From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #454 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Tuesday, September 18 2001 Volume 01 : Number 454 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 21:12:24 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] What's Wrong with Me As the week has worn on, I've wondered what's wrong with me. I see people all around reacting with strong emotion to the terrorist events on September 11, 2001. I see tremendous grief, boiling rage, trembling fear. With those who witnessed events first hand, or lived nearby, or who have lost loved ones, it's the understatement of the millennium to say that this is understandable. But these strong emotions are not restricted to those personally affected. They seem to be felt by everyone in the country, and many beyond. So I ask myself, why don't I feel them? I saw the images, many of them as they unfolded in real time. I am aware of the terrible destruction that has taken place, and the implications of it all. I know it will affect me personally, not nearly to the intensity as those who were immediately impacted, but it will in the days, months, even years ahead. So why don't I feel the grief, the rage, the fear? Part of it, I know, is that I live far away from where it occurred, in Salt Lake City, a place that, at least until the Olympics arrive, has little reason to attract attention as a target. Even when the Olympics do arrive, I don't expect I or my family to frequent likely targets during the entire time. I simply don't feel any personal need to fear for our safety. Part of it, I know, is that I know no one who was a victim. We can talk all day about how we should love and care about our neighbors, whether we know them or not, but it's simply the way the human mind works to feel such things much more strongly for people who are real to us. The thousands of deaths are an abstraction to me. I cannot grieve for these people the way those who knew them personally do. I can hardly comprehend a number like 4000 dead. And for some reason, I don't feel much rage. I know a horrible thing has happened. I know it was intentionally orchestrated by human beings who cared not a fig for the people whose lives they were destroying. I've studied with a grim expression the images of Bin Laden that appeared on my TV. I didn't feel burning rage at the man. I just looked at him and wondered what he was thinking, what kind of a man he was to be around, tried to wrap my mind around the fact that this simple, unimposing, somewhat attractive man probably masterminded this carnage. Those may have been the most surreal moments out of all the surreal moments of the day: to think that such a man really exists out there, and I was looking at him. But my blood didn't boil. Why? Am I a sociopath, unable to feel the normal emotions of a human being? Am I so caught up in my own little world of cares, that I have no rooom in my Grinch-sized heart for the tragedies of others? Am I so jaded and scarred from life that I have no meaningful emotions left? Or am I suffering from a particularly long phase of shock and denial, and haven't noticed yet? I've been through a number of miserable times in my life. Nothing remotely as bad as on Sept 11, but bad enough to cause me heartache. I've learned to put aside the heartache, to become a hardened crust to the world so it won't hurt me. Yet I am also at peace with who I am. A very uneasy peace at times, but one where I believe I see myself pretty clearly, who I am, what my strengths and my weaknesses are. I'm not happy with my faults, but I accept them as things that need to be changed but will not change overnight, and for today I am good enough as I am. I have gone a long way desensitizing myself to the criticism of others, something I was sorely in need of, and can deal with quite a bit of flak, if not all of it. But this week disturbed me. Why was I not feeling the emotional outpouring that others seemed to be feeling? This goes beyond the hardened exterior protecting the tender heart inside. These are unimaginably terrible things happening. I don't accept that I am too jaded, or too selfish. I'm not even sure I'm just still in shock. I think, when I look back over everything that happened that Tuesday and everything that's happened in the world before that, when all is said and done, I'm just not very surprised that this act of terrorism came to be. In fact, I wonder why it took so long. There have been all sorts of warning signs over the years, some very subtle, some the antithesis of subtle. We know there are people out there who hate us, want to destroy us, and are trying their damnedest to get the resources together to do it. We have let the epithet "The Great Satan" roll off our backs like water off of ducks, and never stopped to think what rage simmered behind the words. We have seen suicide bombing after suicide bombing--all the way back to kamikaze pilots in World War 2, and brushed these people off as lunatics, not being able to imagine how people could act that way. We never stopped to realize that it doesn't matter whether we understand how they could act that way--only that they do. Such people really do exist. We have heard warning after warning that our airports are not secure--all the rigmarole we go through there is a sham to appease us, to make us feel safe when we're not. We heard those news reports and shrugged our shoulders, hoping it was not all _that_ true. We've been warned that terrorism is on its way to our backyard--it's only a matter of time. And we've had that confirmed: was the first bombing of the Trade Towers not a wake up call that the time had arrived? Apparently not--we still slept. We fat, happy, self-centered Americans got caught with our pants down because, in a word, we are fools. We actually believe, like the idiots who get behind the wheel of a car drunk or with the intent of racing, that we are actually invulnerable to tragedy, simply because it hasn't happened yet. I watched the dancing in the streets of the Palestinians, and laughed at the damage control Palestinian leaders tried to do in the aftermath. Sorry, folks, but the true hearts of many Palestinians were exposed in those dancing moments. Many people's blood boiled at those images. But not mine. I watched in horrific awe, and I wasn't too happy with what I saw. But I began to think... Imagine a strange scenario, for argument's sake. Imagine a Mexico strong enough to come into America and push all the Anglo-Saxons out of the land so the Latino and Native American populations who lived there before us could have their lands restored to them. We Anglo-Saxons--we "true" Americans, would be outraged. We would be vagabonds, people without a country, wandering in Canada. Somehow the strength of the USA was lost over time so we could do nothing, and we would continue to feel powerless. What would we do? Would we feel wronged? Absolutely! Would we boil with rage? You bet! Would we want to do something about it? Of course. We're Americans! Proud, determined citizens of the greatest country on earth. But what could we do? In some unspecified way (for the sake of argument), we no longer have the most powerful military force in the world at our disposal. We have nothing but ourselves, and the generosity of our cousins to the north. The Mexicans have conquered and occupied our country, and hold it with a powerful military force of their own (acquired through some unspecified way, for the sake of argument). What would we do? Has anyone seen the movie _Red Dawn_? The Soviet Union and Cuba invade America in a surprise attack and occupy a portion of the country. Within that portion, a group of teenagers fight guerilla-style to run the invaders out of their country. Whatever you think of the quality of that film, I doubt few of us were rooting against the American teenagers and for the occupying Cubans. That's what we would do. Adopt guerilla tactics--the only strategy available to us. We would begin a campaign of infiltration and terrorism into our own country to win it back. We would bring that campaign into Mexico itself. We would make those bastards pay! Many of us would die in the process. Because our own kids would be involved, our own kids would die. We would experience tragedy after tragedy. Our rage would intensify, deepen, in too many cases consume us. As the years, the decades, even a century, pass by, we would become deeply frustrated. We would want the Mexicans--_all_ Mexicans--to feel the pain they are causing. We would attack using methods that caught the attention of the Mexicans in very personal ways. Innocent Mexican citizens would die, and we would not feel bad about it. Millions of our own innocent citizens have suffered through this whole thing--let those Mexicans feel a little of it now. Why, we might even dance in the streets, if a particularly terribly blow were to be delivered against Mexico. I'm not saying all these hypothetical events would be good things to do, the right way to handle the situation. But those committing them would believe they are in the right--that they have been so wronged, they are justified in doing these things against Mexico, even innocent Mexican citizens. We would be heroic Americans, trying to win our country back that was viciously wrested from us. We would be patriots fighting for our homes and our families. I don't condone what happened on Sept 11. I think it was ugly, vicious, evil. But I have to ask myself, if we Americans were placed in the same situation as the Palestinians, would we act differently? - -- 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: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:23:45 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Announcing the AML Website Redesign - --- Terry L Jeffress wrote: > To all AML Board, Staff, and list memebers: > > I am pleased to announce that I have finished a > redesign of the AML > website: . While I liked the look of the 'old' Web site better, I think that Terry has done a great job with the redesign. I do indeed like the easy navigation and consistent style. And the fact that Terry has built in back-end features that will make updates easier is simply fantastic. ::::Applauds:::: And the review archive is invaluable. Three cheers for all contributors----and an extra huzzah! for Jeff Needle. I do have one point of concern, although I think that it is a minor one. It does seem as if the front page is designed with AML members in mind. That seems natural because I would imagine that most hits to the site are from AML members (or should be members---any AML listers there overcome with guilt? sign up and pay your dues. I did and I feel much better about myself now ). But when eyes do stumble across the site that are unfamiliar with the AML (for instance, folks whose interest was sparked by the AML-related content at Meridian MAgazine), it would be nice if there was something they could latch on to. Kind of like how now all University Web sites have something on their front page for prospective students. - --But-- I mention this only because I'm a meddling fool. From what I can tell, Terry has put a lot of work into the Web site. Thank you. I for one use the content and appreciate the changes. ~~William Morris P.S. If you haven't taken time to visit the redesigned Web site and are looking for an extra inducement---it would appear that the table of contents for the next (summer) issue of _Irreantum_ has been posted. __________________________________________________ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:41:55 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] The List and the WTC - --- "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > I wish I could cry. What would be more helpful, I > think, would be to sing something great. Yes. > I want to repent. I want to cry. I want to write. > I want to hit someone. I want to go home, right > now, and watch the plane hit the tower. I want to > hold my family. > And yes. > Please forgive me for this. How are the rest of you > doing? > I'm glad somebody finally broke the silence. Thanks, Eric. Here's something I wrote on OSC's Hatrack site: - --------- This is rather off topic, but a section of T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland" has been running through my mind this week. It's irritating because Eliot's personal and political attitudes are exactly the opposite of what I believe in and feel we need...but his poetry. Well, it captures the vivid presence of the loss I feel: "Who is the third who walks always beside you?/ When I count, there are only you and I together/ But when I look ahead up the white road/ There is always another one walking beside you/ Gliding wrapt in a brown mantle, hooded/ I do not know whether a man or a woman/ -But who is that on the other side of you?" (360-366). This references, naturally, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Eliot also talks about (in the notes to the Wasteland) an Antarctic expedition where because of the extreme conditions the members of expedition had the feeling that there was an additional member of their party. It's this idea of extreme conditions leading to an extra presence that has stayed with me. A presence of something, someone lost. - --------------------------------- ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:45:04 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Stephen D. NADAULD, _Justified by Faith_ (Review) Review ====== Stephen D. Nadauld, "Justified by Faith" 2001, Deseret Book Hardback, 163 pages, $18.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle It is perhaps unfair for a non-Mormon to review this book. Coming from a Protestant view of salvation, with the accompanying Reformation views of grace and justification, my own theology is often at odds with the Mormon community on these issues. Perhaps this is why "Justified by Faith" was such a challenging read for me. It wasn't the pastoral writing that I had expected. Nadauld teaches at the Marriott School of Management at BYU. As such, he views his subject through the eyes of a businessman, organizing and quantifying theology as one would a business plan. And, in the process, I fear he lost a great opportunity to raise people up in a renewed hope of a satisfying relationship with God. In his first chapter, "Faith and Assurances," Nadauld begins with Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," and using the writings of Joseph Smith and others, stretches the verse to what he considers a more understandable statement: Faith is having or accepting mortal assurances from priesthood leaders, family members, and friends, and heavenly assurances from the Holy Ghost, that Christ lived, atoned for our sins, was resurrected, and promises eternal life. (p. 32) To get to this point, the author presents a complex scheme of mortal and heavenly assurances, along with ideas of "macroevidence" and "microevidence," all of which intersect in a series of line graphs and other visual aids. The degree to which a person might believe is mapped out using x- and y-coordinates, nicely quantified and (supposedly) accessible to the normal reader. Later he gives us "A Graphic View of Faith." At this point he realizes that all this graphing might be confusing, so he counsels neophytes to skip this chapter and move on to the next (a luxury the reviewer doesn't have).5 He rounds out the book with discussions of "Justification" and "Amazing Grace." I'll treat "Justification" first. In this chapter, Nadauld presents more graphs. He begins with a list of "commandments" one must obey in order to be justified. His list is as follows: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself Thou shalt not kill (spill innocent blood) Thou shalt not commit adultery Thou shalt not steal Thou shalt not bear false witness Thou shalt not covet Thou shalt pay tithing Thou shalt honor thy father and mother Thou shalt keep the sabbath day holy Each of these is represented by a horizontal bar. Nadauld illustrates our compliance with each of these laws by shading the bars. (He suggests that the Holy Ghost is our "compliance officer.") If a bar is shaded a light grey, then you're okay -- you've never committed this sin. But if you've committed a sin, you must do something about it. You can either repent and ask forgiveness, or you can end up paying for it with your own suffering. If you've repented, then the bar is a medium-dark grey. But if you haven't repented, then the bar is a dark grey. In some cases, repentance might only be for some of the occasions of that sin, and the author presents parallel bars with various amounts of light, medium and dark shading, suggesting that you'll only need to suffer for those times you hadn't repented. In the chapter on justification, he offers us checklists of how to know who will be in which of the three kingdoms, as well as who will be among the Sons of Perdition. Page 116 summarizes these checklists, giving us a bird's-eye-view of the eternal destinies of humankind. He rounds out the book by offering a view of grace, giving comfort to those who meet God's requirements, and dread to those who don't. I must confess to not being very fond of this "business model" of God. I lost interest in the whole enterprise about half-way through the book, wondering if God really has this enormous bar chart by which He judges us. Is Christianity really a religion of checklists and punishments? Is this what the Gospel is all about? Nadauld betrays himself in a very telling comment near the close of the book, in his chapter on "Amazing Grace." Having stated that the process of "atonement" may not cover all a person's sins, he comments on the relationship between "grace" and "atonement" in Mormon theology. He admits to a "modest aversion" to the use of the word "grace" in Mormonism and wonders why this is so. Documenting the number of references to the word "grace" in the LDS Topical Guide (more than 50), and comparing this to the relative sparsity of references to the word "atonement" (only two), he comes to an interesting conclusion: What are we to make of this? I believe a good case can be made for the notion that, at least to a degree, when we say 'atonement,' they (i.e. others in the Christian world) say 'grace.' (p. 143) He couldn't be more wrong. "Others in the Christian world" see grace as an all-encompassing phenomenon. The grace of Christ covers ALL sins, not just a percentage of the. Grace admits to no exclusions, nor does it require good works on the part of the recipient. I went away from this book in a rather gloomy mood. If I'm to take it all as gospel fact, then I'm in for a real whipping on the other side. Frankly, I can't remember all the sins I've committed. If God is really keeping a list, I suspect I'm not the only one in trouble. Nadauld's picture of God is, in my opinion, badly skewed by his business orientation. I think he would fare better sticking to his chosen field, and leave the theology to others. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:45:51 -0500 From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Suspicion of Art Eric Samuelsen wrote: > Art is not just communication. Art is an attempt to communicate the deepest and most essential parts of the human condition, to in some measure tell a truth that we may or may not find palateable. This definition strikes me as almost circular. If a picture is an attempt to communicate deep parts of the human condition, it's art. If it doesn't do that, it's an illustration. So, a picture that tells a truth is art, and if a picture is art, it will tell a truth. Socialist Realism of the normal variety becomes by definition non-art, and so does the ouvre of Nazi propogandists. I don't believe art is "automatically virtuous and important" unless we define it that way. Eric might almost be defining "true art" rather than that general stuff that includes handsome and strong Russian peasants with their tractors, stories written by people who misspent their time as students absorbing Foucault and Derridas, and the parade of commercial and propogandistic films at the local megaplex. > I still maintain that actual bad art, actually damaging art is something very rare. Do you mean by this art that communicates at a deep level and tells us pleasant or unpleasant truths? If so, I'd say you're right, just as I'd say that truly loving, sane parents who cause serious psychological damage to their children are very rare. The definition almost precludes the possibility of harm, though it's not logically impossible. Still, there are plenty of rotten parents out there, and plenty of awful, damaging stuff that is called art. I just don't find it really satisfying to say that art is mostly good if that's the way I've defined it. Jim Picht - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:56:23 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Moderator Note: World Trade Center Events Folks, I'd like to lay down and/or explain some ground rules regarding how I think we can appropriately respond to the World Trade Center/Pentagon/etc. events, consistent with List guidelines. * Generally speaking, I won't be posting any forwarded messages on this topic. For one thing, there are copyright issues involved except in cases where we get explicit permission to post or have a preexisting, general permission agreement (as with Deseret News for literary items). Second, the event isn't inherently a literary event--not intrinsically on-topic. So unless there's a strong literary connection, I don't see any reasons to open up the List to items from outside, as it were. * However, I do welcome personal reaction posts on the part of List members, particularly as these responses deal with questions related to art and literature: e.g., how we as artists and/or viewers respond to these events, or how the emotions we feel might best be captured literarily. Also, posts that look at how these events provide insights into our culture (particularly Mormon culture) and values are generally welcome, with the caution that once again, these are most appropriate to the degree that they reflect in some way a literary/artistic dimension or connection. * I've allowed through some posts that touch on political and public policy dimensions. However, in general, I'd prefer that we not go that direction. I don't plan to post any messages that seem to me primarily to focus on political or public policy issues, and would request that if you do touch on these in your post, that this be a backdrop to the types of more on-topic concerns listed above. * As always, please remember to treat the opinions of others with the utmost respect. Thanks to all of you for your participation. 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: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:49:17 -0800 From: Stephen Carter Subject: [AML] Hearing vs. Reading (was: An Iconography of Our Own) The discussion on "An Iconography of Our Own," sparked a few thoughts on the nature of general conference talks. Michael Martindale wrote that he prefers to skip the Priesthood session of conference so that he doesn't have to wear the "costume" to watch television. After all, he can read the talks in the Ensign. I certainly empathize with Michael's revulsion against neckties, the part I want to focus on is the idea of reading vs. hearing the speeches at conference. I'm taking an interesting class by a Native American teacher who has a great affinity toward oral culture, even though he is an accomplished writer. He told us that he considers oral communication to be on a higher level than written communication, partly because oral communication is so much older and so universal. He believes that the spoken word has a more potent power than the written word. I can see this idea playing into our own culture where blessings are of no validity until they are spoken (we take it even further requiring that the person speaking is authorized to speak the blessing). Often a big deal is made that Joseph Smith's first vision came just after his first oral praying experience, as if his verbality exerted some kind of extra power that hadn't been present before. My teacher said that oral communication makes us more aware of our communication. Your words are seconds away from being lost forever. Your ideas will only last your lifetime unless, while talking with someone, your words are of such a nature that your listener makes the effort to memorize them. As the practicality or wisdom of your words diminishes, so does their actual existence. I took exceptions with him on a few of the points, but I think his viewpoint is well worth considering. Now to the General Conference talks. Is there a difference between hearing and reading the talks? I think so. But what is it? That's the harder question. During the years I covered General Conference for the newspaper I worked for, I noticed that on a cursory reading of the speeches before the speech was actually given, some of the talks were banal and uninteresting as far as presentation of ideas goes. But every once in a while, the performance of the speech gave it an entirely different flavor, elevating it far beyond its written value. But most often a speech would be given in what seems to be the Church-approved General Conference talk inflection. You all know what I mean: the drone that puts you to sleep in the easy chair. In these talks it is evident to me that the speaker expects his or her words to live most of their lives on paper, which is often the case. Very few speeches get played over and over to the general church membership. However, it is also worth noting that audiotape copies of General Conference are quite popular. It seems to me that the text of the speech and the inflection of the speech start to merge in these instances. Because the General Authority drone is so pervasive, when I read a talk in the Ensign or elsewhere, my imagination usually slips into that inflection, one that I believe saps the life out of a speech. (Why do people love to listen to Southern Baptist preachers so much? Because the preachers know how to perform.) I imagine that the droning General Authorities unconsciously write their speeches to fit the pattern of their inflection. Like Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message. The medium of the inflection dictates to a large extent, not only what goes into the talk, but what people expect out of the talk. The speeches, written in drone, are read and listened to in drone - a cycle that limits the content and pathos of the speech. It seems that the traditional inflection of General Conference talks has worked its way into our minds so much, becoming so much a part of our ways of thinking about Church-related matters, that in many cases reading the talk is, indeed, just as effective as listening to it, because the speech and the text function almost identically. Whew, Stephen Carter - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:33:30 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Product Placement in Writing There is this brilliant book I read called _The Adman in the Parlor : Magazines and the Gendering of Consumer Culture, 1880s to 1910s_ by Ellen Garvey. It details how Americans (particularly middle-class women) were taught to be consumers in the Gilded Age. The variety of evidence she comes up with is fascinating, even astounding, but one particular piece bears mentioning. Women's mags proliferated during the Gilded Age. They varied in quality, but many of them ran 'courtship stories' in each issue. In the classic courtship story a young woman must learn to choose among the best of all possible suitors. Garvey analyzes these stories and show how they related to the rise in a consumer culture that was reliant on brands. It was no longer okay just to buy good soap. One had to purchase the correct brand of soap (Ivory, anyone?). And brands were important, of course, because manufacturers quickly figured out that the market for soap wasn't infinite---overproduction was about to become a problem. Thus Americans needed to make the transition from purchasers (you go down to the general store and buy a block of soap) to consumers (you choose to buy Ivory soap). Not only would the mags run these courtship stories, but the they would team up with a particular brand to sponsor reader contests. Readers would write a courtship story that featured the brand sponsoring the contest. Some of the printed examples are quite hilarious---and somewhat scary. Garvey may overemphasize the effectiveness of the tactics of the 'Admen,' but I found the book quite convincing (and inherently readable ) in the way it detailed how Americans had to be taught the consumerist lifestyle. Now for a quick Mormon literature tie-in. The flowering of the home literature period happened concurrently with the textual phenomena outlined in the Garvey book. Hmmmm. Has anybody analyzed how the home lit. texts match up with the women's mags of the Gilded Age? My guess is that these tactics were reinscribed to fit the needs and concerns of Mormon literature. Mormon youth needed to be taught how to make the right choices as well, but in the world of morality not commerce. The forms, though, are probably similar (dim memories sparking, but I'm not the expert on these home lit. texts------anybody? am I on the right track here? is this something that has already been explored and is obvious to most scholars of Mormon lit.?) Amazon link to the Adman book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195108221/qid=1000754296/sr=2-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/107-4498694-7350111 ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:03:19 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Homogeneity in Art (was: Polygamy) Amelia Parkin wrote: > Jacob Proffit wrote: > > "So our artists pay a price for the effrontery of expressing > themselves. It's up to each artist to decide what sort of price they're > willing to pay. Frankly, we shouldn't be terribly surprised if many of > them decide that the price is too high and tone down or even halt their > rhetoric in response. You can mouth all the platitudes you want to of > how artists should be bold and resist kowtowing to the prevailing > orthodoxy, but I'm not willing to tell someone that they should > sacrifice their personal relationships with people they love for the > sake of their artistic "integrity". We all make decisions about what > hills are worth dying on and what battles we are willing to lose in > order to preserve ourselves for the coming day. Perhaps our homogeneity > can be seen as a form of preserving our strength for matters we consider > more important." > > > I agree with Jacob that perhaps artistic integrity is not enough of a > cause for someone to risk jeopardizing reliationships with loved ones > and even their standing with the church. However, I would continue and > ask what about just our "integrity"? That is the real question, and, imo, the only question. One has to, after all, live with one's self, even into the eternities. There may be some people who can live one life while artistically married to another. I cannot. I've tried it. It gives me stomach pains. I feel I'm doing damage to what is ME inside. Maybe I have an inflated understanding of how important the ME inside is. But at the end of the day (and the end of this life) ME is all I really have. If I can't stand ME because I've gone against my govering principles, than I can't create good art, I can't love others unconditionally like I think I should, I can't be the kind of Saint that my spirit tells me I should be. > what's more important? maintaining > our relationships and church standing? or our integrity? Our integrity. > I know lots of > people who would dismiss the question as immaterial because clearly > integrity is a good thing and would strengthen our church standing, not > threaten it. But I don't agree. Do we tone ourselves down, understate > our personal beliefs and convictions for fear of offending someone, > potentially someone acting as the Lord's/church's representative (a > bishop, for instance)? No. > What do we leave unsaid, unasked, unexpressed > because we may alienate someone we love or because it may jeopardize our > standing? We leave unsaid only the lies. > And isn't art simply a form of expressing truth? Yes. > so doesn't > a artist who tones down what they really think about a doctrine or a > policy or whatever it is sacrifice more than artistic integrity? I believe they are. Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:50:23 -0600 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: RE: [AML] An Iconography of Our Own Annette commented: " wearing something nicer than jeans to services is = part of an outward expression of that inner commitment."=20 What's crucial here to a discussion of LDS representation, is that people = often think that the outward expression must manifest itself in certain = forms (the white shirt, the nylons, the dress, the suit), and if the = expression is different, then somehow that inner commitment mustn't = measure up.=20 The only commandment I can recall is to be clean and comely.=20 While many of us on this list may not judge those not dressed well to be = lacking in spirit, plenty of people do; moreover, the scriptures are full = of instances in which people grew in pride because of their fine apparel = and came ultimately to draw class distinctions among themselves that soon = became spiritual distinctions.=20 This question of appearances affects the artist who is constatnyl faced = with the question of how to accurately (or adequately) represent LDS = people.=20 Frank Zappa said we're all in uniform whether we know it or not, and I = think that's true, but I do wonder if our representations (in church = videos, our own work, etc) really help create an accurate picture (unlike = the cover of newsweek). - -- Todd Rober Petersen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:20:57 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: RE: [AML] Announcing the AML Website Redesign <<>> Actually, this TOC went up after the summer issue was mailed. It was = mailed more than two weeks ago, so if you don't get it by the end of the = month, you should complain to us. =20 Chris Bigelow __________________________________________________ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:20:23 -0600 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] Announcing the AML Website Redesign On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 09:23:45AM -0700, William Morris wrote: > I do have one point of concern, although I think that it is a minor > one. It does seem as if the front page is designed with AML members > in mind. That seems natural because I would imagine that most hits > to the site are from AML members (or should be members---any AML > listers there overcome with guilt? sign up and pay your dues. I > did and I feel much better about myself now ). But > when eyes do stumble across the site that are unfamiliar with the > AML (for instance, folks whose interest was sparked by the > AML-related content at Meridian MAgazine), it would be nice if there > was something they could latch on to. Kind of like how now all > University Web sites have something on their front page for > prospective students. I agree, and I thought that I had created the new AML home page with material targeted toward non-members that introduced the functions of the AML. Most AML members probable already know about the functions and services of the AML listed on the home page. I thought that the calendar provided the only real content of interest to current AML members. So what additional content do you (and anyone else on the list) recommend for the front page. In addition to the Calendar, I can also see a similar box for AML news, but we don't have news very often. I welcome any and all suggestions and contributions -- especially items for the calendar. If we want to make the AML website the central resource for Mormon Letters, then we have to provide the content that keeps people coming back for more. Also, what about the old site did you like better. The way I have created the new site, I can make cosmetic changes quite quickly. So if people really dislike the boring colors I selected, I would welcome recommendations. I can write some mean HTML and the Perl scripts to generate the site, but creating graphics falls outside my realm of comfort. If any graphic artists would like to contribute to the cause, I welcome your aid. We desperately need someone to recreate the AML logo as a vector image. Right now, we have no idea who created the original logo or how it made its way into a .gif file. It appears that someone scanned some artwork. I strongly believe in stealing success from others. If you know of a web site that you feel successfully communicates with its users, feel free to forward me the URL with suggestions about how the AML list would benefit from some feature of that site. - -- Terry Jeffress | Wherever they burn books they will also, | in the end, burn human beings. AML Webmaster and | -- Heinrich Heine AML-List Review Archivist | - - 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 #454 ******************************