From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #710 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 Monday, May 13 2002 Volume 01 : Number 710 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 18:57:46 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] re: Mormon Environmentalism ___ Jonathan ___ | With regard to (b), it's certainly possible (for example) that | Enoch's vision of the Earth groaning with sin is intended | metaphorically only. ___ While I think many of us take such scriptures metaphorically, there is a strong tradition in the church that doesn't. This ascribing animal-like properties to inanimate objects is called animism. For instance Orson Pratt believed that all the units of element were intelligent and that larger intelligences are really a kind of community. Higher forms of intelligence are emergent from these communities. This is somewhat like what we see in the social sciences. There we have properties of a group that emerge from individuals. An example of this is so-called mob-mentality or the "laws" that we find in economics. These group-properties don't necessarily occur in the individuals, but neither can the individual be separated from them. It's kind of a hard thing to wrap ones mind around, but emergent properties are actually very common. An other example of that is the properties you might have as a family which are separate from how individuals act. While I'm not married, I've noticed this sort of thing happening quite a bit. A married couple - especially those together for a long time - tend to unconsciously act as if they were a single person. Some theologians adopt what is called "Social Trinitarianism" which suggests that the Godhead (the oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost) is actually a social unity and not the metaphysical unity of Trinitarianism. There have been some versions of this pushed for Mormon use by making the personal beings of Social Trinitarianism into full persons as required by our theology. Anyway, without going too far off tangent, I think that there are ways to view the earth as a living thing like those in the Gaia theory do. Indeed I think that Mormonism actually has more support for this than most other religions. I should add that I *personally* don't think that this is the case. ___ Jonathan ___ | Still, it seems to me that consciousness and thought are (to | some extent) a matter of degree, and not of a binary off-on | switch, with humans on one side and all other forms of life | on another. ___ I think this is unarguable. That's not to say there might not be something special about humans. But there are plenty of folk traditions in Mormonism about the resurrection of animals. Further the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1 or its related texts as a spiritual creation suggests that these things have spirits. (Whatever that means -- even in this folk doctrine things aren't defined terribly well) - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 17:50:31 -0700 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art After reading this thread I really like Annette's and Jim's POV on this. = But I think this topic would need to change to something like "Calling = in Life" or Spiritual Gifts". The reason I chose that later was from = what Annette said at the very end of her post: "I pity the poor guy. I don't think he cares one snit about electrical anything, but chose the field to please his family. He'll end up = miserable if he doesn't ever use his God-given gifts." Just as a refresher, Jim wrote: "Let me just note that I think it's sad that so many people have jobs they dislike, or study to enter professions they don't care about = but which offer financial security. Work isn't about being miserable, but = many of us think that that's a natural part of the work experience. Our priorities and expectations are distorted, I think." Now, here comes a couple of questions of perspective after maybe 20 = years or so: What is/are our God-given gift(s) and can they be applied to make money = and/or are they simply for the edification of the Church and/or the = World? Can Heavenly Father guide us to be able to do the former and support = our family while we are edifying the Church and Kingdom? When my wife and I were married I was given a chance to coach a high = school wrestling team as an assistant. This was a dream of mine (I = cannot explain why - I was not a great wrestler). While I was at BYU I = spoke to Chris Taylor who was the 118 lbs. wrestler and was nationally = ranked at the time about being a coach. My wife, who I was dating, had = chosen not to come to the intramural tournament I registered in (and I = got trashed in) but I wanted to find out what I was doing wrong so when = I was a coach (I told Chris at that time I had a feeling I would get the = chance to coach) I would teach my athletes how to do it better than I = did. He gave me some pointers. The school I started out coaching at was my and my wife's alma mater so = I was happy to get a chance to coach there. It was shortly after we had = been married (I kid her our son was the result of her celebrating the = end of that first season). In the 8 years I coached there we had 2 = sectional championship teams and 4 league champion teams. I personally = coached a frosh/soph team to a league championship my last year at that = school. My coaching career extended five more years and I saw success in = that endeavor as well. Two years after that one of the men in our Stake saw me coaching at = another school (I coached the freestyle program for off-season at this = point) and recognized I had a talent for working with young men. He = convinced the Stake to call me into a Scouting position (he couldn't = convince my Bishop to do that). The concepts were the same just the = basic techniques were different. Two years later I basically retired = from coaching (except for when my son begged me to coach him) and have = been in a scouting calling ever since. Now for the literary tie in. Can I make money at this? Maybe, but it = would take some soul searching and study to figure out how. Probably as = a trainer/teacher or motivational speaker or something of the like. My = wife has always been opposed to my being a teacher in high school since = the bureaucracy would drive me nuts (her words). But I know, also, there = are some other things I will be doing first that many of my friends have = been encouraging me to do. Will I make money at it? No idea, but I will = do it any way because I know it will help others. What happens if we have a gift we do not use to bless others with? Only = Heavenly Father can answer that question. I like the parable of the = Talents myself. I keep worrying if I'm hiding something in the Earth but = to date I have not been able to dig it up. I know my coaching, teaching, = and ability to love has developed a lot over the years as has my = patience (my wife may disagree there, though). It was nice to get the = check for coaching at the end of the season but it was never what my = time was worth. When I coached freestyle I only had my expenses paid - = no salary. Over the 12 years of scouting I have spent far more than I = probably should have but the Lord has blessed me so much I couldn't help = but try and use that for the troop/team/ or crew I was working with. = Will I be blessed? Probably. Do I care? Not really. Like I said gifts = are given to bless others. Should we work at something we love? Most definitely. Am I doing that? = That is a qualified maybe. I have loved my work for many years because I = got to fix things. Now I'm in management (boo hiss) and I'm not fully = content. But I have recognized there are still some opportunities to = coach people and make them better from what I have learned over my = career of 20 years. Will I be doing something else eventually? I = certainly hope so. I have a deep feeling Heavenly Father is going to be = opening some doors for career changes in the near future but what that = means only He knows for sure. All I know is whether it is talent I now = have or one I'm developing I want to be somewhat prepared. I do not want = to burry any of those "Talents" in the Earth. Now the tough question - Can or should we force people to do what we = know they should do? I give that an emphatic No! Should we encourage = them? By all means. Many people do not even recognized that what they = are doing in "hiding that talent" and can't see what it will mean in the = future. But if they do not want to listen that is also their choice. Annette - If you really feel strongly that your brother-in-law is not = doing what the Lord thinks He should then pray for an opportunity to = talk about this with him. I have had this type of thing happen where = someone asked me what I really felt and told them they wouldn't like my = answer. When they told me they valued my opinion I told them what I felt = about the path they had chosen. I was totally right about how upset they = got but less than a year later they wrote me to say I was right. The = tough part is the "Free Agency" part of any discussion. Everyone must = make their own choice and sometimes we have to stand by and watch (and = weep). But then we look inside ourselves and evaluate if we are doing = what we should and developing our talents (whether we make money or = not). Some times we work in order to do what we like. That has been my = philosophy for many years. Hopefully when the Millennium comes we will = be able to do what we like and support our family that way. We can only = hope and pray. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 23:25:57 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] GIVENS, _By the Hand of Mormon_ (Review) Review ====== Title: By The Hand Of Mormon Author: Terry L. Givens Publisher: Oxford University Press Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 320, including notes and index Binding: Hardbound ISBN: 0-19-513818-X Price: $30.00 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle Terry L. Givens may be best known for his volume "The Viper on the Hearth: Mormons, Myths, and the Construction of Heresy." In the present volume, Givens addresses the issues of the origins, authorship, and publication of the Book of Mormon, with contextual studies on its place within the Mormon faith and the larger body of esoteric literature. The flyleaf summarizes quite nicely Givens' goals in writing this book: Givens examines the Book of Mormon's role as a divine testament of the Last Days and as a sacred sign of Joseph Smith's status as a modern-day prophet. He assesses its claim to be a history of the pre-Columbian peopling of the Western Hemisphere...Givens explores how the Book of Mormon has been defined as a cultural product, the imaginative ravings of a rustic religion-maker more inspired by the winds of culture than the breath of God...Givens also probes the Book's shifting relationship to Mormon doctrine and its changing reputation among theologians and scholars. Givens' introduction sets the scene: how does one understand the admittedly-fantastical story of the boy Prophet unto whom the Gold Plates were delivered, and from which came the Book of Mormon? Are they the ravings of a religious lunatic, or are they authentic scripture? After describing the changing role of the Book of Mormon within the Church itself, Givens notes the following: Meanwhile, skeptics are forsaking the facile scenarios of the nineteenth century (that Smith plagarized accounts by Ethan Smith or Solomon Spaulding) and are searching for new sources of and explanations behind the scripture. (p. 5) One evidence of this trend might very well be the existence of Givens' own book, and its publication by the University of Oxford Press. But is his statement largely true? Has the anti-Mormon polemic really advanced beyond the name-calling stage? I haven't seen much evidence of this. I read widely in both Mormon and anti-Mormon literature, and I really haven't seen a great deal of growth on the part of the anti's. Givens seems to be making a point -- that the world at large is finally taking the Book of Mormon seriously. Likewise, I fail to see this trend. Perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong places. Now, to the contents of the book. Chapter One, "A Seer Shall the Lord My God Raise Up: The Prophet and the Plates," tells the story of Joseph's early life and his reception and translation of the plates. Here the author reviews the story of the visits of the angel Moroni, the preparation of Joseph Smith for the translation process, Martin Harris' encounter with Prof. Anthon, etc. This book "written upon gold plates" would forever alter the life and reputation of the young farmboy, and would serve as the principal catalyst behind the rise of a worldwide church. More than any other factor, it would come to ground Joseph's reputation as seer and charlatan, beloved prophet and reviled blasphemer, as disturber of the peace and empire builder. (p. 11) But one must not be misled into thinking that the "content" of the Book is central to this discussion. Note this shrewd observation: The message of the Book of Mormon was and continues to be inseparable from the story of its origins -- a story involving angels, seer stones, and golden plates. Given the fact that epiphanies, dreams, and visions are entirely subjective experiences, and that supernatural trappings are generally more of an impediment than invitation to belief, one might expect that Smith would have emphasized content over context, or at least allowed himself and his audience the leisure of some flexibility in interpreting his experiences... Smith's rhetoric regarding his visions and visitations, in other words, consistently resisted the domesticating strategy of reducing them to an inner experience. "I had actually seen a light," he would write of his first vision, "and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me." (JS-H 1:25) Dream-visions may be in the mind of the beholder, but gold plates are not subject to such facile psychologizing. They were, in the angel's words, buried in a nearby hillside, not in Joseph's psyche or religious unconscious, and they chronicle a history of *this* hemisphere, not a heavenly city to come. As such, the claims and experiences of the prophet are thrust irretreivably into the public sphere, no longer subject to his private acts of interpretation alone. It is this fact, the intrusion of Joseph's message into the realm of the concrete, historical, and empirical, that dramatically alters the terms by which the public will engage this new religious phenomenon. (p. 41-42) In such words, Givens draws a clear line between pure visionaries (such as Swedenborg, who is mentioned generously in his discussion of esoteric experiences) and one whose visionary experience is based in historically-demonstrable fact. Presenting the testimony of the witnesses, among other proofs, Givens takes the stand that, while the *content* of the Book of Mormon is a true historical account, what matters much more is that the book exists *at all.* And the events leading up to its existence in its present form is marked by historical, provable events. Chapter Two, "Out of the Dust -- The Book of Mormon Comes Forth," combines a summary of Book of Mormon Christology with a continuing narrative of the publication and distribution of the Book of Mormon. Chapter Three, "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder: The Book of Mormon as Sacred Sign," takes the reader beyond the text, beyond the experience, and places the Book of Mormon as a sacrament, so to speak, a "sacred sign." Givens traces the biblical-fulfillment aspect of the Book of Mormon, how its appearance was foretold in prophecy. After citing Joseph's comparing the coming forth of the Book of Mormon with Jesus' parable of the man who buried a treasure in a field, Givens states: This is stirring imagery, designating the Book of Mormon a herald, or portent, of other magnificent events to come. The spectacle of its "springing up," "coming forth," and "branching" out, and its consequent role as a locus of heavenly manifestations and angelic activity, seem to suggest that what it signifies as event may be more important than what it actually says. (p. 63) This is the rule of thumb that Givens uses in subsequent chapters. For example, in his discussion of archaeological evidence and historical study, when there is insufficient support for a given proof-method, methods generally used in modern research, he falls back on the book itself, its existence, its palpability, pushing content issues to the side. Whether this is a legitimate approach is up to the reader. Chapter 3 continues with a rambling and often disconnected narrative describing Joseph's credentials as a seer and prophet, as compared to other "seers" who preceded him. One must trudge through arcane discussions of such notables as Emanuel Swedenborg, William Blake and Jacob Boehme before finally focusing on Givens' point: while mediumship in former times focused on the content of the revelations, Joseph apparently...believed the message *was* the manner of its coming forth or he would have spent some time writing or preaching about the Book of Mormon's content, instead of repeatedly talking about how he produced it. (p. 85) Chapter Four presents a formidable title: "I, Nephi, Wrote This Record: The Book of Mormon as Ancient History, Part 1 -- The Search for a Mesoamerican Troy." Students of Book of Mormon archaeology will enjoy the narrative history of the various organizations formed to pursue this study. Its content is pretty standard stuff, but is presented in a more lively manner than the previous chapter. It considers the quest for archaeological evidence as a legitimate source of "proof" of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. However, if you've been paying attention to earlier chapters, you realize that this is hardly the kind of evidence Givens himself is seeking. Which leads us to -- Chapter Five, "I, Nephi, Wrote This Record: The Book of Mormon as Ancient History, Part 2 -- The Search For a Rational Belief." Underlying the debate about the intellectual credibility of sacred texts, or their historical verifiability, is a larger question that has to do with the relationship between faith and reason. *Can* "spiritual" truths be proved? Is rational validation of religious belief *desirable*? (p. 117) Givens cites Hugh Nibley, John Sorensen, and others as major sources of research into Book of Mormon evidences. But he also introduces a subtle feeling that, just maybe, all this research may have a downside. ...any effort to subject religious texts to scientific methods or to subsume them within academic disciplines runs some risks as well. First, it remains to be seen what effect an increasing emphasis on historical substantiation of the Book of Mormon will have on the spiritual bases of Mormonism itself. The church has long negotiated a balance between faith and scholarship. Joseph Smith founded a university in the frontier city of Nauvoo at great sacrifice and effort, and today the church subsidizes the largest private university in America. At the same time, more than a few Mormon intellectuals have recurrently felt ostracized and under siege -- within their church by cautious leadership and without by sometimes irrational institutional resistance. (p. 153) In the end, Givens pushes historicity to the back burner: So the church maintains its position of cautious support, recognizing that the discovery of collaborative evidence may be no less problematic than the failure to build a convincing scholarly case. As the First Presidency wrote to Ferguson in denying his initial 1952 request for funding [as described in a previous chapter]: "The brethren feel that careful explanatory work may very well develop faith-promoting collaborative evidence of the historical value of the Book of Mormon. The Brethren feel that it may be that no discovery will be made which shall establish the historical value of the Book of Mormon. They incline to feel that the faith now required to accept the book is a very considerable factor in the faith of the Restored Gospel, belief in which is the result of faith therein." (p. 154) One leaves this chapter not entirely certain that Givens sees any lasting value in pursuing scientific study of the Book of Mormon. Chapter Six, "Devices of the Devil: The Book of Mormon as Cultural Product or Sacred Fiction," surveys the various theories advanced by skeptics for the appearing, and content, of the Book of Mormon. From Donna Smith's important biography, to Fawn Brodie's questionable psycho-history, and on to the Spaulding, and other, theories of authorship, Givens offers some good introductory material. Seasoned students will find nothing new here. Later in the chapter he explores the adversarial role of what is being called "the New Mormon History." Givens leaves no doubt as to where he stands on this issue: At the present...while Mormons wait for an increasingly persuasive Book of Mormon apologetics -- or the sheer magnitude of their burgeoning numbers -- to attract more serious attention to their scripture, the Book of Mormon wars that rage most furiously are taking place within the Mormon scholarly community. For under that controversial rubric of the "new Mormon history," the Book of Mormon has drawn a fresh generation of interpretations and approaches. (p. 175) And he insists that the orthodox believers wear the white hats, and the new Mormon historians wear the black hats. Of course, he gives their views some air-time, but he leaves no doubt as to his allegience to orthodoxy. Chapter Seven, "Plain and Precious Truths: The Book of Mormon as New Theology, Part 1 -- The Encounter with Biblical Christianity," studies the doctrinal impact of the Book of Mormon. Non-Mormon readers unfamiliar with Mormon claims of tampering with the Bible will be surprised to learn of the many "plain and precious" truths having been lost. Givens considers how the Book of Mormon fills in some of these gaps. It is here that the author make a claim that I doubt can be substantiated. ...in the modern era, the Book of Mormon and the Bible have become virtually interchangeable for purposes of doctrine in the Mormon church. (p. 194) This claim doesn't seem to be true to this reviewer. The Church continues to insist on the superiority of the Book of Mormon over the Bible (even as it is translated correctly). I've had many discussions on this topic over the years, and I've yet to be convinced otherwise. Givens cites the new edition of the Standard Works, which cross-references all four books of scripture in its notes, as evidence. But this is far from evidence that "the the Book of Mormon and the Bible have become virtually interchangeable for purposes of doctrine in the Mormon church." The relationship of the Bible to the Book of Mormon remains murky, in my opinion. Also rather murky is the relationship between the written word and continuing revelation. Diagram this paragraph: In the final result, even as Mormon doctrine subordinates its own canon to the principle of living revelation, these distinctions may count for little. Given the very fluidity of the canon we have seen, any opposition between living oracles and printed scriptures is always subject to negotiation. As Mormon canonical history shows, today's inspired utterances may become part of tomorrow's standard works. Ultimately, then, the principle of continuing revelation and living oracles emerges as inseparable from the foremost embodiment of that principle -- the Book of Mormon. And the Book of Mormon therefore holds out an alluring promise of continuing divine interaction with the human even as it poses the greatest threat to orthodox notions of canonicity and revelation that Christianity has yet seen. (p. 195) Read carefully, the preceding paragraph presents a fascinating possibility -- study the words all you like, tomorrow there may be more words! It is the "principle of living revelation," not the revelation itself, that merits study. And this, of course, contradicts his earlier claim to virtual interchangeability of the Bible and the Book of Mormon as a basis for Mormon belief. The Book of Mormon is sacrament; the Bible is merely text. Chapter Eight, "Plain and Precious Truths: The Book of Mormon as New Theology, Part 2 -- Dialogic Revelation," explores the nature of how God communicates with man. Even as the First Vision experience was one of dialogue, the Book of Mormon is filled with communications between deity and mortals. Also explored is the role of personal revelation in understanding general revelation, in particular, that contained in the Book of Mormon. Givens compares the role of personal revelation in the study of the Bible and in the study of the Book of Mormon: Because neither the canon of the Old Testament nor the "received text" of the New (as that term makes clear) has been transmitted, preserved, or authorized by ostensibly supernatural mechanisms, and because the theological claims of both are conspicuously different from a non-Jewish or a non-Christian set of beliefs, their theological function is not to serve as evidence of an authority external to themselves but to establish and embody truth within themselves. The meaning of the Book of Mormon, by contrast, may be said to reside in the experience of dialogic revelation it elicits...For millions of believers, the Book of Mormon has been the vehicle through which they could find their own sacred grove and reenact on a personal scale the epiphany that ushered in a new dispensation. (p. 239) The reader can see this as a continuation of the author's theme of the Book of Mormon as a sacramental expression of a higher reality. This is a fascinating and thought-provoking chapter. Chapter Nine, "A Standard Unto My People: The Book of Mormon as Cultural Touchstone," wraps it up with a nice study of how the Book of Mormon has defined the culture that Mormonism embodies. Phrases such as "iron rod" enter into the vocabulary of the faithful. Parents name their children "Nephi" and such. But even more, the Book of Mormon stands as a clear point of demarcation between Mormonism and wider Christianity. It is a chasm that cannot be bridged with interdenominational cooperation and deeper understandings. Conclusion ========== Whether to recommend the purchase of this book is a difficult question. Givens' clearly orthodox approach to the Book of Mormon, and to the authority of the church, sometimes affects his views on various questions. His bias clearly shows, for example, in his discussion of the "New Mormon History," already discussed. My thought is that Givens has a larger goal -- to present the Book of Mormon as a viable candidate for serious academic study outside Mormon circles. But his attempt is derailed when he dismisses normal research methods in favor of subjective experience and personal revelation. But this does not mean that there isn't some good, solid history and some helpful insights in this book. I'm glad I purchased it, and will keep it on my shelf for future reference. However, I think Givens will be disappointed when it fails to elicit the kind of response he clearly hoped for. - -------------------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com or jeffneedle@nethere.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 03:02:20 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Jerry Tyner wrote: > My take on this (appropriateness of the word SEX in Sacrament meeting, etc.) is it hearkens back to the first three versus in section 89 of the D&C: "...adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints." This reminds me of a discussion on another list I'm on. One person invoked the principle of "moderation in all things" as taught in the Word of Wisdom. I've heard this bromide (fun word) many times, so I finally took the occasion to actually read the 89th section and see exactly where this principle is taught. I found absolutely nothing in the Word of Wisdom that taught moderation in anything, let alone all things. The closest that came to it was the admonition to eat meat sparingly. Everything else was forbidden or pronounced good for the body. In the same vein, I think trying to generalize this "adapted to the capacity of the weakest" concept, specifically applied only to the Word of Wisdom, to all Gospel principles will run afoul of trouble very fast. Is the law of chastity adapted to the weakest of Saints? Should it be? The law of charity? The law of consecration? On the contrary, these seem to me to be laws that require a great deal of strength from members of the church to live fully. I don't see any legitimacy in taking an isolated concept like "adapted to the weakest" that is associated with one specific principle and generalizing it to anything that suits one's fancy. There is no statement anywhere in LDS theology that says we need to adapt our discussion of sex to the weakest of the Saints, which in this case means most easily offended (which, by the way, is _not_ what "weakest" means in the Word of Wisdom). Which brings us to the next point... > There are still too many who are offended at a word so in order to disseminate information at/in a Church setting they have to announce Special Firesides... There is a great deal of "being offended at a word" these days, not just among Mormons, and it's one of the greatest destructive influences in our society, in my opinion. Being easily offended has nothing to do with being weak and everything to do with pride and power. It's pure arrogance to assume that my sensibilities ought to be the sensibilities of everyone, and it's purely a power play to demand that my sensibilities be enforced in the lives of others by whatever power has jurisdiction over the issue (courts deciding if the Red Devil should remain a Springville mascot, bishops banning utterance of the word "sex" in sacrament meeting, or just plain social pressure in the form of public chastising in the name of some self-righteous principle attributed to God). In other words, I'm saying that the worst argument that can be made to convince me about something is to say that I have to cater to the easily offended, for fear they'll "take their ball and go home." To the easily offended I say, "Don't let the chapel door hit your [bleep] on the way out." (Which of course will offend them.) Boy, that's cold-blooded and uncharitable of me, isn't it! But there's one reason people who are offended at a word keep being offended at a word: it works. We empower their "offendedness" by giving in to it. If no one bent to it, they'd stop doing it. Then they could get on with trying to live the gospel instead of deciding if this is the week someone offended them enough to stop coming to church. Or they could abandon the facade and with great relief become the inactive members they want to be, because they have their excuse. Call it "tough charity," if you will. > Bottom line - if the subject of Sex were to be talked about in Sacrament meetings there would be some who would leave the Church saying that had no place in being discussed over the pulpit. Why do we tremble so over the eternal souls of these people, that we make all our choices of "appropriateness" based on their reactions? Do we really believe that that sort of half-hearted, self-centered, uncharitable, pride-filled "faith" will earn them salvation anyway? Do we really believe they'll somehow magically turn themselves around one day, when their current MO already provides them with the results they desire? Do we really think we're doing them any good from an eternal perspective when we give in to their tantrums all the time? Obviously I don't, and that's why one of the last things I worry about when I contemplate writing something for the LDS audience is whether it will offend someone. I'd feel like I failed somewhere if it didn't, because then I'd be catering to the lowest common denominator. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 03:50:39 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Scott Parkin wrote: > Whether we ought to discuss sex more openly or not, the simple fact is that > many people *are* squeamish about it. Many people *are* embarrassed to > discuss it in public. Many people *are* convinced that it's somehow wrong to > speak to general audiences about something that is very private and personal > to them. And they may very well be wrong to think and believe as they do. > > So what's the right answer? To berate these people in public, then force > them to either listen to things that offend their sensibilities or stay home > from church? Where's the charity in that? Where's the respect for the > sensibilities of others? Is their only safe haven to close their doors > against the entire world--even their religious one? As hardnosed as I get about subjects like this in a theoretical discussion, I actually wouldn't go barging in like the proverbial bull in the china shop and try to change everything in one day. I do believe in showing some respect to the sensibilities of others. But I don't believe in giving in to them if I think they're wrong. Envelope-pushing is in order here. > But I have a hard time demanding that all people discuss everything at my > preferred level of detail in a general meeting. Even as they demand that you discuss everything at their preferred level of detail. > You're absolutely right--the > lines of appropriateness for general public discourse *are* oriented around > the least common denominator, so that even the weakest among us can receive > of wisdom and feel community with the body of the saints. I consider that a > good thing; the time for exclusion on such a basis hasn't arrived yet, IMO. Certainly there are different levels of appropriateness for different venues. A frank discussion on the details of sex for married couples should be a fireside and not a sacrament meeting, as Jerry Tyner suggested. But... > According to which scripture or Conference address is the discussion of > sex--at any level of detail--*required* in the general public meetings of > the Church? According to the admonition that we are to preach the gospel to one another in those meetings. According to the doctrine, specifically mentioned by Elder Packer in General Conference, that sex is the very key to that gospel. According to the need to help members of the church avoid grievous sin that many are committing out of ignorance. According to the definition of exaltation as eternal marriage, and sex being a vital component of making a marriage work so it can become eternal. There is no other aspect more central to human existence, both in mortality and in the eternities, that is so neglected at the pulpit. You can't say that sex is a precious gift of God and the key to the eternities, then say we have no obligation to teach about it in our meetings. > Draw the line where you need to draw it, find the forums that support your > level of frankness, and allow others the freedom to defer participation in > those discussions without being required to stay home from public church > meetings. To me that's at least part of what charity is--which is something > else Mormons ought to understand better than we do, IMO. Prophets don't do this. They have a tendency to preach about that which violates the comfort level of people. Some prophets have died because people were "offended for a word." But the prophets keep on preaching. Jacob in the Book of Mormon was faced with this very problem. He wanted to get up and speak about pleasant, uplifting things. He didn't want to offend the sensibilities of innocent wives and children. But he felt obligated to discuss in detail the very subject we're talking about, risking offense, because it was needed by his audience. It's needed today! An aquaintance of mine told me about a sacrament meeting he attended recently where a 22-year-old woman got up and gave a frank sermon on sex, then scolded the congregation for not teaching the same things as she grew up. She needed to know that stuff! All the young people need to learn this stuff! Adults need to get over their embarrassment and start teaching it! I feel like we're all playing Nero and fiddling over trivial things like sensibilities as Rome burns. In case no one's noticed, we're losing the war over moral sex in our society. Time to get out the big guns, not quibble over how small the bullets need to be to avoid offending someone. > Spelling out the word still communicates it, so unless she believes that > most of her fellow "Saints" couldn't puzzle out what S-E-X spells, she > offended them anyway--and drew a fair amount of attention to herself and her > subject matter in the process. > I tend to believe that she was herself quite squeamish about the subject > herself, and that was the only way she could overcome her own squeamishness. I was there. Nothing in her words or demeanor or tone of voice communicated squeamishness. She was lively and spoke rapidly as she usually does and glowed in her face and spewed those words out very easily. She didn't bat an eye or miss a beat when she uttered "S-E-X." To my best judgment, she was catering to a sensibility that had been habituated into her, in spite of her claim to be able to speak openly about sex. No squeamishness, just habit. > > I'm saying it's > > time to educate our fellow Saints to raise the bar, so actual > > information about sex can be disseminated to those who need it. > > Absolutely! Write a book. Do a lecture series. Invite people to meet with > you to discuss the issue. Disseminate the information so that those who need > it can gain access to it. Or speak in a frankness that you believe is correct, and when the inevitable squeamish people complain to the bishop, have him back you up and explain to them, kindly and with love, that it's okay to talk about sex like that, that such frank talk is needed. > I personally agree with your broad call to extend and expand the frankness > in our discourse. I think sharing our experience and learning from the > experience of others is a godly trait. But all are not edified equally by > certain words or subjects, so we choose to limit certain discussions in > certain forums--not out of moral necessity, but out of respect and charity > for our audience. In the New Testament, the Saints were taught to avoid eating meat consecrated to an idolatrous god, not because it was evil, but because it might offend some of their brothers and sisters. Because eating or not eating such meat is a trivial decision, it certainly would be charitable to avoid it solely to avoid offense. But the topic of sex is a very critical one in our times, as it was in the time of Jacob when the law of chasitity was being wantonly violated. To discuss or not discuss it is not a trivial decision--it's one with eternal consequences. Jacob didn't want to offend anyone, but he felt obligated to, because the ramifications were so great. I believe we're in a similar position today. I am a strong believer in the concept of tough love when warranted. There are times when risking offense is the charitable thing to do. Jesus was good at avoiding offense when there was no reason to offend, but was equally willing to cause great offense if the message was important to get out. Open discussions about sex is one of those important messages, in my opinion. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at: http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #710 ******************************