From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #592 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 Monday, January 28 2002 Volume 01 : Number 592 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:32:17 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re:[AML] Hymn Singing Amen Rob! I'll glad someone else has noticed the way most LDS congregations plod through hymns. I want to yell out sometimes, "C'mon step the tempo a little bit!" Elder Meacham, the missionary that baptized me earned his mission money playing in Vegas for the rock group "Tower of Power" and got permission during his mission to go to one of his investigator's church and play his guitar with an ensemble they had of him, and someone on a set of drums, said they blew the roof off the joint. :) I wish once or twice a year we could do that ourselves. However,I still kind of like "give me that old time religion"in music. One of my nephews plays drums in a Evangelical Christian Rock band at his church and even that's a little much for me, if they didn't put the lyrics up on the screen, I wouldn't know what they were singing. It fits that old saying, "If it's too loud, you're too old." A couple of years a ago a sister in our stake organized quarterly concerts that were held in the chapel and she invited singers and instrumentalists from churches all over the community to come and perform. It was wonderful. There was a great sense of sharing and appreciation of talent and respect for the way different folks express their spirituality. It ran from very traditional pieces like, "The Lord's Prayer" to an LDS guy who had been asked to sing "Home on the Range" for a funeral, to Contemporary Christian, to Show Tunes, nothing really rocking, but still a variety. Sadly, the sister that organized these concerts got busy with other things and no one has taken up to continue these get togethers. Maybe I'll ask her if there's any plans in the future, and if any help is needed. Here's hoping-I wonder if Gladys Knight is available? Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:09:00 -0800 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] LAKE & MENDENHALL, _My Peace I Give Unto You_ (Review) This was one of the questions I asked throughout the book, and indeed asked the author in a private e-mail -- does this really reflect what the Church is teaching today? His response was that, in his view, it was indeed taught (but never said it was *official* doctrine). What became clear was that these ideas saved him from a period of deep despair. Of course, if you're driving the wrong way on a one-way street, realize your mistake, and make the next turn, you may very well be driving down *another* one-way street the wrong way. Turning doesn't always guarantee correctness. Thanks for the good thoughts. [Jeff Needle] > 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 > > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:07:43 -0600 From: "downing" Subject: Re: [AML] Discussing Lit in the Church Recently I posted an experience in which I was asked to teach a home enrichment lesson about LDS lit, then had the invitation retracted in the name of the Lord. Again, I don't pretend to know where the Lord really stands on the issue, but I'd like to comment further on where I stand and why I feel stories like Irreantum's "The Chastening" do not need to be censored from formal discussions at church. I must admit that my first response to "The Chastening" was disappointment, though I did laugh out loud until I came to the "punch line." After the sock in the face, the story became down right depressing, sad, pathetic, and, at its conclusion I found myself thinking, "Yeah, right. What Branch President is going to hit the bottle after being "chastened" like this?" But I couldn't shake the story from my mind. (Isn't this supposed to be my response to literature?) In fact, my mind soon began to fill with names of LDS people I have known who have reacted to different stimuli in a like manner. Don't we all know members who have testimonies (or so they've professed) who at some point, for some reason that you or I may not entirely understand, run into something in the church that they don't want to deal with? (The time committment of many callings jumps into mind.) They cannot (and usually never do) deny their testimonies, but they seem conflicted about attending meetings and participating fully. Many of these people seek an "outside" excuse to remove themselves from participation. Some break the Word of Wisdom. No, a lot of these people do. (Shall we even attempt to count the number of our teenagers who break the Word of Wisdom because they have a nagging sense that they can't--or don't want to-- fit the mold that they feel is prescribed for them?) Is it believable that a branch president would? Sure. Why not? Leaders aren't anything special or super human. (I had a bishop who committed suicide.) The fact that this situation is fairly common is precisely why this story could have provided a valuable lesson for our Relief Society. What I did not relate in my original post was that one of the things that was said to me by the RS president was that this story too closely reflected some things that were going on in the lives of ward members. (This is believable!) Now we all know that we can't talk about people's problems in formal ward settings unless we are in some version of a presidency meeting or bishopric meeting. Fiction, however, should allow us to discuss honestly difficult issues while hiding behind the unreality of the story. I'm left wondering if the RS presidency's call to me to lead the class and my decision to use this story were not, in fact, inspired to help the RS understand and deal with a problem that is real in our ward. After all, literature classes should be about more than form and function, symbolism and syntax. Literature should be about life. This story does represent, in my mind, a portion of the Mormon experience and deserves to be explored at church both intellectually and spiritually. I saw as much potential spiritual value in discussing this story as in discussing the priest's behavior in the parable of the good Samaritan. Since when is Home Enrichment not the place for spiritual exploration? [And by the way, where I come from (Texas), punching someone is more than a simple, understandable human response. Here we call it assault, and I can't imagine a Stake President supporting a branch president who had committed a crime. Now it would've been nice if the BP had humbled himself and gone to work in the nursery, but hey, it doesn't always work that way.] And yes, I do think that even if the ladies hated the story, they should "taken one on the chin" for me. At one Homemaking meeting I sat glueing ribbon onto toilet paper rolls to create ornaments for my Christmas tree. Needless to say, neither I nor anyone else placed these hideous ornaments on our trees. But would we have told the sister who worked hard to prepare for the class and who thought them lovely to take a hike? Of course not. That would be rude. And so these sisters, who have known me for over a decade, who've seen me serve in leadership and listened to me teach, might've been more "supportive." Who knows? They just might've left the class with a different outlook and a different feeling about the story and perhaps been better able to reach people who feel as though they don't belong, who feel "lost" within our culture. Oh, I suppose I could admire the RS's courage in turning their backs on something they, on first reading, deemed offensive, but it bothers me that they used the name of the Lord to do it. First God inspires them to ask me, then changes his mind? A jealous god, sure. But fickle? It teeters on blasphemous in my opinion. Fortunately, though, this whole experience is quite unimportant, even trivial. There's no six-pack in my life: Just a confirmation that some aspects of myself will never be safe to be shared with my "sisters." And that's okay. Sure, this experience may reflect a weakness in Mormon culture (that we're not risk takers, that we prefer that which is uncontroversial, even light and airy), but what do we know about weak things? Did "The Chastening" belong in Relief Society? Obviously not. That which is not welcomed will never belong. Some find comfort in this. I do not. Lisa Downing - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:31:44 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] ARRINGTON, _J. Golden_ (Performances) Andrew Hall wrote: > Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday Jan 20 > Coming Up: Theater > > Golden Opportunities: Trolley Square Live! recently > opened a multiple-theater space for live productions at > Trolley Square, 700 E. 500 South, Salt Lake City. > "J. Golden" is James Arrington's one-man show about the > life of J. Golden Kimball, beloved "swearing apostle" of the > Mormon Church who died in 1939. Arrington stars. Is this true? I believe Marvin Payne is currently starring in J. Golden. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:25:36 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: "Odyssey of Runyon Jones" (comp) [MOD: This is a compilation post. Thanks to all who responded.] >From sammiejustesen@msn.com Mon Jan 28 12:16:57 2002 It's by Norwan Corwin. Sammie Justesen Sammiejustesen@msn.com - ------------------------------------------- >From scottparkin@earthlink.net Mon Jan 28 12:19:10 2002 Marianne Hales Harding asked: > I just got this plea from my dearest Auntie: "I am writing for your help. I > was asked by my sweet husband to find out who wrote the Odessy of Runyon > Jones. It was a short story he read in school. He thought it was written > by O Henry." I looked on the Internet and found a story by that name authored by Norman Corwin. He's anthologized with O Henry in _The Fireside Book of Dog Stories_ among others. From what I can gather with a quick look, it appears that Corwin wrote it as a radio play and it was adapted as a short story. It's possible he adapted the radio play from O Henry, but that doesn't appear to be the case; all the references that include a credit show Corwin as the author. Hope this is the right answer. Scott Parkin - ------------------------------------------ >From kristymariethomas@hotmail.com Mon Jan 28 13:22:12 2002 Norman Corwin. It was a play and was aired on the radio first on June 8, 1941 ... I found the following snip from http://www.normancorwin.com/13by.html : "The Odyssey of Runyon Jones First broadcast on June 8, 1941, and repeated by popular demand in 1944. Here is the fascinating and wonderful story of a young boy's search for his dog, Pootzy. He encounters all the bureaucrats of the Cosmos, starting in the Department of Lost Dogs and the Department of Deceased Dogs, meeting Father Time and Mother Nature, searching for "Dog Heaven" and finally meeting the Directors of "Curgatory"... This is the original broadcast of a splendid story for all ages, starring Hester Sondergaard, Roy Fant and Larry Robinson as Runyon." Is this what you're looking for? Kristy Thomas - ------------------------------------------ >From terryj@localhost.localdomain Mon Jan 28 13:34:51 2002 On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 09:56:24AM -0700, Marianne Hales Harding wrote: > I just got this plea from my dearest Auntie: "I am writing for your help. I > was asked by my sweet husband to find out who wrote the Odessy of Runyon > Jones. It was a short story he read in school. He thought it was written > by O Henry." She goes on to say that she did an internet search and didn't > find it listed under O Henry's works and couldn't find anything else > regarding its authorship. Anybody have a clue? A radio play from the 1940s written by Norman Corwin. >From First broadcast on June 8, 1941, and repeated by popular demand in 1944. Here is the fascinating and wonderful story of a young boy's search for his dog, Pootzy. He encounters all the bureaucrats of the Cosmos, starting in the Department of Lost Dogs and the Department of Deceased Dogs, meeting Father Time and Mother Nature, searching for "Dog Heaven" and finally meeting the Directors of "Curgatory". Terry L Jeffress - ------------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:41:11 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] GILMORE, _Shot in the Heart_ (Review) - --- harlowclark@juno.com wrote: > [R. W. Rasband and I must be some sort of brothers. While I was reading > this book he wrote a review of it, with a phrase which stuck in my head, > "spectacularly dysfunctional family." More recently R. W. has mentioned > Paul Fussell's _Wartime_, a book my wife graced me with for Christmas a > few years ago after I lost my job at UVSC and therefore access to their > library. (I was moved to open the present and see what it was, as I was > moved when our niece got me (the very expensive even at 20% off (BYU > Bookstore Christmas sale) _The Collected Poems_ of Reynolds Price.) > > I originally posted this review in 3 parts two years ago, intending to > include a 4th part. This year is the 25th antiverserary of Gilmore's > execution so I thought I'd repost the review with the 4th part, and add > a > 5th to consider R. W.'s phrase, "spectacularly dysfunctional family."] > Thanks for the kind words. Gilmore's book continues to haunt me years after reading it. Fow me it seems to sum up what might be called the Old Testament face of Mormon culture. Another book that stays with you is Paul Fussell's "Wartime", an excruciating book about an excruciating subject. (It's good enough to almost forgive his snotty remarks about Joseph Smith and Mormonism in his "Bad; or the Dumbing of America.") It's fun to discover other readers who are on the same wavelength as you. I look forward to Harlow's posts; I also eagerly devour Ed Snow's comments on the church's more skewed out-takes. I guess that makes us triplets:-) ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:15:26 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Hymn Singing (Comp 1) [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From barbara@techvoice.com Fri Jan 25 16:27:57 2002 At 05:52 PM 1/24/02, you wrote: >Musically we are the biggest bunch of BORES on the planet! I've spoken to >investigators and recent converts and the majority of them agree that >music in meetings is PAINFUL!!! When I joined the Church, I certainly missed the lively Gospel hymns I was used to in the Baptist Church. I occasionally pulled out my Baptist hymnal and sang the songs along with other converts in the same boat. Seems to me the Mormons picked up a lot of dour Methodist hymns instead. No "Bringing in the Sheaves" -- no "I Was Sinking Deep in Sin" -- no "Every Day with Jesus" -- we don't even have "Amazing Grace." But I do like some of the Mormon hyms, such as "The Spirit of God Like a Fire Is Burning" and "All Is Well." Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah - ------------------------------------------- >From gaelyn@mstar2.net Fri Jan 25 18:01:21 2002 Rob, The answer is amateur organists. We can't play the hymns up to speed. When I've been chorister I try to push, pull, and get that organist into a faster tempo, usually to no avail. But when the ward has the misfortune to have me as organist, even though I try, even though I want to do better, even when I skip notes--I can barely play fast enough. My solution as an audience member is to sing every part on every note--there is plenty of time to go from soprano, to alto, to tenor to bass, all before the next word is said. That's the advantage of very slow music, you can harmonize with yourself. Gae Lyn Henderson - --------------------------------------- >From lajackson@juno.com Fri Jan 25 22:23:08 2002 Rob Lauer: It's universal in the Church: we think slow and plodding is reverent!!!! And we're the Church with the world's most famous choir! How ironic is that? _______________ It's not just the choir that's famous. It's the organ. The difference is that the Fab Tab Choir has someone who can play it. Think about it. In my experience, (and I've been to a lot of places and sung a lot of hymns, including some that didn't quite get finished), the key to congregational tempo is not the director. It's the organist. I can play the organ, but I am not an organist. I cannot play well enough to accompany congregational singing. If I get tabbed, there are two options: sing on tempo with single melodic notes, or sing very slowly with multiple organic notes, of which very few are actually musically definable as chords. As a director, it is a thrill to lead with an accomplished organist. And most brave is the soul, male or female, who can whip the congregation up to speed and overrun a plodding organist. There are just too many religiously political downsides to doing that, not to mention the physics of spiritual inertia. But as far as excitement in Church meetings goes, that would be one way to do it. When I read, I appreciate the author who can vary the tempo. Plodding doesn't work for me in books or music. But even a fast paced adventure needs a pause of breath from time to time. Now, when it comes to stories about music in the Church, I think there are enough to cause folks on both sides of the music stand to bench me. Larry Jackson - -------------------------------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:25:58 -0800 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Pop Culture and Cultural Conservatism Eric R. Samuelsen wrote <> I very much empathize with Eric's thoughts here. There are some exceptional exceptions in mainstream films, however. I would note some of my favorites: Dave, Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail, Runaway Bride, to name a few, but these are notable simply for their emphasis on the romantic sans the sexual. The don't actually explore the notion of chastity as a desirable choice. I would very much like to see that done in film or writing. However, I must say it will be difficult. I had a scene in the novel I'm currently polishing in which this issue was addressed. It was a what I thought of as a chaste sex scene. The lovers were completely entwined with each other, physically, but they strictly avoided anything more than kissing--no necking, no petting and certainly no intercourse. The characters were mature adults and well aware of the limitations they put on themselves in their expression of their love for each other. But they were the more passionate _because_ they knew their passion would not be taken advantage of by the other person. I thought it was a beautiful and romantic scene. Still, it was terribly arousing, and I was finally convinced to take it out of the book. I wonder if that was a good idea, but even more, I wonder if it says something about the scene itself or about Mormons in general. Are we able to produce the avant-garde form Eric describes or are we still too prudish? Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:05:47 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Public and Private Mormon Lit Thanks to both Richard and Melissa for their responses to my questions. I am left with the conclusion that for me, writing either good public or private LDS fiction would be difficult. Richard talked about how in CA most people wouldn't know whether you were a member of the church or not. I'm not sure that I agree. Most of my non-member friends have figured it out. They notice things--usually it's the number of kids we have, or that I don't drink coffee or alcohol or smoke or swear or.....and it starts some kind of conversation. I'm not talking about casual aquaintances, but friends. By the same process most people that my husband works with figure out that he's LDS before too much time goes by. Literature is an even different question. It seems to me that a reader in general comes to know the main character better than the other characters in the book do. So I think it would be very difficult to have a satisfying Mormon main character whose religion didn't enter the picture anywhere in the story line. Yet, from Melissa's comments it would appear that inclusion of these private Mormon things can very easily come off as preachy. (I think minor characters are a different consideration because you don't get into their heads like a main character.) For example, a very dynamic business man in our community is LDS. He spoke at an institute Friday forum and told the students how he retires to a private area in his office and prays about decisions he makes on company policy and so forth. I have no idea if he has let his vice presidents in on this practice--excuse me while I go pray about this. In fact, I doubt if he has, though I am sure they all know he is Mormon as it is part of a very high profile community persona. If he was a character in a book headed to the national market, say an intrigue of some sort, and was facing some tough decisions and maybe some personal danger, he would naturally retire to his private place in his office and pray about it. None of the other characters in the book would necessarily know this. But the reader would. The reader is in the characters head, doing what he does, knowing what he knows (most of the time), and it would have bearing on the story no matter what the results of the prayer were. He has a difficulty. It is his practice to pray about it. If he is a Mormon character than it is part of his Mormoness--though people of many other religions could have the exact same practice. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you could live with people not knowing you are Mormon, even though that's not my experience in general, but a reader has special privelege. And for me, a Mormon character that can go through an entire story and never do a Mormon thing is not much of a Mormon. (if it is a main character.) It is one of the things that has bothered me about Mormon characters in books in the national market. They are not very real to me. Though they probably work for non-mormons. (Most of these books have been YA novels.) The one that probably comes the closest to having a real honest to goodness Mormon character is "Dances for Three". In fact, I'm not really sure if I have read another book with a Mormon main character. Tracie Laulusa - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 05:46:34 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] YOUNG & GRAY, _Bound for Canaan_ (Deseret News) Desret News, Friday, January 25, 2002 Books: Leisure reading 'Standing on the Promises, Book 2' By Margaret Blair Young and Darius Aidan Gray Deseret Book, $19.95 This is the second book in a trilogy of historical novels about black Mormon pioneers, published in time for Black History Month (February). The first volume, published in the fall of 2000, was well received, including a citation from the Association for Mormon Letters as Best Novel for 2000. The second volume, subtitled "Bound for Canaan," continues the saga of black pioneers making the trek across the Plains in the years after the Civil War. Gray is a descendant of slaves and now presides over the Genesis Branch of the LDS Church. Young, a creative writing professor at Brigham Young University, has been honored for her plays and short stories. Mixing history and fiction is always a tenuous process, but these authors have produced a quality narrative that includes "The Mississippi Saints" and their trek to the Great Salt Lake, plus the experiences of real people like Elijah Abel and Jane Manning James. You have to remind yourself, of course, that a lot of the story is fiction. =97 Dennis Lythgoe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 05:10:56 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] DUTCHER, _The Prophet_ (Fwd from DN) Deseret News, Friday, January 25, 2002 Dutcher tackles first big-budget film, 'The Prophet' By Carma Wadley Deseret News senior writer The woman sits quietly on a crude packing crate as her husband carries the last chair from the log cabin, puts it on the wagon and then begins to secure the canvas flaps. Beyond the house, a steady stream of people pass by, some carrying a few belongings; others helping children and the aged. They are clearly refugees of some sort, leaving behind a life they knew, and the couple will join them. Both the despair and the determination they will require are evident in the woman's face. "Cut," yells the director. "The second rider needs to be quicker. Let's do it again." And so it begins: The filming of Richard Dutcher's latest movie, "The Prophet." The Mormon filmmaker who brought "God's Army" and "Brigham City" to the screen, is now tackling his first big-budget movie, the story of Joseph Smith. It is a story, said Dutcher, that "represents the Mt. Everest of Mormon filmmaking. It's the Big One." His own faith and beliefs aside, he said, "It's a great story, an amazing and dramatic story, an epic tragedy. I'm surprised it hasn't been picked up by Hollywood before now." And telling it will be an adventure of its own. There are a few cheers and claps as that first shot is finished. The first day on the set is always exciting, said Dutcher, after all the weeks and months =97 and even years =97 of planning. In addition to directing the movie, Dutcher also wrote the screenplay. He and his associates are still in the process of casting lead roles. Until things are finalized, he does not want to name names, but "we're negotiating with some big stars. People will recognize the names." Serious filming will begin in April, mostly in Canada, where they will re-create such places as Nauvoo and Carthage. So, this one day of filming is all that will be done in Utah. "We needed the snow. And we got it. We couldn't have asked for a better day," said Dutcher. The setting is Ogden's Fort Buenaventura, which will represent Missouri in the movie. And on this crisp, clear morning, with temperatures hovering near the single-digit mark, it is easy to feel the misery of that long-ago time. The 80 or so extras, dressed in period costume, huddle together to keep warm between the shootings. "I always wanted to know what it was like back then," said Ernie Christen, a featured extra, who plays the chair-toting man. And even this brief encounter with the past makes him appreciate the pioneers more, he said. "There was a lot of misery. They truly were a breed apart. What they toiled through, what they struggled through, so they could prevail in the end." These scenes, including the packing and leaving, shots of crossing the river and close-ups of wrapped and bloody feet (created to perfection by makeup artist Heather Smith) will be voice-over flashbacks of the Saints being driven from Missouri, explained assistant director Steve Lee. Movies are never made in chronological order, and the six scenes being shot here will show up well into the movie. But the filmmakers had to get them now, when conditions were right. And, considering that they chose this day two months ago, Dutcher is very happy with how it turned out. "I wish we could go right on and do the rest," said Dutcher, "but there's still a lot of work to be done." "The Prophet" will have a budget of $10 million. Right now, he said, he's still getting used to that. "It still feels a bit like 'Brigham City' =97 but definitely bigger than 'God's Army.' That was really low-budget," he said with a laugh. Both those movies are still very active, however. "God's Army" is receiving critical acclaim in South America and in Mexico, he said; "Brigham City" is still opening in cities in the eastern United States. "The Prophet" is being targeted for nationwide release sometime in 2003. "We're definitely going for a mainstream audience," said producer Stin Hansen. "Richard's script is fantastic. It does that beautifully. It will have huge appeal to the mainstream, without offending Mormons." She compares the movie to epic adventures like "Braveheart." "It's the story of a people and their time, and their charismatic leader. It's an inspiring story of people who believed in something beyond themselves." "Malcolm X" was made by a black man and "Schindler's List" was made by a Jewish man, said Hansen, "so it is fitting that the story of Joseph Smith will be told by a Mormon, who understands the emotion, the compelling reasons why these people did what they did." And it's exciting to be involved in such a project, she said. "I left a big project in California to come over here. It was the script that brought me over," she said, although she is also LDS. "This is a story that needs to be told." The first day on the set is always a little humbling, she adds, as you think about all that will come along after. But even after this one day, "I'll leave here with a new connection. It's been so cold. And it makes you wonder, 'Could I have done that?' "And that's the connection we hope everyone will make. Mormon or not, could they have done that for something they believed in?" As much as anything, she said, that will be the message of "The Prophet." Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:14:41 -0800 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Jessie WARD, _The Call at Evening_ (Review) Review ====== Title: The Call at Evening Author: Jessie Ward Publisher: Herald Publishing House Year Published: 1920 Number of Pages: 422 Binding: Hardback ISBN: none given Price: none given Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle (A brief disclaimer -- Herald Publishing House is the publishing arm of the Community of Christ [nee RLDS Church]. Because of the age of this group, and my love of nostalgia, I will refer to this groups as RLDS. I trust my CofC friends will forgive me.) "The Call at Evening" is one of those books you wish folks still wrote. Remember the days of innocence, of celebrated virtue and despised vice? When life was simple, manners were observed, and belief was then norm? Ward's book takes us to the fictional town of Leesburg, home to the very rich and the very poor. The major employer is a large factory that employs much of the unskilled in this town. Leesburg covers a very small geographical area, placing the very poor just blocks from the very wealthy. Into this setting, RLDS missionary Alfred Stewart arrives on a preaching tour. Injured during a long walk, he arrives at the home of Marion Burnside, a wealthy business owner, but is turned away when Burnside learns he is a "Mormon." Burnside's daughter, Jenny, takes pity on Alfred, rides her horse to intercept him on the road, and delivers him to the town doctor, Bill Lakeman, who lives with his father. When they learn that Stewart is a missionary, or "preacher" as he describes himself, the Lakemans express their disdain for religion in general and preachers in particular. This opens the door for Stewart to inquire about their discontent, and learns that it stems from the confusing, sometimes contradictory teachings of the churches. And so begins a series of nightly meetings where Stewart presents the gospel in a systematic, and convincing way. Many interesting characters populate this book. The extremes of society are represented in a clean, one-dimensional way. In keeping with the times, the main characters are all white, some having black servants. Ward's attempts at imitating "negro" speech patters are reminiscent of the degrading patter of such works as Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Clearly our nation had not yet distanced itself from a need to mock the "negro" way of speaking. Ordinarily, I would find this irritating, but given the provenance of the book, perfectly understandable. It is, after all, a moral tract, and not intended to be either quality fiction or an equal rights manifesto. Central to the flow of the book is the transformative value of the gospel. A hard-drinking man turns his life around, albeit a bit simplisticly -- we likely would not believe such a character today. And a stern, unforgiving father finds redemption in the religious awakening of his son. Financial disaster, brought about by the destruction of the factory by a major fire, brings the disparate elements of society together in a sweet, but less than believable, way. Leaving the story-line aside, what fascinated me most were the studies held by our preacher friend. Night after night he teaches important subjects -- the apostasy, the need for a restoration, the centrality of the American continent, the reasonableness of other scripture coming forth, etc. -- and does this by tying together a dizzying array of Bible citations. Certain words and phrases do not appear at all: Joseph Smith Hill Cumorah Angel Moroni One can hardly imagine a missionary discussion without mentioning Joseph Smith! I paid close attention to his teaching method. It was more an attack-and-destroy mission than a wait-and-see approach. By this I mean that Alfred Stewart has at his fingertips (or so it seems, since it never mentions him referring to notes) a grand collection of citations from the King James Bible, some of which actually teach what he intends! His fondness for "proof-texting" - -- lifting a verse here and there, and sometimes, part of a verse - -- in support of a pre-determined conclusion, was a well-known technique among the churches of the day. I hadn't known this was done among the RLDS fellowship. It wasn't hard to find places where Stewart takes a verse out of context, using it either to buttress his argument or to connect other thoughts. His listeners, however, never catch on. They are entranced by Stewart's impressive command of the Bible and his obvious sincerity. Indeed, few of us would quarrel with his conclusions. They are solid and well attested. However, his path toward reaching those conclusions is sometimes suspect. It isn't likely that such an approach would escape the critical eye of modern readers. LDS readers will be fascinated with the legitimate texts Stewart finds to support the Restoration view. Many were new to me in this context. And Stewart's method of rapid-fire text reading, supplying the glue that he sees as tying them together, is a technique not seen very often today. And, I would ask, how many here could demonstrate the basic teachings of the Restoration solely from the Bible? How many know the scriptures that well? Not many, I would guess. "The Call at Evening" was a nice break from my normal reading. Copies are hard to find. Despite its obvious failings when viewed in light of today's social and racial attitudes, I will most remember this book as a fine example of a writing style that has long been out of vogue, a style that sees good as a consistent virtue and evil as consistently destructive, but mostly as a reflection of one man's sincere desire to share the gospel no matter what the cost. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:35:52 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Life in Mormon Culture Scott Parkin wrote: 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. ot to knit-pick or get into theology, but this statement does NOT reflect Judaism. Judaism DOES believe in an afterlife; it even believes in a literal resurrection of the body. What it rejects is that when one does, one is judged and then sent forever to Heaven and Hell; Judaism holds that when one does, one goes "to rest" from earthly cares and woes. A final judgment comes at the time of the resurrection. Until the resurrection, one "sleeps" until the literal rule of God on earth is ushered in during the Messianic age. >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. I would have to disagree here. If the above approach worked, we would have members who know of our unique doctrines. What I have found during the last seven years of Gospel doctrine classes, Sacrament and Testimony meetings and teaching of Elders Quorums is that a majority of converts, after years and sometimes decades of Church activity, are still either ignorant of our unique doctrines or they are VERY uncomfortable with them. I'd like to share a recent experience sheds some light on this. Because of some writing I did for the religion pages of THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT (Norfolk, Va.), that newspaper and the Institute for the Study of Religious Freedom at Virginia Wesleyan College asked me to serve on a panel of NEXUS--a Jewish/ Christian interfaith organization that offered monthly religious forums. I was the token Mormon. Each month, we presented an hour and a half panel discussion on a particular doctrine (the nature of God, life after death, original sin, etc.) and compared various Jewish and Christian views on the same. Then, after a short break, we (the rabbis, clergy and writers on the panel) entertained questions from the audience. I made no attempt to "appear Christian." I delved right into our doctrines--everything from the plurality of Gods, to the human potential for divinity. The audience's reaction was REMARKABLE! They LIKED our doctrine! One rabbi remarked, during our discussion of Original Sin,: "You know, I just don't get [understand] Christian theology. It makes so sense. I sit here month after month and I try to understand it, but I don't. But whenever I hear from our rabbis on the panel and from our Mormon elder, what they say makes perfect sense to me; I don't't see how any rational person could not NOT get what they say." In another discussion (on human nature) I read from II Nephi 2 on the fall of Adam and the audience actually APPLAUDED the scripture. That evening a rabbi came up to me afterwards and asked for a copy of the scripture I read because "it perfectly expresses the Jewish view of Adam's fall." (!!!!!) This year NEXUS decided to try something different. They would study four different faiths, have clergy and official representatives of these faiths present a public discussion of their beliefs. On the following sabbath, NEXUS would arrange transportation to that faith's local house of worship so that the audience could view that faith "in action" as it were. The audiences of the previous two years were asked to pick the four faiths they would like to study. The first faith that the majority of audience members chose was Mormonism! So a local Stake President was contacted. He, a councilor, that councilor's wife, a teenage girl from the Young Women's program and a High Councilman were chosen to serve on the panel. The night of the presentation arrived. All of these folks were educated and well-spoken. They were clean cut and articulate. The moderator opened with one question for each: "If you had to pick a few things that you'd like the public to understand about your faith, what would it be?" Every single person said the same thing: they'd want the public to know that the LDS are Christians. One even said, "I want people to know that we're just as Christian as you are." The next thing they all mentioned was that they want people to know that the LDS do not BELIEVE in polygamy. In light of polygamy, the Councilor's wife said that we believe in eternal families (as if that doctrine had nothing to do with polygamy and somehow absolved us of any connection to the practice. Excuse me, but doesn't the section heading of D&C 132 say just the opposite--that the eternity of the marriage covenant is the reason FOR plural marriage?) She went to say (and I quote): "We believe in eternal families, and in those families there is only ONE husband (here she held up one finger to make her point) and ONLY one wife." After this, the panel spent most of their time taking about how married women with children should be stay at home Moms. When it came time for the audience to submit their written questions, the panel tossed aside any question dealing with the doctrines we had discussed in the previous two years (those unique to the Church) and focused only on those dealing with Christ and family. One audience member asked, "Given your belief in eternal familiees having only one husband and one wife, can widows and widowers remarry?" The Stake President answered, "Yes, they can." Afterwards, a former Stake President in the audience told me that this answer worried him because "now the audience thinks we believe in 'menage a tuos' (sic) in heaven." I held my tongue but wanted to say, "Well, if the Sister on the panel hadn't been so insistant on there being only one husband and one wife in each family--which is NOT Church doctrine--then the question would never have come up." The Stake President did field one question: Do Mormons believe in the Trinity. He answred," No,we don't. We believe that Heavenly Father is one personage; Christ another; the Holy Ghost another. But we believe that each one of these is also God." I don't think he realized that he was paraphrasing the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. (i.e., One God in three person, as opposed to the LDS doctrine of three Gods who work as one.) Leaving the presentation that night, I overheard one non-LDS audience member say to his wife, "You see, they DO believe the same things we do.When it comes down to it, all the churches believe the same thing." (!) My reaction to this is, "So why would anyone chose to be LDS if LDS are just like other Christians." Before the presentation that evening, 150 audience members had signed up to ride the NEXUS sponsored bus to that week's Sacrament Meeting and to the luncheon afterwards. On Sunday, only about nine people showed up. I wonder if the drop was due to the conservative Evangelical Christian front that these well-intentioned panel members gave of the Church. >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 wish more of our members tended to have this view of God. I see just the opposite among converts. After years of activity, many of the converts I know (I'd say the a mjority) would find your "God as super-scientist" idea offensive and troubling. But it is such a view--and the resulting representation of Mormons in the hard sciences that could make attractive to more people. Science is very quickly eating away the very foundations of traditional Christian Orthodoxy. People want something to take the place of what is being lost, and I think our distinct theology fills the void: it links ancient Biblical concepts with the facts being discovered by modern Science. There is no reason why Mormonism shouldn't be the ideal faith for rational, intellectually curious, creative, educated people. ROb. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #592 ******************************