's death. Of course Christ's crucifiction should be part of such a show, but it took over. Little was about his life, or the effects of how his life and sacrifice impacted the world. There wasn't much about the various Christian churches (I think Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa got a nod), but nothing on Joseph Smith, Martin Luther or anybody else who wasn't Catholic. Little was shown of the apostles. Only one image of Jesus with children among the hundreds of images. Hardly anything on Jesus' Judaism. There were two themes, his birth and his death. I couldn't help thinking how our church could have done it better, and how our contemporary artists capture Christ more wholly. I did not feel the spirit there (it was too dark and heavy feeling there), but I did feel it later that day when I walked into a church bookstore and looked the pictures of Christ that Greg Olsen does. I've been in the Alberta temple many times and to be honest, I'm not crazy about the murals there. I guess I think that if you're supposed to feel like your in the garden room, telestial and terrestial room, then the paintings should be realistic. There's that guy Christianson (I think), he does some wonderful fantasy characters. I like his paintings. Not religious, just fun. Anna Wight - -------------------------------------- >From dmichael@wwno.com Wed Jul 11 14:27:11 2001 Rose Green wrote: > (Plus he's picked up on the idea we all have from Friberg that > all Nephites were practically exploding with muscle...) What do you expect? They went around lopping the swoard-wielding arms of Lamanites off--they had to be muscular. D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com - ------------------------------------ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:12:43 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Morality and Art Okay, some responses to Chris Grant's responses to my response. Can I = say, by the way, that I very much appreciate this dialogue, and especially = the spirit in which, in my opinion, it's been conducted. Me: >>General Authorities are not artists; they are not conversant >>with the various discourses taking place in the worlds of >>artists. >There are exceptions, aren't there? For example, Elder Packer is >an artist of sorts, and his essay/address that leads off the BYU >Press publication _Arts and Inspiration_ suggests that as long >ago as 1976 he was involved in discourses pertaining to morality >and the arts. I suspect that Elder Packer would be the first to disavow that label = 'artist.' He certainly paints, and his paintings are quite competent = landscapes. But "The Arts and the Spirit of the Lord". the talk to which = you refer, is filled with his own protestations that he's not an artist, = and that there's a fundamental level at which, by his own admission, he = doesn't know what he's talking about. That's a very interesting talk. In it, he describes various times when = he's experienced, in a variety of contexts, a variety of works of art, and = how, at times, the Spirit has withdrawn. I think that's a fascinating = subject; the times and places when we feel the Spirit strongly and when we = feel it withdraw. =20 If Elder Packer says "I heard this music, or I saw this play and I felt = the Spirit withdraw," then that's valuable and important evidence, and we = need to listen to it. But the problem is that I have felt the Spirit very = strongly while listening to precisely that music. (The example he uses is = Jesus Christ Superstar, as it happens). It is, of course, likely that = Elder Packer has a different relationship to the Spirit than I have. But = I have to regard my own testimony as valid. The same Spirit that tells me = God exists, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that same Spirit manifested = itself to me during a production of the same play where it offended Elder = Packer (not the same production, of course.) And that says to me that = Elder Packer's testimony regarding art is valid for Elder Packer. But if = you say to me "you didn't really feel the Spirit then, under those = circumstances," well, then I don't know what to do, because then there's = no reason for me to stay in the Church. Don't misunderstand me, but this = is absolutely true; if I had a choice in the matter, I wouldn't be a = Mormon. I feel that alienated from the culture. I'm a Mormon because I = have a testimony. No other reason. >Certainly there are objects that are morally inert until acted >upon by a moral agent, and many words fall into this category. >Yet it seems to me that there are some words that we are >discouraged from using in just about every context, and it's not >clear that there is an exception made for artistic creations. >Certainly President Kimball's description of his experience at a >San Francisco theater suggests that he didn't think there was an >exception when it came to using sacred words in vulgar contexts: > ". . . the actors, unworthy to unloose the latchets >of the Lord's sandals, were blaspheming his sacred name >in their common, vulgar talk. They repeated words of a >playwright, words profaning the holy name of their >Creator. The people laughed and applauded, and as I >thought of the writer, the players, and the audience, >the feeling came to me that all were party to the >crime . . ." (_Improvement Era_, May 1953, p. 320.) Look at the context here. The play was clearly a comedy, and, by the = standards of 1953, a vulgar one. The Lord's name was being taken in vain = in the context of a trivial entertainment, probably non-reflectively, = probably without any consideration of the moral impact of that language. = The key word here is 'gratuitous.' Now, I'm very reluctant to declare the = use of language gratuitous. I'm very reluctant to peer that closely into = the heart of an artist. But it certainly does happen that artists don't = consider carefully every word they write and every possible reaction to = those words. Comedy is tricky in this context. Farce deliberately lives in an amoral = universe, (an artificial construct, to be sure), telling us truth with a = lower case t, reminding us that we are mammals, that left to our own = resources, we'll do what we can to satisfy our physical needs. That's not = the whole truth about humanity, of course, but it's a truth, and farce, at = it's best, explores that. And because it's true, it's funny. (Truth is = often funny; nothing funny isn't true). So, again, my reluctance to judge = comedy. But we're all capable of lapses. But the larger point is worth making again. Elder Kimball is describing = the use of the Lord's name. I'm reminded of the FHE we had, when my six = year old overheard her brother talking about God, in a lesson, as I = recall, about prayer. "Kai," she said, wide-eyed, "you're not supposed to = use that word. That's a bad word." But we can, and often must, use the = word "God." It's not a bad word at all, of course. It's just that in = some contexts, it's also blasphemously used. =20 >>I cannot think of a single instance--not one--where an artist >>created anything intending to do evil in the world. >This struck me at first as a very bold statement: Out of the >trillions of culpable acts committed by humans, none have been >performed by artists in the creative process? =20 I didn't say that. I said that I have never known an artist who created = anything intending to do evil in the world. Obviously artists are as = capable of sin as any mortals. But I have never once known an artist who = has said "I know, I'll write this play/novel/poem/song or create this = painting/film/sculpture in order to promote evil in the world." They say = "this is a fun little dance tune." They say "this may not be the best = show on television, but it's fun and people will find it amusing." They = say "by shocking the audience, we'll free from their bourgeois conventional= ity and allow they to experience the world as it really is, in all its = ugliness and violence." =20 >But then if one >pleads ignorance of others' motives, all this is is a statement >about your own creations, isn't it? =20 At the time I created them, sure. In retrospect, I shudder at a lot of = what I've done, both as an artist, and, of course, outside the creative = process. >More than one of the seven deadly sins played a role in the >creation of the few (and utterly insignificant) works of art/ >literature I produced in my younger days. Not consciously, while you were creating them. Betcha anything. Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:23:09 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Kent HUFF, _Joseph Smith's United Order_ (Review) At 02:07 AM 7/10/01 -0600, you wrote: >Huff's premise is that we have the United Order all wrong. It is not an >eternal principle. It was not established by revelation. Our concept of >the Order today is one of those folk doctrines we've accepted that, when >looked into in depth, does not bear up to scrutiny. Fascinating. I really hope he's right. I'm far too selfish to live under such a regime, and human nature being what it is, it would never work, IMHO. Now if someone would prove that the whole plural-wives thing was a big mistake. . . barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:56:34 -0700 From: "Stephen Goode" Subject: [AML] AML Writing Group/Feedback Wanted There was a time when I was involved in writing groups begun here on the list. That was a few years ago. I got a lot of useful feedback. I am at a place where I'm interested in more feedback. Because of some of the themes in my stories, much of the feedback I got before came with the disclaimer that the reviewer could not verify whether my story was accurate. They did not understand the issues I was writing about. I don't doubt they were being sincere. A mostly sheltered Mormon will be out of his element. He may even be uncomfortable reading what I write, or at least I hope so. I am not faulting those who could not give more in terms of feedback. Everyone did their best to come up with something I could use, and everyone succeeded to some degree. I am wondering if there are any brave souls out there who are willing to venture into my brain and my writing a little. I am willing to reciprocate. Your interests would need to include mild horror/fantasy and not be shy about violent content or sexual situations. I'm never graphic about sex and violence, but I'm not shy about those elements either. Finally, if there is some interest in writing groups again, and if it would be advantageous to use a bulletin board system on a website as opposed to email, I'm willing to host (in terms of space, bandwidth, and software) an AML-List writing groups area on one of my websites. Rex Goode _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:59:50 -0500 From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: [AML] Re: Steed Family (was: Fiction in Church Mags) At 11:20 PM 7/9/01, Larry Jackson wrote: >Someone mentioned the Steeds in a gospel >doctrine class. The response was, "Who?" > And I'm still waiting for the answer, too . . . ;-) - -- Ronn! :) - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:04:27 -0500 From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] (On Stage) Provo Freedom Festival Parade At 02:37 PM 7/10/01, William Morris wrote: >Of course John Paul III had his >representation as well so it wasn't all that unique. Especially interesting in light of the fact that John Paul II is still in office . . . ;-) - -- Ronn! :) - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:11:34 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature Chris Grant wrote: > Before we conclude that Brigham thought reading fiction was a good > way to learn the truth about good and evil, perhaps we should take > a look at _J of D_ 9:173 and 15:224, as well.... And > it's hard for me to picture the man who told the Saints to keep > their private follies to themselves because he did "not want to > know anything about it" reading a lot of sexually explicit fiction > in order to enhance his grasp of the truth. > I'm assuming that embarrassment isn't the only reason why you > don't have sex in front of your children. Might some of these > other reasons apply to on-screen sex in literature, as well? This appears to be the old philosophy that if we shouldn't do it in real life, we shouldn't read/write about it in literature. Quite frankly, that philosophy would destroy literature. I'm sure Brigham Young didn't want to hear about the real follies of real people--but that says nothing about fiction. Since your quote from Brigham Young contradicts Amelia's quote from Brigham Young--unless we make the distinction of real vs. fictional--I have to assume Brigham Young also made that distinction in his mind. > [D. Michael again] > >Is it a fair statement to say that the basic reason for > >wanting sex kept "behind closed doors" is embarrassment? > > No, I don't think so. Doesn't Elder Holland address this in "Of > Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments"? Beats me. I don't recall what he says in that. - -- 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: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:44:27 EDT From: KGrant100@aol.com Subject: [AML] Re: Sex in Literature Chris Grant wrote: [Amelia again] >>The fact that [sex] happens outside of the bonds of >>marriage may make it sinful but it does not negate the >>fact that it is a loving act, one which may and >>probably does bring joy. That creates a whole new >>situation than that of the situation of depraved >>sexual sin. >Both President Kimball and President Hinckley have >made strongly worded statements identifying sexual sin >with lust and not love, even when that sin occurs >within the context of what the world would consider >normal, non-depraved relationships. In one of the early Narnia books by CS Lewis (the name escapes me) there is a tree with delicious, inviting and healing fruit. Digory's mother (Digory is the protagonist) is ill, and he wants to take some of the fruit to her. But he is told he must only take the fruit under the right conditions. So despite his great desire to help his mother, he doesn't take the fruit. (Later, Aslan gives him some, and his mother is healed.) But before he receives the fruit, he sees the woman who will become the witch in _The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe_. She *has* partaken of the fruit, but not under the right conditions. Digory notices that surprisingly, the fruit has not brough her joy--even though it was the same fruit. A male LDS friend told me, after committing fornication, that it was like anticipating a wonderful Christmas gift, only to open the present and find it empty. It appears that sex outside marriage and sex within marriage are different on a fundamental level. (Has anyone read the book by Wendy Shalit (sp) called _Return to Modesty_? Some of her research seems to support this point.) If we assume marital and pre-marital sex are the same or similar in our writing, our writing may lack authenticity, not to mention making a false case for immorality. Kathy Grant - - 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 #392 ******************************