From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #729 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, June 3 2002 Volume 01 : Number 729 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 18:47:58 -0500 From: Marc Schindler (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] CHARLES, _Endowed from On High_ (Review) [MOD: This review was submitted by a non-AML List member at Jeff Needle's=20 recommendation, who had seen it on another email list.] Review: Endowed From On High John D. Charles, Endowed from On High: Understanding the Symbols of the Endowment (Salt Lake City UT: Horizon, 1997) Pb., 112 pp. ISBN 0-882-90614-3.US$9.98 [I ordered mine through Deseret Books, although they don't stock it - they have to place a special order on Horizon, so presumably you could save time by ordering it directly from Horizon: http://www.horizonpublishers.biz/ (one of the first URL's I've seen with the new .biz suffix, but there's not much content there yet).] Reviewed by Marc A. Schindler This is a fascinating book for several reasons. First of all, you might ask: who the heck is John D. Charles? He has an M.A. in English from BYU and teaches ESL in Latin America. He's not a GA and not a BYU prof - he's just an "ordinary guy" like you or I. But he has obviously been paying attention during endowment sessions and has some insights which I personally found very useful. I don't know what the temple prep class curriculum is like, but I'd recommend this book as a text. In fact, I've got 5 more on order as gifts - it's that kind of book, that makes a good stocking stuffer, especially for those who haven't gone through the temple yet, but even for old-timers who think they know the whole score. You certainly finish the book with a new, increased reverence for the temple. He stays away from "Nibleyesque" parallels to ancient times except where it's warranted, and then he says all he has to, very simply and succinctly. Two areas he handles with aplomb especially impressed me: why is there a similarity between the endowment ceremony and certain Masonic ceremonies, and there a significance to that similarity? Also, the fact that the endowment is liturgical (or what he calls a drama) in nature. It's not just symbolic in its components like the signs and tokens and clothing, but the whole experience itself is a symbol of both the restoration of the Gospel and the promise of future exaltation. Estimated reading level: Grade X. Rating: 4.5 stars out of 5. Here's an excerpt: [beginnings of pages are indicated within square brackets] [30] =85 Some gospel ordinances, e.g., baptism and the sacrament, follow a set script which has not changed (or has changed only very slightly) since ancient times. By contrast, the ceremony in which the endowment is presented (but not the endowment itself) has been modified several times just since it was revealed to Joseph Smith. This seems to be because this ceremony apparently is tailored by the Lord to the needs of particular cultures and times.=20 In the first modern revelation referring explicitly to the temple endowment, the Lord indicated that while the endowment might, in one sense, be continuous with ordinances revealed anciently (for example, to Adam, Seth, Noah, and the other patriarchs mentioned in Facsimile 2, figure 3, in the Book of Abraham), the ceremony revealed to Joseph Smith had been designed to meet the particular needs of Latter-day Saints:=20 And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people;=20 For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fullness [31] of times. (Doctrine and Covenants 124:40-41; emphasis added) Presumably, then, the ceremony revealed to Joseph had certain unique elements not to be found in the endowment ceremony from any previous dispensation. (See Heber C. Kimball to parley P. Pratt, June 17, 1842, LDS Church Archives) UNIQUE ELEMENTS FOR MODERN TIMES By the same token, the endowment ceremony currently performed in temples has unique elements not to be found in Joseph Smith's endowment, or even in the endowment performed ten years ago. With the passage of time, the saints' needs and cultural understanding apparently have changed, and under the direction of the living prophets and apostles the endowment has changed with them. One of the most significant and innovative changes is that the ceremonial drama, which used to be presented by live actors, is now presented on film in almost all the temples. Other changes have followed.=20 Some of the most recent change to the endowment, for instance (made in 1990), reflect our increased emphasis on the equal and our deepening respect for Christian churches with whom we formerly had rather hostile relations. Other changes have made the ceremony briefer and simpler, and thus more accessible. Records that early endowment sessions performed in the Nauvoo Temple lasted over five hours, as compared to current sessions which last about an hour and a half, =85 LEARN TO UNDERSTAND SYMBOLS THAT BOTH REVEAL AND CONCEAL Symbolism was a mainstay of the teachings of jesus. Matthew claims that Jesus never taught the multitudes without the use of symbols or figures. He wrote, All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. (Matthew 13:34-35)=20 Matthew also says that Jesus used figure deliberately to obscure his teaching, so dial the multitude would not understand than, 'It is given unto you," Jesus explained to his disciples, "to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them [the multitude] it is not given" (Matthew 13:11)=85. [37] ON-GOING PREPARATIONS FOR THE BLESSINGS While the parables no doubt had this obscuring effect, it should be noted that the nature of figures is to both reveal and conceal. In other words, a figurative presentation not only obscures at one level, the truth being presented, but simultaneously, at another level, it serves to help us understand the truth in a new way. The symbols used in the endowment serve the same purpose: they may serve to conceal the truth at one level, but they simultaneously reveal it to us in a new light at another level. When Jesus describes missionary work in terms of a sower casting seed, for instance, be not only obscures, for some listeners, the fact that be is talking about missionary work but he also helps us missionary work in a new way. The symbols used in the endowment serve the same purpose: they may serve to conceal the truth at one level, but they simultaneously reveal it to us in anew light at anothor level. LEARN TO RECOGNIZE BOTH "SIGNIFIERS" AND "SIGNIFIEDS" In linguistic jargon, A symbol has two parts: a signifier and a signified. The signifier is what we generally speak of as the symbol "itself" - the colored material that flies on a flagpole, or the broken bread on a sacrament tray: The signified is what we generally speak of as the meaning of the symbol - the country that the flag stands for, or the body of Christ represented by the bread.=20 The signifier is concrete; the signified is abstract This is the power of using a symbol: a angle concrete object is used to invoke a whole nebula of meaning. A flag stands not just for a country, but for that country's people, its history, its various aspirations and values, the dead who have fallen in defense of those values, the spirit of patriotism that preserves their memory, and so on. The bro- [38]ken bread stands not only for Christ's body, but for his atonement, his mercy, his compassion, his suffering, his mission, forgiveness, reconciliation, our willingness to keep his commandments, our discipleship, our communion with God and each other, and so on. In short, symbols rarely have a single meaning. Signifiers and signifieds do not fall into neat one-on-one relationships. This means that almost every scriptural image used as a signifier in the endowment refers to not just one meaning, but to a complex web of meanings. It is this fact which makes the endowment such a rich experience - an experience in which the laert participant can continue to learn throughout his lifetime. This book will merely begin to help you see the relationship between the endowment's signifiers and signifieds. The endowment will open up for you as you begin to grasp more of each symbol's various meanings and begin to see the complex interactions between those meanings, as well as their interaction with the meanings of other symbols. The most meaningful insights occur when you begin to see how events and aspects of your own life function as signifieds to the endowments signifiers, i.e., how the endowment provides a symbolic representation of your daily life=85. - --=20 Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland =84Man mu=DF noch Chaos in sich haben, um einen tanzenden Stern geb=E4ren zu k=F6nnen.=93 =96 Friedrich Nietzsche Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author in the context of a conversational-style Internet discussion group only; its views do not necessarily reflect those of the author=92s employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 09:19:11 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Neil LABUTE, _The Distance from Here_ Chris Bigelow wrote: > One interesting side note is the following: "Like any man who believes in > sin (he is a practicing Mormon, although his play 'Bash' got him > 'disfellowshipped' by the Church elders), LaBute does not trivialize > darkness but treats it with proper awe." > > Chris Bigelow Is there any truth to this quote - or is it like the persistent rumors I hear about Orson Scott Card and Dave Wolverton - just an Urban Legend? - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:48:26 -0500 From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion I was just wondering if any of you were familiar with the book _With Child: Mormon Women on Mothering_, edited by Marni Asplund-Campbell and published by Signature Books. It is a collection of poems, fiction and essays dealing with conception, birth, babies and mothering. Although the quality of pieces included in the collection is a little uneven, there's some really great stuff in there by Louise Plummer, Linda Sillitoe, even an excerpt from Margarat Young's _Salvador_. I ordered it online about six months ago when I was feeling all alone in my Mormon-Motherness out here in Minnesota. My best Mormon friend had just moved back to Utah, and I needed to hear the voices of people who came from a culture where having three children before the age of 30 doesn't make you clinically insane (although, who knows . . . sometimes I think that I just might be :-). One of the biggest differences between living in Minnesota instead of Utah is I get a lot more people challenging my decision to have so many kids so young--not in a mean way, really, but in a curious, "wow--what does she think *she's* doing" kind of way . It's affected me in two ways. One, I started asking myself that same question, whereas out in Utah I think I simply went the same route that everyone else around me was going. Why do I (or we, Mormons) have our kids so young, and have three, four, five kids instead of one, two, three kids? How do I know what is best for me, for my family, for God?? And two, I feel a little less entitled sometimes to complain about how difficult it is out here because I have chosen this path. I have knowingly made my bed, as it were. There are many people around me who have one or two kids--three, tops--who say outright, "I just can't handle anymore." Why are we as Mormons unable to say that?? And why is "three" the magic acceptable kid number in a Mormon family (at least sometimes it seems to be)? I have a friend who's killing herself to have at least four because she deep inside she would feel like she was cheating or lazy if she didn't have at least that many. It's a hard, hard, hard question. (And I'm not sure how literary it is. Sorry! But the beginning of this post started out literary . . .) Angela - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:11:12 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] re: Baby Exhaustion Some years ago, my father-in-law was visiting. I find him a very = difficult man to get to know, simultaneously reserved and opinionated, who = emerges from his shell to offer pronouncements, and then retreats again. = This visit went like many others, uncomfortably and awkwardly, and then, = suddenly, in a lull in the conversation, he began speaking, and he talked = for four hours about his childhood. I have never forgotten that evening; = it was just a remarkable outpouring of honesty and genuine feeling. =20 The subject, in this case, was the year his mother went to bed. My wife's = grandfather was a rancher, but his wife didn't want to live on the ranch; = she was a teacher and wanted to live in town. They agreed on that = compromise when they married. After over ten years of marriage, he broke = the promise, sold the town house, and moved to a tiny home on the ranch. = His wife (my wife's grandmother) had five small children. And she went to = bed. For a year. My father-in-law was the oldest (he was ten), and he = took charge, cooking meals, cleaning the house, all very badly, as you can = imagine. =20 She stayed in bed for a year, only emerging to eat and take care of = necessaries. Her husband never said a word about it; just told my = father-in-law what needed to be done. What saved her was a visit from the = superintendent of schools. A teacher had quit and they needed a new one = for a small rural school close to the ranch. She took the job, and that = probably saved her life. But I still think of that poor woman, so = terribly depressed that she went to bed for a year. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:20:14 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Nuclear Family (was: Baby Exhaustion) Barbara Hume wrote: >> This is one problem with the nuclear family. One young woman >> must deal with >> all of this endless child care, all on her own, with few >> opportunities to >> refresh her mind and spirit. And Jacob Proffitt replied: > >But the problem isn't the nuclear family, or the wives. Jacob then goes on to make many excellent points that I agree with. On this first point to which Jacob is responding, however, I think I see Barbara's point, and agree with her. I think part of the problem *is* our notion of the nuclear family, and our expectation that nuclear families ought to be self-sufficient, particularly in the rearing of children. First, a couple of definitions. The term "nuclear family," as I'm using it here (and as I think Barbara was using it), is one husband, one wife, and all relevant children thereto. No grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Those I'm all considering as parts of the extended family. I'm not sure that human experience has yet demonstrated that it's possible to have a stable society based on nuclear families alone, without extended family support. I'm not sure there's even been any significant effort to try, until the American frontier and subsequent (e.g., post-World War II) increases in geographic mobility created circumstances where a large number of families were far away from any extended family. Even today, families tend to rely a lot on extended families for support, both financial and in terms of child-rearing--where they are available. But I think that the conceptual model of "the family" in American society is, largely, that of a nuclear family that manages pretty much on its own. I don't think this is nearly as strong a model, even today, in Europe (certainly my time as a missionary in Italy led me to believe that it's not). But I think it is the way we in America believe it should be, even when it doesn't work out that way--and therefore it's the standard we work toward, and measure ourselves against. I suspect (though I don't know, not having studied this) that in earlier cultures, there was probably a lot more labor-pooling in the child care department. This would also have had the advantage of socializing the child with other children his/her own age. It also would have had the advantage of exposing the child to a variety of adults and adult role models--people who could supply different needs and relate to children in different ways. We do that to a large extent, of course, with today's educational system, and with babysitting and day care, but I wonder if it's as effective, or if it doesn't lose a lot of the values of the older system--e.g., that it may not be *my* parent watching, but it's *someone's* parent, or uncle, or whoever. And my parent may be watching us all tomorrow, and at any rate is probably on call in some sense. (There's a fascinating book, by the way, titled _Women's Work_, about the history of weaving and textiles in prehistoric and early historic cultures, that talks among other things about why weaving so often was women's work. It uses an anthropological model that talks about what the requirements are for work that women will do. Foremost is a requirement that it be something that can be done more or less safely while tending small children. Weaving and textiles fit that requirement in a way that much other labor did not.) In any event, I don't think our society has come up with adequate substitutes for the extended family (and the local, closely connected community). And I do think that's part of the overall problem with baby exhaustion in today's culture. It even plays (I think) into part of what Jacob mentioned in another post, that is, the notion that men believe they have to devote so much of their energy in their twenties and such to establishing themselves in their careers. Yes, this is a problem of values, but I think it may be a problem of structures and expectations as well. The ideal, in American society, is that from the moment (at least, if not before) that a man marries, he should be able to support his family fully and be independent. I wonder if that isn't an unrealistic expectation. Again, in extended family systems, I think there may have been more of a transitional period--where the married son continued working largely with his father. It may sound here like I'm idealizing extended family systems. That's not really my intention. I think they have problems, too. I think that it's very difficult to create cultural change in such systems (e.g., people changing their religion), which may be one of the reasons why the Book of Mormon talks about people being dependent on the traditions of their fathers, and why the Church's restoration came at a time when that very mobility (both physical and conceptual) was blossoming, particularly in the areas where the Church was first successful. But I'm not sure we've come up with a good substitute yet, and I agree with Barbara that our ideal of how the nuclear family "should" work can contribute to the problem. One more aside: I wonder if that wasn't, in part, the function or at least one purpose of plural marriage in the early Church: to create an extended family for those who, having in many cases left their extended families behind (by joining the Church, immigrating from Europe, or moving to Utah--or being sent from Utah to another colony in, say, Mexico), would otherwise have been largely without an extended network of support. I rather like this idea, as it seems to reinforce the value of families (as opposed, say, to more formal "programs" of mutual support) as a way of meeting needs. Of course, I'm aware that it didn't work that way in many cases, but instead created many separate "nuclear families" where one parent was largely missing from any given home. But I think I've also heard of cases where something like this did happen. (Another tangent: I think that the increase in mobility has largely come at the cost of woman-woman connections. Generally people move where the man has a job--i.e., a connection. Women--at least according to the traditional model where they stay at home, or get jobs only as a supplement--were then uprooted from their support systems and given nothing in its place. If you believe, as I do, that civilization is a composite of connections between men and men, and between women and women, and between men and women, with each type of connection contributing a different type of strength to the overall fabric, then I think that the loss of the extended family may have placed its greatest stress on the connections between women and women. And I think part of the problem of our modern notion of the nuclear family may be that it suggests that men-women connections ought to be making up for that lack, rather than directing our attention to the lack of women-women connections. Which is not to say that there isn't a lot to improve in men-women and men-men connections too...) Anyway. Enough blathering on for now. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:56:53 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Conservatism in Fantasy on 5/24/02 5:10 PM, Jonathan Langford at jlangfor@pressenter.com wrote: > Rob and Jim's replies make it clear that I need to clarify what I meant in > using the phrase "social conservatism." (Which probably means that I was > insufficiently clear in my original message.) So, here goes: > > By "social conservatism," I did *not* mean political conservatism of any > stripe--including the type that focuses on social issues--or any political > movement currently called conservative. Rather, I simply wanted to > reference a basic view of society that values stability very highly (often > over other values such as democratic representation) and that tends to > support existing social structures, including class structures where they > exist--seeing the alternative as a chaos that damages both individuals and > societies. There is one additional argument that I thought about but forgot to mention in my earlier dissertation. This regards both of the senses--the one you meant and the one you didn't. Fantasy and Science Fiction literature, from Tolkien to Howard to Heinlein to almost all of the current writers, has a prediliction for woman warriors. Tolkien had Eowyn, Howard had Valeria and Belit. David Weber, a current best-selling SF writer, has the fabulous Honor Harrington series, about a female space navy captain (well she's an Admiral now). A few years ago there was Elizabeth Moon and Paksenarrion, and there's plenty more where that came from. Both sexes write about them, and almost all seem to be new incarnations of some of the old favorites like Vennolandua or Britomarte. I have to plead guilty myself--my "main" series of unpublished novels includes a major character who is a lady knight/magician that fights with the best of chivalry as an equal. Most of the women warriors in that world are horse-archers rather than standard knights, but the Sisterhood of Saint Valarey of the Shield is made up entirely of women who can match men hand to hand. I don't really want to debate it too closely, however, because it is an inconsistency in my thinking. While I write about women warriors I oppose women in combat in our current military, with the exception of aerial combat. Even in the fantasy world I created the vast majority of women want no part of combat or war, but I see no reason why those who do should be universally barred from it. The ground-slogging thing, however, is too difficult; not for the indiviual, but because the individual cannot be integrated without great difficulties. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:15:41 -0600 From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion - ----- Original Message ----- But if you can say that while providing ways to cope until the period of fatigue passes...I think the simple knowledge that it's not an abnormal feeling would be very comforting. Melissa Proffitt My husband's great-grandmother, Elizabeth, left a fascinating, detailed, energetically-written account of her life (she was the first female mayor in all of Utah--and I've also heard in all of the US, but I don't know for sure on that one). I found myself envying how the women of Southern Utah in the late 1800s dealt with having lots of little babies. They really had a good system worked out. Basically, the young, unmarried women were expected to go and stay--sometimes for upwards of three months--with the woman in the extended family or community who had just had a baby. Elizabeth's journal contains accounts of herself at ages 16-25 (she married late), going off to stay for a few weeks or months with one woman or the other, like a cousin, aunt, or family friend. She would help with the cooking, cleaning, and child-tending until the new mother felt more like herself and could take on her housework again. She talked about how grateful the women always were to see her. Then, later, when she had her two children from a polygamous marriage and had to go into hiding (it's a very interesting story!), she talked about how glad she was to have a younger sister or cousin come to help her. She spoke of those young women as personal saviors. They helped her cope with loneliness, with the fatigue and exhaustion of having new babies, and with the never-ending housework. I've always thought that was a brilliant system--it gives the young women more competence in the chores they'd have to take on some day, and gave the new mother a much-needed break. By the way, I'd be interested in talking off-line with anyone considering a book on this subject. Amy - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 18:53:36 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion >One more question: I'm considering two different options >Option A: Straightforward, nonfiction approach, possibly with several >interviews with "experts" if I can get them to cooperate. (I have an in with >a professor at Duke who may help me find someone there who could add >credibility to the book, etc.) An expert who has never been a mother offers less credibility to me that people who have been through it. I've seen a lot of honesty on the list about this subject, and a book that sets forth these feelings would be more valuable than some bearded professor blathering about sociological studies and proper gender roles. >Option B: A series of essay-type chapters that deal with various aspects of >being a mother of young children that would, by necessity, be light-hearted >(somewhat Erma Bombeck-like) but honest, encouraging, and enlightening at >the same time. Not too light -- this is a serious topic, as you can see. Don't make it seem that you are dismissing these strong feelings being expressed with humor. Your book needs to contain many case studies, so to speak, contributed by women like the intelligent, articulate, and exhausted young mothers we've been hearing from. I'm glad I didn't hear any anti-birth-control nonsense when I was investigating the church. I never would have joined. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 21:12:41 -0500 From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: RE: [AML] Baby Exhaustion At 12:30 AM 5/30/02, Jacob Proffitt wrote: >I don't want to pick on you, Eric, because this is *such* a common >phenomenon, but it *shouldn't* be. We need to seriously take our teen >and early twenty men aside and tell them to pull their head out. It >*isn't* all about them. Their life isn't going to be forever marred if >they fail to attain that *next* level of professional recognition. Most >of us figure it out in our thirties or forties, but by then, we've >missed the most interesting part of our kids' lives and added a lot to >the burden of our poor wives. Why aren't we telling people about these >things? The baby exhaustion, sure. But we need to tell the men that >their career isn't the most important thing that will ever happen to >them and these family-killing obsessions aren't justified. Just a minute, now. Who said it is the fault of the men for thinking it is= =20 all about themselves? How often is the reason the men are overworked is either (a) to afford the= =20 baby and all the stuff that goes with it or (b) because someone=97often the= =20 wife=97is asking them why Brother Jones down the street got a promotion and= =20 they didn't? - -- Ronald W. ("Ronn") Blankenship mailto: ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #729 ******************************