From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #613 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 Thursday, February 14 2002 Volume 01 : Number 613 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:10:10 -0700 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony >Can anyone explain to me why anyone would be willing to put themselves >through such agony, fight those crowds, etc. to see something in a venue >which, regardless of their seats, could never offer a view better than that >they could get on TV? Oh, Thom, that's exactly what my mom said. There's something about being there in person, though (for me at least). Ok, so maybe I'd get a better view of the expression on the ice skaters face from the vantage point of my living room. BUT I wouldn't get the excitement of bundling up, fighting the crowds, drinking my overpriced hot chocolate, cheering my lungs out....sigh....all those things you hate, I love! I don't much care to watch football on tv because I'm not too interested in the up-and-close of the sport. I did, however, have a total blast attending the few football games that I have attended. I mean, when BYU scores you get to sing the whole fight song! Every single time they score! How fun is that??? And you get to stand up and scream as loud as you can scream. Can't really do that at home (not when you live in apartments, anyhow). I don't know, there's something about actually being there. Being physically present as they're striving striving striving.....as if by sheer will you could supernaturally push them a little faster and then when they win you were a part of that. That doesn't really translate through the TV waves, at least for me it doesn't. It's kind-of like watching a wedding on TV vs. watching a wedding from the pews. Ok, I'm stretching here. Not all Olympic/athletic events are like that for me. But, in defense of those people watching the bobsled event in person, the coolness (no pun intended) of being there has nothing to do with having the best vantage point on the race. Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:48:42 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Olympics Opening Ceremony >Did anyone else notice the music that was being played while the 1980 = >"Miracle on Ice" Hockey team lit the cauldron? It was an excerpt from = >Shastakovich Symphony No. 5. =20 Fascinating, for all the reasons Mary mentions. But I think, actually, it = was John Williams ripping off Shastakovich. Williams, of course, is a = notorious borrower. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:08:15 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Nineteenth Century Ideas (was: Race Issues in Mormonism) This question of acculturation which Cathy Wilson raises is a wonderful = one, and one worth contemplating. Acculturation IS difficult to identify = or escape. Peter Gay has a new book (Schnitzler's Century, I think it's called) out = on the Victorian middle class, which I'm finding quite fascinating. He = points out any number of ideas which the Victorians (by which he means = 'all Europeans during most of the nineteenth century) held, and which were = relatively unchallenged in their day. A short list: A) Women were inherently more spiritual than men, more immediately in tune = with God's Will. =20 B) However women were not as physically robust, nor as capable of abstract = thinking. C) Europeans were racially superior to all other peoples on the earth, as = evidenced by expansionist conquests and colonial settlements, which proved = Darwin right--the strongest had in fact prevailed. Manifest Destiny was = not a radical notion, merely an expression of mainstream thought. = However, white races did have an obligation to try to raise the benighted = and culturally inferior races over whom they held dominion to something = approaching level. D) Masturbation was morally and physically crippling, and almost any means = should be undertaken to prevent it. There were any number of physical = devices which were commercially successful which were supposed to stop = masturbation. E) Generally, married Victorians enjoyed far more satisfying sexual = relations than has been commonly supposed, and the notion of Victorian = squeamishness has been vastly overstated; they weren't a particularly = squeamish lot. But sexuality was certainly not a subject to be taught in = school, and it needed to be discussed with children with the greatest = possible delicacy. F) Corporal punishment in school was a norm in England, not so much so on = the continent. American practice was closer to Europe. G) Of course, men were to work and support the family and women were to = find their satisfaction in life through domesticity. H) Intercultural dating or marriage was unheard of, let alone interracial. = One was expected to marry one's own kind. This meant Italian-Americans = would never dream of marrying the Irish. =20 I) In America, the Irish were thought of as natural athletes, able to jump = higher and run faster than other mortals. Any number of (to us) absurd = physiological and sociological studies confirmed this. And so on. Let me just add that President Hinckley is the FIRST prophet = of the Church born in the 20th century. I do not mean to suggest that = prophets aren't prophets or anything like it. But I do suggest that = acculturation is a powerful force, and that God works with it and through = it. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:23:21 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] "National Review" on The Mormons I first discovered "National Review" in the high school library during the depths of the Carter administration. As Peggy Noonan wrote years later, discovering NR at a young impressionable age during the collectivist 1970's was like being invited to join a secret, special club. What appealed to me was that it was so frickin' *funny*. Most political reporting was (and still remains, to some extent) incredibly solemn and long-faced. Buckley and co. weren't afraid to mix it up in the best emperor-has-no-clothes way. Buckley is famously a Catholic and his magazine looks at culture through that lens, although it's not an official publication of the church (as many a liberal Bishop would hasten to point out.) A good example is the recent cover story on the ongoing child-abuse scandal among the clergy in Boston. NR disdains the libertarian strain of the conservative movement as morally rudderless; it champions a form of Burkean moral traditionalism. Plus, there's also all those funky little ads for Catholic liberal arts colleges scattered throughout the pages of the magazine. Meridian magazine tries to do much the same thing in an LDS way in its cultural/political writing, but without NR's elan and cosmopolitanism. - --- Jeff Needle wrote: > 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? > ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:35:01 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Olympic Opening Ceremony Dave Letterman's take on the opening ceremony was, um, interesting. "There was the Child of Light skating his little heart out.. and then, bam, there's SATAN! He's chasing the Child of Light! How did Satan get a pair of skates, especially in Utah? He must be from out of state...then 10 or 12 Mormons came out of the stands and beat Satan up." Dave in apparently planning to skewer the "NBC Olympics". He's sent his cute little deadpan assistant Stephanie to Park City to do some deliberatley low-key reporting from the games, in contrast to NBC's overbearing coverage ("NBC practically won't let us in Utah. We're almost in Wyoming!") Should be fun. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:07:19 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: [AML] Story on Mormons in _The Economist_ "The Economist" has an excellent story on the Church in its most recent issue. (It's also very in-depth considering it runs only two pages.) What continues to impress me about recent news magazine stories on Mormonism, is their understanding of our unique theology--and their positive reaction to it. (If only official Church spokespeople and more ordinary members were as comfortable discussing such doctrines as that of God having once been human!) This particular story, while praising the Church's growth and accomplishments, also explains our theology and how it differs (and therefore inspires criticism) from that of orthodox Christianity. The writer points out that when one takes a tour of Temple Square, one comes away thinking that Mormons are just another Evangelical Christian denomination. (This has certainly been the reaction of most of my non-member friends when taking the Temple Square tour.) The writer then discusses (in a very POSITIVE light)our unique doctrine of God, Eternal Progression, Free Agency and the Plurality of Gods. He points out that most of the Church's recent problems stem from its attempts to distance itself from this unique theology. He asks a very important question: if the Church distances itself from the theology that makes it different from mainstream Christianity (the theology that has always brought about criticism from others AND persecution), it becomes more "mainstream Christian" (MY term there), can a unique Mormon identity survive? You can click on to the story at the magazine's website: www.economist.com I'd love to hear some of your reactions to this piece. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:30:28 -0700 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Marvin Payne Alpine, Utah Wrote: >snip> I wonder how the discussion would be going, how we would be feeling, if we were living back in the days when the priesthood Included only a very small segment of God's children, the Levites. >snip> I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Sure I felt bad, and everyone else who was capable of feeling, felt bad. I think what we felt bad about was that all worthy males in the church were offered the priesthood at age 12, except for one very small segment, those whom were determined to be descendents of Cain. And this is because of our prophets' interpretations of the scriptures. But does any of the other churches on the earth today have this sort of guilt trip over the priesthood? No. The priesthood in other churches is only conferred on those who actively seek it and even some of those who seek it are denied the privilege. In our church, "Many are called but few are chosen." What we have to remember is God is in charge. Who are we to question him? >snip> But there is still this notion of family, and particular family responsibilities. It was understood by the ancients well enough that they were surprised at the idea that Jesus would claim priesthood authority, simply because he was a Jew, of which family "Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." >snip> I think Jesus' claim to the priesthood has more to do with the fact that he is the literal son of God. I also think that all of us mortals who have come to this earth can be traced back to the same first parents. I've said it before and I'll say it again, none of us mortals are perfect, that is why we are here. God has trusted us in our imperfection with his priesthood power so we can learn how to use it. We all make mistakes, and hopefully we learn from our mistakes. What we have to keep reminding ourselves is that God is in charge, and he loves us. We need to lighten up and love one another. Let God be the judge. We just need to love each other and try not to judge. Since 1978 the priesthood has been offered to all worthy males. The presiding authorities in the wards and stakes determine who is worthy and we have the option to either sustain their judgments or not. We are not responsible for the fact that in the past the priesthood was not offered to the descendents of Cain, anymore than we are responsible for the acts of slavery and oppression which were perpetrated against any of our brothers and sisters before the civil war and prior to the progress we have made in the civil rights movements. I for one do not believe any true Christian, or for that matter, anyone who believes in a higher power of truth and righteousness, can be a racist, and we should be very careful before we make the accusation of racism against anyone. There have been many great books written about this subject, but apparently we need many more. In our writing we need to point out or emphasize the mean minded despicable nature of bigotry and racism. I was so overjoyed to see the movie "Remember the Titans." It was so positive and yet it showed the depth of prejudice and bigotry which is often prevalent in society. Traces of it can be found not only in the south but almost everywhere. Writers should focus on this terrible blight on society and expose it so it can be eliminated from our mores, or at least diminished. I don't think we can completely eradicate racism, but I think we could do more to lessen its prevalence. Bill Willson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:57:16 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Diversity Among Mormons On Mormon literature, Scott Parkin wrote; >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. To a great extent, I agree also. Then again, a religion is a set of ideas/concepts. And there is a place, I think, in Mormon literature for a writer--through his/her story--to challenge the reader to consider these ideas. Having said this, I don't think that conversion to the Church can be the goal of Mormon FICTION. A novel can not be a religious tract. I think the key to reaching a universal audience is to present in our stories Mormons and non-Mormons wrestling HONESTLY with the ideas/values/ethics of the Restored Gospel and the culture of Mormonism. If the struggle is depicted honestly, if the characters have integrity in their struggle, then it won't matter in the end whether the Mormons in the stories leave the Church or the non-members convert. But again, HONESTY and INTEGRITY within the fictional characters must be--I think--absolute. (Chiam Potok is a master of this.MY NAME IS AHSER LEV is a beautiful example: the title character--a artist--in the end distances himself from his Jewish culture, and yet the reader never sees the character as being any LESS Jewish. [Side note: Was anyone on the list attending BYU in December of '82 when Potok visited the campus for a week or so and presented a series of lectures and classes? The experience was a highlight in my education as a writer AND a Latter-day Saint.]) Why attending the Y in the late 70's/early 80's, I often heard ordinary Saints say, "Someone should write a Mormon 'Fiddler on the Roof.'" My reaction then was that most Mormons would never stand for it; they'd label such a story "anti-Mormon." After all, in "Fiddler," a devout Jewish man watches his three daughters marry men, ecah of whom is distancing himself from his Jewishness. At the story's high point, the father "excommunicates" his favorite daughter because she marries a Gentile ("a non-member.") The father realizes that there can be no compremise with his religion and her child's decision to marry outside of this tradition. Then at the climax, the father realizes that his love for his daughter is stronger than his Jewish orthodoxy. The story ends with his making a move towards his daughter and AWAY from his previously held religious convictions. Are Mormons ready for a story in which a devout man (say a Bishop or Stake President) compromises on his belief that the Lord intends for all Saints to be married in the Temple? Such would be the message of a "Mormon 'Fiddler on the Roof'." What makes "Fiddler" attractive to Orthodox Jews (and the general public) is the same thing that COULD make a "Mormon Fiddler" attractive to Mormons (and the general public): the honest depiction of a character's struggle in living his/her religion. One more thing that I find stimulating artistically: We Mormons think of ourselves as part of modern-day Israel; we have become literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob--we are part of the Children of ISRAEL. "Israel" was the name given to Jacob after he wrestled with God. (Check out the scriptures: there was no wrestling with an angel. Genesis says that "a man" came to Jacob and wrestled with him throughout the night. When morning comes, Jacob WINS and having pinned down his opponent, DEMANDS a blessing. The "man" is hereafter addressed as if he is God, and gives Jacob a blessing as if he is God. Most Biblical scholars think that this story has been re-worded over the past 2000 years or so in order to cover up the messy theology that would result if it blantantly depicted a man physically wrestling with a god. Most scholars are now firm in the conviction that the story comes from a time when belief in a physical God and in a pluarity of Gods was part of ancient Israel's orthodox religion.) Back to my main point: The name that God gives Jacob--"Israel"--means "contending with/wrestling with God." (There's even a new theory among some Biblical archeologists that the name "Palestine" comes from the Greek "plstn" which signifies "Wrestler"--not "pHlstn" which signifies "Philistines." The Greeks named the land "Palestine." With their many gods and sporting events, they would have been intrigued by a people like the Jews whose founding father wrestled with a God--AND WON!) Back to my main point: "Israel" means to wrestle with God--and, as God in that particular story tells Jacob, not just to wrestle with God, but also to PREVAIL. Jewish literature succeeds beautifully in presenting this "wrestling." Since LDS theology presents a noble view of humanity, "working out their own slavation with fear and trembling," and progressing eternally towards what was meant to be their birthright (namely, Godhood in the presence of their Heavenly Parent), then it seems to me that this concept of wrestling should also be a component of what we might call "Mormon Literature." And for the reader, it matters not how the wrestling match concludes as long as it is depcited honestly. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:14:38 -0700 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism [MOD: I'm allowing this as as exception to the "one post" rule for this phase of the discussion, because as I see it what Margaret is doing here is not presenting her own views but sharing her knowledge based on research. Thanks, Margaret.] There are indeed quite a few things about Joseph Smith's racial views in _One More River to Cross_--the reference to his presidential campaign, for one thing, and his lovely quote about "many a black boy [who] will outshine the ones he waits upon." D. Michael Quinn said that Joseph Smith was a RADICAL in his anti-racist views, but we shouldn't go too far with the expectation such a statement provokes. In the same letter where Joseph Smith talks about Blacks being fully capable of progressing as much as whites--given proper education--he also says, "But I would confine them to their own species." He was adamently opposed to interracial marriage (misogenation), though he did want to adopt Jane Manning [James] as his child for the eternities. Those who think that Brother Joseph's writings will always reflect the sort of anti-racist ideas we'd want him to express will be quite disappointed--especially by things he said during the Missouri years. And by the way, Mormons were NOT universally abolitionist. For the most part, they were an isolated people who saw themselves as quite distinct from both abolitionsits and "pro-slavery men." They were PERCEIVED as being abolitionist because of an article William Phelps wrote in _Times and Seasons_ addressed to "people of color." The Missourians thought Phelps (and thus Mormons) were inviting insurrection of slaves and offering fugitive slaves a place of refuge. Phelps immediately retracted this implication, but the perception continued. Instructions to missionaries during that time were quite explicit: They were not to baptize slaves without the master's consent, and they were not to ordain any slave to the priesthood. That last part became the fodder of great controversy in 1879, and I won't go into it here. Suffice it to say, it's in the book. When the Mississippi Saints joined the Mormons either at Nauvoo or at Winter Quarters, they came with their slaves, and their slaves were NOT emancipated. Many people don't realize that in the California Compromise, Utah chose to be a slave state. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:16:13 -0700 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism I've avoided making any comments on this thread because I felt my opinion on this matter really didn't add much. I've always been hesitant about blacks, but that reaction was based more on speech than on skin color. (Once I got into a heated arguement with a friend about whether the man we just met was black. The guy didn't talk black, but when I saw him again I noticed his skin was black.) I am a massage therapist and I trust my hands at least as much as I trust my eyes. My hands don't lie very often, but my eyes (eye) are constantly fooled. Anyway, I've worked on several . . . is Afican-Americans the correct term (how about AfroUtahns). Two inparticular stand out. Johannes was a supreme court judge in Etheopia. I guess he was just plain African. He was giving a speech at the University of Mishigan and accidentally said the wrong thing and had to defect. Somehow he joined the Church and moved to Provo. He got hit by a car and had a hard time of it for a while. He came over to a mutual friend's house while I was working on the friend. Johannes needed to be kneeded (sometimes I am so damn funny), so I worked on him too. The reason the massage stand out is that his scapulas were about three times as big as those of white Americans. Black Americans I've worked on have scapulas slightly larger than white Americans. I've worked on women with Scandanavian blood who scapulas that aren't much larger than the wedges used for doorstops. I worked on a guy named Dwight--he was black--who taught theater at the University of utah. He was really cool. I remember that massage because Dwight was so cool and his quads were so out of balance with his hamstrings. I still can't figure out what kind of exersize would cause that. That's really off target and doesn't add much to this discussion. I was really happy in 78 when the Priesthood was given to black members. I hadn't thought much of it before then, but I really did feel relieved. I don't know why the Priesthood was with held for so long. It very well may have been that God was being unfair. There have been many times when in my life when I thought God was being unfair. I was a Junior companion my entire mission--now that's unfair. My companions always kept the appointment book and told me where we were going next. That was so unfair. About ten years ago I realized, I was completely oblivous about this before (it must be the head-injury), that I didn't have a very good concept of time. Everything was Now or Not-Now. There was no way I could have kept an appointment book. It made absolutely no sense to me and actually was very threatening. Even through I'm 10,000 times better now, I still have trouble schedualing things (My massage clients have to call me up the day before and remind me. It make me feel good--like I'm safe or something.) So I'm thinking maybe the Lord understood the problem before I was even aware there was one, and He decided on an easy way get around it. Yeah, it made Him look bad for a while, and made me think the mission President was a dink. But now I understand better. I'm just trying to say maybe it's not so bad. Maybe the Lord's looking out for us. Maybe He's done some things that make Him look bad. Maybe He's done some things that make the prophets look like dinks. But maybe we'll understand better someday. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:17:31 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] A Third Phase, Please (Comp 1) [MOD: This is a compilation post. I'll let Nan and Michael fight it out who gets it when... As Michael states, however, it would be good for there to be some input on this *quickly* so that it actually happens.] >From mcnandon@hotmail.com Wed Feb 13 22:46:32 2002 I would be happy to open my house to the discussion Margaret Young has suggested. I live in Draper, which is centrally located. Just say the word and I'll start fixing the refreshments. Nan McCulloch - ---------------------------------------- >From dmichael@wwno.com Thu Feb 14 00:56:49 2002 Since no one else has come forward to get the ball rolling, I'm willing to open up our home to a gathering. We have a pretty sizeable family room in the basement (if we shove the air hockey game to the side). This would be a very informal gathering. We'll straighten up, but if you want refreshments or anything, everyone has to bring them, including all throw-away plates and stuff so we don't have to do dishes. Possible weekend evenings: Saturday, Sunday, or Monday of this holiday weekend. Sunday the Feb 24 or Mar 3. Or we could shoot for a weekday evening sometime in the next two weeks. Personally, I think the sooner the better, while the topic is fresh on our minds. Perhaps Margaret and Darius can say when they'd be available and the rest of us work from that. Please respond quickly, so this doesn't just fizzle out like so many ideas do. D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:54:00 -0700 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] _Light of the World_ Thoughts I'm forwarding my thoughts on _Light of the World_ below. Nan McCulloch > I liked the spectacle, the lighting and special effects, the choreography > and the marvelous venue. I liked the music, but kept waiting for that one > blockbuster song that never came. The theme development was broad and > disjointed. I feel those unfamiliar with our history and culture may have > had a hard time putting it all together. I liked much of the material, but > feel it could have been tied together and connected in a simpler, more > satisfying way. Much of the show was very moving. The 800 or so performers > did well. What a major effort from all involved. In many ways it was > impressive and inspirational. > > Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:27:57 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Orson Scott CARD, _Rebekah_ (Review) REBEKAH by Orson Scott Card 2001, Shadow Mountain Hard cover, 413 pages ISBN 1-57008-995-7 $22.95 "Insight, But Into Whom?" reviewed by D. Michael Martindale Long known for his science fiction and fantasy stories, with some branching out into horror and a notable historical fiction novel, Orson Scott Card is now making a significant dent in the Biblical fiction category--specifically the Old Testament. Beginning with _Stone Tables_, a novel about Moses, he has continued on with a series known as "Women of Genesis." His first book in the series was titled _Sarah_, after the wife of the patriarch Abraham. His second book, the one we are addressing now, is _Rebekah_, the wife of the son of Abraham, the second in line of the patriarch. Presumably the third book will be about one of the wives of Jacob, probably Rachel? These books about giant figures in Old Testament history are fascinating studies of bigger-than-life legends. Who doesn't remember hearing the stories of Moses, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah in Sunday school? Card brings these virtually mythical figures back down to earth where we can see them with the clarity of the person next door. He untangles the ambiguities of actions and occurrences that are hard for us to understand today, making them seem like perfectly reasonable events. The only problem is, the Biblical record is so devoid of the details necessary to accomplish these things, Card is obliged to resort to his primary novelist tool, which he has long wielded with the skill of a master--his towering imagination. Most of the details are filled in by Card himself, speculating on motives, feelings, and actual behavior of individuals that are more icon to us than flesh. The result is inevitably a mixture of fascinating conjecture and almost-unsettling deflation of sacred heroes. The protagonists of the Old Testament suddenly become card-carrying Card characters with all the earthiness and smart-mouthed banter that that involves. _Rebekah_ falls into this pattern without a glitch. The book is divided into five parts. Not until the third part--page 145 of a 413 page book--does Card begin to intersect with the Biblical record at all. Everything up to that point establishes the backstory of Rebekah, all the past experiences needed to explain the part of her history we do have. Card uses all the plot development skills he knows to fill in a sizeable period in her life that is a complete fabrication. He then meshes this in with the sparse information the Bible provides, embellishing his way through the paltry three chapters the Old Testament spends describing Isaac's life, and comes up with a portrait of Rebekah, Isaac, and their sons Esau and Jacob, that is fascinating to read, imaginative in its detail, and self- consistent in its speculation. The book begins with Rebekah's life in the tents of her father Bethuel, who, in Card's world, is deaf. We meet her brother Laban, the future marriage-nemesis of her future son Jacob, who is now just a barely-grown lad. In addition to the embellishment of a deaf father, Rebekah also has a mentally-challenged nurse and an absent mother who suddenly reappears in an entertaining way that also acts as a foreshadowing of events in the presumed book to come. Rebekah develops a veil fetish for unusual reasons, as if Card thought her use of a veil over her face when she first meets Isaac is a special event that needs explaining, and not a common Mideastern custom. As Rebekah blends in with the Abrahamic family, we get an innovative characterization of Isaac, one that I never saw in the scriptural record, but one that Card no doubt felt was a reasonable extrapolation from the information available. We also get a thoroughly fleshed-out portrait of the feuding brothers Jacob and Esau, which feels much more justified by the scriptures. But as things develop, and as one begins to get the urge to strangle this particular Isaac, or beat a little sense into his head, we find one more curious thing happen under the control of the magic fingers of Card. As Rebekah and Jacob conspire to wrest the birthright from the technically deserving, but completely unworthy Esau, we witness one of the greatest whitewashings of a Biblical figure since Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber painted Judas Iscariot as the good guy. The book ends at a natural climax in the life of Rebekah, but for some reason Card feels a great urgency to wrap things up. The denouement feels rushed, as if Card had contracted for a maximum number of words. Or maybe the too neatly tied-up ending was embarrassing for Card, and he just wanted to hurry and get it done, hoping we would blink and not notice. There wasn't much else Card could do about all the fictionalizing. The information available to him was spotty at best. To conjure up a novel about Rebekah, he had no choice but to embellish on the facts. He did so with the assurance and abandon of an accomplished and award-winning novelist. He drew upon his science fiction skills and set the ground rules for his religious world, which he adhered to religiously. He provided _a_ possible explanation that accounts for all the data we do have, one possible explanation out of many. Without reservation, I can say that _Rebekah_ is enjoyable to read, like a science fiction book by Card always is: to see what clever thing he will think of next as he tells an engrossing story of characters we come to care about. But if you're looking for insights into one of the figures in the Old Testament, look elsewhere. One comes away feeling like one has gained much more insight about Orson Scott Card and his colorful imagination than about Isaac, the placeholder patriarch, and his miraculously provided and impregnated wife. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:41:51 -0700 From: James Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Race Issues in Mormonism Ethan makes a good point. It appears to be a given that the added responsibility of the priesthood is a thing universally desirable, and that therefore anyone who died without it was somehow harmed. I've read lots of different theories about this issue and I don't really hold with any of it. Guesses are not facts, though we can second-guess the reasons as much as we want. Since there is nothing from Brigham Young citing the specific theological reason for the ban, and there is nothing in the Doctrine in covenants explicitly creating it, we can speculate with the greatest of ease. The fact that old-fashioned racism was a universal of every people ought not to cause anybody any guilt. What are you supposed to do about it? Get a time machine and go shoot them all? It'd be an awfully long list, and the old theories of race wouldn't allow for any slack. Read Swift's "A Modest Proposal" to get a clue about racism. This is between the English and Irish! The English and the French considered each other as different races. The Picts and the Scots in Scotland were different Races. How about Latins and Etruscans? You see my point. As the world grew racism grew. The Vikings thought that Africans had been burned black by the Sun. When a few black slaves were brought to England in the middle ages they were considered demons by English peasants. If Brigham Young was a prophet then he, and God, had reasons for the ban. What they were we do not know, but unless Brigham Young was NOT a prophet they were legitimate. He could make mistakes like anyone else, and the possibility exists that this was one, that perhaps got blown out of proportion later. That said, if it was racist on his part, in the true sense, then he could not have been a prophet. That would make his successors suspect as well. Most Mormons don't agree with the Catholic belief that the apostolic office can survive and be passed on by a man like say...John XII. I certainly don't believe that it could. So if President Hinkley is a prophet, then so was Brigham Young. And so was Spencer W. Kimball, and since he revealed by revelation that the ban was ended, well, the rest follows. It wasn't a mistake, but God chose for His own reasons not to explain. Any one of us could learn the truth, naturally, but probably He wouldn't allow any one of us to write it either. Fact is, I don't really understand--I was ten when the ban was lifted, and I didn't even know that there WAS a ban to be lifted. I did know I had been in the same room with President Kimball and I could feel him from two hundred feet away, and that was enough for me. I don't say give up the quest for knowledge...ever, for any reason, but that doesn't mean that once gained the knowledge can be shared. Some things are truly time-sensitive. There's racism left around, sure's sure, but don't look too harshly at the mirror unless you really do share this pernicious wickedness. Deeds are made by beliefs, and if deeds define the man (or woman), then beliefs do too. I don't see that the deeds of the Church have been much harmed by the former ban. The Church never advocated slavery, burning crosses, lynching people, burning houses or churches or Jim Crow laws. Keep it in perspective. Our forebears were victims of the same kind of mobs as the folks in Rosewood. Don't go crazy with "collective" guilt. There's not that much to be guilty for. So long as every form of collectivism lasts, the world going to be in big trouble, but eventually things will change and we'll get to know the truth of all of it. I don't want to wait, but if I have to, I have to. No sense getting bent out of shape about it. Jim Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #613 ******************************