From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #609 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, February 12 2002 Volume 01 : Number 609 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 05:20:58 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] WILLIAMS, _Red_ (SL Tribune) Campaign Slogans, Erotic Passages Collide in Williams' Uneven 'Red' Sunday, February 10, 2002 BY MARTIN NAPARSTECK SPECIAL TO THE TRIBUNE Red Passion and Patience in the Desert By Terry Tempest Williams; Pantheon, $23 Terry Tempest Williams says she writes to save the erotic from the pornographic. She also suggests that she writes to politicize her readers ("place + people = politics"). There is no conflict between her eroticism and her politics in Williams' latest collection of nonfiction, Red: Passion and Patience in the Desert, and, alas, that is the weakness of this compact book from one of Utah's -- and America's -- finest, most original environmental writers. The strongest parts of Red are directly about the erotic. In a reprint from one of her earlier books, Desert Quartet, she writes, "It feels good to sweat, to be engaged, to inhabit my animal body," and "The silence that lives in these sacred [canyon] hallways presses against me. I relax. I surrender. I close my eyes. The arousal of my breath rises in me like music, like love, as the possessive muscles between my legs tighten and release. I come to the rock in a moment of stillness, giving and receiving, where there is no partition between my body and the body of Earth." In another selection, also from Desert Quartet, she writes of standing next to a small fire, her legs spread: "I allow myself to be ravished. My generosity becomes my humiliation." Williams is a master of the startling and lasting image, a gutsy writer unafraid to expose herself, her emotions and her desires, to the reader. No other writer has so fully melded human emotional needs with our surrounding environments. But Red (the title refers primarily to the red-rock landscape of southeastern Utah, where she lives) also includes a statement she made to a U.S. Senate subcommittee criticizing a pending piece of land-management legislation. She defends President Clinton's designation of 1.7 million acres as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, and frequent slaps at politicians she doesn't like (high on the list is Utah Congressman Jim Hansen). These are, sad to say, uninspired politics, the statements of the morally certain. There is never any doubt, not in a single one of her political statements, that she might be wrong. Her erotic statements, by contrast, report her inner self and the conflict she consistently finds there: In the paragraph preceding the one where she stands before a fire, we read, "How is it that pleasure exists between such beauty and violence? Feed the fire. No. Yes." Williams refers to many of the entries in Red as stories, but none of them truly are. Many are vignettes; that is, pieces of stories. Others are essays. The political essays amount to extended bumper stickers. Characters in conflict are the building stones of stories, but stories are never complete unless that conflict is resolved. The single finest piece of writing Williams has done (not included in this new volume) is the final section of Refuge, "The Clan of the One-Breasted Women," about the conflict between the values of her church (she is Mormon) and the reality of the high rate of breast cancer among women in her family brought on, she believes, by nuclear testing. Conflict drives that story/ essay. It is a powerful political statement precisely because it is addressed to readers, not to politicians. It doesn't seek to influence legislation and succeeds in influencing hearts. There is no literary interaction between Williams' political position papers in Red and her beautiful and revealing erotic passages. Over and over, the sublime is interrupted by campaign slogans delivered through a bullhorn. Then there are the lists. Like Wordsworth, when she runs out of something to say, she makes a list. She lists 180 place names in Utah's red-rock wilderness (seven pages), 63 reasons she writes (three-plus pages), 10 pages of the names of places she believes should be designated officially as wilderness, and six pages of organizations that agree with her (these last two in appendices), plus a dozen or more mini-lists within her essays and "stories." Of the political comments (and lists), an applicable piece of advice comes from Gertrude Stein, who told a young Hemingway, "Comments are not literature [nor are lists]." Yet, Terry Tempest Williams, when she is good, is so good that Red can be justified by a generous reading of its subtitle: Passion and Patience in the Desert. Unlike anything pornographic, the passion she gives us is convincing, rewarding and revealing. We need only have patience when we read the other stuff. ----- Martin Naparsteck reviews books from and about the West for The Salt Lake Tribune. Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:38:38 -0700 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Walter Kirn on Mormonism and Olympics This is great, Chris. And make no mistake--I want to substantiate this post--my father is a healthy ninety-three--look at our "old prophets," etc. And I'm feeling (at my age, imagine!) that I'm just beginning my career, and I have at least thirty years to go! TV's 60 minutes last night brought up another grave area of concern for me--the diet of our youth. The biggest culprits are french fries (any related corn and potato deep-fried chips), carbonated drinks, and sugar. Diabetes is now rampant among young people. I'm frightened not for Mormons, but every school child out there who likes fast food better than celery and beets. Marilyn Brown - ----- Original Message ----- > Writing in Time, former-Mormon novelist and writer Walter Kirn makes some > interesting statements. Some highlights, followed by the link to the > complete article: [snip] > > http://www.time.com/time/olympics2002/article/0,8599,198830,00.html > > Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:44:18 -0700 From: "K.D. Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism [MOD: Oops--this is a Phase 1 post that was accidentally skipped until now... Konnie, you're still allowed to post another "Phase 2" message.] Ok now I have to comment on this thread. 'We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adams transgressions.' All spirits are created equally and not punished for the sins of their ancestors so no race is less then another so there were other reasons for the policy. Personally I didn't even know the Church had the policy till it was repealed. But then again I joined the Church in July of '78. (Jonathan, I was 16 in '78 too.) I can believe that we are placed where we are on this earth according to how valiant we were in the preexictance. But couldn't that mean that a loving Father placed the least valiant of his children in active member homes in largely active member communities because otherwise they could very easily be swayed from the truth and the very most valiant ones were put where they would have to really search for the truth or may not find it till they died because they were so valiant he knew they would immediately accept it. It seems to me that our loving Heavenly Father would place us where he knew we would live a rightous life or would accept the gospel, without much questioning, if and when it was presented to us. Because he loves us all and wants all of us back with him. To view it any other way would be saying that he is a partial God and favors some of his children over others and I can't imagine that he is. I treat my five children differently because I love them and they are different individuals. How I treat one would annoy or upset another but I love them all and want the best for them. I can't imagine that Heavenly Father would love his children any less. But I can imagine that some of his children would see a physical difference and assume it meant that they were in some way inferior to them (kids can be cruel like that). It's not hard for me to believe that this is what did happen. As far as being punished for something they did in the pre-exictence, those were thrown out of Heaven with Satan. A far as what the truth really is. Does it matter? Shouldn't we treat others as we would want to be treated? Konnie Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:47:24 -0700 From: James Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism on 2/7/02 4:30 PM, rwilliams at rwilliams@virtual1.rp1750.usu.edu wrote: > That said, I think there are, in fact, two definitions commonly implied in the > term "racist." The first, and most popular definition involves discrimination > or prejudice based on race, often accompanied by hierarchies of color. The > "white" race, it is argued, is superior to all the others, or whatever. No > one these days, it seems, besides a few extremists here and there, subscribes > to this idea, and this perhaps accounts for the vehemence with which some > defend themselves against accusations of racism. The second definition > however involves the more simple belief that "race" accounts for differences > in human character, ability, or mission in life. This type of "racism" is not > necessarily accompanied by feelings of superiority but merely acknowledges (or > rather affirms) that races do exist and may determine one's individuality and > purpose. In other words, not "racism" but rather "race-ism." Using this > second definition, I think it is safe to label most Mormons today "racist." [snip] > > --John Williams I'm afraid I'm going to have to reject both of your definitions of racism. The version you ascribe to Hitler et al is a very new and specific form of racism that has its roots in the late 19th century, whereas the form of racism which existed before might be called the standard belief of every people, culture and race since the Tower of Babel. Your benign racism is anything but; the idea that race determines character, ability, etc is merely the old form of racism, ie the standard belief of all humanity since the Tower of Babel. There are specific individuals who rose above this concept of humanity, but generally speaking even humanity didn't exist until recently. Hitler's version of Racism, and that which still infests groups like the KKK, is based on the theory of Atlantis. The fabulous, stupendous "Aryan" race of Atlantis for some reason began to mate with subhumans (ie Jews and Blacks) and for that the Gods destroyed Atlantis. The few pure (white) Aryan survivors fled to Ultima Thule and from there they eventually spread out a bit, being the origin of the Germanic tribes, and in some versions also the Celtic tribes. The postulatedAryans of India are also included in this elect group of Atlantean descendents. This is not the standard sort of racism that exists practically everywhere for all of history. The standard racism generally never brought about so much carnage, though the Mongols may be considered the first wave of the new racism. The Mongols are still unequaled in their butchery, unless one lumps all socialists together, in which case the socialists win. Most people don't group Jacobins, Nazis and Communists together, however. I do, but that's me. I tend to group vile with vile, and good with good. I don't like Ivan the Terrible any better than Subotai or Pol Pot. The fact is that the world was not yet prepared for the death of the common racism. From some of Joseph Smith's words it is very obvious that he considered black folks limited by education rather than race. "Give a black man and education and he'll take the shine right off his so-called master." The fact that early Mormons were mostly abolitionist (if not extremely so) was a large part of the reason that we were ejected from Missouri. There was fighting all over Missouri & Kansas for twenty years before the Civil War, and though we tend to see it as larger, our part was really rather small in that whole struggle. We were gone before it got really bad, but the sort of attacks and massacres that we suffered only got worse. The fact is if we had advocated what is generally pretended to be believed by all today, ie that race is only skin deep, there might've been a much more damaging reaction. As it happened, we were merely ejected from state to state, attacked twice by the Federal government, and the second time stripped of all our temples. It was a close thing, and I figure God knows what he's doing. What Said, and progressives in general, really want is not progress. They want feudalism to return, with themselves as masters. He, and they, are trying to maintain the standard racism of history. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the world, it turns out that the inherent racist chauvanism of practically every culture in history is really based on false premises. At most race may include tendencies, genetic, cultural or otherwise, but individuals are able to overcome those tendencies, negative and positive alike. The tendency is not enough to destroy freedom. Said believes that the fact that my skin is white necessitates my inherent racism; I cannot see the "oriental" culture correctly because of inherent biases that I have no control over. I am blinded, and can never, no matter what I do, see clearly. In such a case we may as well throw in the towell for peace on earth--since nobody can ever see the other guy's perspective in even the smallest degree then we're in for endless wars. Dang this is turning into a book. Let me sum up. There have been Mormon racists of the traditional type. One of the reasons that the gospel was restored only after the reformation and enlightenment is because it would only then be possible for a church of any kind to be truly universalist. Joseph Smith would've liked to have seen it occurr in his own day, and from the writings of several others of the prophets they would too, but the world does obtrude. While it would be nice to say "this is right and (expletive-deleted) the world," at most points in history it would only make a pretty epitaph. The constant wrangling that goes on these days about which ancestors were the most guilty is pointless. They were all guilty. They were all wicked. They have only one hope for salvation and it won't come from an academic racist like Said. The search for the idyllic ancient civilization is vain, because the city of Zion left no artifacts behind, and the Nephite centuries of peace were followed by constant strife, and wars do tend to knock things down. Historical fiction should have characters with historical attitudes, rather than trying to push modern ideals on people who never heard of them. You can do what you want with Fantasy or Science Fiction, but history is mean, nasty and cruel, and that's just how it is. I have no problem with the fact that my Viking ancestors used to torture their captives to death, blood eagles, last marches, etc. Some of their beliefs and ideals made their way to our day--it doesn't bother me one bit. I'll take the good with the bad and sort through them as best I can. Jim Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 13:32:03 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] re: Race Issues in Mormonism And now for a few stories: Last time I went in for a physical, my doctor told me the following story. = I don't vouch for the accuracy of the details, as I heard this second = hand. I've been trying to find time to write this as a novel or play, but = wanted to meet the actual guy first, and the doctor wouldn't tell me his = real name. He has another patient, who I'll call David. David lived in a small town = in southern Utah, and was known to his fellow townspeople as the only = black guy in the town. He didn't look black, but it was well known that = his mother, a schoolteacher, had had an affair with a passing black = athlete back in the '30's, and that David had been the result. David's = mother died when he was very young, and he was raised by an aunt and = uncle. He was not allowed to eat at the table with the other family = members, nor was he allowed to live in the house. They built a room for = him in the garage, and he ate when the rest of the family was finished. = David was not allowed to join the Scout troop, and although he attended = church, he was not, of course, allowed to hold the Aaronic priesthood. He = was allowed to attend the local school, but a drinking fountain was set = aside for his use, and when he got to high school, he was not allowed to = use the common shower after gym class, and there were additional restrictio= ns on where he could go and what he could do. Couldn't eat in the = downtown cafe, etc. =20 Then David turned 21. And per his mother's wishes, he was given the = contents of her safety deposit box. And in that box, he found her = journal, where he learned that he was not the son of a passing black = athlete, but the son of the town's most prominent citizen, a banker and = the local stake president. The story of the athlete had been invented by = his mother to protect the reputation of her lover. David went to the bishop with this information, and asked to be ordained = to the priesthood. The bishop (a grandson of the stake president in = question, who by this time was long deceased), refused. So David went to = Salt Lake, and met with Elder Kimball, who sent a note to the bishop = ordered David to be ordained, in public, by that bishop. The bishop again = refused. So one Sunday, the bishop was called from the stand during = Sacrament meeting, and told he had an urgent phone call from Salt Lake = City. He left the meeting, came back looking greatly chastened, and = ordained David to the priesthood on the spot. David subsequently served a = mission, and when my doctor knew him, was a dedicated and active member of = the Church. =20 Second story. I don't remember where I heard it, and again don't vouch = for the details: A young man, returned from his mission, is preparing for a temple = marriage. This was supposedly during the tenure of Joseph Fielding Smith, = which would put it in 1971 or so. As this lad prepared for his temple = marriage, he decided to do his geneology, and there he learned that he had = a black ancestor. As I heard the story, it turns out that his ancestor = was quite prominent, a Frederick Douglass type figure. He contacted his = bishop, who went to the stake president, who decided it was too big for = him, and eventually found himself on the phone with President Smith. He = explained the situation, and President Smith is said to have sighed, = moaned, and then told the man to wait a day and he'd get back to him. The = next day, the phone call came, and President Smith told the stake = president, "tell the young man that he cannot be married in the temple. = He is not to practice his priesthood. Our apologies, but this is how it = must be." =20 So the Stake President told President Smith that the situation was more = complicated. The young man in question was from a very prominent family = in the Church. His grandfather was the stake patriarch. His father was = on the High Council. He had three brothers in bishoprics. Did they all = need to be released? More sighs and groans from President Smith. "I'll = call you back tomorrow," he said. Next day, another phone call. And President Smith said to the Stake = President, 'tell the young man to get married, stay active, and keep his = mouth shut." Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:06:44 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re:[AML] Public and Private Mormon Literature I have to admit up this point I have been confused about the discourse between Public and Private Mormon Literature. I want to thank Melissa for making it much clearer what she was trying to say. I think I've got it now. That distinction between telling what goes on in our religion and culture and not automatically assuming that we're right on everything and no one else has truth to offer is instructive, one I'll take to heart. Something I probably knew down deep anyway. I'd also have to agree with her assessment of Rummer Godden's, "In This House of Brede". Excellent book. I could understand much of it coming from a Catholic background, but she makes it really accessible to most anyone. Even though you may not agree with the reasons for choices these nuns make based on the doctrine they believe, you come away with a greater understanding and probably respect, I know I did. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:47:34 -0700 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionaries Returning Home "Darlene Young" wrote: > I think we're only beginning to see literature that > shows the true hardship of a mission without being > sappy, simplistic, or, at the other extreme, ending > with everyone leaving the church. I published my first novel WAITING FOR THE FLASH back in 1988. It approached the true hardships of a mission in a very fair and balanced way--at least I thought so (but then anything more the sly grin that follows an evil fart is sappy to me, so what I think may not be a good barometer). It was not a happy book, because it hasn't a happy subject. Anyway, the book sold remarkably well, considering it was a first novel from a complete unknown with absolutely no marketing or advertising--the first run almost sold out in the first year. To me that indicates the audiance for darker portrails of life is already there. The problem is publishers. They are businesses. They need to make money to stay in bussiness. They're not willing to take chances that might result in their deaths. But judging from your short story--DARLENE YOUNG--you are very qualified to write the novel you want to see one the market. And once it's finished it will find its way into print. And it will be appriciated. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:06:40 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony I'm just glad they didn't have square dancers or cloggers (did they?). Of all the corny, square (ha), embarrassing things. . . I too was bothered by the announcers' frequently cutting each other off and the one voice that I often couldn't understand. And I do remember thinking Ku Klux Klan at one point. When the large group at my house was speculating on who would light the torch, my suggestion of O.J. Simpson got the biggest reaction. I tried to argue that he would make a nice bookend with Mohammed Ali in '96. I'm being swept along with family to women's hockey in Provo, and the thing I'm most looking forward to is seeing what my $10 concession coupon buys me (our seats turn out to be obstructed, so SLOC is buying us off with the coupon). One hotdog and a 12-ounce soda? Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:24:45 -0600 (CST) From: Rich Hammett Subject: [AML] Re: "National Review" on The Mormons [MOD: I've failed to find the article following any of these links...] On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, R.W. Rasband wrote: > Oops, that link didn't work. Try this one: > > --- "R.W. Rasband" wrote: > > Writing in the conservative Catholic magazine "National Review Online", > > columnist Dave Shiflett has a sardonically funny but not unsympathetic > > take on "The Mormons and the Olympics." It's at: > > http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-shiflett020920.html Actually, I got there by using http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-shiflett020902.html (The year was transposed in both versions you sent) rich - -- \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / rhammett@HiWAAY.net \ They that can give up essential / liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve \ neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:36:13 -0700 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony I respectfully disagree, my friend. It was excruciatingly long (and I know, that's a drawback of all ceremonies that involve parading thousands of people by, but...) and though the costumes and puppets were eye-catching, the ice dance was predictable and not terribly engaging (oooh, the KKK icicles are skating in his general direction....I'm shaking in my boots....) I too liked the use of Red and White (loved all those white turtlenecks too--how much did that cost? Hmmm) but mostly I was just waiting around to see the lighting of the big torch and to see who would light it. At around "L" in the parade of nations we called mom & dad in Utah and asked who lit the torch (it wasn't live here in Seattle). Kept the tv throughout the rest of the event, hoping to be engaged, but wasn't. My final analysis was that I hope it was more exciting to be there cuz it wasn't exciting to watch it on TV. And I HATED the constant commentary during the performances. Katie, Bob, I love you but please please please stop talking. It was like a cellphone ringing in the middle of Act II, like fingernails on the chalkboard etc. Oh, and I know we had to have pioneers in there somewhere but could someone PLEASE come up with some original pioneer choreography? Grumpy because she's 16 driving hours away from all the fun-- Marianne Hales Harding >From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" > >Well, I needn't have worried. The Opening Ceremonies were wonderful. I'm >not very sentimental, but the producers just did so much right, made so >many terrific choices. [snip] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:55:57 -0800 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] "National Review" on The Mormons This is the first time I've seen National Review described as "Catholic." Aside from the Catholicism of its founder, Wm. F. Buckley, what evidence do you have of this? - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com At 02:19 PM 2/8/02 -0800, you wrote: >Writing in the conservative Catholic magazine "National Review Online", >columnist Dave Shiflett has a sardonically funny but not unsympathetic >take on "The Mormons and the Olympics." It's at: >http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-shiflett020920.shtml > > > >===== >R.W. Rasband >Heber City, UT >rrasband@yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:00:57 -0800 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism At 11:55 AM 2/9/02 -0500, you wrote: >I always figured, "In for a penny, in for a pound." At some point I had >to decide that the scriptures were inspired by God, or they weren't. I >wasn't going to be selective and say that because this particular >scripture made me feel uncomfortable, then I wou >ld simply ignore it. > >Abraham 1:27 says: > >"Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right >of the Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from >Noah, through Ham..." > >Lots of scriptures can be hedged on and skirted, but I have to admit that >a reasonable reading of this verse seems to indicate that certain people's >lineage keeps them from holding the Priesthood, and it would take a >prophetic revelation to erase the meaning >that is pretty clear in this scripture. > >Do I like it? No. >Am I comfortable with this? No. >Am I 100% sure that this lineage applies to African bloodlines? No. >Do I wish this scripture didn't exist? Yes. > >But since it does, I have to admit that the presidents of the church were >simply following their testimonies that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and >when he gave us the book of Abraham he didn't just make it up in order to >propagate some hare-brained racist prop >aganda. They most likely took the Book of Abraham as inspired >communication from God. As I do. > >There was a Noah, he had a son Ham. There was a curse that kept Ham's >lineage from holding the priesthood and this lineage included the >Pharaohs. The curse is over now, but don't blame the presidents of the >church or call them racist because of something No >ah did that the Lord communicated to us. > >I don't know for sure that every president of the church and every apostle >didn't pray fervently and daily for the curse to be lifted. My own >feeling is that when the majority of the members of this church want >something, they get it, whether it's good for t >hem or not. Probably until 1978 the majority of the members were happy >with the status quo, but when we reached a critical mass in our prayers, >the Lord sent the revelation. I apply this to other people who are denied >the priesthood today. The majority of >the church is happy with the status quo, but if we can ever convince >enough of our friends and neighbors, then we'll get the revelation. > >Tony Markham I'm rather astonished at this note. As a non-member, perhaps I'm missing something here. But if you have a strong testimony of the Scriptures (including the book of Abraham), does this not extend to a testimony of the prophetic calling of the Presidents of the Church? You accept Joseph Smith, Jr., as a prophet, with the authority to deliver new Scripture through revelation, with no feedback or polls to affect his revelation. But you don't accept that modern prophets can receive revelation without the members becoming dissatisfied with the status quo. Can you tell me when you think this all changed? - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:02:05 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Diversity Among Mormons (was: Stealth Religion in Literature) In his excellent post, James Wilson outlined thoughts on why he believes a Mormon literature intended for a general audience is better served with a middle of the road approach that doesn't force non-Mormons to make personal evaluative judgments about whether Mormon thought excludes their own beliefs, and that focusing on our commonality of belief will build more bridges than (intentionally or un) exclusive work that directly or tacitly rejects all but specifically Mormon ideas. I absolutely agree. In her excellent post on Public and Private Mormon lit, Melissa Proffitt suggested that an intensive internal look at Mormonism that directly exposed the inner culture (like Chiam Potok's work with Jewish culture) would do more to demystify some of the odder notions regarding Mormon belief and create a bridge of legitimate understanding that didn't apologize for who we are and what we believe. Such a literature would expose and perhaps explain Mormon belief and culture without the toe-scuffing or shrugging (or defiant glaring) that so many explicitly Mormon stories seem to contain--and in so doing would clarify us both as unique and ordinary in that belief. I absolutely agree. I love discussions where people offer their visions or their ideals of what they would like to see Mormon lit do. I especially like it when I then see works from those people on my local bookstore shelves. And if their approaches are different--even incompatible--I glory in the diversity within our Mormon culture and look forward to seeing how others that share certain cosmological foundations perceive their world. Because I believe that those apparently incompatible visions of the world and how it is (or should be) can each be absolutely true and praiseworthy. I keep hearing about the relentless sameness of Mormons, and I'm sorry but I just haven't experienced it. Without denying others' experiences on that issue, I can only say that the Mormons I know and choose to associate with are anything but homogeneous. Unified in hope, but certainly not stamped out of the same mold. We are not machines, and given the same experiential events we will not all generate the same interpretations. Richard Johnson can't imagine using the phrase "emotionally scarred" to describe his mission, and Chris Bigelow can't describe his own experience without using that phrase. Should I reject one because I find the other's viewpoint compelling? What if each viewpoint resonates equally (if not in the same way)? I know that my mission was the best two years of my life (minus six months for the vagaries of the Church's attempts to deal with unpleasant economic realities of the early 1980s), but it was only the best time of my life *after it was over.* During my mission I experienced the most spectacular highs and lows of my life to that point. It was uplifting. It was was scarring. It was marvellous and terrifying, intense and boring all at the same time. It was certainly transforming, though I can't say all of those transformations were ideal--or even improvements. Every approach to telling our Mormon stories will work, and every approach will fail--for some audience. Some approaches make me cringe in fear of edge or false doctrine, others make me cringe in fear of their blind simplicity. Sometimes I worry that people will attribute those beliefs to all Mormons, and thus to me. But rather than apologizing for how someone else believes, my job is to explain how I believe. No need to stamp out other beliefs, only to refine my own--and even proselyte them in my own way. How we tell our stories is less important to me than simply that we tell our stories. Which is not to say that I don't think we should debate the merits and liabilities of different approaches--how can we learn to refine our viewpoints and our art if we don't discuss, analyze, and judge? But those conclusions are ultimately our own to make as individuals. I don't embrace all approaches, but I do appreciate the sheer guts that leads one to put their words and ideas and feelings out into the world. I respect it even when I don't agree with it. The point? Nothing much. Just a rambling appreciation of each and every voice on this list and a call to share your opinions even when you think you're in an unpopular minority. And to respect that others have a right to their often different conclusions. I know that my own views on art and culture have been transformed during my years on this list--I think for the better. Thank you. All. And keep it up--especially those of you who don't speak out as much as others of us. It's in our diversity that I believe we will discover the commonalities that define what it is to be Mormon. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:03:50 -0700 From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony I was also very nervous about the Opening ... not just because I live here and am naturally worried about our fair community, but because I'm currently doing a stint as a Security Manager for the Olympics. But not at Rice-Eccles or the Opening Ceremony, thank goodness. I'm supervising round-the-clock crews at the three Practice Ice Venues in the valley. I admit, it HAS been very rewarding. After all, I get to see all these famous Olympic athletes up close and personal, away from the spectators and the crowds, but equally thrilling and professional in their practice performances. As they say, "A once in a lifetime opportunity." But working Security has been very eye-opening, as I rub shoulders with Law Enforcement Officers of all kinds. Everyone's working hard to make sure things run right and tight. I can assure you all, it's a well-greased wheel. It's exciting, actually. The one thing that has surprised me a little is that hardly anybody complains about all the delays and hassles, like having to be "Magged & Bagged" (Magnetometer, aka Metal Detector, and Bag Check) at every single venue, being wanded and/or patted down when you can't get the dumb thing to quit squawking, having your cellphone (and everything electronic) turned off and on, having your bags turned inside out because we just don't have X-ray machines everywhere, and even having a blank picture taken on your camera. Even the staff and volunteers, out there braving the weather, take it all in stride. It's a great reflection on us locals, and all the visitors and participants in general. We're apparently all quite willing to make the necessary sacrifice in the name of safety and security. Post 9-11 syndrome, we call it. But it's also a sad commentary on the state of the world, and probably a predictable piece of the "signs of the times" happening around us. We're definitely in the eleventh hour. I, for one, can hardly wait until it's all over ... and successful. (The Olympics, I mean ... not the world.) Then all the Osama-wannabees can turn their eyes and attention elsewhere for a while. Under the circumstances, I'm not very comfortable being the focus of such intensive scrutiny, and I won't be breathing very easy until March sometime. Here's hoping for Great Games! BJ Rowley Sector Coordinator, Event Services (Security) Salt Lake Organizing Committee - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #609 ******************************