From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #675 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, April 11 2002 Volume 01 : Number 675 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 02:44:13 -0400 From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: RE: [AML] Blogging Jacob Proffitt wrote: >I've become a great fan of blogging, or at least, of a few select blogs >that I follow. Blogging is at least one effective answer to what I >consider the greatest challenge of the internet. Since everyone *can* >be published, the current problem isn't content (as was assumed by many >traditional media outlets for quite some time). The big problem these >days (and the value if you can provide it) is in editorial evaluation, >filtration, and presentation. I think that the media was more afraid that ubiquitous amateur content might make traditional media irrelevent precisely because they didn't think of the filtration issue. A little over seven years ago, Virginia Postrel pointed out that the information age doesn't make editors irrelevant -- in fact, this is the age of the editor because there's too much stuff out there for everyone to sift through it all on their own. Finding someone who can direct you to the stuff that interests you is paramount. Here's an excerpt from a great speech Postrel gave on the subject: http://reason.com/speeches/AUSTIN.shtml [...] Most people don't want raw data. They want information, or knowledge, or perhaps even wisdom. They want someone else to take the time to sift through the data, to select what is true or interesting or important, and to tell them about it. And that is why the age of abundant media, the age in which the pipelines through which information flows become cheap and plentiful, is not the age of the atomized, individualized reader. It is the age of the editor. And the age of new media communitities. The interaction of editors and readers--or, to put it more broadly, producers and audiences--is creating powerful, overlapping communities with far different assumptions from those of the mass media. [...] Postrel also maintains a blog these days, which I check frequently: http://www.dynamist.com/scene.html Eric D. Dixon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 06:55:25 -0600 (MDT) From: Fred C Pinnegar Subject: Re: [AML] Arthur Henry King The question of Arthur Henry King?s reputation has exercised a number of people over the years since he first came among us, at the invitation of President Harold B. Lee, to be ?a sort of missionary in reverse at BYU.? Clark Goble says King ?gets promoted as a great scholar in LDS circles,? but he wonders about how non-LDS academics see him, especially since he doesn?t seem to have written very much and he is not often quoted in the critical literature. In response, Eric Samuelsen acknowledged that there are many people who regard King with ?great fondness,? but he himself could find little of worth in King?s collection of essays, Arm the Children. In many ways, King probably enjoys a greater reputation as a scholar among non-LDS than he does among us, for most of us knew him only as a teacher. BYU was a third career for King, who after a few years in Sweden (during WWII) as a professor of English and American Literature became an administrator in the British Council. His work there mostly involved the teaching of English as a second language, and he spent many years living in the Middle East. For his efforts he was decorated by Queen Elizabeth II, and made a member of the Order of the Garter, sometimes known as the Order of St. George. This, of course, means nothing to most Americans, but it was founded by Edward III about 1344, and it is the most ancient order of chivalry still surviving in Europe. G.B. Harrison tells us that it is a very exclusive order, consisting of only twenty-five members at one time, all being persons chosen for their distinguished service to the state. Because of his position and reputation, he became intimately acquainted with many of the great literary figures of the 20th century. He translated T.S. Eliot?s work into Swedish, knew Ezra Pound, and apparently was seated in a place of honor at the funerals of both. King?s critical methodology, which perplexed William Morris, is well-known to the hundreds of honors students (perhaps thousands) he taught over several decades at BYU. Sicio-linguistics calls for close textual analysis to understand the social context of discourse. Language reveals character. It is not the critical method I use in my work as a literary critic (I do cultural/gender studies), nor do many other current-fad-conscious literary critics use it. But it is relatively easy to teach to students from a variety of disciplines whose exposure to literary texts in school is limited, it requires a certain amount of intellectual rigor, and it is a method which works nicely on scripture as well. Just for the record, Arm the Children, published in his lifetime, was a revised and expanded edition of Abundance of the Heart, originally published by Bookcraft in 1986. That edition sold out, and I see that it is currently worth $30-40 in the used book market. Jack Welch, to his credit, took on the book for republication by BYU Studies out of love and appreciation for Arthur, and while there were some editing conflicts over the book and some regrettable design decisions, no apology needs to be made for its sales record. After all, as Samuelsen points out, the book is a thorough condemnation of pop culture, and what is more representative of pop culture than a best seller? I would put King?s hyperbole in the same category as Thoreau?s. Neither man had children, so they say some outrageous things about child rearing at times. Still, I know of a number of homes in which King?s precepts are taken seriously, and they are places of joy, beauty, harmony, and accomplishment. In addition, King?s hyperbole was also meant as a springboard for discussion, and his friends never hesitated to disagree with him, but as Edmund said to his brother, ?If you do stir abroad, go armed.? I like to think that I brought him to a more enlightened perception of hunting, but I know that he brought me to a greater appreciation of all living things, both plant and animal. There is no doubt that he was a little eccentric in his behavior some times?what foreigner does not stand out in American society, especially one who hates rock music and can?t stand to see us with our hand in our pockets or casually leaning against the walls of the temple, and was furthermore commanded by a prophet of God to teach us better? Still, he always fared poorly at the hands of street and academic thugs, but he took his beatings like a man and never complained. I asked him directly one time who were his enemies in the English Department at BYU who drove him into exile in the Philosophy Dept, and he said simply ?I don?t know.? I thought he was hiding the truth until I learned that embroidered in gold thread on the blue velvet of the garter is the motto Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense (Shame be to him who thinks evil). Never a student in his classroom, I came to know Arthur largely by editing his poetry, a selection of which is now available at the BYU Bookstore or directly through the AHK Foundation (801-225-5401). The title is Conversion: Poems of the Religious Life 1963-1994. For him, this poetry was a verse journal, intended as an outlet for his private meditations and frustrations. Over his lifetime he wrote over 1500 poems?about the same as Emily Dickinson, and in that work we see the same enigmatic figure who stares out of Florence?s canvas portrait in the HBL Library. Now, to return to the question of academic reputation. Certainly publication is important, and Arthur?s record is not a complete blank (see, for example, his late essay on Shakespeare and Goethe), but, just as students trace their epistemological genealogy and start of their reputation back to their professors, so too are professors known by their students. So as we look at people like Terry Warner, Gene England, Russ Osguthorpe, Perry Bratt, Jim Faulconer, Giles Florence, Gerritt Gong, Dan Graham, Cynthia Hallen, Lisa Hawkins, Stefinee Pinnegar, Dillon Inouye, Scott Loveless, Karen Maloney, Shiela McCleve, Dennis Packard, Marie Hafen, Camille and Richard Williams, John Tanner, Jeff Taylor, Donlu Thayer, Tom Hinckley, Bruce Young, Sterling and Marilee VanWagenen, and hundreds of others, and as we ask them to talk about the influence Arthur Henry King had on their professional work and academic reputation, we come to understand that something marvelous happened in their relationship with him which belies the common slander of ?King Arthur?s fan club.? If you can?t find anything in the standard bibliographies under Arthur?s name, try looking for him under the names of these people. Fred C. Pinnegar, Ph.D. GE and Honors, BYU President, AHK Foundation - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:07:32 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Sugar Beet in S.L. Trib The Sugar Beet made the front page in this morning's Salt Lake Trib. I really like the article, except I live in Provo, not SLC. This time Stephen Carter got pegged with the weird humor theology at the end, not me. Someone told me that the X-96 morning show picked up the story--one DJ said we're not funny unless you attend church every week, but another DJ said she thought we're funny. Let us know if the story spreads anywhere else, since the S.L. Trib is the ciy's newspaper of record from which local TV and radio stations build their news agendas. Mormons Get Gentle Ribbing From Within Wednesday, April 10, 2002 BY THOMAS BURR THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE CEDAR CITY -- The rocket-shaped Provo Temple blasts off into the heavens. A coffee-free Starbucks opens at Brigham Young University. Gladys Knight records "Midnight Train to Kolob." This is not your typical church news. In fact, it's not fact at all. The satirical snippets are from The Sugar Beet, an online newspaper that pokes fun at the unique culture surrounding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rather than a sneak attack from anti-Mormons, the Web site's good-natured jabs come from within. The Sugar Beet is of Mormons, by Mormons and for, primarily, Mormons. "Other people have made fun of us for years," says editor Todd Petersen, an English instructor at Southern Utah University in Cedar City. "So we thought, who understands us better than ourselves?" Since its debut in February, The Sugar Beet has quipped about a CTR patch that helps people kick caffeine, a collision involving LDS deacons administering the sacrament and a list of phrases that would not be heard at the church's general conference, such as "Waaaazup" and "Coca-Cola -- It's Beelzebubbly." For Petersen and a handful of staffers nationwide, The Sugar Beet is another testament that Mormons do, indeed, have a sense of humor. "There is a group of people out there who want to laugh, but are afraid because everyone else is so serious," Petersen says. "We just want to let some air out of the bubble." The admittedly irreverent Web site -- www.thesugarbeet.com -- is sort of a hybrid between the LDS Church's staunchly correct Ensign magazine and The Onion, a groundbreaking satirical Web site that lampoons the news. But Petersen stresses that The Sugar Beet does not target church doctrine or leaders. This LDS-style Onion is intended to bring snickers, not sneers or tears. Even so, associate editor Chris Bigelow concedes that the site probably will offend some. "We want to push the boundaries, but we don't want our bishops calling us in for interviews," says Bigelow, who lives in Salt Lake City. "We don't have any major agenda of reforming Mormonism. We're just looking for alternative ways to enjoy it." In other words, readers are asked to heed this creed: Thou shalt laugh at thyself. Or at least at fictional Latter-day Saints. The latest edition quotes made-up Mormons on what miracles they look forward to at the coming Nauvoo Temple dedication. "If God can light up rocks with his finger, maybe he can reach down and hook me up free cable," says one. "I'm really hoping that God will just call out, 'The Mormon Church is true, you idiots!' That would show my neighbors," adds another. Associate editor Stephen Carter, a graduate student at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, says Beet staffers are simply following the example of their Lord, who sometimes used jests in parables to send messages. "Jesus was a great satirist," Carter says. "So I guess if we're trying to be like Jesus, doing a bit of satire is one way to go about it." For Carter and his tongue-in-cheek colleagues, that's reason enough for the Beet to go on. tburr@sltrib.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 23:37:08 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit I don't understand why this is such an engrossing subject. The desire to declare "SSA" different from all other forms of temptation must be overpowering, but I don't believe this is the one area of human existence where freedom is non-existant. I certainly believe that some people have an ingrown desire for members of the same sex--perhaps chemical, perhaps hormonal, perhaps psychological, and (the least likely) perhaps even genetic. So what? I was told I had satyriasis when I was twelve years old. I've been worried about it ever since, but that doesn't let me off from my duties and obligations. I believe that it was misdiagnosed, and if I knew the name of that doctor I'd look him up and break both his legs, but the effect of his "diagnosis" has caused me all sorts of pain and unecessary suffering. The fact is, I may as well have been afflicted by satyriasis because I believed I was. Belief is the most powerful stuff on earth. Freedom is a belief--believe you're free to choose and you are, no matter what anybody else does. Liberty is absolute, unless a lie or a mistake convinces one otherwise. The reason so many people on earth knuckle under to tyranny is because they believe the can't win, that the gods ordained their misery, or something like. They could pull down their idiot hitler or stalis as easily as anything, but they don't believe in themselves and won't. Not can't--won't. SSA is no different. It wants to be, and everybody who feels those yearnings REALLY wants it to be. The fact is I don't see how God would make this an exception to the rule and then forbid it so explicitly and often. It's a staple of secret combinations down through history; though perhaps it is not always true. Maybe the Templars really never did anything of the sort. The fact is God did make some people incapable of controlling themselves. There are plenty of people who cannot grow up due to mental or physical diseases; God never said anything about cursing the guy who thinks he's Napoleon. He was a little more explicit about SSA in action. I've never smoked or drank alcohol or coffee or tea. My whole life I've lived the Word of Wisdom perfectly. Never even tempted to break it. Never even considered it. It's a family tradition and I'm not going to be the one to break it. Y'know what? It doesn't give me much pride. It's nothing all that difficult for me. It required very little effort and is after all down at the bottom of the list as far as commandments are concerned. I'm much more proud that I don't have twenty illegitimate kids wandering around. It required a great deal of effort and pain. The harder the struggle the greater the accomplishment. God doesn't demand perfection from us. Or He does, but knows we'll fail, so prepared a way out. If a man or woman is in the grip of SSA then I would call that a hard struggle. Not insurmountable, not impossible, merely exceedingly difficult. It is not the only exception. It's still the rule. A man is still supposed to cleave to a woman, that they two will become one flesh. That's how babies get made, and how can one learn to be a parent without ever being a parent? Sexual pleasure, or any other kind, is not the reason for existence. Man is made to mourn, because Adam fell. But he also fell so that we might have joy. Suffering is what makes joy possible. Anyone who expects to go through life without suffering is planning to live in the Telestial forever. There is also this comfort: "The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?" Don't scream too loudly--just remember that the more it hurts the closer it is to Christ's sacrifice. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:24:06 -0600 From: "Steve" Subject: Re: [AML] Advances (was: Bye Bye Oprah?) on 4/10/02 3:15 PM, Todd Petersen at petersent@suu.edu wrote: > Government money ruins art. Church money ruins art. What money doesn't? The money put by "the church" into the Sistine Chapel didn't fare too badly did it? :-) Steve - -- skperry@mac.com http://stevenkappperry.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:27:48 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Sanitized LDS History? Cathy, you may overstate the case. I wonder if folks aren't more resilient than what we give them credit for. Does anyone think David, or Paul, or any of the biblical leaders were perfect? Do we not have the example of David, a "man after God's own heart," who was guilty of very serious sins? "Sanitized history" is, in my opinion, a problem with leadership's lack of confidence in the laity. Just my opinion. - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com At 07:12 PM 4/10/02 +0000, you wrote: >A bottom-line question for this discussion, as we look at things in our >history >that we see as painful or misdirected or even wrong, is this: > >Can we remain believers in the face of mistakes, misapprehensions, even >sins of >our forbears? > >Sanitizing history seems to say that we can't. > >Cathy Wilson > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:38:22 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Sanitized LDS History? ___ Margaret ___ | Newell and Avery's_Emma Smith: Mormon Enigma_ was critically | acclaimed by LDS historians, but is very controversial today. ___ Controversial in what way? There were some creative reconstructions within it, but as I recall the author did try to point out that it was inferences and not a solid argument. (I admit that its been about 10 years since I read it though, so my memory may be faulty) So far as I know, polygamy history is controversial because we don't want others to think of us as polygamous. Further we want to discourage connection or support for apostate groups. All that is understandable. There is history as history (as in trying to reconstruct the past) and then history as a tool. Most church use of history is as a tool. That is true of the scriptures as well. I rather suspect, for instance, that had we records of the King Men in the Book of Mormon we'd have gotten a very different perspective on things. One doesn't need to read much history about biblical events to see that the Bible also leaves much out in the attempt to use history to make a point. However this isn't that unusual. Look at _A Dangerous Mind_. Much was "sanitized" to keep to the theme of a particular story. Further this modern notion of history as an "accurate representation" is a rather new and novel feature of history. Often, especially in the ancient world, the line between myth and history was blurry. Further the structures of narrative emphasized the general pattern (the mythic perspective) over the details which we emphasize. You can see this in the Book of Mormon where Mormon edits to fit his pattern of pride and fall and also to follow the typology of Isaiah. If any of you have read histories of Europe written in the 19th century, they certainly are eye opening. I remember one I found in a used bookstore which was a respected good history book. Yet it taught that the reason England ended up dominating over the Spainish, French and Portuguese were because they were papists. Just as we wouldn't read 17th century alchemy as if it were chemisty or 12th century astrology as if it were astronomy, we should be careful about reading old views on history as if they were modern views on history. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:24:55 -0700 From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Lund As soon as I heard Bro. Lund's name called as a GA I thought, "This proves there is a God and he's got a sense of humor." I know there's a number of people who don't like his writing or find it too simplistic, (many of them on the list). So I was amused thinking that now he's a GA he'll probably have much less time for writing and that will make some people very happy. :-) This is a good example of irony, because he might be sent to speak at your next stake conference. I don't have any particular feelings one way or the other as I've never read TW&TG series or possibly any of his other books, but I'm not sure. I just find the whole thing deliciously ironic and fuuny, not Bro. Lund himself. A little horn tooting: Believe me when I say this has not gone unoticed at The Sugarbeet and we couldn't be happier. News like this is a gift that keeps on giving. As for Tony wondering what's next; Bishop LaBute, didn't you read that he's already doing pass along cards in Hollywood? ;-) Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:31:18 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Sanitized LDS History? > A bottom-line question for this discussion, as we look at things in our history > that we see as painful or misdirected or even wrong, is this: > > Can we remain believers in the face of mistakes, misapprehensions, even sins of > our forbears? > > Sanitizing history seems to say that we can't. > THE biggest testimony attack I ever had was when I learned the "real" history of the Church. I've come to terms with all that after I was successful in doing a paradigm shift that involved me moving the foundation of my faith from its original leaders to its teachings. Once able to separate the "man from the message," I was no longer bothered when I learned of our less-than-always-Saintly past. I'm a different kind of Mormon now than I used to be. I'm no longer as easily motivated by calls from the leadership to do such-and-such, to believe this-that-and-the-other, to wear white shirts and ties while attending Church, or to believe that each and every call from my Bishop is the equivalent of receiving a personal call from the Lord himself. Others I know who have seen through our sanitized history have not been so lucky. They have come to realize that their testimonies were built on sand and weren't able to shift them over to the Rock (and I don't mean the wrestler). Was the sanitized history responsible for their leaving the Church? Obviously, the final decision to leave or stay in the Church is an individual one but the history issue certainly play a part in their decision, as it did in mine (I chose to continue faithful despite my misgivings). How many people would still be active in the Church today if they had never been fed the idea (as I was in Seminary) that Joseph Smith, by virtue of his prophethood, was also a perfect role model in every life situation? Would fewer testimonies have been shattered if, in our studies of Church history, we saw discussion on John Taylor's lament that his predecessor Brigham Young had so intertwined Church property with Young's own, that it was virtually impossible to know what belonged to the Young family and what belonged to the Church. Perhaps a better question is, "Would we have the current conversion numbers if we DIDN'T teach sanitized history?" One of the big draws to converts in France was that our Church, unlike that "other" church over there, had no skeletons in our closet. Our prophets had always taught the same doctrine, unlike the changing doctrine of the Catholic Church. Not that conversions in France in the late 60's was every that spectacular (our mission average was three converts per year per missionary) but I suspect there would have been much fewer if we had gone around saying, "Our leaders are just as human as yours but at least we have jello at our church dinners." I remain ambivalent on the subject of sanitized church history. One side of me longs for the day when we can call a spade a spade. The other half of me wonders if we would be anywhere near the vibrant, fast-growing church we are today if we stressed historical honesty. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:11:27 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Bye Bye Oprah? On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:28:37 -0600 "Todd Petersen" writes: > It seems like the implication here is that the only valuble > compensation is money, unless I've read that wrong. Surely there is > something more than cash to compensate a writer for their > labor--perhaps respect or renown. Maybe even the knowledge > that God is happy with you. Should the teacher or the policeman or the nurse or any other non-artist be just as content? I think I'll get several cards printed to hand out that say "Rather than compensate you for your work I offer you the knowledge that God is happy with you." If that doesn't satisfy them I suppose I could stand up and applaud. And still respect them in the morning. scott - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:35:38 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Bye Bye Oprah? Todd Petersen wrote: > It seems like the implication here is that the only valuble > compensation is money, unless I've read that wrong. Surely there is > something more than cash to compensate a writer for their labor--perhaps > respect or renown. Maybe even the knowledge that God is happy with you. But isn't this last thing what LDS publishers are reputed to offer? Isn't publication in the LDS faithful press proof that God loves your work, and mention in general conferenc ultimate proof of spiritual worth? Sorry for the flippant moment, but while I agree that there are a great many reasons to write (and pleasing God is, believe it or not, one of the many things I hope to accomplish with my own writing), I see one of the main reasons for publishing as earning money. Without filthy lucre, the artist is worthy only of a slow death by starvation or a wasting of talent doing some other task for subsistence rather than writing. We've gone around several times on this list about the impact of money on art, and I guess I remain unconvinced that money harms the development of art. Popular success has never been a fair barometer of quality, and big contracts only mean that a publisher believes they can move lots of copies, not edify the minds and spirits of readers. Still, at least part of the theory of payment is to give good writers an incentive to publish, and to spend (hopefully) more of their time writing and less time earning money elsewhere. So abolishing payment as a means of improving writing quality doesn't really seem to follow for me. Part of what we do on this list is share our opinions of why a book is praiseworthy. Hopefully, one of the results of that is increased sales for authors. I will have to admit to giving out with a self-satisfied smile every time I hear the DB ad for the latest Children of the Promise book from Margaret Young and Darius Gray that mentions them as winners of the 2000 AML Award for the novel. Our small praise has meaning, and DB thinks it has power to sell copies. We create that respect and renown ourselves. We create the buzz and encourage the market for good works by our own efforts and communication. No publisher will ever be able to do it, because in the end only the text can earn respect, not the marketing department. (Renown, on the other hand, *can* be created by a Marketing department--or an interesting public incident that requires police intervention...) The publisher's job is to see to the distribution, marketing, and sales of books. The author's job is to create works that will appeal to a selected audience. The reader's job is to decide whether they appreciate that effort, and to vote both with their buying dollar and their wagging tongue. (Loose lips may sink ships, but they also sell books; word of mouth remains the most effective tool for long-term success.) I just don't see how taking money out of the equation will improve quality. Since there's apparently little quality in mass-market work, the would-be artists are apparently unaffected by that exchange--they aren't seeing significant money anyway, so the fact that some guy over there got paid a lot really has no bearing on what I'm doing over here. If the argument is that all the publishing dollars are going to support trash instead of art, I would counter with a belief that bestsellers usually fund the projects that editors want to do, but that marketing departments are pretty sure they can't sell. I understand the argument that the public has limited money to spend on books and that the bestsellers are sucking up all the dollars. I just don't accept it as indicative of my own experience. Ibuy cheesecake because I want cheesecake. It's an impulse buy. I know I could have bought a lot of fruit for the price of that cheesecake. If I choose not to buy the cheesecake, that doesn't mean that I will now buy fruit; it usually means I will play more pinball games instead. Different conceptual buckets for me. One doesn't impact the other. Just a thought. Scott - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:03:49 -0600 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Bye Bye Oprah Just found this article on Slate that relates to our Oprah discussion: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2064224 I think it's right on the money. Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:14:29 -0700 From: "Frank Maxwell" Subject: [AML] Other Side of Heaven: Okay for Kids? This weekend (April 12-14) is the national release of "The Other Side of Heaven", and of course, I want to show solidarity with Mormon artists by going to see it this weekend. The more people who attend on the first weekend, the better. However, this is also the weekend when my daughter is visiting me. (Some of you may recall a few of the post-divorce difficulties I was having a few years ago.) So the question for me is, should I take my 6-year-old (turning 7 next week) daughter to see "The Other Side of Heaven" this Saturday? To those of you who've seen the film: is it too scary or intense for a little kid? I hear that it depicts a storm at sea, and I don't want my daughter to be overwhelmed. She's seen "Spy Kids" and "Harry Potter" on the big screen, with me; so maybe she'll be okay. But I just want to be sure. I'm also concerned about the impression it'll give about missionary work (good, bad, rewarding, non-rewarding, full of trials, exotic, non-exotic, spiritual, non-spiritual, etc.). I don't want my daughter to derive wrong conclusions, which I would have to un-teach her. The images will stay with her for many years. I'm sure that I'll enjoy the movie, but I'm just worried about she's ready for it. OTOH, if she does enjoy the movie, it'll make it easier for me to talk to her about my mission in the Philippines. Any help you all can give me will be appreciated. If we go, we'll be driving 1.5-2 hours, round trip, to San Jose, to see it on Saturday. But if it'd be better for me to hold off taking her to this, we'll still probably spend time on the road, and instead go see "Beauty and the Beast" in IMAX format at the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose. Private replies to me are fine. (Unless you think otherwise, Moderator.) [MOD: I think it's a relevant topic. But copy Frank as well, so that he doesn't have to wait for responses to make it through the AML-List queue.] Thanks, Frank Maxwell famax@gte.net Gilroy, California - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:43:07 -0700 From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Sanitized LDS History? I think it is the nature of every organization, culture and nation to have a sanitized version of it's own history and certainly in teaching history to children there's certain things they can have a better understanding of when they are older. It's just interesting to note that there are a lot of adults both in the Church and the general population who never seem to want to know a version of history beyond elementary school level. I have read enough sources to be convinced that Joseph did indeed practice polygamy and it was a source of terrible friction between him and Emma. I am trying to find a first person account of a young Scottish convert named Margaret, I believe, who told of Joseph coming to her and telling her she was to be his wife. She described her reply as having all the Scotch rise up in her and telling him to get lost. He told her to go pray about it, she did, and agreed to the marriage. I've been racking my brain to remember the source where I read this account, but it was not in a book hostile to the Church. It was something new to me to have someone mention in a post about this that Joseph also took wives of women already married, I'd like to know the source of that if anyone has got it. There is also little doubt that rumors of polygamy did indeed contribute to Joseph's death. But I also believe there were economic factors involved and were the motivation on Thomas Sharp's part on being intent to get rid of Joseph and the Mormons as a whole. I would imagine for him, polygamy was the excuse behind a more self-serving motive. Even when investigating the Church, the concept of polygamy didn't bother me. I grew up in a society when the double standard was alive and well. Guys should have some sexual experience before marriage, but girls should be virgins. And a guy could be expected to do a little fooling around during marriage and have the woman put up with it, but heaven forbid she might do the same, the shameless hussy! I caught the gist of this thinking at an early age and found it disgusting. It was a major attatraction of the Church for me, the same sexual standard was expected of the boys and men as was of the girls and women. And it was pretty evenly enforced in my ward and stake. It was this double standard that was more responsible for what are considered Victorian standards than a good many other things. Prince Albert, consort of Victoria lost his mother because she decided she couldn't stand her husband's serial philandering and had an affair herself. The Duke divorced her and got custody of Albert and his brother and he only saw her once after that. His brother also became sterile from a venereal disease. This greatly shaped Albert's view of morality and he more than his wife was responsible for the mores of Victorian society. What was too bad is that if more Victorians had followed Victoria and Alberts's example they wouldn't have had many of the societal ills that people like Brigham Young and Eliza R. Snow could readily point to as reasons for polygamy being a viable family unit system. But the fact that Victoria and Albert were monogamous, loyal to each other in all other aspects, and actually enjoyed sex did not seem to filter down to many of their subjects or American society who had many of the same morals. I used to be quite touchy when my relatives brought up anything controversial about the Church whether it be something current or in the past. I don't do that now. If something has been miscontrued or misreported, I set them straight and if I don't know I say so. If it's something that does look questionable I might give an opinion, I might say I'm sorry that might have happened, but I don't act like I'm ashamed or have responsiblity for what they might bring up, we get along better because of it. And I can easily point out which is worse, having mistresses and children out of wedlock like many Catholics have done through the ages, (Protestants too), or having to actually be married and provide for both the wives and the children one produces rather than condemn some child to the shame being illigitimate brought on them. And I have little doubt some of the people in Congress who so condemned polygamy had relations with other women outside their marriages, and IMHO they were top-notch hypocrites because of it. There was also a book out a few years ago about what happened to the members of the Smith family after Joseph's death and the book noted that Emma's second husband, Lewis Bidamon fathered at least one child with another woman after his marriage to Emma and Emma helped to raise this child. The author noted the paradox; that she could stand one husband having an affair, but not the idea of sharing the other as a husband with other women. Both Biblical and Church history seems to be full of paradoxes as well that must be understood in the context of the time and culture they happened in. I admire especially that the Old Testament seems full of such things, but I believe the intent was to point them out as cautionary tales to point people to a better way of living by pointing out the consequences of what happen when people made foolish or evil choices and how many people they hurt because of it. Too many people today like to look at history or another's life and figure they can get away with something and do just fine in the end, that's were a lot of history would prove them wrong. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #675 ******************************