From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #463 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 25 2001 Volume 01 : Number 463 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:51:45 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] The List and the WTC - ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen > I was very interested in Scott's take on Bin Laden, someone > who murders to get gain, not monatarily, but in the coin of > popularity and adoration. > > Still, why are we so reluctant to admit that his motives seem > to be genuinely religious? What I've read about him--and I'm > certainly no expert on any of this--is that he genuinely > believes in a kind of Islam that he sees as being desecrated, > in part because the holy places of Islam were desecrated in > Jerusalem by the presence of Israel and because the holy > places of Islam in Saudi Arabia were desecrated by American > troops there during the Persian Gulf war. He left Saudi > Arabia, as I understand it, not because he wasn't going to be > powerful, but because he was genuinely disgusted by the > corruptness of the Saudi regime. And he detests America > because of our support of Israel, our armed intervention in > the Gulf war, and because of the encroaching values of > Western pop culture. Certainly he's an enemy and dangerous > and certainly he's lunatic fringe within Islam. But why > question his religious motives? Why question his sincerity? > Couldn't he be as genuinely, sincerely religious, as, say > Richard Lionheart (speaking of terrorists)? Speaking for myself and not Scott, I think the reason we have trouble taking bin Laden's religious convictions seriously is because we have a cultural reluctance to countenance fringe groups. Think of how much time we spend defending ourselves from the excesses of, say, Tom Greene (the polygamist) and how we want to be seen as the *only* valid descendents of Joseph Smith. On my mission, I counted no fewer than 11 off shoots from Joseph Smith of one form or another (some no larger than a single congregation). We don't take them seriously and, therefore, we have a hard time considering bin Laden as a convicted Islam of genuine devotion--we know that Islam means peace and that he represents only a small splinter of the majority Islam belief and a splinter that is not supported by the actual doctrine in the Koran. I think that deep down, we deny the conviction of Tom Greene and equate bin Laden to him (or vice versa). Which I think also ties into our push to mainstream ourselves. We do not want to be seen as a fringe group or an off-shoot of some other group. We want to be seen as a valid religion in our own right because we do not believe in the validity of factions or off-shoots. Brigham Young predicted the withering of those who would not follow him after Joseph's death and we consider that to be God's judgement on them for not following the true inheritor of the mantle of God. Thus, we consider those who depart from our main branch to be heretics with no genuine devotion (in effect we equate being wrong with being insincere--after all, they pray to our God, have access to the full gospel, more or less, and yet they arrive at a point that is mutually exclusive of our own). We tolerate other major religions on the basis that they don't know any better, but we really have no tolerance for splinter groups because of our experience with our own splinters. Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:35:47 -0600 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Fantasy Canon I'm currently reading a lot of fantasy to get a better base for some of my own witing, but I want to make sure I'm not missing any of the important "biggies" of the genre. Any suggestions--aside from the blatantly obvious CS Lewis and Tolkein? Annette Lyon - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 11:53:08 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: [AML] Religious Fundamentalism (was: The List and the WTC) - --- "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > I was very interested in Scott's take on Bin Laden, someone who murders > to get gain, not monatarily, but in the coin of popularity and > adoration. > > Still, why are we so reluctant to admit that his motives seem to be > genuinely religious? What I've read about him--and I'm certainly no > expert on any of this--is that he genuinely believes in a kind of Islam > that he sees as being desecrated, in part because the holy places of > Islam were desecrated in Jerusalem by the presence of Israel and because > the holy places of Islam in Saudi Arabia were desecrated by American > troops there during the Persian Gulf war. He left Saudi Arabia, as I > understand it, not because he wasn't going to be powerful, but because > he was genuinely disgusted by the corruptness of the Saudi regime. And > he detests America because of our support of Israel, our armed > intervention in the Gulf war, and because of the encroaching values of > Western pop culture. Certainly he's an enemy and dangerous and > certainly he's lunatic fringe within Islam. But why question his > religious motives? Why question his sincerity? Couldn't he be as > genuinely, sincerely religious, as, say Richard Lionheart (speaking of > terrorists)? > My question: what do you mean by 'genuinely religious'? Do you mean really, truly committed to his cause, or do you mean genuine feeling coming out of religious text and community? Or do you mean some combination of the two? [And this question doesn't necessarily need to be answered by Eric]. Eric calls bin Laden's a belief 'a kind of Islam.' This is where I see room for discussion and for literature. At what point does fundamentalism cease to be actually religious? And does a strong, guiding belief (a fundamental belief) lead to actual fundamentalism? Several media-types have written about Falwell's comments about the attacks (that God has taken his protection from the land because of America's tolerance of the ACLU, homsexuals, etc.). They link Falwell to Osama bin Laden, basically saying that, sure Falwell and Pat Robertson don't support terrorism, but their rhetoric is not too different from bin Laden's. While I was incredibly offended by Falwell's statements, I'm also offended by those who are so quick to draw parallels between him and bin Laden. There's something sneering and insidious in that move that I don't like. And, to be clear, I don't like Falwell. I think his rhetoric is un-Christian and simply stupid. And I question his motives---I think he is in the business of getting gain as well. This is where literature comes in. Good literature creates distinction. It shows commonalities and draws parallels, but it also creates distinction. Rhetoric, both liberal and conservative, tends to blur. It erases difference; it effaces. I do have a bit of a take on whether or not bin Laden is motivated out of gain or out of religious gain. I think the answer is both (aah! always the cop out way to go). In his mind, his gaining popularity and power helps accomplish his mission of being the savior of the Islamic world. That mission is defined by his deeply felt hatred for the United States. And as Eric correctly points out, the presence of U.S. troops on Saudi soil was a prime catalyst for that hatred and for his qrowing sense that something had to be done and he was the one to do it---which led to his formation of Al Queda, the network of Islamic terrorist organizations. Too what extent he has a savior complex is something I haven't seen adequately written about, but, from what I have read, it is there. And that is why the answer is both. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:47:52 -0600 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] The List and the WTC Craig Huls wrote that he didn't think that the Koran would say anything = about killing infidels. Well, it says this: 4. Women (An-Nis=E1a) 004.089 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that = ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till = they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to = enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no = friend nor helper from among them. and this 5. The Table Spread (Al-M=E1=EDda) 005.033 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger = and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed = or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or = will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the = world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom. But then again the middle chapters of Deuteronomy are no better. The = Children of Israel get their license to kill a whole lot of people for = being infidels as well, so Islam hardly has a corner on the market. - -- Todd Robert Petersen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 20:46:17 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Eric Snider's Humor Columns >At 10:17 AM 9/21/01 -0600, you wrote: >>This is for Eric Snider! We're glad you're funny! Absolutely! People will >>smile at funerals to see loved ones. They will laugh at funerals if >>there's >>a good (and appropriate) joke. Absolutely! We're very glad you're funny, >>Eric! Keep the spoons of sugar coming! Marilyn Brown > >I quoted Eric's column about the new Provo Library to everyone in my >family. The three-year-old especially appreciated the Scooby-Doo reference, >and the thirteen-year-old chuckled at the reference to Ghostbusters. The >fifty-eight-year-old (that's me) nodded sagely at the part about people who >read books at B&N instead of buying them. The sixteen-year-old frowned at >the part about kids sneaking into the old building to make out--perhaps it >was a "why didn't I think of that?" reaction. The thirty-three-year-old >(that's my daughter) had a harried look, like "Why did he have to remind >Mom of another place she can hide out when there's housework to be >done?" So you see, people of all types get something meaningful and >enjoyable from your clever columns! > > >barbara hume > > Thanks very much for your compliments, Barbara (and you, too, Browns). It looks like my attempts to alienate all readers other than BYU students have failed. Eric D. Snider _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 13:31:42 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Jennie HANSEN, _Chance Encounter_ (Review) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara Hume" To: Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Jennie HANSEN, _Chance Encounter_ (Review) > At 08:55 PM 9/20/01 -0700, you wrote: > >I've only read a few of Hansen's books, > >so I don't know if this formula is a constant. Wouldn't it be > >fun if the hapless lovers *didn't* get together at the end? > > No, it wouldn't--it would be horrible! It would violate the expectations > of this particular writer's audience. It would be like writing a mystery > at the end of which the detective says, "Jeez, I can't figure this out. I > guess the murderer will just get off scot-free." Once a writer does > something like that, a lot of people never trust the writer again. That's > why I won't read Jude Devereaux or Barbara Delinsky or Nicholas whoever who > wrote Message in a Bottle. > > > barbara hume > Sigh. Yes, a fair point. This raises an interesting question -- how many of us would distance themselves from an author if he/she writes in a way not consistent with previous books? My views are different than Barbara's. I'm always delighted when something unexpected happens in a writer's work, and anxiously look for the next book, hoping I will once again be surprised. [Jeff Needle] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 21:36:53 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Religious Fundamentalism (was: The List and the WTC) I guess, Eric, who this quote originally came from, "Still, why are we s= o reluctant to admit that his motives seem to be genuinely religious?" it = is because we don't really believe that a 'religious' person would cause suc= h death and destruction. This isn't the place to discuss doctrine or I wou= ld. I really, really would like to discuss some supposed doctrine and events = in the history of the House of Israel as contained in the Bible with such a group of learned people. At any rate, destruction with religion as it's basis has not been part of our recent history and seems a very foreign thought to me. I've been reading a fascinating book called Violence Unvieled. I'm not s= ure I even understand everything in the book well enough to know if I agree w= ith it or not. But the parts I understand clearly have really caused me to think. About acts of violence--both religious and non-religious, but especially religious. I've thought about Falwell's comments, as mentioned by William, too. I heard negative reaction about them before I ever heard the exact quote. = And it was very negative. Yet, I don't think what he said is very far doctrinally from what a lot of members think. And I've been thinking abo= ut this a lot because of the above book. When I first heard a friend discus= s Falwell's statements, my friend said he couldn't believe someone could actually believe that God would cause this to happen because of our 'wickedness'. And I have to tell you that this friend does think that we are quite wicked as a nation. But that isn't what Falwell said. He said the protection of God was withdrawn because of our wickedness. He then listed some groups that he considered were at the heart of such wickednes= s. Very politically incorrect of him. Yet, if I'm remembering right, whic= h I may not be because we watched in a crowded chapel with some quite noisy k= ids in the backround, during the Friday memorial broadcast, didn't Pres. Faus= t say something in his prayer like only a moral people can expect the protection of God, implying that perhaps our morals, as a nation, were lacking? And then I was at an LDS Social Services meeting and the brothe= r in charge started off with a quote from an apostle from about 20 years ag= o. The jist was that the time would soon come when what was wrong would be called right and what was right would be called wrong. The brother clear= ly inferring that this was the state of our nation today. It does bring up an interesting question for me in my few spare writing moments. Sometimes we think if we are writing to a Mormon audience we ar= e writing to one cohesive group. But I've noticed that even about what wou= ld seem to be fundemental principles, Mormons can believe very different things. Is this perhaps why some of the Mormon literature being written = is just not reaching the masses? It seems like a lot of the best selling fiction in the market just never gets very deep into doctrinal issues. = The adventures and romances. All the Mormoness, in my experience, is very on the surface. My friend, same as above, told me that he read an editorial= or letter to the editor in a Utah paper in August that was directed towards = AML (since he knows I'm on the list). He said the article referred to AML members as, I wish I had a better memory, liberal, wicked, (kooks) was ab= out the sum of it. Does that ring a bell to anyone? I'm not sure I understand what William is saying about literature and rhetoric in the following: "This is where literature comes in. Good literature creates distinction. It shows commonalities and draws parallels, but it also creates distinction. Rhetoric, both liberal and conservative, tends to blur. It erases difference; it effaces." Are you saying that it is rhetoric that paints Falwell and bin Laden with the same brush, but literature would on the one hand show the similaritie= s between the two ways of thinking, yet also attempt to show the distinctio= n between....what? I'm not sure. Because when you were talking about rhetoric you were talking about Falwell's rhetoric. I tried looking up i= n a dictionary the definition of rhetoric and it doesn't enlighten me. "rhet=B7o=B7ric n. Abbr. rhet. 1. a. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively. b. A treatise or book discussing this art. = 2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively. 3. a. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fie= ry political rhetoric. b. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere= , or intellectually vacuous:" and "In recent years the word has come to be used chiefly in a pejorative sense to refer to inflated language and pomposity. Deprecation of the term may result from a modern linguistic puritanism, which holds that language used in legitimate persuasion shoul= d be plain and free of artifice-itself a tendentious rhetorical doctrine, though not often recognized as such." If I'm remembering right, Falwell was having what he thought was a privat= e converstaion. So, perhaps he was expressing sincerely held beliefs. And= it didn't sound to me like 'inflated language and pomposity'. Are you sayin= g that his rhetoric blurred the lines of distinction between him and bin Laden? Because he certainly wasn't bluring any lines between him and tho= se he chose to label as wicked. I'm sorry, I'm probably being quite stupid about this. I feel quite stup= id often reading this list. And it has seemed to me lately that a comment f= rom me can stop a converstion dead in it's tracks. But, please, somebody tak= e pity and explain this to me in simple words of no more than, shall we say two and one half syllables? I'll sleep more soundly at night. Tracie Laulusa - ----- Original Message ----- > > > > Still, why are we so reluctant to admit that his motives seem to be > > genuinely religious? from William > My question: what do you mean by 'genuinely religious'? Do you mean > really, truly committed to his cause, or do you mean genuine feeling > coming out of religious text and community? Or do you mean some > combination of the two? [And this question doesn't necessarily need to= be > answered by Eric]. > > > Several media-types have written about Falwell's comments about the > attacks (that God has taken his protection from the land because of > America's tolerance of the ACLU, homsexuals, etc.). They link Falwell = to > Osama bin Laden, basically saying that, sure Falwell and Pat Robertson > don't support terrorism, but their rhetoric is not too different from b= in > Laden's. While I was incredibly offended by Falwell's statements, I'm > also offended by those who are so quick to draw parallels between him a= nd > bin Laden. There's something sneering and insidious in that move that = I > don't like. And, to be clear, I don't like Falwell. I think his rheto= ric > is un-Christian and simply stupid. And I question his motives---I thin= k > he is in the business of getting gain as well. > > This is where literature comes in. Good literature creates distinction. > It shows commonalities and draws parallels, but it also creates > distinction. Rhetoric, both liberal and conservative, tends to blur. = It > erases difference; it effaces. > - - 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 #463 ******************************