From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #683 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 18 2002 Volume 01 : Number 683 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:02:10 -0700 From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Nature Writing First I'd have to say I agree with a lot of what Jacob and William expressed in their posts on the subject. Having been born and bred here in the land of fruits, nuts and flakes, (And there's nothing sexually oriented to be inferred in that statement), I think I have about seen and heard it all or most of it concerning the environment and it's kissin' cousin movement, animal rights The reasons, (although some already stated), that I would be reluctant to embrace the environmental movement whole-heartedly is that people like me grew up hearing we'd be out of air, trees, water, oil, land, you name it by the year 2000, if not before. Much of the rhetoric was and is alarmist. It's like religious groups who keep claiming apocalypse at ANY MOMENT. It breeds cynism. It's also one of the pet causes de jour of the Hollywood crowd. But the only ones I can think of who are sincere about it are Bob Redford and Ed Begley Jr. They seem to try and practice what they preach. A great number of the rest of them usually don't know what they're talking about or have no qualms about bending the rules when it comes to their own comfort. Malibu is a great community, but they insist on building their homes right on the shore and every few years the ocean invades their living rooms. The county of Los Angeles finally told the residents of Malibu that the citizens of the rest of the county weren't going to bail them out with the flood insurance paid for by the taxpayers. They had to get their own special policy. It's not unusual to have people checking in fur coats at the cloakroom on the way into an animal rights fundraiser. The foot soldiers of the movement tend to parrot cetain phrases and reel off statistics that if challenged they cannot always back up. John Stossel of ABC news did a news special a few years ago about junk science and he took some of the oft-repeated tenets of the both the environmental and animal rights movements and seriously examined them and found many of them founded on poor science, skewed statistics, and not fully exposed to the rigors of the scientific method. I lay a lot of blame on the news media who will talk to anyone who sets up a podium, calls themselves something like, "Citizens for a Better World", and say they have an environmental or animal rights cause and report it verbatim without checking on the veracity of the group or their claims. The press is largely green thinking even though they don't live it, especially the D.C. press corps. They tend to be a hard drinking, smoking bunch who drive cars, use computers, and any other electronic device available and maybe separate their trash for recycling, they don't ride bikes and rarely walk. That's the eye rolling stuff. The more dangerous stuff turns off both the average LDS and non-LDS person. Stuff like putting spikes in trees, vandalizing labs, property damage, harassment, death threats and even death by bombing ala The Unibomber. This can happen to anyone the radical elements of the environmentalist and animal rights movements perceive as an enemy of the planet and her animals. There's other stuff like the consideration that all plant and animal life are our equals and we should treat them as such. Basically that using any resouces from the planet is an act of rape and even having animals as pets is wrong and elitist. Some of these folks would even take away my cousin's guide dog. Just an attitude that humans are a complete blight on the face of the earth. Why some of these folks are as zealous as say, Mormon Missionaries! That's the more extreme version of these groups, with lots of variations.The other turn-off being many of the members of these groups have nothing but disdain for organized religion, especially Christianity and tend to be nature/goddess worshippers and are ardent in certain beliefs like being vegans or vegetarians. I can see the Mormons arguing the D&C about not forbidding to eat meant with vegetarians. Now, that I've taken a lot of shots at both movements, I would say some of their premises have merit and most people I know want to do some of the things that the movements say are good for the planet. Most Latter-day Saints do consider themselves to be stewards of the earth and feel some responsibility to care for the earth and use it's resources wisely. I would guess most would be more comfortable with the old word conservationist. As for LDS participation in such things the association with the Boy Scouts goes a long way toward some of those goals. Having been a blazer and cub scout leader and having my husband involved in Scouts forever, it seems, the manuals emphasize taking care of nature, learning techniques to do so, and leaving as little evidence of having been on the trail or campsite as possible. They are taught not to touch plant or animal life, and leave water sources alone. Take what you need into the wilderness, and take all your trash out of there unless receptacles are provided. Just observe and enjoy. Respect and proper treatment of nature is a big component of the Scouting movement. There is an LDS author that wrote on that theme for the general market. Dian Thomas wrote, "Roughing It Easy" and other follow-up books about how to have fun camping and be comfortable, but I believe she has a certain respect for nature, her dad was a forest ranger and she has built on that theme when doing guest segments on home and garden types of shows over the years. A number of years ago a couple of authors published a pamphlet that I purchased in Deseret book entitled, "Animals and The Gospel". The authors tracked down a number of quotes and remarks that the Prophets and other GA's have made concerning our treatment of animal life and it's gospel applications. Many on the list are old enough to remember Pres. Kimball's comments concerning hunting and the admonition to only do so if they meat was a necessity for providing for the family. I was at BYU at the time and couldn't get over the controversy it sparked! The letters to the editor and the justifications for hunting were mind-boggling. It also sparked a hilarious Pat Bagley cartoon with a deer, it's arm around a hunter, and in the other an open edition of the Conference Ensign reading out loud, "And this is the part I like best...." with back-up of several other furry friends. The pamphlet did have a number of interesting thoughts that had been expressed by the likes of Brigham Young, et al on the relationship humans should have with animals. The general consensus being from what was printed, that although animals were available for our use, we would be held accountable for our use and treatment of them and that there was no excuse for cruelty to animals. I was surprised to learn that Pres. Heber J. Grant was nearly a vegetarian, maybe having a single lamb chop during winter. Very enlightening. I guess the point of this long, rambling post is I believe Latter-day Saints should have concern and respect for nature and kindness to animals. I believe they could lend a voice that has some BALANCE to these issues. In writing about such things we could indeed discuss things like our belief that all living things have a spirit, that animals have souls, unique among any faiths that have belief in the divinity of Christ. a few years ago it was well put in a simple article in The Friend magazine when someone wrote about an old family dog of their uncle's they dearly loved and how hard it was to watch a beloved animal grow old and die and how relieved they were as a child to learn that they was a continuation for their four-legged friend, there was a place of rest and a reunion coming as it would for other beings that we love. Having grown up with more dogs than I can count, that's a comfort that we should share with the outside world and proudly. There are also musings I would love to see addressed about earth's renewal, do trees and animals stay the same forever? It would be interesting to see others thoughts put in essays and fictional stories, I think our beliefs about some of these things would make for interesting reading. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:50:54 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re:[AML] Money and Art This is an issue that is of enormous importance. With all due respect to = Kathy Tyner, I must take issue with her on this issue. >Yet, >if one is applying for these there are certain criteria >set down that must be met before the money is made >available, yet and lo, where is the outcry? If anything, >the outcry concerning things like the NEA, (National >Endowment for the Arts), is about some of the >artists and projects that are funded,( the woman who >dips herself in chocolate and rolls in broccoli onstage >comes to mind). In cases like that, the good taxpayers >of our country do indeed want to control what their >money pays for. Are they wrong for wanting that? Yes. Absolutely. Taxpayers are just dead wrong to complain about the = NEA, and especially specific avant-garde artists who receive grants. =20 The fact is, everyone's artistic tastes differ. But if we agree that = supporting arts and culture is a worthwhile government activiity (which = the vast majority of Americans do) then we absolutely must agree to a = hands-off attitude towards the expenditure of public money for cultural = purposes. Absolutely fundamental principles of freedom of expression are = at risk. Support for the arts has to be . . . I almost said 'unqualified',= but of course, that's impossible. Resources are limited, and some = discretion must be used; decisions must be made about who receives help = and who doesn't, and there must be some criteria for making such decisions.= But care must be taken that that decision-making process is generally = non-ideological. In short, such is the nature of art, that we should = expect, anticipate and applaud art works that receive support that we find = personally offensive. If the NEA does not support works of art that bug = the heck out of me, I don't think the NEA is doing its job. Otherwise, = we'll be supporting bland, politically correct, inoffensive works of art, = and that becomes the culture of our nation. Right now, government funding for the arts is considered a highly = questionable proposition, and the only works that receive support tend to = be symphony orchestras and children's museums and similar works about = which there is a broad consensus of support. The reality is, though, that = many art forms are valuable, but not cost effective. The USA spends a = hundredth of what it should to support the arts, very much to our nation's = cultural loss. =20 The British National Theatre, in London, could not succeed without a hefty = subsidy from the government. It's the greatest theatre company in the = world, and their tickets are affordable to even the most modest income = families. And they regularly do works that are political in nature, and = that savage the government which is supporting them. (I saw the most = ferocious anti-Tony Blair piece just last summer at the National). What a = wonderfully healthy situation! And British culture would be outraged if, = as a result, the National got its budget cut. We can and should have the = same robust, healthy self-confidence. =20 >Whenever there has been attempts to cut or eliminate >the NEA, the artists fight tooth and nail to stop that >from happening, they insist they NEED that money. Actually, the artists who fight hardest to protect the NEA tend to be = those who personally have no need for the money. Nicolas Cage comes = immediately to mind. >My general impression of it all is they want the money, >but if a taxpayer has any objections to what kind of >art the money is paying for, they get told they're >uneducated peasants who don't appreciate real talent >and you're attempting to censor the arts. I've never actually heard this particular kind of rhetoric. Remember that = the NEA has substantial majority support among taxpayers. Fact is, we = don't have a clue RIGHT NOW which works of art will be seen, in the = future, to have lasting merit. =20 >I'd really rather use those funds to have art projects >and centers for school kids, especially inner city kids, >rather than pay elitists. Let 'em suffer for their art and >sell it themselves or find a rich society patron who >wishes to support them. =20 Art projects for children and schools are a very high priority for NEA = funding. Rich society patrons give money to the arts, but insist on = conditions and requirements that many artists (possibly the most important = ones) reject. >But I have no problem with >artists and authors receiving good compensation for >their work in the marketplace, they have to eat too >and often have families to support as well. Market pressures drive artistic decision-making most of the time as it is. = The NEA exists to support artists whose work is unlilkely to be immediatel= y lucrative. >As for the hope of artistic freedom and the lack of >necessity for money to enter the picture during the >millenium, that got me to thinking. I suspect mammon >won't be the encompassing thing it is now, however, >I suspect art galleries and local libraries also won't >have displays of ceramic penises, figures of priests >and nuns sitting on commodes and crosses in jars >of the artist's urine either. Does that mean the Lord >will be a censor or that we will have no inclination >to express ourselves in such a manner? Of course no one has any idea what sorts of art will be prevelant during = the millennium. I do think that the avant-garde has painted itself into = something of a corner nowadays. I, for one, am anxious to see what comes = next. We won't see it at all, though, if the NEA (or something like it) = ceases to exist. =20 Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:54:32 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Nature Writing I agree with many of the points raised so far on this topic, about why the majority of Mormons (especially in the Intermountain West) tend to have issues, at the least, with environmental proposals. I agree that a big part of it is the immense federal presence in Utah (over 80% of Utah is federally owned land!) and that this is to a great degree a western issue. I also think that Mormonism's pioneer roots leave in their wake a very practical, pragmatic way of viewing environmental management--which sometimes may look ahead to conserving/renewing resources for future years, but which tends very definitely to see the earth as a *resource* for human use, not something that exists in itself. Mormon theology, I think, provides support to either an environmental or human-centered interpretation, though I think the latter has been far more common. The purpose of earth, as many members see it, is to provide a nurturing and incubation place for the race of divinity. On the other hand, it's also possible to view the purpose of the race of divinity as being to create environments: places where all kinds of living things can exist and fill the measure of their creation. From that perspective, it becomes considerably more disturbing to consider the way that human habitation has--I think incontestably, though there is, as Jacob and others points out, disagreement about specifics in areas such as degree and effects of global warming--had a strong negative impact on the range and diversity of creatures that also inhabit earth. There's been a tendency to link environmentalism with a critique specifically of western society. And yet the evidence seems to suggest that humans in *all* societies do, and always have, managed their environments, and usually without any awareness of long-term consequences. Of course, this can be taken simply as evidence of what I said before: that the race of divinity, to which humans belong, creates environments. That's what we *do*, and like anything else humans have the potential to do, it can be done well or poorly. There's very little in the scriptures, in my view, to say how that responsibility ought to be carried out. Ancient scriptures come from a time when humans, although they had a strong impact on their environment, probably had little sense of that impact. It doesn't feature prominently in the Doctrine and Covenants, either. And with a few exceptions like Spencer W. Kimball's extraordinary anti-hunting (particularly recreational hunting) talk in the priesthood session of General Conference (back in 1977 or 1978, I think), I don't think this is an area where leaders of the Church have spoken much. For those who see this as an area of concern, this silence can itself be disturbing, suggesting that while (for example) smoking is a topic that's worthy of innumerable General Conference talks, abuse of the environment is not. (Though to be fair, I think it's been a number of years since there's been a GC talk focusing on smoking alone.) One area where there's a very sharp and clear division between teachings of the Church (or at the very least deeply established folk doctrine and practice) and assumptions of modern environmentalism is in the area of human population control. Aside from questions of means (e.g., abortion as a wrong in itself), leaders of the Church have, in the past (if I recall correctly from my youth), spoken out against the *goal* of controlling human population. At a fundamental level, I don't think you can disentangle environmental concerns from issues of human population. But if you're a member of the Church, this gets you into a very sticky area. Note, by the way, that I'm not trying to judge the correctness of these views, but simply to point out where I see potential areas of conflict between environmental positions and (at least) what most members of the Church believe the gospel to be. I suspect that for every Terry Tempest Williams who attempts to take a strongly environmental stance within an LDS context, there are 10--or 20--or 100--people who leave the Church, either literally or emotionally, over environmental issues. Without anything more than anecdotal evidence, I think this may be a much larger area of intellectual dissonance for members (especially young members) than discrepancies in Church history, of which we've talked so much. I don't know that I've seen much Mormon fiction with protagonists who felt concern over environmental issues and saw a conflict between that and Mormon doctrine and/or culture--not since Saturday's Warrior, where adherents of zero population growth were pilloried (I don't think that's too strong a term). It may be that they deserved pillorying, but surely that's not the way to make a budding environmentalist feel that his or her concerns will be taken seriously in a Church context! Ironically (in light of Todd Peterson's original post), some of the literature I have seen that comes closest to considering questions of environmentalism from a doctrinally Mormon perspective *is* science fiction. A lot of this is not by Mormon authors. David Brin, for example, presents a fascinating ethos of stewardship in his galactic community in which all the diverse races of the galaxy are united (more or less) in their belief that it is the duty of intelligent races to nurture and preserve environments as cradles of sapience (through evolution and, later, directed genetic engineering by already sapient races). It's not a Mormon perspective, but there are parts of it that come far closer to my own particularly Mormon mindset than writings I have read by those who are often termed "nature writers." I think Todd's post was far too dismissive of the potential for addressing environmental concerns within science fiction and fantasy. In fact, maybe that's an essay I should write sometime: "Perspectives on the Environment in Mormon SF&F." I can think of important things to say related to the writings of Shayne Bell, Orson Scott Card, and Dave Wolverton, at least... Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:54:32 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Nature Writing I agree with many of the points raised so far on this topic, about why the majority of Mormons (especially in the Intermountain West) tend to have issues, at the least, with environmental proposals. I agree that a big part of it is the immense federal presence in Utah (over 80% of Utah is federally owned land!) and that this is to a great degree a western issue. I also think that Mormonism's pioneer roots leave in their wake a very practical, pragmatic way of viewing environmental management--which sometimes may look ahead to conserving/renewing resources for future years, but which tends very definitely to see the earth as a *resource* for human use, not something that exists in itself. Mormon theology, I think, provides support to either an environmental or human-centered interpretation, though I think the latter has been far more common. The purpose of earth, as many members see it, is to provide a nurturing and incubation place for the race of divinity. On the other hand, it's also possible to view the purpose of the race of divinity as being to create environments: places where all kinds of living things can exist and fill the measure of their creation. From that perspective, it becomes considerably more disturbing to consider the way that human habitation has--I think incontestably, though there is, as Jacob and others points out, disagreement about specifics in areas such as degree and effects of global warming--had a strong negative impact on the range and diversity of creatures that also inhabit earth. There's been a tendency to link environmentalism with a critique specifically of western society. And yet the evidence seems to suggest that humans in *all* societies do, and always have, managed their environments, and usually without any awareness of long-term consequences. Of course, this can be taken simply as evidence of what I said before: that the race of divinity, to which humans belong, creates environments. That's what we *do*, and like anything else humans have the potential to do, it can be done well or poorly. There's very little in the scriptures, in my view, to say how that responsibility ought to be carried out. Ancient scriptures come from a time when humans, although they had a strong impact on their environment, probably had little sense of that impact. It doesn't feature prominently in the Doctrine and Covenants, either. And with a few exceptions like Spencer W. Kimball's extraordinary anti-hunting (particularly recreational hunting) talk in the priesthood session of General Conference (back in 1977 or 1978, I think), I don't think this is an area where leaders of the Church have spoken much. For those who see this as an area of concern, this silence can itself be disturbing, suggesting that while (for example) smoking is a topic that's worthy of innumerable General Conference talks, abuse of the environment is not. (Though to be fair, I think it's been a number of years since there's been a GC talk focusing on smoking alone.) One area where there's a very sharp and clear division between teachings of the Church (or at the very least deeply established folk doctrine and practice) and assumptions of modern environmentalism is in the area of human population control. Aside from questions of means (e.g., abortion as a wrong in itself), leaders of the Church have, in the past (if I recall correctly from my youth), spoken out against the *goal* of controlling human population. At a fundamental level, I don't think you can disentangle environmental concerns from issues of human population. But if you're a member of the Church, this gets you into a very sticky area. Note, by the way, that I'm not trying to judge the correctness of these views, but simply to point out where I see potential areas of conflict between environmental positions and (at least) what most members of the Church believe the gospel to be. I suspect that for every Terry Tempest Williams who attempts to take a strongly environmental stance within an LDS context, there are 10--or 20--or 100--people who leave the Church, either literally or emotionally, over environmental issues. Without anything more than anecdotal evidence, I think this may be a much larger area of intellectual dissonance for members (especially young members) than discrepancies in Church history, of which we've talked so much. I don't know that I've seen much Mormon fiction with protagonists who felt concern over environmental issues and saw a conflict between that and Mormon doctrine and/or culture--not since Saturday's Warrior, where adherents of zero population growth were pilloried (I don't think that's too strong a term). It may be that they deserved pillorying, but surely that's not the way to make a budding environmentalist feel that his or her concerns will be taken seriously in a Church context! Ironically (in light of Todd Peterson's original post), some of the literature I have seen that comes closest to considering questions of environmentalism from a doctrinally Mormon perspective *is* science fiction. A lot of this is not by Mormon authors. David Brin, for example, presents a fascinating ethos of stewardship in his galactic community in which all the diverse races of the galaxy are united (more or less) in their belief that it is the duty of intelligent races to nurture and preserve environments as cradles of sapience (through evolution and, later, directed genetic engineering by already sapient races). It's not a Mormon perspective, but there are parts of it that come far closer to my own particularly Mormon mindset than writings I have read by those who are often termed "nature writers." I think Todd's post was far too dismissive of the potential for addressing environmental concerns within science fiction and fantasy. In fact, maybe that's an essay I should write sometime: "Perspectives on the Environment in Mormon SF&F." I can think of important things to say related to the writings of Shayne Bell, Orson Scott Card, and Dave Wolverton, at least... Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:40:56 -0600 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Jim asked: >Or are you talking about a millenial, >post-economic, unlimited resources >for all to do with as they please sort of >dream world? I'm talking about a world where people don't have to worry about feeding themselves or paying for health care--sort of a Platonic gig with Christ at the helm. A utopia (that would be Moore, right?). - -- Todd Rober Petersen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:18:24 -0600 From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Sanitized LDS History? What happened at and after the 1992 Sunstone Symposium? - -Ethan Skarstedt Scott Parking wrote:"At one point he talks about his own conflict with the Brethren over the years, and in particular his experiences at and after the 1992 Sunstone Symposium. He reveals both a humble heart, and a powerfully examined faith." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:18:24 -0600 From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Sanitized LDS History? What happened at and after the 1992 Sunstone Symposium? - -Ethan Skarstedt Scott Parking wrote:"At one point he talks about his own conflict with the Brethren over the years, and in particular his experiences at and after the 1992 Sunstone Symposium. He reveals both a humble heart, and a powerfully examined faith." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #683 ******************************