From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #659 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, March 26 2002 Volume 01 : Number 659 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:29:26 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] _Death of a Salesman_ A man is not a piece of fruit. Attention must be paid! - ---- Thom Duncan The Nauvoo Theatrical Society "Mormon artists exploring Mormon life through theatre" - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:33:29 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS at the Academy Awards > Although Latter-day Saints have been nominated for and won > many Oscars in past years, there weren't any nominated for > Academy Awards this year. But there were some notable Mormon > moments at this year's BIG event (24 March 2002). For > example, Denzel Washington took home the Best Actor Academy > Award for his villianous turn in "Training Day." In this > movie Denzel calls his rookie partner (Ethan Hawke) a > "Mormon" for refusing to use illegal drugs. Saw the movie the day before the Oscars. Denzel turns to Hawke and says, "What are you? A Mormon? A Jesus Freak?" Thom P.S. Denzel rocked, btw. He turned in an amazing performance. Well written, to, IMO. I have to admit to not knowing up until the end whether he was really a bad guy or a good guy acting that way. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:04:37 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] KKK, Authority, and Church Courts [MOD: I would like to start with a request that we all be exceedingly careful in how we treat this topic. I'll quote the most directly connected AML-List guideline below: A post may be bumbed: If it *veers too far into Church doctrine, policy, or the opinions of the General Authorities.* It may be appropriate to discuss these in relation to specific literary works, market conditions, etc., but when the conversation turns to establishing just what those doctrines and opinions are, or whether you think they're justified, that discussion belongs on another list. It is never appropriate to attack or belittle the religious beliefs of another, or to use religious beliefs to condemn or suppress the opinions of another. Back to the moderator: I can't deny that this is a topic with literary connections (church courts are, among other things, fodder for a number of stories). And experiences that AML-List members have had in this connection may very well be relevant to the conversation. But we need to be very careful not to violate confidentiality, nor to get into a discussion of whether specific policies are justified, nor to criticize the experiences of others. In short, try to respect the opinions and experiences of others, and try not to stray too far off-topic.] - ---Original Message From: Cathy Wilson > If you've ever been in on a so-called "court of love," you > may have had a first-row seat into how these attitudes may > still prevail. I know a very faithful brother who has refused > callings to be a bishop because he says he cannot participate > in an excommunication. In many cases, the person being tried > needs help! right away! and not punishment. Of course that is > not universal, but even in cases where the offender has the > potential to hurt others, the last thing he or she may need > is to be punished. And in most cases, excommunication or > disfellowshipment and similar outcomes are experienced by the > person to be a punishment. Perhaps we think that the person > receives support and an outpouring of love aftewards. . .but > our leftover KKK attitudes make that not very real. You're in > or you're out; you're good or you're bad; you're one of us, > or brother you're not. Are you seriously equating a Bishop's Court (I've never, until now, heard it referred to as a "court of love") with the KKK? I served for two years as a Ward Clerk and it was my job to take notes at a number of "trials". I state with confidence that the Spirit attended every court that I did and love was *always* the over-riding concern--in *every* case. In the half-dozen or so courts I attended, not one resulted in an excommunication, but if that had been the decision, I would have had no trouble supporting it. The one and only church court decision I have disagreed with so far is the court that let my Grandfather off with a lousy six month disfellowshipment. He was a man who molested pretty much every young girl put in his circle of influence--even while he served on the Stake High Council. As a result of that truly poor "sentence", I saw a family torn apart, a huge loss of faith and respect for the church, and subsequent wounds that never truly healed because the repentance process was so obviously inadequate. Sure, he needed help, even right away, but he wasn't interested in getting any. In that case, the court should have taken its purpose seriously--to protect the church, the innocents, and help the person realize the seriousness of their offense. We are currently, in my ward, working with a member who has been excommunicated. I have no idea why, but I can tell you that he *is* receiving support and an outpouring of love. Our love for him is very real and has nothing to do whatsoever with authoritarianism or any link to leftover KKK attitudes. Repentance is *hard* and excommunication is harsh, but sometimes, hard things are needed and harsh measures are necessary for people to grow. A Bishop's Court has a very serious stewardship that will one day have to answer to God. Sometimes, the judgement of God involves punishment. I agree that personal vengeance has no place there. But sometimes, people need to be cut off. Imagine the hell we'd catch if we didn't excommunicate polygamists, for one. And there *are* people in this world who mean to do us active harm. It's rare, but it happens. So far, I've never known of a case where someone truly repentant was refused re-admission. If someone wants back, the doors are open, and forgiveness and our support are readily available. I regret when people have bad personal experiences where things don't work the way that they should. But those cases, though regrettable, are rare--and in my experience, err on the side of compassion. > I guess I'm on the rampage on this topic because in my > freshman English class (comprised of 3/4 men, for some odd > and unknown reason, and half of them returned missionaries) > we had a discussion on these topics last Friday. It was very > strange. In their heads, intellectually, they were all for > equality, gentleness, acceptance. But in their hearts, when > it came down to not getting their way or to dealing with > someone who was perceived as disobedient to the "rules," they > were very judgmental and intolerant indeed. Isn't this evaluation itself judgmental and intolerant? You've characterized an entire class (and by extension all male members) based on a single classroom discussion. I wasn't there so I can't speak to the accuracy of your evaluation, but if you can feel justified in characterizing your class, why can't a Bishop's Court (who have been called by God for the purpose) feel justified in evaluating the worthiness of a member? > And you could see > them fighting themselves over it! It was very fragmented > indeed. I can only imagine that this is because we still > embrace, in many ways, those pervasive attitudes of earlier times. Okay, assume that we do share traits with people from the past. Let's say that we even share characteristics attributed to the KKK. That doesn't automatically mean that those attitudes are wrong. The KKK is an example of a male hierarchy with secret ceremonies that was oppressive, even evil. That does not mean that all male hierarchies with secret ceremonies are inherently oppressive or evil. Dividing people into them and us can be very harmful and separating ourselves from people is often inappropriate. But that doesn't mean that all divisions are harmful--after all, the ordinance of baptism is a deliberate separation from others when we take upon ourselves the name of Christ. There *are* times when a line needs to be drawn and one side called good and the other called bad (the side can be called bad, the people on that side might or might not be bad and judgement is best reserved). People who disobey a set of rules will sometimes find themselves separated from those who obey the rules. That isn't harsh, it's just cause and effect. If someone wants to yell obscenities in church, he will find himself separated from my Sacrament Meeting. He may be a great guy, someone I'd like to know. He may even be destined for the Celestial Kingdom. But right then, right there, he doesn't belong next to me in Sacrament Meeting and I won't feel bad taking steps to remove him. People who have snuck into a play deserve to be separated from people enjoying the play. Separating them isn't judgmental or intolerant--it is only fair to the others who belong in that place at that time. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:55:37 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS at the Academy Awards Thanks for this update on LDS connections to the Oscars. =20 I'm terribly afraid that I mostly watch the Oscars for the most ignoble = and unworthy reasons: I like watching rich and famous people make public = spectacles of themselves. Gwyneth Paltrow (the dress!), Halle Berry (the = acceptance speech!) and Julia Roberts (the black pantsuit from which, for = no apparent reason, large chunks of fabric had been scissored out, plus = tackling Denzel and NOT LETTING GO), did not disappoint. Of course, A = Beautiful Invented Mind won Best Picture, and it deserved it; unlike most = years, a case can actually be made for it being the fourteenth best movie = of the year, and so it winning is better than what usually happens. (Of = course, Lord of the Rings actually was the best picture of the year, and = of course it had no chance of actually winning). All the nominated songs = were mediocre, except for that goshawful ballad from Pearl Harbor, so why = not let Randy Newman win for once--that was a nice moment, I thought. = Whoopie was tacky, and only occasionally funny. Ron Howard looks = gruesome, like a desiccated corpse of what once was Opie Taylor. Oh, = wait, he is a desiccated corpse of what once was Opie Taylor. But he's = apparently a nice guy, and so I'm happy for him. But far and away the = best thing that happened all night was Will Smith and wife ditching the = Oscars for a really superb reason; they had a sick child at home. Denzel = got the hardware, and that's as it should be. But Will Smith showed us = all what he's really made of. It does occur to me there's a direct correlation between Hollywood success = and marriage success. Without getting all Medvedian and ad hominem about = it, Denzel is happily wed, in a marriage of long standing, and he's also = been an enduring star, with a string of superb performances in difficult = roles. Tom Hanks, ditto. Mel Gibson, ditto. Kevin Costner, not so much. = I give Tom Cruise three more years on top, max. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:14:42 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] News Story: White Supremacists in Utah? I think it might be worth pointing out one little tiny thing, in addition = to Rob Lauer's excellent post. I've read several books about these = groups, and there's something most of them have in common: their founders = started off as members of the John Birch Society. In my present ward, there are several families who belong to the Birch = society, and my wife and I are constantly (at least weekly) invited to = attend meetings. We've been very quiet about our political views, and so = are perceived as potential allies, I think. I just feel that, as gospel = doctrine teacher, it's inappropriate for me to make my political opinions = public; I think I should keep my political views and my Church calling = separate. But it's getting more difficult; I'm a Democratic precinct = captain, and I'm going to need to do some polling in my neighborhood, = which also, of course, means my ward. I want to be careful about how I say this, and I trust that Jonathan will = keep my post from straying from List guidelines, because, of course, many = of you on the List may be Birch sympathizers, and the people in my ward = who are Birchers are lovely people, and some of them are good friends. = But it is true: many of these white supremicists, including the group at = Elohim City, the Robert Millar group, the ones in Idaho, the Bo Gritz = people, a lot of 'em, started off as Birchers (as did McVeigh), and then = went further right, into Klan Christian ideologies. I don't have my = sources right here in front of me, but it is in fact true; there's a real = connection. And of course, there are considerable Mormon connections to = the Birch Society, including President Benson's membership in the Society. = =20 Now, I do not mean to imply that good members of the Church who are also = sympathetic to the ideas of the John Birch society are all racists, or are = all Klansmen. I am also, of course, politically liberal, and I oppose = politically almost everything the Birch Society stands for. So for me, = it's a very short and easy step to surmize that this white supremacist = group may well find sympathizers in Utah (which may not be true, and which = I hope very much isn't true). It's certainly a connection I'm interested = in in my own writing; I'm a very political playwright. But so far I = haven't dealt with Birchers, because they seem to me too easy a target, = too easily demonized, which wouldn't make for very good drama. Still, = it's a fertile subject area to explore dramatically, and I may well get = around to it one day. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:35:31 -0700 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Update On Our Son Great idea! I had a hard/miraculous experience with my son last Sunday. I have sometimes been desperate to share experiences and get help from someone who won't explain my son's problems or oppositional behavior by telling me I shouldn't be writing books, or that "no success can compensate for failure in the home." I'll bet there are a number of us women--and maybe even some men--who would love to just talk about our struggles as parents. Gae Lyn Henderson wrote: > > Nor do I want to broadcast my own stories and struggles. But if I were in a > small group setting and I knew I could trust everyone involved and that > there was no possibility of private information being forwarded to people > who have no need to know, it would be very therapeutic and helpful to > discuss many things! - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:54:02 -0500 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN LDS Actress Laraine Day's "The Locket" at library film series March 28: BYU Press Release 23Mar02 US UT Prov A2 LDS Actress Laraine Day's "The Locket" at library film series March 28 PROVO, UTAH -- The Special Collections Motion Pictures Archives Film Series at Brigham Young University will show "The Locket" on Thursday (March 28) at 7 p.m. in the Harold B. Lee Library Auditorium. The free showing of "The Locket," a 1940s psychological murder mystery starring Utah-born actress Laraine Day, is open to all who would like to attend. No food or drink will be permitted in the auditorium. "The exceptional range of talent of Laraine Day is ably demonstrated in 'The Locket,'" said James D'Arc, curator and director of the film series. "She was compelled by her character in the film to act as a very different person depending on the man she was with and how much they knew about her past. It is a bravura performance." The 1946 thriller, directed by John Brahm and co-starring Brian Aherne and Robert Mitchum, involves an unusual story. Day, born Laraine Johnson in Roosevelt, UT, plays the part of a woman who, as a young girl, was psychologically harmed by accusations that she had stolen a valuable locket while in the house of her mother's wealthy employer. The film unravels her secrets even as she tries to keep them from the men in her life. Day, who began acting in films in the late 1930s at age 22 as nurse Mary Lamont in the highly successful "Dr. Kildare" series at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and later co-starred in major films with Gary Cooper, John Wayne, Joel McCrea, said, "'The Locket' is my favorite film. Many movie fans seem to remember me best from the 'Dr. Kildare' series, but first and foremost I remember 'The Locket.'" The film print of "The Locket" is from the Laraine Day Papers, part of the L. Tom Perry Special Collections holdings of papers of prominent motion picture actors, directors and film musicians. The papers, scripts, scrapbook, memorabilia and motion pictures comprising the Laraine Day Papers were donated to BYU by Day in 1985. -###- Source: Laraine Day's "The Locket" at library film series March 28 BYU Press Release 18Mar02 US UT Prov A2 http://www.byu.edu/news/releases/Mar/locket.htm >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put one of the following commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:58:03 -0500 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: BYU Settles Copyright (MN News Briefs: Kent Larsen 25Mar02 US NY NYC X1) BYU Settles Former Employee's Copyright Claim PROVO, UTAH -- BYU has settled a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by a former student and employee, paying Sallie Larsen $8,000 and agreeing to "refrain from broadcasting, displaying, performing and/or otherwise using Traditions Showcase . . . unless they obtain Ms. Larsen's prior express written consent." Larsen began writing Traditions Showcase before she was hired in the school's Department of Student Life, and allowed the one-hour multimedia presentation to be used by BYU between 1992 and 1997. She advised BYU officials in 1997 that she had a copyright on the work, but the school went ahead and used it during a student orientation in August 1998 without permission. The work was honored in 1995 with a Most Innovative Program Award from the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Larsen's lawyer, Frank Call, says his client was just trying to get what she is due, "She wasn't seeking to rake BYU over the coals; she's a very faithful member of the church. She just wanted them to recognize her copyright." Source: Former Employee Settles Theatrical Production Copyright Suit With BYU Salt Lake Tribune 22Mar02 US UT Prov A2 http://www.sltrib.com/03222002/utah/721614.htm By Michael Vigh: Salt Lake Tribune Ex-student settles Y. copyright suit Deseret News 22Mar02 US UT Prov A2 http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,380007691,00.html >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:55:40 -0500 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN BYU's Vocal Point Drops Out of National Competition on a Sunday: BYU Press Release 23Mar02 US UT Prov A3 BYU's Vocal Point Drops Out of National Competition on a Sunday PROVO, UTAH -- Brigham Young University has yet another trophy for it's ever-growing cabinet of accolades. Vocal Point, the university's premiere pop a cappella ensemble, earned a spot at the Finals of the International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella, scheduled for next month at New York City's Lincoln Center, signifying Vocal Point's status as one of the six best groups in the nation. But the group won't be going. Several months ago, 104 groups across the U.S. and Canada were selected to compete for the title. Since the finals were scheduled for a Monday night in late April, Vocal Point submitted their audition tape and fixed their sights on New York City. After the competition began, sponsors of the competition moved the finals to Sunday night, in hopes that a weekend night would draw a bigger crowd. Since there is a long-standing policy at BYU against participating in competitions on Sunday, the group had a choice to make. "We could either drop out of the competition altogether, or just see how far we could get," said Bob Ahlander, Vocal Point's faculty director and co-founder. "The guys talked about it together and ultimately they wanted to see if they had what it took to make it to the final round." At the beginning of February, the first round of competition had Vocal Point earning second place in their region, with a group from Stanford University placing first. Competition rules stipulate that the top two groups in the quarterfinal round advance to the next level, so Vocal Point was still in the running. With a small adjustment to their competition set and a break-neck performance schedule (the group did 17 performances in the month of February alone, singing at nearly every major venue for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games and a short out-of-state tour), Vocal Point was primed and ready for the next round. March came, and with it the semi-finals for the Western Region, held in California at Stanford University. "We weren't nervous or anything. We knew we wouldn't go to the Finals even if we won, so there was no pressure," remarks Ben Mason, the group's student music director. "We just went out and had a blast." The group gave a stellar performance and it paid off: First place for Vocal Point. Cheered on by a clearly impressed audience, the group accepted their trophies and made their way back to Utah the next day. The following Monday the group officially conceded their spot to the second place group, an ensemble from the University of Oregon. "It was the right decision," says Dave Gale, a Broadcasting major and Vocal Point's vocal percussionist. "We would love to go to New York, but it's a privilege to attend this great university and being one of the six best groups in the country is still a huge honor." The competition isn't the end of the road for Vocal Point. They still have their final concert of the year (historically a sell-out show to 1400 people) and will spend most of April in the recording studio working on a new CD. "It's been a great year," says Mason. "But next year, if the finals are on any night but Sunday, you can plan on seeing us in the lineup." ### Source: Award-Winning Group Won't Compromise BYU Press Release 20Mar02 US UT Prov A3 BYU's Vocal Point Earns National Recognition, but Won't Compete on Sunday >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:58:03 -0500 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: Orchestra Auditions (MN News Briefs: Kent Larsen 25Mar02 US NY NYC X Orchestra at Temple Square Holding Auditions SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- The Orchestra at Temple Square is seeking applications from those who wish to audition for places in the LDS Church-run group. Applications will be accepted for all instruments, but applicants must be LDS Church members in good standing who live in the Wasatch Front area and have considerable orchestral training and experience. Call (801) 240-4150 to request an application. Audition tapes and application forms are due by April 20th. Source: Orchestra schedules auditions Deseret News 24Mar02 US UT SLC A1 http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,380008000,00.html >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:22:29 -0800 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Update On Our Son Levi, I think that would be a wonderful idea. Let us know how we can help (or = if we are needed). Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA - -----Original Message----- From: Levi Peterson [mailto:althlevip@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 9:13 AM To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] Update On Our Son Thanks, Kathy, for letting us know that your son is doing well. The = spate of discussion about missionaries coming home early that followed your first message on this topic interested me greatly. I think we should get up a panel on the topic for the Sunstone symposium in Salt Lake. Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:48:37 -0700 From: "gae lyn henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Update On Our Son Kathy, I admire your son for being willing to share his experience and you also. I like to share. It helps me. I could use an on-line therapy group (any takers?). Maybe it could be a literary experience--as we learn to express our private angst in ways that others can relate to. But it so happens there are members of my family who are very private about such matters. And, there is almost a prescription again being too open at church. I frequently have people say to me after some of my comments in Sunday School or Relief Society, "you are so honest. I would never dare say that. You are saying what no one else will admit to," etc. So Kathy, I think you and I are alike and I don't mean to make you feel uncomfortable. I frankly think that being open about things would help a lot of us. My son has been home about 10 days from his mission and is having the perhaps usual difficulty in adjusting to life at home. He said the other day, "look at all those temples. I thought I was coming home to Zion"--in reference to several family problems that he was become aware of since returning. Gae Lyn - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 14:35:32 -0700 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] KKK, Authority, and Church Courts I wasn't going to respond to this. (I forwarded it to my husband, who has experience as a member of a stake presidency with DISCIPLINARY COUNSELS (no longer referred to as Church courts. And by the way, list member Tyler Moulton is now a member of our stake's High Council. He will understand this discussion in a new way before too long.) However, Jacob is making a few assumptions I can't quite let go. First off, without going into ANY detail, let me just say that Cathy Wilson has a life of experience which transcends a single classroom discussion. Not a good idea to judge her based on the assumption that she's reacting merely to what was said in her class. I DO know Cathy and have some sense of what she's gone through in her life. Maybe that's why I trust her insights so much. I know her to be good, wise, and remarkably compassionate--especially given some very difficult circumstances. Without specifying anything (but nonetheless providing a literary link), there is a reason Cathy appreciates my novel _Salvador_ and understands it in ways few others do. > Okay, assume that we do share traits with people from the past. Let's > say that we even share characteristics attributed to the KKK. That > doesn't automatically mean that those attitudes are wrong. Excuse me? Having spent some time researching the KKK, I reject it WHOLESALE in its every aspect and attitude, most especially in its self-deception. It is tyrannical, ruthless, and antithetical to the very thing it purports to signify: True Christianity. On the other hand, A DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL includes provisions for the defense as well as the "prosecution" of someone accused of a wrongdoing grave enough to require that he or she (though "she" will only go to the Bishop's counsel) be brought in to account for the "curse" (literally "separation") they may be bringing upon themselves. The term "disciplinary counsel" itself suggests the ideal: The one being "disciplined" is actually having his discipleship tried. Is the person still a disciple of Christ, or has some "curse" (separation from God) caused a denial of his/ her faith? Is that denial so serious that they must be called to a specific kind of repentence in what was referred to all during my growing up years as "a court of love"? (The phrase came from a talk given in General Conference--I believe by Boyd K. Packer, though I may be wrong.) > The KKK is > an example of a male hierarchy with secret ceremonies that was > oppressive, even evil. That does not mean that all male hierarchies > with secret ceremonies are inherently oppressive or evil. Dividing > people into them and us can be very harmful and separating ourselves > from people is often inappropriate. But that doesn't mean that all > divisions are harmful--after all, the ordinance of baptism is a > deliberate separation from others when we take upon ourselves the name > of Christ. Interesting concept, though not what I think of when I think of baptism. The scriptures seem to refer to a UNION, not a separation. Obviously, separation from "the world" is implied, but the people of Alma were invited to "Comfort those in need of comfort, mourn with those that mourn, and stand as witnesses of Christ" etc. From the time of the resurrection, that particular "separation" invited the Christians to go into all the world as comforters, bringing the good news of Jesus Christ's mission and message. If we think of baptism as our separation from our brothers and sisters, rather than our recognition of how deep our unity with them goes and how serious our responsibility towards them ALL--regardless of their religion, race, gender, or wealth--is, we are likely to build either a tower of babble or a great Rameumptom. > There *are* times when a line needs to be drawn and one side > called good and the other called bad (the side can be called bad, the > people on that side might or might not be bad and judgement is best > reserved). People who disobey a set of rules will sometimes find > themselves separated from those who obey the rules. That isn't harsh, > it's just cause and effect. If someone wants to yell obscenities in > church, he will find himself separated from my Sacrament Meeting. He > may be a great guy, someone I'd like to know. He may even be destined > for the Celestial Kingdom. But right then, right there, he doesn't > belong next to me in Sacrament Meeting and I won't feel bad taking steps > to remove him. People who have snuck into a play deserve to be > separated from people enjoying the play. Separating them isn't > judgmental or intolerant--it is only fair to the others who belong in > that place at that time. Yes, but be very careful. The moment we declare ourselves "worthy" and another "unworthy" we are on very unstable ground. Even now, our Church leaders are nervous about our referring to ourselves as "members" and others as "non members" or of our saying we "belong" while another doesn't. In fact, separating them IS judgmental. That's why a bishop is called a "judge in Israel." But when WE presume to judge and separate ourselves from someone who appears not to "belong," we're inviting like judgement on ourselves. I'm not willing to go there. And I get extremely nervous when anyone in my ward or stake refers to a specific disciplinary counsel or publically states that they "fully support" the excommunication of whomever. I have utter respect for the privacy of those involved. I do not ask my husband questions about those particular meetings, and I would be stunned if he EVER told me the specifics of any "case". [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 14:31:12 -0800 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Update On Our Son Gae Lyn, One thing Kathy and I have learned over the years is to be a support to = each other and any friend we find along the way. Since joining the AML = list we have found a wealth of experience and people who we can share = experience with (friends) as well as share the load and "morn with those = who mourn", etc. Sometimes being open helps us to give up the burden no = matter how difficult we think it is. I can't imagine what Bishops go = through in the five years of their calling. I really feel sorry for = those called as Bishops and then Stake Presidencies, etc. Just so you know from my experiences many missionaries when they come = home are hoping (WISHING) their family has grown in spiritual stature = comparable to theirs. Families do grow in various ways but not usually = to the magnitude the young man or woman does (at least not in their = judgment). That is when you need to lovingly sit down with them as a = father or mother and teach them (with the Spirit of the Holy Ghost = present) the principles of humility, judging (being judgmental), and = setting a good example as well as them being a help (lovingly teach) the = family how to get up to the next spiritual level rather than looking = down and saying: "What is wrong with you people?!"=20 Gae Lyn wrote: "I like to share. It helps me. I could use an on-line therapy=20 group (any takers?). Maybe it could be a literary experience--as=20 we learn to express our private angst in ways that others can=20 relate to." Sharing helps me as well. It was suggested that I write about my = experiences during and before and after my mission with Social Anxiety = Disorder as well as possibly include some of my son's experiences. I = have been working on this and it is very therapeutic. It will also be a = great help to my son when he understands that this is something you can = survive and work through to a point of being capable of enduring and = being valiant. My son and I are working at our own pace but it very = interesting for my wife to observe. Having lived with a husband who you = thought was a flake for so long (22 1/2 years) and then realizing there = really was something wrong (I thought I was a flake as well) is a very = interesting experience. It is amazing what you learn in talking to = others as well as prayerfully reading and studying.=20 I do not know how to set up on-line (therapy) groups but if anyone wants = to set one up that would be more private than the whole list we would be = glad to join and lend an ear and give opinions. My wife has accused me = of being an unlicensed therapist more times than I can count because I = have been the shoulder to lean on so many many times. My personal = opinion is that is what we need to do in order to truly become a Zion = society. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:49:15 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] Sharing Experiences (was: Update on Our Son_ - ---Original Message From: gae lyn henderson > I like to share. It helps me. I could use an on-line therapy > group (any takers?). Maybe it could be a literary experience--as > we learn to express our private angst in ways that others can > relate to. But it so happens there are members of my family who > are very private about such matters. > > And, there is almost a prescription again being too open at > church. I frequently have people say to me after some of my > comments in Sunday School or Relief Society, "you are so honest. > I would never dare say that. You are saying what no one else will > admit to," etc. I see that, too. I wonder why that reticence exists? I don't find it very useful. Is there a fear of judgment, do you think? I can think of two factors that might make sense: 1-It is scary disclosing personal things to people you will have to live with for a very long time. This is naturally uncomfortable because once said, a thing cannot be unsaid. That makes for a hard boundary to cross, particularly if you are "risk-averse". Since most members are by nature risk-averse, I can see how sharing might appear very daring. It isn't so hard if you know the people intimately or in a setting that has an assumption of confidentiality. Given an open classroom and people you will live with for the foreseeable future, though, I can see how it would be difficult to open up. 2-Trust. We don't often know all the members of even a small Sunday School class well enough to know that they won't hold what we say against us. Even speaking of trials overcome in our past can carry burdens and trigger assumptions that might be used against us, somehow. I find this fear interesting because it flies counter to the gospel message we teach. It's kind of an indication that we don't *really* believe what we tell ourselves. We preach forgiveness and love, but we fear judgment and scorn. It's a form of the prisoner's dilemma because we have to rely on people we don't know well to uphold an implied, but unspecified, contract. We *hope* that all present live up to their obligations as followers of Christ to show love and compassion. But sometimes that hope doesn't offset our fear that sharing our pain will be rebuffed in a way that will only open wounds wider. I don't know how to change either of those factors, but I think it is worthwhile to try. One way is to have someone who is less risk-averse open themselves and then let all witness the consequences--or hopefully, lack thereof. If someone tells us that we are saying things that no one else will admit to, then we should take the time to point out that the results of doing so were, in effect, benign and that the fear is unjustified. That has been my experience, so far, so it is something I'm willing to attest. In a culture so focused on testimony, I hope that that small nudge will have an exaggerated affect. There is a third factor that I think bears on this topic as well. Unlike the other two, I think it has a grain of validity to it. There is a belief that admitting to something bad and showing a recovery (or even just coping well) will encourage that behavior in others. For example, If you admit to prior drug use and are now a member in good standing, the fear is that others will see your experience as a way to justify their own sin. After all, if you could recover, certainly they can as well. I think that is a valid concern depending on audience. Of particular concern is the effect on youth over whom we hold some authority. A confessional experience in that circumstance a) undermines your credibility as someone who makes rules they must obey and b) gives them a false perspective of sin--false because youth are notoriously bad at understanding the pain, damage, and ramifications of poor choices. Because they don't understand serious repentance, and because they didn't know you "back when", they don't have any way to relate to your passage from the person you were to become the person you are. > So Kathy, I think you and I are alike and I don't mean to make you > feel uncomfortable. I frankly think that being open about things > would help a lot of us. I agree. I think it would help us to understand each other and build tolerance of our faults if we had a little more practice. It's a matter of communication. Right now, many of us prefer to expend our efforts on communicating that all is well and presenting a message that we are self-sufficient and happy. If we would take that effort and instead try communicating who we are, what we need, and what we offer others, we would be much better off as individuals and as a church. It *is* a risk, though, and there will be failures. Some people will open up and end up hurt. Some of those failures will be made public. But like freedom under the rule of law, transparency under the rule of God will have many more successes than failures. At least, that's my belief. > My son has been home about 10 days from his mission and is having > the perhaps usual difficulty in adjusting to life at home. He > said the other day, "look at all those temples. I thought I was > coming home to Zion"--in reference to several family problems > that he was become aware of since returning. Yeah, that's part of growing up, though. You become aware of things that are going on that you missed while you were still the center of the Universe. It makes some people jaded and cynical because you become aware of the struggles of people you once thought pretty solid. Personally, I think that's how we have the periodic "Lost Generation" that seems to happen about every forty years or so. It's tempting to believe that we've discovered that our heritage is flawed and that we have inherited nothing but lies. Which leads to people who either leave in disgust or discover our humanity and love. We have problems. Those who lived in our past had problems. We struggle. Sometimes we overcome. It is never easy, even when it looks that way from the outside. But the gospel is true and the struggle is worth it--worthy of people choosing to fight by the side of God. God chooses to build Zion with flawed people. The beauty is that it all works, anyway. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #659 ******************************