From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #589 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Friday, January 25 2002 Volume 01 : Number 589 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:14:22 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re:[AML] Mormon Satire Count me in the satire collaboration. Life is a little bit of hell right now and I'm probably at my sardonic best when it is. The difference being, I still use all the stuff I make fun of. Chocolate Chip Cookie Shortage-Missionary depression soars. Rumor Of Sugar And Chocolate Being Added To Word Of Wisdom "Don't" List Causes Temple Attendance And Orders For Prozac To Soar. Just a couple off the top of my head. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:08:02 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Pop Culture and Cultural Conservatism New subject for a debate: I'd like to suggest that one defining characteristic of popular culture is = a very specific kind of cultural conservatism. Some pop culture is = politically or socially liberal and some is conservative. But even when = pop culture is politically progressive, it is still culturally conservative= . By culturally conservative, I mean "unwilling to challenge prevailing = cultural norms." I do not mean "supports traditional notions of morality."= Here's an example that might clarify my meaning. The most popular American play ever, in terms of box office appeal, is = almost certainly Uncle Tom's Cabin. It was very widely toured throughout = the US for a very long time even after its initial release, well after the = Civil War. Uncle Tom's Cabin is obviously liberal or progressive = politically. It was a radical abolitionist play. It attacked the = institution of slavery with all the resources of 19th century melodrama. = At the end of the play, the saintly slave, Tom, is shown in heaven with = the cherubic and saintly dead child, Eva. It's a play with a very = specific agenda. But culturally, it's very conservative; so much so, that it's essentially = unproduceable today. It constructs race in ways that we would find racist = and offensive. "Uncle Tom" is the play's hero, but today, "Uncle Tom" is = an epithet, an insult. The play also constructs gender in highly offensive = ways. Women are weak and helpless, and in need of rescuing by brave and = stalwart men. In production, the 19th century practice of putting white = actors in blackface would be considered highly offensive today. It's a = politically liberal play, but culturally, it's very conservative. =20 Indeed, the history of late 19th century theatre is the history of hugely = popular actors and playwrights and producers doing lucrative and widely = admired productions of very famous and important plays, none of which = we've heard of anymore, and which, if produced today, would be laughed off = the stage. Meanwhile, other seedy little avant-garde houses were doing = productions to tiny audiences of shocking, horrifying, grotesquely immoral = plays by guys like Ibsen and Shaw and Chekhov, who we've all heard of = nowadays and who we consider the giants of the era. Their plays were = culturally radical, and they won, and we're all better off for it. But in = the day, Dion Boucicault was considered a far more important playwright, = and the first winner of the Nobel Prize for literature wasn't Ibsen or = Strindberg, it was Bjornstjerne Bjornson, and everyone at the time was = sure they'd made the right choice. So today . . . well, let me describe for you sexual morality. Sexual = morality is this: if two people really care for each other, it's not only = okay for them to sleep together, but they really should. If you're not = sure you really care for the other person, you should probably wait, and = of course you shouldn't use other people selfishly. But if you really = have strong feelings for the other person, you not only can, but you = really should express those feelings physically. =20 I think that's the cultural norm. I think that's where we are right now. = I think pop culture just doesn't ever challenge that notion of sexual = morality. And so, using my definition of cultural conservatism, I'd say = all pop culture is conservative, in its unwillingness to fundamentally = challenge that cultural norm. =20 And I do mean all of it. Can any of you think of a film or TV show that = genuinely challenged or challenges the cultural norm described above? I = can't, and yesterday a classroom of students couldn't either. And I think = that that mainstream definition of sexual morality, which goes essentially = unchallenged by mainstream media, is the main reason why so many Mormons = and evangelicals feel that they're at war with pop culture, that it's a = battlefield and that we're losing. =20 The problem is, how do we subvert that? Can a new avant-garde argue for = sexual fidelity, responsibility and morality? Because I think we've kind = of painted the avant-garde into a corner, where all they can really = protest is an insufficient appreciation of homosexuality. I mean, I do = believe that homophobia exists, that it is a sin, and that elements in = American society do perpetuate. But really, the definition I've described = above would include homosexual sexual behavior, and a call for tolerance = is, in today's climate, culturally conservative; mainstream; generally = unchallenged. Anyway, what do you think? Is it possible for a new avant-garde to form = around the notion of chastity? Wouldn't that be the real radicalism? = Aren't mainstream pop cultural notions of morality . . . unrigorous? Eric Samuelsen > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:43:39 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Mormon Onion Headlines Thinking of these are like eating pistachios, so here are some more. Clerk Finally Gets Handheld Clicker for Sacrament Meeting Headcount "Godmakers" Moves Southern Baptist to Join Church Empty Temple Bag Stolen from Atop Temple Locker Richard Dutcher Announces Feature-Length "Cipher in the Snow" Remake Church Approves Hometeaching via E-Mail Steed Family Book of Mormon Auctions for $23,000 Scrapbookers Scrapbook About Themselves Scrapbooking Temple Escalators Remarkably Clean and Noisy, Area Woman Observes Church Taps Neil LaBute to Direct Next Legacy Theater Production Steve Martin Finally Owns Up to Conversion Woman Feels Guilty Buying Moist Towelettes at Distribution Center for Personal Use Couple Unloads Marital Problems at Tithing Settlement Young Man Celebrates Mission Call By Getting CTR Tattoo Church Changes Name to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint Christians" Ten Minutes Pass in Silence as Everyone Uses Palm Pilots in Elders Quorum Presidency Meeting Couple Divorces During Full-Time Mission Boston Member Labeled "Utah Mormon" Despite Never Having Lived in Utah Teen Finds Gospel Messages in Lyrics of Rock Group Rush Ensign Forgets to Use "Name Withheld" on Sex Abuse Article Nutritional Supplement Developed to Enhance Spirituality "Visitors Welcome" Signs Dramatically Increase Baptisms Missionary Senses Evil in Down Syndrome Man Retiree Aspires to Herd People in Temple President Monson Completes His James Bond DVD Collection at Vacation Cabin Church Announces Log Flume Ride for Nauvoo Elders Quorum Instructor Argues Gospel Is Ultimately Selfish Ward Newsletter Editor Receives Clip Art CD-ROM for Birthday Teacher Sneaks Slices of Sacrament Bread on Fast Sunday Church Unveils Amway-Inspired Model for Member Missionary Work Ensign Publishes Special Halloween Issue J. Golden Kimball Anecdote Involving F-Word Surfaces New Member Thinks Handshakes after Setting Apart Are Part of Ordinance Deseret Book Signs Mormon Punk Band Called "Extermination Order" Quorum of Twelve Admits Division Over Whether Church Should Have Singles Wards Woman Wonders What She Did--Or Didn't Do--in Preexistence to Deserve This Provo Man Causes Stir by Expressing Gratitude for "Rain" Instead of "Moisture" Elders Quorum Instructor Portrays Gospel as "Spiritual Darwinism" Missionary Scores White Baptismal Jeans at Gap Member Asked to Remove "Jesus Is Coming--Everyone Look Busy" Bumper Sticker Church Mulling Elders Quorum Version of "Out of the Best Books" Homeless Man Identified as One of Three Nephites "Testing Us" "We're All Part of God's Downline," Mormon Amway Distributor Teaches Ensign Editor Breaks Pencil Over Correlation Committee Rewrite President Monson Quotes Harry Potter in General Conference, Making Him Part of Mormon Scripture Church Employee Tithing Reduced to 7.5 Percent, with Automatic Payroll Deduction Now Available Satan Has Change of Heart, Tries to Repent Area Man Refuses to Automatically Stand when Congregation Sings "Called to Serve" Riverton Member Befriended by Polygamist Woman on Prowl for Sister Wives Area Woman Begins Every Sentence in Prayer with "Father" Elders Quorum Instructor Shows How "Willa Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" Is Allegory for Plan of Salvation Young Woman Tells Mother to "Quit Being Such a Martha" Fireside Attendees Humbled by This Opportunity to Feel of One Another's Spirits New Record Set for Number of Men in Baby Blessing Circle Church Outbids Miramax for Sundance Film Festival Standout Sunstone Launches New Magazines for Primary-Aged Children and Youth Ouija Board Advises Young Men Not to Serve Missions Mission President Helps Companions Overcome Toothpaste-Squeezing Differences LDS Scientist Invents Urine Test for Spirituality Neil LaBute Blankets Hollywood with Pass-Along Cards Woman Obsessed with Watching Polygamists at St. George Wal-Mart Wife Refuses Husband's Blessing Because "You'll Use It to Boss Me" Temple Department Suddenly Remembers Wyoming Temple Announced Four Years Ago Quorum Member Slaps Back Too Hard During Hugs Magic Eight Ball Has "Bad Spirit" About It Excommunicated Utah Car Salesman Has Girlfriend Alter His Undershirt Necklines Woman Can't Feel Holy Ghost Except on Prozac--And Then She Feels It All the Time Member Doesn't Think Truth Fish Eating Darwinized Pentecostal Fish Is Effective Comeback High Priest Always Uses Fancy-Pants Prayer Openings and Closings Everywhere Church News Reporter Goes, She Finds Gospel Flourishing Laurel Class Argues Which Is Worse, N-Word or F-Word Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:00:34 -0600 From: Major Productions Subject: Re: [AML] Life in Mormon Culture > The Book of > Mormon has, I think, hardly any humor at all, but at least the > stories are exciting. No humor?! What about when Lehi pitches his tent, and his sons and daughters also? ("If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, no fighting in the back seat! You're outta here!") Or how about when Abinadi assumes a disguise so that he can go among the people to preach repentance, and he says, right out loud, where everyone can hear him: "The Lord said unto me, Abinadi...." (Abinadi! You just blew your cover!) Or how about when Korihor is stricken dumb and the chief judge WRITES a question to him? (Hello! He can still hear you!) Or did you refer to INTENTIONAL humor, perchance? Robbin Major Sugar Land, TX: "There is no Equal" - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:18:50 -0800 (PST) From: Darlene Young Subject: [AML] Responding to Critics (Was J. Scott BRONSON, _Stones_) I appreciated Scott's response to my review. I'm beginning to realize that reviewing is often a thankless job. You pour your heart into writing the thing and you never know if anyone bothered to read it. (I suppose I can at least count on the author of the work I review to read the review!) I deeply believe that good and appropriate criticism has a huge potential for changing Mormon Letters for the better. (And, likewise, poor criticism can do immeasurable harm.) Anyway, I was glad to know he read it and thought about it enough to respond. I have a question for those of you writers who are a lot further along in your writing quest than I--in other words, those of you who have written things that were published and reviewed: When a reviewer (or critiquer or audience member) points out what they see as a weakness in your work, how do you know whether the fault is in the work or in the audience? I've asked something similar before, but I'd really like to get more response. In drama, for example, when you find that your audience did not "get" something the way you had planned for them to get it, how do you know whether the individual was just dense/naive/suffering from heartburn or whether you really ought to adjust something about the play? ===== Darlene Young Eschew obfuscation. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:36:34 -0900 From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Life in Mormon Culture >===== Original Message From Christopher Bigelow ===== ><<>> > >I agree with this statement because Mormonism is trying to appeal to >everybody and be translatable all over the world. It has to draw in old >people from ancient generations as well as people from vastly different >cultures. It has to offer no obstacles to people feeling the Spirit and >joining the Church (or renewing their commitment). It has to be as easily >reproduced and as easy to keep consistent from outlet to outlet as the Big >Mac. On the other hand, it has to offer milk before meat. It is truly lowest >common denominator stuff. It serves a purpose, but blecch. > Chris's analogy reminds me of the coffee machine on the Heart of Gold spaceship in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The machine scanned the person's taste buds, psychoanalyzed his or her childhood, and numerous other things to determine the perfect beverage for that particular person. Then it spit out the very same vapid fluid that it always did. Let me illuminate a leap I see being made. The first quote above says "Mormon culture is boring," Chris's essentially says "Mormonism is boring." >From Chris's description of Mormonism, it seems that he is talking about the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. And indeed, they can be reproduced in essentially the same way everywhere, as long as there is hydrogen and oxygen to fuse. The problem (as I see it) comes when the culture that was developed by a group of people emerging from frontier Protestantism, who exiled themselves in the desert and finally gained general American acceptance, is taught along with the basics as part and parcel of the gospel. My favorite example of this is when the Church (early in the 20th century) built a meetinghouse in Hawaii in the way they were used to doing it in Utah (cinderblocks and such). The building was abandoned almost immediately because it was just too hot and stuffy. Utah architecture could not work in Hawaii. As I see it, our cultural downfall came when we put too much faith in the arm of the Church correlation department. Please forgive me one more allusion to Daniel Quinn. He argues that programs will never change the world, only people with a new vision will. The value of the new vision is that different people will make such different things out of it. Their creativity will be infused with this new vision and they will make something unique to themselves and it will fit them. There is no need to convert anyone else to their own interpretation of the vision, what matters is the vision. So we bring this new vision (Mormonism) to people, then, instead of letting them change the world, we put them in a program. We teach them about Jell-o with carrot shreds and which instruments are allowed to be used inside the chapel, and how Jesus would sit quietly in Primary. To end on a positive note, I think the current Teaching of the Prophets books for priesthood and Relief Society are a big improvement over the old manual as far as getting rid of programmatic elements. The lessons no longer provide questions for the teacher to ask (along with the answer the class should give); instead they invite discussion which can be tailored to the specific class members. I like that. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:56:16 -0800 From: "Tait Family" Subject: [AML] Hello Hello fellow AML listers, After a couple of years of withdrawal, I am signing back on and I wanted = to say hello. My name is Lisa Tait and I live in the Houston area with = my husband and four kids. I was very active on the list a few years back = when I was in a master's program. My thesis was on Susa Young Gates and = the earliest Mormon fiction. I still intend to "do something with it" = but every time I sit down to try to write the articles I have in mind, I = end up feeling that I've got a book to write, and given my life at the = moment that doesn't seem possible.=20 I signed off the list a couple of years ago when I began working full = time at the Texas Medical Center as production editor for a medical = journal. That, unfortunately, did not work out and I'm back to domestic = engineering for the time being (three of my four are teenagers now--the = big secret of parenting that no one bothered to tell me is that they = need you MORE when they are teenagers, not less). I have missed the List = and my academic pursuits and I look forward to much good conversation = with y'all. Lisa Tait - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:13:28 -0500 From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: [AML] D&C Style (was: Life in Mormon Culture) I think Tony's comments on the D&C are interesting. They are indeed dry and rather legalistic which, I believe, fits into the tradition of American religious writing. If you look at the early Puritan writers (say John Winthrop's "A Modell of Christian Charity") you find prose that is frequently described as "legalistic" and "dry" although it also proposes revolutionary doctrines and interpretations of doctrine. Much of the religious and spiritual writing we find in the American canon springs from this early tradition in spite of the deviations. This includes many of Joseph Smith's near contemporaries (Emerson, Thoreau, the transcendentalists in general). Although these writers had definitely departed from some of their Puritan roots, those roots remain in their texts and those roots certainly influenced the form of their texts. I think it's fascinating to study the ways in which Mormon literature and even scripture reflect the general literary trends of their time. Amelia Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:51:08 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Roger ZELAZNY, _Damnation Alley_ (Review) Not really related, but it sort of plugs into the broad concept of "significant authors" and the ways that we respond to them. As a would be author over the years I've put myself in position to meet a lot of successful authors, especially in the speculative genres, and have had the fortune to take many of them to dinner and get to know them a little better. I'm a reasonably outgoing guy and rarely have trouble speaking with anyone. I've even managed to trade good-natured barbs with Ray Bradbury, and somewhat less good-natured ones with Larry Niven. I once even got lost in a snowstorm while shuttling Poul Anderson around the Salt Lake valley (long but fun story wherein I discovered that Poul Anderson is one the coolest and nicest people I have ever met). But the only author that held in such high esteem that I could not work up the courage to talk to was Roger Zelazny. I could not imagine my paltry mind feeding my silly mouth anything important enough to interrupt his attentions. I could talk near him, but not with him. I was completely cowed until the last five minutes of the last reception on the last day of his visit to Provo for the annual sf symposium when I finally overcame my own sense of awe and spoke to him. Which is odd, because Zelazny was one of the nicest "artistic" people I've ever met. He had a clear vision of what he thought literature should be, and he wrote it without apology. (He also wrote a lot of stuff that he though of as fun--like _Damnation Alley_ and the Amber series. But it was his short fiction that drew my worship--I think he's one of the finest short story writers I've read in the speculative genres.) It would turn out that the symposium was the last major event Zelazny would attend; he died of cancer less than six months later. I have always regretted that I didn't overcome my reserve earlier and get to know this man whose talent so impressed me as well as I've gotten to know other authors whose talent I consider to be less but whose friendship has become very impo rtant to me. Have any of the rest of you had that kind of response to authors? Do any of you feel that way about LDS authors? Why or why not? Just curious. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:53:05 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: RE: [AML] Life in Mormon Culture At 03:52 PM 1/21/02, you wrote: >It is truly lowest >common denominator stuff. It serves a purpose, but blecch. True religion comes from an individual's relationship with God. You can have a dynamic and fascinating relationship with him, or a conventional and boring relationship with him. Church is the same way, IMO. That's why when President Kimball said he'd never been to a boring sacrament meeting, it embarrassed those of us who have plotted novels during the talks and thereby closed ourselves off from any spiritual benefit. Showing a fictional character having a dynamic relationship with God is a real trick, though. Readers who don't believe in personal revelation assume that the character is simply deranged. One interesting and effective use of a character who talks to God is with the Matthew Broderick character in Ladyhawke. I thought it worked very well. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:54:59 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Public and Private Mormon Lit Richard R. Hopkins wrote: > This may well be a very accurate analysis, but I wonder if it is completely > true. I look at popular books in the national mainstream that preach their > own doctrines (e.g, those by Ayn Rand and Upton Sinclair) or are thoroughly > immersed in a particular religion (e.g., Chaim Potok's books) or a > particular culture (e.g., Amy Tan's books). These have been immensely > popular with people outside the backgrounds of the authors. I wonder if a > well written public LDS novel could do the same. People like to get a look at the inside of a mysterious or closed society, be it a racial culture, a social institution, a political body, a scientific community, or a religion. The journey into an alien society and discovery of how it's different from/compatible with the reader's own experiences and beliefs is the essense of the bestseller genre. Exposure to the different or alien, usually told from the viewpoint of an outsider--though most often written by an insider. Which makes me believe that Mormons *can* write a successful novel, but I suspect it will have to be told from the perspective of either a non-Mormon or a marginal (non-antagonistic) Mormon. It seems to me that most of the books that we consider to be classics argue some sort of social or political agenda with vigor. It's not the argument of social doctrine that I think has kept Mormon lit from broader acceptance, but rather the specific argument of "is the [LDS] church true or false?" that dominates so much of our fiction. It's the revolving door syndrome. For many, going to church and having religion are quite distinct and separate concepts. Formal "activity" in the institution of religion is quite optional in the minds of an awful lot of people. They identify themselves with a religion but put far less emphasis on a congregation and/or ongoing semi-public proofs of their piety (i.e., "I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school; though I attend mass only twice a year on Easter and Christmas I consider myself a fully active Catholic. The edicts of the Catholic church inform my guilt, but don't necessarily change my daily behavior; things of the the church are a special observance, not a daily requirement.") Obviously that's a gross simplification, but I think it plays back into the way that we represent Mormonism in our fiction. We focus in our stories on the small daily rituals (usually rituals of denial--no smoking, coffee, tea, speeding, speed, R-rated movies, etc.) but concern ourselves less with the large philosophical questions. More of "I feel bad because I violated a behavioral taboo--I had sex out of wedlock and now I'm worried about my place in the institution and my right to be called a Mormon" instead of "I violated a command of God; what does that say about me and my beliefs, and how do I resolve my actions with my (generic) faith?" For example, a couple of weeks ago I watched an episode of "Law and Order" where a good and honest Catholic priest had heard the confession of a somewhat less honest young man who had committed murder. The ADA (also Catholic, but lapsed) argued the issue of the rightness of allowing a confessed murdered to go free with the priest, who countered with the argument that his conscience demanded that he protect the sanctity of the confessional booth and that he do all he can to help the murderous youth to change his spirit and become right with his god. At no point was the truthfulness of the Catholic church questioned (though the usefulness of the policy about sanctity of the confessional was; still, it was simply a given--an obstacle to be worked with--rather than an issue of debate), and at no point was one side of the argument shown to be more or less "correct" in their strong opinions on the matter of what the right thing to do was. Both Catholics could have radically different ideas and still be good Catholics. Each could pursue a different idea of justice without requiring that the other one be considered a violator of sacred truths. Each could find the other to be bereft of some basic social tenet, but the judgment to exclusion wasn't there. Neither side questioned their right to be called Catholic, and both sides accepted the fact that a priest is not required to divulge the secrets of the confessional. Church and state collided, but the issue was about individual choice and personal morality, not institutional membership or approval. Ongoing membership in the Catholic church simply didn't play into the story. Which is, btw, one of those things about Mormon religion and culture that is quite different from most others. We do have a much stronger issue of inclusion in the institution, and define our own success as Mormons on those terms. Few Catholics (or Jews) are formally excommunicated or disfellowshipped, and few believe they ever would be regardless of the radical nature of their own thought. I may be wrong, but I think every Mormon is very much aware of the "community of the saints" and feels great stigma at the idea of formal separation, and a great deal more concern about the real possibility of formal separation when they express ideas that conflict with those of other Mormons. This whole idea is an area of exoticism for Mormons that we don't deal with a lot in our fiction--or at least not well, imo. Smoking and drinking are old hat, and even polygamy is losing steam because it isn't a current general practice; stories that focus on these kinds of issues are interesting but hardly exotic, and are unlikely to raise the interest of a non-insider. But a look at the Church justice system from the POV of the three major players--plaintiff, defendant, and judge--with distinct separations of thought and the agony of both the excommunicant and the middleman (judge) hasn't been dealt with at a personal level that left the question of the Church's right to excommunicate to the side. We've told stories that defend the Church's right to do it, and that condemn the Church's callousness at doing it. But we've seen few stories that offer compelling--and possibly equally valid and correct--views of the roles individuals play in the whole sequence. The broad compassion is missing in favor of assigning a specific good and bad guy. I suppose that's because broad compassion is an attribute of the outsider, someone who is less affected by the personal import of the events. It's why the non-LDS federal agent was so important in Richard Dutcher's _Brigham City._ The outsider was able to see how the social/moral pressure of a religion could force a good man into a kind of hell that she could understand and even appreciate, but not share in. That character has more freedom to both see and to forgive, because her compassion is not self-validating or self-defensive. It's why the bitter novels of ex-Mormons or pseudo-Mormons don't work; too much investment in judging the failure of the institution. It's what Dutcher never did in either _Brigham City_ or _God's Army:_ he never judged the institution, and he let the members of the institution judge themselves in private, non-institutional ways. I haven't read any Chiam Potok--a giant hole in my reading, and one that I intend to remedy in the very near future (speaking of how we develop reading programs, this is how I develop mine: I read from a) a list of classics that I think I should read; b) a pile of books that look like fun; c) Mormon titles, both current and classic; and d) titles recommended by trusted sources, or else that are required to participate in ongoing discussion, such as Ayn Rand or Chiam Potok or John Irving)--but it sounds like this is part of what he does. He deals with people who are part of a social/religious culture, then has them decide what level of involvement in that culture they choose to have--without ever requiring that non-participation equate to formal exclusion from the group. The search for how to do the right thing--and how to know what the right thing is--is one of the most basic of stories, and is one that transcends specific creeds or congregations. Yet in Mormondom we seem to conflate moral rightness with weekly attendance (not wrongly for the most part, seeing as how our religious culture is constructed). Anything that impacts that attendance is a sort of failure of the individual. Moral certainty comes from community, not solitude. The question of individual conscience is lost or subsumed to a search for the ultimate right. Which is one of the reasons I keep a farcical list of Scott's Private Heresies--they indicate areas where I know that my own personal take on the world diverges from the purely mainstream. They are in no way actual heresies, just odd ways of thinking about things that some Mormons would consider nonstandard. For me, my private heresies are the areas where my personal, private religion is deepened through an attempt to resolve that I as a Mormon accept as true doctrine versus what I struggle to understand as a person reconciling my own experience to eternal truths. My private heresies deepen my connection to the mainstream church rather than severing it. Which leads to this: Scott's Private Heresy Number 1A--it is the intimate, private, inner religion of a person that most affects how that person will be judged in the eternities; the vast majority of the laws of behavior or correct thinking that we impose on each other and ourselves just don't matter so long as our hearts and minds are right before God (in other words, Coke is irrelevant). Where the institution exists to ensure a safe environment for all members to probe and understand truth--and to provide common access to saving ordinances--it is in the hearts of people that the real work of eternal progression is performed. Which is to say that much of what we fear as unorthodox just doesn't matter in an eternal sense, though our concerns about orthodoxy do matter to how we progress through eternities. I suppose that sounds like a big chunk of moral relativism, and I have to admit that it is. To me, though, that relativism doesn't excuse bad behavior so much as provide a buffer against the social guilt that we tend to heap on each other and ourselves. It gives me space to continue to chew over the things that I believe, or think that I believe, or hope that I believe, while I also continue to learn and gain experiences. It keeps me from too harsh a self-condemnation for failing to live up to laws that I don't yet understand. Which has left-turned away from literature a bit, but only a little because I believe this struggle is one of the core elements of Mormon culture and how it affects our daily social life and interaction with the rest of the world. If we want to gain acceptance of our stories from a wider audience, we need to illuminate more and judge less in our stories--even when the judgment is against ourselves. Present the contexts and assumptions so the reader can understand why the Mormon characters think and act as they do, but stop short of judging the ultimate success or failure of those thoughts and actions. Paint the picture, but leave off the caption. Leave it to the reader to discover the compassion and acceptance within themselves. If we really believe that the truth is an inevitable force, then we should also believe that the honest in heart will come to our conclusions without requiring that we tell them what those conclusions are. This is part of what I think I've failed to understand over the years when we talk about "showing our warts" in fiction. I defend myself on the basis that much of our fiction seems bent on exposing the global warts of the institution rather than the individual warts of the members. It's the fundamental difference between sharing a worldview and proselyting for/against the institution. Just a thought (if an extremely long-winded one). Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:52:29 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] re: LAKE & MENDENHALL, _My Peace I Give Unto You_ (Review) - ---Original Message From: Jeff Needle > As the story progresses, Doug develops an entirely new > perspective on the whole issue of salvation and acceptance in > God's sight. Rather than having to "earn" his salvation by > being, and doing, good, he only needs to travel a path of > non-judgmentalism and pure love, and he will discover all of > these things already within himself. > > One question I had while reading the book -- is this really > consistent with Church teaching? One sentence in the book > indicates that he believes that this is what the Church has > taught all along; we just haven't been listening. A bit > skeptical, I wrote to the author. He insists that this > teaching can be found more and more in Church teachings. Doug is wrong both before his realization and after. He is right that you *don't* earn salvation by being good. It isn't possible to earn salvation at all. So in that respect, he is right to abandon that position. But the idea that you can be saved by traveling a path of non-judgmentalism and pure love isn't right either. You could technically follow a path of non-judgmentalism and pure love and sleep around, for example. And frankly, non-judgmentalism denies one of the greatest gifts of the spirit--discernment. To be saved, you accept Christ's grace and sacrifice, repent of your wrong doings, and follow the commandments. Following the commandments doesn't earn salvation, it's just a way to start on the path that one day leads us back to God. You can't get back without following the path, but you won't get in if you haven't become the right person on the way, either. This is essentially the faith vs. works debate that has been plaguing Christians for centuries. "Faith without works is dead" and "It is by grace alone ye are saved" present a tough dichotomy to reconcile. The marriage of faith with works makes both very much harder to accomplish, but both are necessary to return to God. It *is* by grace alone that we are saved, but grace isn't the same as faith though they are often conflated. Frankly, based on this description alone, I'd hesitate to read the book because the theology is obviously set up in opposition to current LDS doctrine. I'll add the caveat of "as I understand it" because I'm hardly the final source for what is and is not valid doctrine. Let's just say that based on what you describe, it violates my core beliefs... Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:09:39 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Life in Mormon Culture Todd Petersen wrote: > That said, Mormon culture is boring, and it's supposed to be. ...and... > Mormon theology excites me and so does the temple. I love the > scriptures and studying for lessons, but the contemporary culture is > boring. It is not the stuff of literature, not without some tweaking, > which is true of most middle class existance. This is an important separation for me--the carefully crafted public relations face we present for ourselves is generic, happy, and somewhat bland (though increasingly less so in a world where images of happy families seem to be dwindling). But that public relations face is not a full or accurate representation of the full culture, and it was never intended to be. The doctrines and assumptions of Mormonism are in many ways some of the most radical there are, and those doctrines are reflected in the social habits of Mormons, I believe. People get frustrated because we don't portray ourselves in more challenging ways, that the Church commericials and ads and propaganda don't celebrate our doctrinal uniqueness more. But I would argue that it's not the Church's job to do that--it's our job through fiction and film and art. The Catholic church rarely advertises itself as "We're the guys who believe we consume the literal body and blood of our god through the doctrine of transubstantiation. Just call us the God-eaters." Nor do the Jews advertise themselves with "We believe there is no afterlife (yet) and that when you die you're just plain gone. Period. So what we do in this life is essentially irrelevant. Come on down!" Both statements represent partial exposure of core doctrines, but do little to increase the appeal of the organizations to the uninitiated. As well they shouldn't--the purpose of that kind of broad advertising is to engage interest in further investigation, not state doctrinal distinctiveness. Frankly, I think the Mormons did a pretty good job of toeing both the "unique doctrine" and "happy public face" lines with the whole "Families are forever" campaign. A warm, fuzzy thought that encourages further investigation--through a carefully planned, developmental sequence of lessons offered by trained (sort of) missionaries. Certainly the doctrine is unique. Few other religions claim that God is just a really successful person, or that part of the reward for good living is sex through the eternities, or that dead people can still change their minds about what they believe. But these doctrines do translate into interesting cultural behaviors, as well. Growing up outside of Utah, we had the annual youth temple trip where we all piled into a van and drove from Chicago to Washington D.C. to do baptisms for the dead. It was a week-long combination community-building exercise and religious observance that included two days at Virginia Beach and numerous campfire testimony meetings. In Utah EFY or other youth conferences fill the same social/cultural niche. Scouting (a progressively marginalized organization in the world at large) is another group community-building program pushed out from the central authority hub. Mormons tend to believe in a strict line of authority which makes them both susceptible to scams of trust and loyal to corporate authority structures--the boss/bishop has the right to tell us how we should behave, for better or worse. Our trust of the organization to support/protect us leads to almost obsessively hierarchical businesses (pyramid scheme, anyone?). We believe in stewardships and tend to see our jobs as one of those stewardships. We return and report in ways that seem oddly toadying or non-creative to non-Mormons. Our lay priesthood means that the boss and the bishop might well be the same person, so we tend to invest those north of us in the org chart with both moral and authoritative superiority. We tend to equate monetary success with spiritual superiority, further supporting the hierarchy. We tend to be organization men, or to feel rebellious and defiant when we're not. We tend to gather together in groups, and to give in to the expectations of others while harboring a quiet belief that they got it wrong somehow. We try to please those outside our religion so that they might think about investigating it. Our strong missionary mindset often leads to particularly strained relations with an extended set of relatives--families are forever after all, so we need to get the stray relatives into the fold if at all possible. Our tendency to analyze and judge tends to stress our relationships with everyone. While we often reject social or cultural practices that are not our own, we also tend to accept more deviation in thought from those outside our culture than inside it. In any case, everyone is a target for the golden question. For years our cultural tendency to isolate and separate led us to create tiny pockets of "us" in the great sea of "them" as we attempted to be in the world but not of it. Now the imperative has shifted and we're actively attempting to integrate into our local communities. Especially so when we believe that the elders of Israel will step in to save a U.S. constitution that's hanging by a thread. The fact that we can accept such a radical change in direction as the result of one man's counsel is quite extraordinary. Our belief in literal descendents of Lamanites/Nephites creates an odd cultural acceptance/condemnation of brown people, be they Polynesian or AmerIndian. Our belief in the blessed status of the American continent(s) leads to a strong leaning toward things American--even outside of the U.S. Our belief in the inspiration of the U.S. founding fathers contributes to that. Which makes our foundation story of persecution and mob murder so dissonant for many of us, and leads to an ongoing mistrust of too powerful a government, inspired though it may be. Our belief in God as a sort of super-scientist leads to an exceptional push for education and a disproportionate representation of Mormons in the hard sciences--to understand God's creations is to get a glimpse of his mind, after all. ===== I think we're often blind to our own uniqueness, not seeing in ourselves what is so striking to others. Mormon culture isn't about the green jello served at dinner so much as the fact that we serve each other food so often and use it both as a community-building tool and a comforting balm to the sick in body and spirit. It's not the funeral potatoes that are Mormon culture, but the expansive response throughout the community to organize both the food for the funeral and the meals provided to the family before and after. It's trusting functional strangers in ways that we don't always trust our own family--or perhaps in accepting an extended community that can encompass family and neighbor alike. So... I don't disagree that the public face of Mormonism is quite bland, but it's intended to be that way. But our Mormonness expresses itself in many ways that have nothing to do with the Wasatch Front, and that transcend ordinary national or social boundaries. Few of those behaviors are unique, but the mindsets behind them often are. It seems to me that there are many aspects of Mormon culture that can be explored through literature, elements of doctrinal uniqueness that express themselves in outward behaviors--not all of which are unique by themselves, but many of which have unique foundations and justifications. One's own culture always seems ordinary--and even boring--until viewed from outside. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #589 ******************************