From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #716 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 Friday, May 17 2002 Volume 01 : Number 716 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 11:13:02 -0600 From: Paul Browning Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing I hope this has been posted as an example of extreme malarkey. Theres so many problems with this I dont know where to begin. Let's see... "We have observed..."; presumably these are marriage therapists, and not peeping toms. In which case, wouldnt we conclude that they see generally people with disfunctional or abnormal sex lives? And does this mean that all kind and gentle husbands have wives who are interested in sex? Isnt this WAY overgeneralized? Arent there more factors in sexual interest than just the husband? Also, wives that profess that sex is only for procreation could also be very poorly instructed. No, wait. We better blame the husband. So, if I'm not getting any, it's my fault. Thanks Stevie and Doug. Disclaimer: Any implied bitterness is not meant to be seen as sexual frustration on the poster's part. Paul Browning is doing just fine. > ---------- > > "We have observed that wives married to kind and gentle husbands and > fathers ARE interested in sex and do not seek to avoid it. Women who > are accused by their husbands of being uninterested in sex or wives who > profess that sex is only for the purpose of having children are often > women who have been mistreated by their husbands." > > -Stephen E. Lamb, M.D. > -Douglas E. Brinley, Ph.D. > BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE: > GOSPEL PERSPECTIVES ON MARITAL INTIMACY - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:40:47 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Last night, at 12:01 a.m., I went to the first Utah County showing of = Attack of the Clones. It was a sort of cast party for my Great Expectation= s cast. I thought I'd be the first kid on the block to start what I think = may be another lively discussion. I should say immediately that this is = written immediately after getting up in the morning, and that I have not = read any of the criticism pertaining to the film.=20 A few disclaimers: I am not particularly a Sci-fi fan. I don't dislike = the genre, and have in fact read quite a bit of sci-fi/fantasy, but = consider myself at best a casual fan. I loved the first Star Wars film, = but do not and never have thought any of the films were particularly = profound or important. I certainly have never read any of the books, and = would sooner face the gallows than do so. I thought Star Wars was a great = B-movie. The fact that it wasn't actually a very good movie was part of = what made it great. Cheesy dialogue, preposterous situations, amazing = escapes and coincidences and Mark Hamill in the lead; it's pulp, it's a = serial. Nothing wrong with that. I've never been persuaded that the = Force is anything but a hack writer making sure we get who the good guys = are. So those are my prejudices. First the good news: Attack of the Clones is better than Phantom Menace. = It's better paced, the action sequences are a lot more fun, and some of = the actors have loosened up a bit. The Phantom Menace was bad enough that = I really didn't want to see AOTC, but I went with some friends, and we all = enjoyed ourselves. =20 The bad news: in our AML-List discussion of PM, I was troubled by what I = perceived to be an anti-democratic bias in the film. Those concerns are = increased exponentially in this one. I think, frankly, it's a film that = detests and distrusts democracy and that supports what emerges as a = fascist political stance. I was also troubled by what I perceived to be = racist overtones in the last film. They're far worse here. In the last = film, I suggested that Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader) was essentially a = Hitler figure. That's no longer true; I was mistaken. He's not Hitler, = he's Himmler. He's not a fascist dictator, he's the right hand man. = Finally, I was worried about the theological implications of the last = film. Those concerns are, again, far greater in this one. =20 I am not saying, by the way, that George Lucas is racist, or fascist. I = think he's a poor writer who has painted himself into a narrative corner, = and who may have finally figured a way out in this film. I think that the = troubling politics may be unintentional. All I can do is respond to the = film I saw last night, and it's a very very weird film. A few points to get out of the way first. The biggest problem that the = prequel trilogy has is that we know how it's going to come out. There's = no tension regarding Anakin--we know he becomes Vader, and we know that = his love affair with Princess Amidala (I'm probably misspelling all these = names, forgive me), will result in the birth of Luke and Leia. In the = last film, the poor kid who played Anakin was generally regarded as one = the film's greatest weaknesses. I never thought that was fair; a child = actor's performance is generally a reflection of the direction he's been = given. Besides, he wasn't bad in the film. He wasn't unconvincing, he = was just obnoxious. Well, Hayden Christensen, the new Anakin, is also = fairly convincing, but Anakin, in this film, is an obnoxious teenager. = He's sullen and rude and mercurial. I've got three teenagers living at = home right now and am not partial to sullen selfishness. He's not a bad = actor, but the character is also unlikable. And the film spends a lot of = time developing the love story between him and Princess (now Senator) = Amidala. Natalie Portman is cute, and not a bad actress. It's just one = of those things; she and Christensen had no chemistry at all. They both = worked at it really hard, and the film gave the relationship room. It = never happened. So a good quarter of the film is wasted on a love story = that a) has zero suspense anyway, and b) has no romantic tension or = excitement or energy. Lucas does give us some pretty waterfalls and stuff = to look at in the background, and believe me, we spend a lot of time = checking 'em out. Okay, let's talk politics. In Star Wars, the first one, (Episode 4, I know, I absolutely refuse to = call it A New Hope or whatever it is), you had your Rebel Alliance and = you had your Empire. The Rebel Alliance are the good guys and the Empire = were the bad guys. Part of the reason Phantom Menace stunk was because the = politics were so convoluted it was hard to sort it all out. AOTC is far = worse. You've got the Galactic Republic, governed by a Senate (unicameral,= as far as I can tell, with passing reference made to a judicial branch), = plus you've got a bunch of star systems who want to secede, plus you've = got the Trade Federation, plus you've got the Jedi Knights who are sort of = Texas Ranger/Royal Canadian Mounties/Green Beret supercops, plus you've = got a rogue Jedi faction, plus you've got some mysterious cloning planet, = plus you've got a key vote in the Senate over what seems to be a military = appropriations bill, plus you've got Tom Daschle filibustering McCain's = attempt to get a cloture vote to get the bill out of subcommittee. The = opening scroll lets us know from the outset that the politics were going = to be confusing, and that we would never sort it all out, and we never do. = =20 Okay, it's a democracy, it's supposed to be a little sloppy. Except. = There's a crucial scene between Amidala and Anakin, in which they talk a = little political theory in between smooching sessions. And he says, in = essence, "you need a strong leader. Someone you can trust. And then = force everyone to do what he says." Amidala disagrees of course, and = points out that what they have is a democracy, which she defends (though = not, unfortunately, on grounds of personal liberty). The whole rest of = the film subsequently proves that he's right and she's wrong. In fact, = Yoda says it explicitly: the Senate cannot be trusted. And so Senator Jar = Jar gets to do the one thing he does the whole movie; he makes a speech in = which a state of emergency is declared and extraordinary dictatorial = powers are given to Senator What's His Name. The creepy looking dude from = PM. Who looks a lot like, and is probably going to turn out to be, the = Emporer. =20 Now, there's room here for Lucas to get out of it. Yoda admits that the = dark side is clouding his vision a bit. It could be that the next movie = will show that Yoda was wrong, that he should have trusted the Senate, = that giving too much power to one guy is a mistake. (In fact, we know = it's a mistake, because we know what happens next). Some of that may = happen in the next one. =20 But the fact is, for all the politics in this movie, there's no sense of, = you know, actual poltics. Compromise, debate, discussion, finding a = middle ground, balancing the needs of constituents over one's personal = beliefs; there's none of that in the movie. Democracy is never shown to = be anything but a mistake, and the Jedi (who we are to regard as enlightene= d and wise, even if capable of error), are profoundly mistrustful of the = entire political process. And they make it clear that they will obey = civilian orders only up to a point. So in the world of Star Wars, the = Senate is corrupt, the strong man is given absolute power and the military = plays wait and see. And this makeshift interplanetary banana republic is = said to have kept the peace for a thousand years? =20 It gets better. The movie is called Attack of the Clones. Clones are in = the film; they're genetically altered supersoldiers. All Polynesian = (apparently on the theory that Pacific Islanders were the one minority = Lucas hadn't offended yet). They're creepy and creepy looking. (SPOILER = ALERT: STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW). We all recognize them = immediately, of course, because they're Imperial Storm Troopers; same = molded white plastic costumes. And they're on our side, the good guys' = side. They fight with Yoda and Obi Wan, against . . . well, I'm not sure = who against. Trade Federation battlebots in alliance with evil Jedi = Dookoo (something like that), played, inevitably, by uber-villain = Christopher Lee. They fly in, like cavalry, to save Obi-Wan's and = Anikin's butts. The Storm Troopers, with all those wonderful Nazi = overtones, are on our side. See what I mean about bizarre politics? =20 The religious overtones are equally weird. Anakin has to save his mother, = who has been captured by, I think, Banta, or Sand People, or anyway bad = guys. Anyway, they've got her and have been torturing her, and she's = apparently also been crucified. (Remember Anakin's virgin birth?) He = rescues her in time for her to die in his arms. And then he goes berserk = and kills this whole tribe. I mean, slaughters men women and children, = does a whole Book of Joshua on 'em. And then he comes back to Amidala and = tells her and feels bad about it. (She's apparently okay with it, because = they later get married) Now, we know that Anakin is attracted to the Dark = Side, and we know he's going to go over to it. So I ask myself, how does = this work theologically? Going berserk and wiping out an entire tribe of = people, men women and children, that's not enough? That's insufficient to = send one to the Dark Side? You have to do something even worse? =20 I loathed the unearned salvation of Anakin in Return of the Jedi. And, as = I've said, I've never bought any part of the argument you hear about = parallels between Star Wars and the gospel. But this film just makes it = that much worse. There is apparently one one correlation between going = over to Dark Side and our actions. And that is that going over to the = Dark Side gives you more power. But even committing the worst atrocities = does not qualify you for Dark Sideness. =20 Okay, so we've got all the Nazi overtones of genetic experimentation to = create a master race of clones; that's part of the mix in this movie. And = we've got Polynesian superwarriors, so wherever that takes us racially, = that's in the mix. And we've got a democracy that doesn't work and that = the film's heros don't trust, such that they propose a military dictatorshi= p, which happens. And Yoda and Obi-Wan are in favor of all this; they use = the clones in battle, on their side, and they propose the dictatorship. = Our one democrat in the film, Amidala, is a lovesick and naive teenage = girl, and is also apparently okay with the dictatorship. Frankly, there = was one scene in the entire film that had some emotional resonance, and = that was the pain on the face of the child playing Bobo Fett, when his = father (who is fighting against the Jedi) dies, mostly because that = particular child actor was very good. =20 This flm, unlike the first two and =BD, is not about Good vs Evil. That's = not what's going on at all. The bad guys in the film, in fact, use robots = to do their fighting, in contrast with our heros, who use Pacific Islander = Hitler Youth. I can't help but shake the feeling that George Lucas just = flat out doesn't trust democracy and despises politics. Maybe the last = movie will show the tragic consequences of mistrusting democracy. Maybe = the last film will show us how using clones is actually bad, that Yoda = will be shown to have been mistaken. I suspect, in fact, that that's what = will happen. But right now, I think I'm paying the film a compliment when = I say that it's one confused film ideologically. I'm giving Lucas the = benefit of the doubt, by saying that it's troubling or confused ideological= ly. I may well be complicating what's actually a fairly straighforward = Nazi film.=20 What's worst of all, though, is how dispiriting the film is. Okay, the = action sequences are better than in the last film. But the film has no = wit, no cleverness, no energy. There's no Han Solo, no rogueish human = spirit. Even Samuel L. Jackson, the coolest actor in the world, is given = nothing to do but play a boring and colorless Jedi. The main character = relationships don't work. Amidala and Anakin have no spark, no chemistry. = Obi-Wan spends much of the film nagging sullen teenager Anakin, so that = relationship is a drag. Yoda and Obi-Wan come across as genial colleagues,= nothing deeper. It's well past time to close the R2D2/C3PO vaudeville = act. It's a superior film to the last one technically; better paced, = slightly more plausible, a little better acted. =20 And then, there's one absolutely great moment. One two minute segment, = late in the movie, actually works, actually has the spark and energy and = wit and humanity the whole rest of the film hasn't had. I'd say the film = is worth watching really only for this one two minute sequence. It's the = fight scene between Christopher Lee and Yoda. So that's where we are with = this franchise. A muppet saves the day. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 12:51:05 -0700 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing > I'll need to be a stickler on this one and ask for some examples of > where "moderation in all things" is taught anywhere in the scriptures. I > had one fellow claim it wasn't, and I can't think of an example off the > top of my head. I think "moderation in all things" is another one of > those folk doctrines that everyone accepts as genuine doctrine because > it's been repeated so much that no one questions it. Well, I'm > questioning it. If you can verify it as official doctrine, then I'd be > very interested in finding that out. A quick search of the scriptures at the church website for the word "temperate:" Alma 7: 23 23 And now I would that ye should be humble, and be submissive and gentle; easy to be entreated; full of patience and long-suffering; being temperate in all things; being diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all times; asking for whatsoever things ye stand in need, both spiritual and temporal; always returning thanks unto God for whatsoever things ye do receive. Alma 38: 10 10 And now, as ye have begun to teach the word even so I would that ye should continue to teach; and I would that ye would be diligent and temperate in all things. D&C 12: 8 8 And no one can assist in this work except he shall be humble and full of love, having faith, hope, and charity, being temperate in all things, whatsoever shall be entrusted to his care. > It may not be hard to see why someone says the Word of Wisdom teaches > moderation in all things because it gets repeated so often. But that > doesn't make it true. Read section 89--see if you can see anything > taught in there except moderation in eating meat. What I suggested was that it gets read that way because the things it tells us to stay away from are addicitve, and difficult to use in moderation. Some alcohol can be good for you in moderation, right? I know a handful of people who can drink in moderation. The rest of the people I know who drink are alcholics. I'd rather not take the chance of finding out which type of person I am (esp since alcoholism runs in my family), so I stay away from it altogether. And that's basically how I view the WoW; stay away from things you can't use in moderation. Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 14:13:42 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art ___ Thom ___ | He mentioned, iirc, the Church-commissioned musical _Barefoot | to Zion_. Arlen Card was "called" to write the music. He | had to audition but was eventually called. And he was paid in | cold, hard cash for his services. ___ But once again that is a full-time activity. A job. Some with architects and the like. A yearly road show with the ward teens doesn't quite equate to this. You don't seem to want to distinguish between something that is a full time activity from something that is not. Now admittedly some part-time consecration can take quite a bit of time. Just look at how much time Bishops, Stake Presidents and the like put forth. I agree that if someone basically asks you to quit your day job and do the equivalent for the church that you ought to demand compensation. However, it seems that when you say you'll donate time for anything except "when it comes to things theatrical" you've moved across that line. So let me ask you. Should an accountant say the same thing if he is called to be secretary or the like for a ward? Sorry, that calling is to close to what I do for a living? No psychologists or therapists allowed as bishops? No DJ called to be ward activity chair? Where I draw the line is in terms of the amount of time and resource required. Where you draw the line seems to be based upon whether it is the same as what you do professionally. Yet in doing so you seem to apply a different standard between artists and non-artists. You will not convince me that a professional musician spends more time being choir director than any other choir director. If some individual does, then that is based upon how they allocate their time and not the nature of the calling. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:35:24 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Las Vegas Cow Parade Kansas City had theirs last year and it was quite fun to see all the cows. Many of the KC cows were also made into Hallmark figurines and sold locally (I can still find them here and there). It's worth a peek, if you don't know what Julie is talking about. I didn't know other cities were doing it. Fun. Linda Adams Kansas City, Missouri (Jackson County) At 12:17 PM 5/16/02, you wrote: >On the website you can find details on rules, download applications, >and, even if you aren't interested in painting a cow, you can look through >the many cows - some of which are very whimsical and fun, others beautiful >paintings, etc - that have been done in the other cities. > >the web address is: > >http://www.cowparade.net > >julie Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:50:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Box Office report May 12, Part 1 - --- "J. Scott Bronson" wrote: > On Tue, 14 May 2002 17:10:07 -0700 (PDT) "R.W. Rasband" > writes: > > > Is Eliza Dushku LDS? The psychopathic Faith of "Buffy the Vampire > > Slayer" is a nice Mormon girl? > > She is the niece of a friend of mine and she is a Mormon girl. And I > suppose she may be quite a nice girl as well. But when you put the > words > together the way you did the collective meaning alters slightly and I'm > not sure that Eliza would be exactly comfortable with that description. > > scott > No offense meant; the juxtaposition of rogue Slayer and Molly Mormon just struck me as funny. Dushku talks about her Mormon upbringing at http://www.reel.com/reel.asp?node=features/interviews/dushku/2 ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 14:59:48 -0600 From: "Eileen Stringer" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing - ----- Original Message ----- From: "D. Michael Martindale" To: Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing > Susan Malmrose wrote: > > > The scriptures admonish us to be temperate in all things. Things forbidden > > in the WoW are (for many) addictive and difficult to use in moderation. It's > > not hard to see why someone would say the WoW is encouraging moderation in > > all things. D. Michael Martindale wrote: > I'll need to be a stickler on this one and ask for some examples of > where "moderation in all things" is taught anywhere in the scriptures. I > had one fellow claim it wasn't, and I can't think of an example off the > top of my head. I think "moderation in all things" is another one of > those folk doctrines that everyone accepts as genuine doctrine because > it's been repeated so much that no one questions it. Well, I'm > questioning it. If you can verify it as official doctrine, then I'd be > very interested in finding that out. True, the word moderation only shows up in the scriptures once and that is in Philipians and I believe it is not the word moderation, but moderate. However, Susan mentioned the word "temperate" and so I did a search on that as well as "temperance" and came up with quite a larger number of scriptures including the phrase "temperate in all things." Now the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition for temperate and temperance both have the word moderation in their definitions. In fact, the definition for temperate is "marked by moderation." I won't give the complete etomology and definitions of the words temperate and temperance or moderation as I believe most have access to dictionaries and can look them up. Now onto the scripture references that I found for the words "temperance" and "temperate" I won't include all that I found, but will include those that stood out in my mind, which exhorted temperance and to be temperate in all things. 1 Corinthians 9:25, Galatians 5:23, 2 Peter 1:6, Alma 7:23 - this scripture in particular tells the reader "to be temperate in all things," as does Alma 38:10, D&C 4:6, D&C 6:19, D&C 12:8 - another inclusion of "temperate in all things." Granted, temperate is not the same word as moderation, but as Susan suggested the leap that most people have made from temperate to moderation is not much of a leap at all. Nevertheless, D. Michael is correct, the scriptures themselves do not admonish "moderation" they do admonish temperance instead and we are not told "moderation in all things" but rather "temperate in all things." Eileen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 14:08:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] New "Onion" Advice Columnist Check out "The Onion"'s new advice columnist: http://www.theonion.com/onion3818/ask_raymond_carver.html ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:40:04 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Okay I've got to get into this discussion again and stand up for sex-disinterested women everywhere. I honestly believe (despite the previous discussion about negative cultural attitudes about sex) that the most common reason married women are uninterested in sex is because of anger. I hear men complain that women use sex as a "reward" for good behavior, that they use it as a weapon in a power struggle. I believe that is often the case, and I also think it is difficult to transcend using the only power you think you have. When a woman is angry at a man, the last thing she wants to do is give him what he wants. Is that attitude Christian? Probably not. The anger may be a reaction to things other than the traditional definition of "mistreatment": money problems and decisions about money, feeling ignored, feeling powerless, feeling overwhelmed with responsibilities, feeling he isn't doing what he is supposed to do (the list is endless, I'm afraid). The quality of the relationship of course determines the desire for intimacy. Should one rise above these negative feelings? I hear that at church a lot. Gae Lyn Henderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:12:29 -0600 From: David Hansen Subject: Re: [AML] Las Vegas Cow Parade I'm not involved, but I know that in Salt Lake City they have a whole bunch of bison in this same style presumably for the Olympics. A few years ago when I was in New Orleans they had the fish parade - of which (being an attorney) my favorite was the "Barristercuda" painted and dressed as a lawyer in front of the courthouse. They're definitely trendy, but I like them. Dave Hansen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 20:12:35 -0400 From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art At 05:32 PM 5/15/02 -0600, Thom Duncan wrote: >> I had the same reaction Larry did when I read Thom's post. I've been in >> several wards where members were asked to donate their professional >skills. True volunteer help I do not >object to. It's when a wealthy Church having the means might require a >person to donate some time that would otherwise require compensation. > >The Church at large doesn't do this. Why should a local ward do the same? > >> The principle of consecration should apply to everyone equally, artists >and >> plumbers alike. Isn't that the point of consecration In another life and at a younger age I spent a couple of years as a brick mason. When it was time to build our church in Rhode Island, it became may task (also as a member of the Branch Presidency) to lay up all the leads (corners etc.)and to supervise the brick work (laying much of the brick and block myself, and supervising the others who helped.)in our new second phase chapel. Because I was in my scene designer/technical director phase, I had to turn down a good summer theatre job to finish the church on time so the church paid me minimum wage to help make up the difference. I didn't kvetch at all even when one of the missionaries who were helping dropped a concrete block on my head and send me to the hospital. (Now that I think of it, that may explain a lot of things. About ten years later, (about 1970 or 71) although I was no longer in the designer/tech.director phase of my career, but I was teaching theatre at a university in upstate New York. One day I received a letter from the church inviting me to come to the Palmyra area and spend the summer doing scenery and lighting for the Hill Cumorah pageant. I no longer have the letter, but it seemed clear that I was being called to donate my time. Not being sure, I called the appropriate telephone number and asked. It was made clear that they were asking me to donate my time. I actually would have liked to do it, but SUNY New York, at that time, was paying "yearly" salaries in nine payments which meant if you were not going to teach summer school, you better have saved some money. I hadn't, so I regretfully turned down the gig and spent the summer running an English as a Second language conference for a bunch of Engish language teachers from Finland. I have since designed sound systems, designed lighting systems, directed pageants and plays as well as using my brick laying talents to build an outdoor barbecue out behind one chapel using brick that had been excavated from the baptism font of the old Nauvoo temple. I have been "used" in many ways by the church, and I think it fits in with my concept of the covenants I made in the temple. No one has to agree with me. Different strokes for different folks. When I directed the centennial pageant for the local baptist church, I charged a fee. I didn't make a covenant for the upbuilding of the Statesboro First Baptist Church. I have been recently called to be Stake Drama Director and to direct some plays. I may have to refuse the call (I try not to do that generally) not because I'm being asked to donate my professional skills, but because my dollmaking and puppetry business (and my grandchildren) are taking me out of town at crucial times. Richard B. Johnson, (djdick@PuppenRich.com) Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 21:39:22 -0600 From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: Re: [AML] Lance Williams, Producer of _Charly_ kumiko wrote: > For Williams, >Charly is a first in two ways. It is the first LDS novel to be >adapted for the silver screen. ... > That depends on your definition of "LDS Novel." What about Yorgenson's "Windwalker," some 20 years ago? And I also happen to know that Dan Yates' "Angels Don't Knock" is currently in post-production and will find its way to the silver screen very soon. I'm sure there must be others. (???) - -BJ Rowley - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 23:09:21 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art On Tue, 14 May 2002 Quinn Warnick writes: > I had the same reaction Larry did when I read Thom's post. I've been > in several wards where members were asked to donate their > professional skills. Yes, this is often done in an effort to help out specific ward members. > The principle of consecration should apply to everyone equally, > artists and plumbers alike. Isn't that the point of consecration? Yes. I believe so. And as much as an artist is able to help individual members of their (or any other) unit of the church I would hope that they are willing to do so. > If we all demanded compensation whenever our work-related > skills were put to use by the Church, the financial clerk > would be writing checks all the time. What about the school teachers > who also happen to teach primary on Sundays? Again, correct. We consecrate our skills, talents and abilities to the building up of others around us. And yet, the church (and there are two versions of that usage that we will delineate in a moment) doesn't ask (oh, let's use a plumber as an example since we're all so fond of placing the plumber at the bottom of the talent pool--"EVEN a plumber ...") even a plumber to take the work they have done for their livlihood--let's say this plumber builds water heaters from scratch and sells and installs them--and give it to some member of the ward. The ward may purchase it from that hardworking plumber to give to the needy member, but the church will never rob Peter to pay Paul. What the church will do is ask that plumber to put in EXTRA time outside of his daily labors that he devotes to the sustanence of his family, and provide a service of his abilities to help another member in need. Let's go back to Todd Peterson's comment about King Benjamin working in the fields along with all the other Plebes. I believe the point of that scripture is to point out that The King--The Prophet--does his daily labors and devotes EXTRA time to the work of the Lord. Clark Goble wrote: > While I can see where Br. Arrington might view this in terms > of "the laborer is worthy of his pay," I don't think that the correct > view. Well, yes it is. And I think the actions of the Church bear that out. Be fore I explain that, though, let me defend Bro. Arrington's reported comments. James spent lots of money and several years getting an education in the theatrical arts. During that process, and since then, he has used that education to build and install waters heaters of his own unique design and construction. This is how he feeds and shelters his family. For anyone to assume that he should take those water heaters and give them away is ridiculous. How will he feed his family. Now, if the Bishop or Stake president asks him to put in some EXTRA time to use the knowledge and talent he has to ... um ... teach someone else to make water heaters or help install a water heater that someone else has made, I think I know James well enough to say with confidence that he would probably agree to do so. As Thom mentioned, even when the Church calls someone and sets them apart to create a work of art for the exclusive use and ownership of the Church, the Church pays for it. Occasionally, people are called to special missions to participate in these events, but most of the people involved are paid (pretty well) for their services. Until the Church abandons the concept of tithing for full-on consecration, the Church will work within the economic system already in place in the land. The Church and the the church both respect the artist's labor as work in the field. Why can't we? J. Scott Bronson -- The Nauvoo Theatrical Society *********************************************************** "If I were placed on a cannibal island and given the task of civilizing its people, I would straightway build a theatre for the purpose." Brigham Young - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 23:27:26 -0500 From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Frankness in Mormon Writing Susan Malmrose wrote: The scriptures admonish us to be temperate in all things. ... It's not hard to see why someone would say the WoW is encouraging moderation in all things. D. Michael Martindale responded: I'll need to be a stickler on this one and ask for some examples of where "moderation in all things" is taught anywhere in the scriptures. ... Read section 89--see if you can see anything taught in there except moderation in eating meat. _______________ I find I often limit myself in my thinking. I get into ruts and think "inside the box" most of the time (whatever that means) when other folks believe I should think "outside the box" (whatever that means). Susan was right when she said, "The scriptures admonish us to be temperate in all things." The very first definition in Webster's New World Dictionary for the word "temperate" is (1) "moderate, as in eating or drinking." Philippians 4:5 says, "Let your moderation be known unto all men." Alma 7:23 encourages "being temperate in all things;" and Alma 38:10 also uses the phrase, "temperate in all things." It is repeated again in D&C 12:8, "being temperate in all things". So there are four examples (not counting eating meat in the Word of Wisdom) that refer to moderation (or being temperate) in all things. This "in the box/out of the box" thinking also came in handy on the recent review I did. I'll discuss that in another post, unless it turns into a busy news day and our moderator decides to combine them. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 00:20:17 -0500 From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Gerald N. LUND, _Come Unto Me_ (Review) Jeff Needle: Alas, Larry is very kind. Larry: Perhaps, but honest, I didn't change the review even after what happened at general conference. Jeff: In an effort to impress us with his limited knowledge of language, Lund simply stumbles and falls. Rob Lauer: As for why Lund would include this in his book--well, I haven't read his book, but I assume that he's merely showing off his research. I wouldn't think this would serve his fiction very well. _______________ "_Shalom,_ Simeon ben David," Sextus Rubrius said in Aramaic." There has been some discussion of whether the word Shalom is Hebrew or Aramaic. Because I knew this was part of the reason Jeff handed off the review to me (it wasn't his fault--I did accept his offer), I did a little research of my own before I wrote the review. Ok, I asked two friends who are linguists and whose judgement I also trust. Their responses were quite interesting. Since I didn't ask permission to quote them, I'll just paraphrase them instead. I asked each of them what they thought of the sentence in question (quoted above), and specifically whether the word Shalom was Aramaic, as Lund wrote, or Hebrew. (I did not identify the author to either of them.) The first said he didn't know Aramaic and couldn't say. But, he went on to give two reasons why the word could be the same in both languages. He referred me to another friend whom I had already queried. The second said the two languages were very similar and that the word "shalom" exists in both. Then he surprised me by noting that, while "shalom" was both Aramaic and Hebrew, the element "ben" in the name, meaning "son of," is the Hebrew form of the element, and that in Aramaic it would be "bar". So if he were speaking Aramaic, Sextus Rubrius should have said, "Shalom, Simeon bar David," instead of ". . . ben David." And although Simeon answered as if he understood, it turns out it didn't really matter what Sextus said at all. We read seven pages later that Simeon didn't understand Aramaic anyway. This caused a senior moment for me, as I thought I recalled having just read that Simeon had carried on a complete conversation in Aramaic. So I went back and, sure enough, the Aramaic conversation was on page 30 and the author's comment that he didn't understand Aramaic at all was on page 37. I personally think Rob is on to something when he mentions "showing off his research." I didn't call it that in my review. I think "patronizing" was the word I used. And yes, I suppose a better editor may have noticed these inconsistencies, given enough time to review the manuscript. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #716 ******************************