From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #734 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Thursday, June 6 2002 Volume 01 : Number 734 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 14:25:02 -0700 From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Random Thoughts Books and stories dealing with this are probably rare because many people are extremely squeamish about it. They want to believe that pedophiles are the in-the- shadows trenchcoats types. That is hardly the case. They are often charming, friendly and make themselves generous and indespensible so that if an accusation is ever made no one can believe that Mr. X or Brother So and So would do such a thing! Same thing can also apply to certain killers. Ted Bundy was a charismatic type who did stuff like form a young republican club in Washington state. He had such a good facade that the author Ann Rule-("Small Sacrifices"), saw him at a social function of some sort and thought she'd like to introduce her daughter to him. Naturally she was horrifed to later find out who he really was. They lure and fool their victims by initally being charming before the true predator and monster comes out. Bringing it back to pedophilia, I think church-going people shy away from wanting to believe such things because it's a terrible thing to accuse someone of, they are forced to think on facts of a sexual nature and picture the violation of a child or adolescent. Not pretty thoughts. And the big question, what are they going to do about it? Oh dear, mustn't judge. They might have to face the fact that someone they like might be a monster and that there is a wolf, a predator among them. It shatters the feeling of security and safety one feels at Church. All these things cause a cognitive dissonance that would rock most people's worlds and well, why don't we wait and see what the law has to say about it before we rush to judgement? I know of a situation where a woman informed a Bishop and Stake President about an adolescent pedophile who because of age, wasn't going to do any detention time, but was put on probation. They seemed reluctant to do anything beyond counseling in the Bishop's office and whatever the state mandated. They were informed that if they did not make a concerted effort to see to it that this individual was never around kids in an unsupervised fashion the news media would be informed. The asked for supervision was then verbally guaranteed. These are issues that can and should be addressed in both novels, short stories and non-fiction. There are situations where good people have done nothing and evil has spread or gone unpunished. There have also been situations where people, including leadership, have stepped up to the plate and done the best they could, even if justice could not be fully satisfied, but offered comfort, being believed, and counseling for victims. I think Harlow has a short story where he tackles some of this. Isn't this also part of Brady Udall's "Miracle Life of Edgar Mint"? In this case the field is black and ready to harvest. Even addressing the why and how these warped individuals become who they become and how they choose their victims. I hope there are authors brave enough to go down this dark tunnel, we all might come out a little wiser because of it. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 14:14:05 -0800 From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Motherhood Literature >===== Original Message From Maren Allen ===== Somedays, I would love to leave them= > at a daycare and let someone else raise them while I continually nurture my= > intellect with something besides what a mouse will do if you give him a= > cookie ... I have a theory about those books (there's also one about what a pig would do with a pancake). For those who don't know them (count yourself lucky), the book says, if you do one thing for this little anthropomorphic animal, it will constantly think of other things that it needs and run you ragged the whole day. Well, I guess I gave it away. I think that those books are a metaphor for the beleagured parent. The child gets to see what he or she would have to do in order to keep a small, unpredictable, frenetic being happy. But, maybe it's exactly the opposite. Maybe those books are to help children enhance their appreciation (or gloatation) of their childhood and the unreasonable demands they are allowed to make on their parents. Yeah - they'd better enjoy it. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 18:04:20 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: RE: [AML] Stresses on Men I wrote: > > Perhaps this coudl be a literary thing - it seems that far > > too often men are shown as negelecting their families to > > pursue ladder climbing - are there cases where instead its > > shown to be a result of a misplacede desire to follow the > > church commandments of "provide" and "stay out of debt."? Then Jacob wrote: > It had better be careful if it wants to show how damaging it is to > follow the brethren. Like I said, you don't stay out of debt by earning > more. I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the brethern - they always talk about "nessecary" vs. "unnessecay" debt. What is odd to me is how this seems to get translated by the local leaders (nearly all of whom I've been noticing are doctors and lawyers) to "have no debt at all - and invest all your money." Maybe I'm the only one, but my mission president once gave a zone conference on how to become wealthy. My bishop just gave a presentation on how to invest money for maximum benefit under the guise of staying fiscally responsible - and always - it was "any debt is bad." - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 19:41:51 -0600 From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] Re: Exhaustion (Baby and Otherwise) Kathy Grant wrote: *What is the role of faith in Christ in all of this? More than once the Spirit has reminded me of Isaiah's words: "They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength . . ." (Isa 40:29-31.) I have felt this renewal at crucial times. How can we call upon the Lord's promises for additional strength? (A close single friend and I pray specifically and continually for each other, and we both find this helps significantly.) Jana writes: I think Kathy really hit on a point we'd been skirting. ( And, as a side note, I wholeheartedly agree that the single life is just as, or really, more exhausting. My closest friend is my Aunt who is 70 and still single. I've never dare ask her to help with children, because her own resources were so low. She occasionally did, but I think it was heroic of her to do so.) I think "getting through" the small children stage (I'm almost there! Mike goes to kindergarten, and I've purchased my first homestudy course from BYU, one that I'll actually finish this time: 5 classes left to graduate), is not much more cataclysmic than a man struggling through the job/career years, (which many wives put pressure on them to do, btw), a single member existing in the mormon culture, etc. If my mother had been closer and younger, I would eagerly have pursued my career, finished school sooner and been less exhausted. Daycare was an abhorrent thought to me.....I just assumed I'd spend more on that and guilt gifts than I'd make anyway. And I know in the end, my most joyous memories will be of those marooned years of being the stay-at-home mom. The Savior is always there if we ask and even try to meet him halfway, which ends up being more like 1/8th of the way. And this should never be minimized. Darlene Young wrote: Kellene, I would enjoy and read rabidly (and rapidly) both books. But you should know that a book of the second type you describe has already been written: _A Joyful Mother of Children_, by Linda Eyre. I have read it and enjoy it very much. But it didn't go far enough for me. I need a book that talks more specifically about baby exhaustion and its effects on the sexual relationship in a marriage as well as its other effects. So many books (and talks and RS lessons) "focus on the positive"--and by doing so, seem to deny the negative. I don't mind hearing suggestions and stories of people who have conquered--IF I know they started off feeling negative and miserable. When I know a person has reached the depths that I have, I can admire the heights they climbed too as well. I hope you write this book, and I hope you are brutally honest and open. Just a thought--I bet you could get some of the women on this list to contribute essays for you to edit and compile . . . Darlene Young Jana writes: I think you're too kind, Darlene. I know many women who do not even attend R.S. because it only leaves them feeling inadequate. I attended this past week and the lesson was on marriage and family. I think the teacher did a great job, but from all the class comments which are and should be encouraged I think some felt like they were letting their husbands down when they didn't greet him at the door every day with a smile and a kiss. (One older sister even made an analogy about men and their dogs.....how much they love them, and look how they jump up to greet them whenever they come home) And then jokes are always made, and the appearance of a more generous/liberal? attitude toward the expectations on women is bandied about. But the bottom line is usually, "we can still do it." (In my mind, even if we can, should we?) I felt bad when one mother who is anorectically skinny and an admitted perfectionist, once again bore her testimony and berated herself as a "brat". (maybe she really is, I don't know her that well, but I sense that the self-flaggelation was prompted by the tone the lesson took.) Frankly, I think when anyone (again, I'm not speaking of the teacher or the organization itself, just the overall tone many groups take on) doesn't deal with the "whole" of an issue or problem, (remember, we Can't know the sweet without the bitter.....it's not possible in this life no matter how some try to negate that law), they come off sounding more like propagandists than truth tellers. Why would we even need the Savior if we didn't reach our nadir now and then. Jana Pawlowski - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 15:25:36 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Attack of the Clones_ (Review) At 10:07 AM 5/28/02, you wrote: >I haven't read all of this thread, so maybe this has been covered, but I >have a question--Bobo Fett is a clone, right? Jango Fett had asked for a >clone of himself that wasn't genetically altered in any way. Wasn't that >supposed to be Bobo? Yes, that's what I got. He is the same Boba Fett who grew up and fell into the sand-worm pit off Jabba's ship in Episode 6. >As for the racial issue, maybe I'm just clueless about stuff like this and >don't notice it--but I never once thought of Jango Fett and all the clones >as being of a particular race or nationality. He was just a bounty hunter >out to make some quick cash. >Susan M I am happy to say I am no longer as clueless as I once was, and am now fairly sensitized to racial issues. Yet I didn't see Fett's nationality/race being a negative issue. I do have a problem with Jar Jar Binks. [And I have a problem with certain aspects of Shrek (except that it turned out right at the end, and I haven't heard any boo-ing from minority groups, so it must be all right). I have a problem with the Frederic Douglass (hero) hairstyle on the bad guy in _Unbreakable._ And so on.] But the fact that they cloned an apparently Polynesian/minority person, judging him to be of the *superior* quality desired to make so many, many copies of to make superior soldiers--says enough positive that I can nearly forgive the Jar Jar mistake. I would have had a SERIOUS problem with the film had Lucas made Jango Fett look at all Aryan. Wouldn't you? As for the rest of this thread--I waited to read the posts until I'd seen the movie last week! It had some wonderful eye candy, but the rest of the critiques seem dead-on to me, from either side of the arguments, and I can't add a lot to the discussion. (I am too tired. I claim baby exhaustion. It's hard to think straight and analyze anything.) I do think Padme should've been more mature. That she would have had more experience and better resistance to Anakin's overtures. She was, after all, at LEAST 26 and remembered him as a little boy. But then where's the story?? Mostly after seeing Episode II I felt sad. The final scene made me want to cry. But I didn't. (HA! So there.) I hope Episode III has everything I imagine it will have, and ties all six pieces together with the critical, vital details and answers the rest of our questions. And does anyone (bigger fan than me) remember what Darth Vader said to Luke at the end of VI? Didn't he say something about killing the Emperor to take his place at Darth's side, to rule the Empire as father and son, _as he did_? Shouldn't that dialog give us a clue about what's coming up in the last Episode? I suspect that Anakin's was hardly a virgin birth as much as it was a covered-up paternity, perhaps even an abduction/artificial implantation. That Anakin/Vader might actually be the son of Emperor Palpatine. Something like that. Something seeded to become exactly what Palpatine wanted him to be, manipulated carefully all along. IF that's so--then the redemption aspect could become more meaningful at the end than the willy-nilly deathbed repentance that it currently seems. At any rate, I sure hope Episode III makes the rest of it make sense, or I'll be very disappointed. Overall, #2 was much more well done than #1, which stunk so unfortunately and absolutely. I liked #2 well enough and it was fun to watch. And for Eric S.'s sake, (and a loose literary tie-in) the Star Wars novels--especially those by Timothy Zahn--are generally very well-written, fascinating books. They are not, repeat NOT, in the same B-class as Star Trek novels. They are also terrific, safe fun and adventure. There is no bloody gore, no explicit sex and no bad language in any of them. My husband talked me into reading one several years ago (after I laughed at him for reading that "junk"--he also reads Shatner and Star Trek novels...), and I was pleasantly surprised. I've since read nearly all of them. It was the same type of pleasant surprise I had after laughing at him for watching a show with the silly title of "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer," but was finally talked into watching it. :-) Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 21:57:05 -0600 From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Gae Lyn Henderson said: > The fact is that the class does not have an unlimited tolerance for Sister > Henderson-thinks-shes-an-intellectual-tries-to-liberalize-our-thinking type > statements. If only they knew the restraint I show and the empathy I > have for their irritation at my volubility. > > Anyone else censor themselves this way? Hell no . I used to watch what I said in Church meetings. I didn't want to upset anybody. So when I disagreed with the teacher, I'd swallow it, which would make me crazy after a while because silence during a discussion implies tacit agreement. Now I make a point to say something if I disagree with an item being presented (I see this as the main problem with Sacrament Meeting, by the way--no interactivity). The Sunday School "phylactory lesson" is a good example. In our class that day, the discussion rapidly turned into a "guess how much Mormon art I have on MY walls and shelves?" bragging session. So I raised my hand and said, "In general, I hate Mormon art. Does that make me a bad Mormon?" I think that phrasing my comment as a question helped--it made me seem less defensive and more open to comments (which I was). It also generated a very interesting discussion. No one wanted me thinking I was a "bad Mormon," so they tripped over themselves thinking up reasons why I wasn't. I feel strongly that I have an obligation to speak up in class--especially when I disagree with what's being said. It's not hard to do so in a non-offensive way. If there are those who take offense anyway, even when I tried my best not to cause any, then that's summarily Not My Problem. Amy Chamberlain - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 23:14:04 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Upcoming Summer Movies At 12:25 PM 6/4/02, you wrote: >It's very interesting to see what our creative LDS brothers and sisters are >up to in the highly influential entertainment industry! But why was this one >in the list? Is Mark Andrus LDS? Any other LDS connection? > > > DIVINE SECRETS OF THE YA-YA SISTERHOOD > > [Screenplay by Mark Andrus, who was nominated for an Academy > > Award for "As Good As It Gets", Something is swirling in my head from somewhere, as I read this, that I do know somebody who knew or is related to the guy who wrote As Good As It Gets, who is LDS. But somebody ELSE is going to have to back me up on that hazy idea... :-0 I have no idea why I'm thinking this. Maybe I dreamed it long ago. (baby exhaustion strikes again!!) Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 23:04:13 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Accepting Each Other's Offerings Tracie Laulusa wrote: > Maybe Scott, part of it is that we often tell stories selectively, to make a > point. When making a point we often look to extremes. Still, in recognizing the value of one offering and ignoring the others are we sending a message of judgment and dismissal? Is unrecognized pain unworthy of recognition? Why don't we tell more stories of the median rather than the extreme? Are we too lazy to deal with anything but the most obvious tales? Are we really incapable of getting the point if it isn't offered in giant flaming letters a foot high? I know that's an unfair question, but part of the problem is that those who feel underprivileged often take a lack of recognition exactly that way--as a statement that their struggle has no value. If their struggle has no worth, then what does that say about them for having that struggle? Of course it's impossible to recognize each and every issue or problem or struggle that someone, somewhere may feel--and there's certainly no way to address them all in the thirty posts a day we have on this list. Nor should we try; that's well beyond the charter of this list. But I think we often do each other a fundamental disservice when we dismiss or berate each other for not feeling as passionate about a particular issue as we might feel people should. I understand that it's a hazard of the forum, but I also think a concentrated effort on our parts to try to understand the pain or struggles of others is only to our ultimate benefit. Not an argument, just a comment. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 23:08:13 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments > > Anyone else censor themselves this way? > Not a Sunday goes by when I don't. There are some things I just can't stay quiet about. When somebody rips on the evils of the media, I have to speak up. I usually mention an R-rated film or two that I have seen that have drawn me closer to Christ (_Schindler's List_, for instance). When someone says that homosexuality is wrong, I have to remind them that Elder Oaks says there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, but homosexual acts are what the Lord is concerned about. And, living in Utah country, if someone starts seriously touting Republican philosophy as Gospel doctrine, I have to raise my hand and remind one and all that this is a lesson about religion not politics. Otherwise, I pretty much keep quiet. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 23:14:33 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Brigham City Believable Character? > "I was asked to consult on a case where a Phoenix-Tucson area professional > person, president of his firm and head of his church's committee on helping > troubled children, was found to be a serial rapist who had violently raped a > number of women at gun- or knife-point in the Arizona area. In doing the > background study on him, I found him to come from an exemplary background > and trouble-free childhood. He was an outstanding student in high school and > college. > "His wife, children, business and church associates had not the slightest > inkling of his double life or dark side. The only significant negative > factor in his life was an adolescent addiction to pornography which, for the > most part, was kept secret from others. " > What I resent from Cline's quote is the BIG inference that pornography, and pornography alone, led this otherwise upstanding citizen to become a serial rapist. It is not clear in this example whether porn was the cause of the sexual activity or a symptom of same, despite Cline's suggestion to the contrary. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 00:55:31 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Random Thoughts margaret young wrote: > > Honestly, I have no idea how a writer would broach this subject in a > way that would portray the pedophile as something less than monstrous. Pedophiles are one of the last classes of people left that it's okay to think of as monsters. And yet they are not monsters, but people. The problem with thinking of a human being as a monster is that a monster needs no explanation--it just is. This doesn't help us understand where pedophiles come from or how to help them before things get so out of hand we want to call them monsters. If there ever was a need for the pure love of Christ for one's enemy, perhaps this is it. If you can love a practicing pedophile, you're probably ready for sainthood. There have been a number of antiheroes in literature, people we come to know and understand without once sympathizing with them. The Godfather films come to mind. I believe it can be done to write a book about a pedophile and not make him a monster. It has to be possible, because they're not monsters, they're human beings who for some reason have reached the point where they're capable of doing terrible things. - -- 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: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 01:54:36 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Jacob Proffitt wrote: > True enough. But just because people don't want to hear it doesn't mean > you stop telling the truth. And telling it again if you have to. And > again and again and as long as you feel the message needs to be heard. > Overkill exists, of course. Care, tact, and awareness of how best to > support others are important. But it's still important to hear and say > and at no time more important than for our young, unmarried adults (men > *and* women). My point was, the message will never be heard no matter how many times it's spoken, as long as so many conflicting messages in our society exist that teach the opposite message in ways that are more deeply emotional and more effective. I saw an animated short once. The animation was ridiculous jiggling stick figures, and the plot was a series of scenes where a man comes up to a woman and tries to talk to her. The man is always polite and gives an innocuous opening line, but the women react with greater and greater violence toward him for daring to hit on her, stabbing him in the eye or ripping his skin off his body--that sort of thing. The final scene shows the man coming up to a woman and saying pointblank, "I have money." She immediately embraces him and cries, "I love you!" Recently I watched a couple reruns. One was "Whose Line Is It Anyway?", an impropmptu comedy show hosted by Drew Carry. One thing they do on that is to sing a hoedown about a spur-of-the-moment topic selected by the audience. That episode's topic was blind dates. Drew sang about how he used to have trouble with blind dates, but these days they go without a hitch, even though he knows he's not good looking, because he's "really really rich." The other was "Seinfeld," where Kramer and Elaine find out how much money Jerry actually makes--much more than they had thought. Suddenly Elaine starts acting very amorous toward Jerry. These were all funny, because we all know it's true. Even in the depths of Mormon culture, it's still true. Every man knows it deep down in his heart, and all the platitudes about how family is important and careerism is bad isn't going to change what that heart knows. - -- 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: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 06:46:13 -0500 From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: RE: [AML] Stresses on Men At 11:39 PM 6/3/02, Jacob Proffitt wrote: > >Then they've learned the wrong lessons. You don't stay out of debt by >earning more. Maybe we need to teach better financial lessons. You >stay out of debt by spending less than you make--i.e. having less stuff. With all due respect to Jacob, this is not *always* the case. >You do have an interesting point, though. There's a real problem if >people think you aren't providing for your family as well as the next >guy if you aren't providing the same stuff. That's bunk and needs to be >exposed as the bunk it is. I, personally, will stand by any father who >lives in a shack, drives a piece of hud, and can't afford to go to all >the parties if he also spends more time with his family and knows who >his kids are. And I'll back him against a successful businessman or >doctor whose kids can't pick him out of a line-up. Even the meanest shack=97even BYU-approved student housing =97generally= =20 charges a certain amount per month in rent or house payment. Then there's= =20 utilities (like electricity, heat, water, and sewer, not a T1 line and=20 premium cable TV), and repairs or emergencies. And "a piece of hud" (I've= =20 never heard it called that before, so I guess here's at least a nominal=20 literary tie-in in that I learned a new expression) still has to be paid=20 for, filled with gas, maintained regularly, and insured, and may be in the= =20 shop frequently enough that it ends up costing you every bit as much per=20 month as the payments for a relatively fancy new car (which may spend just= =20 about as much time in the shop as a "piece of hud"). And we haven't=20 mentioned food, or clothing (even DI puts a price tag on its merchandise)=20 or medical expenses, or any of the other necessities that make up even a=20 minimal cost of living for an individual or especially a family with=20 children. For some people, it's not "stuff" or "parties" that make it=20 difficult to make ends meet, but *necessities*. For a concrete example, I am going to describe the situation of someone=20 whose situation is well-known to a number of the members of this list, who= =20 will certainly know who I am talking about. However, I won't use any names= =20 or other identifying information. This person lost her husband awhile=20 back, leaving her a single mother with a number of children, most of which,= =20 to use the current politically correct term, have "special needs." She=20 does the best she can to be a good mother=97a better job than many in what= =20 would be considered more fortunate circumstances manage to do=97and provider= =20 to her children, but she has had health problems of her own and not long=20 ago was injured at work and so was unable to work for an extended period of= =20 time. She told me that during that time her mother came by and they looked= =20 at her families expenses and income, causing her mother to say "I don't see= =20 where you can cut back any more. You need more money," to which she=20 replied, "Ya think?!" And it's not just single mothers with children: young men who should be=20 building their careers or in their "peak earning years" are injured on the= =20 job or in traffic accidents or contract some illness which leaves them=20 unable to work (or at best only able to work a few hours a week at a job=20 that is not strenuous, and maybe not even that much on any kind of a=20 regular basis), so they and their families are forced to try to get by=20 perhaps on disability or workmen's comp payments, which anyone who has=20 known anyone who has had to live on such payments knows are not=20 adequate. There's no two ways about it: these people, too, need to find=20 some (legally and morally acceptable) way to _earn more money_. >I've as much as done so in my Quorum. One man was explaining to me how >he had taken a night job (in addition to his day job) and explained how >they'd have the house paid off in five years. Did you ask if he is thinking that when he has a heart attack from overwork= =20 six years from now, at least his wife and kids won't lose the house? >It had better be careful if it wants to show how damaging it is to >follow the brethren. Like I said, you don't stay out of debt by earning >more. People who think that you do are going to end up with mounting >debts no matter how much they make--I know the truth of this from >painful experience. And if you're not providing *spiritually*, then it >doesn't much matter what you're providing physically. OTOH, it's not conducive to feeding your kids spiritually if they are=20 crying because they are physically hungry . . . Note: I'm not arguing with Jacob. I realize that most of the time he is=20 correct: people get overextended by spending too much on luxuries, and=20 having more money coming in will just allow them to spend more and go=20 further in the hole. I just wanted to point out the exceptions to the rule. - -- Ronald W. ("Ronn") Blankenship mailto: ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 23:24:04 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Accepting Each Other's Offerings Barbara Hume wrote: > Would it be possible to look at things such as other people's offerings > without seeing them in relation to yourself at all? To see them as being > between God and those individuals, casting no light or shadow on you in any > way? Could that be liberating? I've worked on that, and I pretty much > don't care anymore if someone else is richer, has a better job, goes to the > temple a zillion times more often, or is older than I am but whose body > parts have not gone south. It doesn't matter. I just do the best I can and > enjoy the life I have. Of course it would be possible and could be liberating and should be in most ways an improvement over beating oneself up on a nearly constant basis for inadequacies and insufficiencies and outright failures. And if it were as easy as just deciding not to care about anyone else's opinion, I would have no worries. But it's not quite as easy as that, at least not for some some of us. Maybe I need to expand my definition of offerings a tad. Every service in society is an offering. A job (vocation, career, whatever) is an offering. An opinion stated on an email discussion list is an offering. A story or poem or essay written for any audience beyond one's self is an offering. A canvas painted or a figure sculpted is an offering. A door held open for another is an offering, as is making a space in traffic to allow another motorist to move in front of you. Charity given is an offering, as is charity received with grace (or even gracelessness; an offering is not necessarily a good, right, or holy thing). Religious devotions are offerings, as are social or political or environmental devotions. In other words, any time we put ourselves at risk of judgment or comparison or evaluation for any reason we make an offering of ourselves to others. And in so doing, we risk being judged inadequate, insufficient, or in some other way lacking. Sure, the vast majority of those judgments are irrelevant and have little or no bearing on whether we can successfully live our lives. But there are times when those irrelevant judgments can begin to feel like heavy weights that close doors and restrict options and limit movement. We seek some approval that what we think or believe or desire is somehow valid. If not praise, at least acceptance. Few of us seek the disapproval of others, and those that do are usually entertained by that disapproval rather than bothered by it. When a child draws a scribble on a paper and hands it to a parent, that child seeks approval that they have value and that their expression, their offering, has some value to the one external audience that the child trusts and respects--the parent. If the parent ignores the offering, the child may not feel disapproval, but they also may not feel approval. So the child seeks another outlet or venue and tries again. I don't think adults are all that different. Some of us have a stronger faith in our own ideas or hopes or vision than others and so we seek less external approval. We are at peace with what we think and find external validation to be a bonus, if not a primary goal. Others of us, though, have lost confidence in our own vision. We are no longer sure that our hopes or beliefs or goals are worthwhile--either to ourselves or to others. So we seek validation from those whose opinions matter to us; if that approval doesn't come, we take the lack of approval as a comment on the value or quality of our offering and we are forced to either invalidate the source or to modify our approach. One of the side effects of the patriarchal nature of the Church is that it creates a hierarchy of approval. At its basic level is the approval of the parent--or in a church with a heavily patriarchal bent, the father. We trace a great many of the social and emotional problems in the Church to a father who withholds approval, and thus validation, for both his children and his wife. We call the father cold or aloof or distant, and we condemn him for his lack of compassion or his judgmental nature. But some fathers are neither judgmental nor distant, they're uneducated or afraid. They've never considered their power to affect the esteem their family feels for itself, or they recognize their power and fear its misapplication. If we praise too much, the child never learns discernment and fails to progress to more difficult or more varied experiences; if we praise too little, the child never learns acceptance and fails to progress while rehashing the same issue in search of approval. In either case, the family suffers. So who does the father turn to for guidance? The ward? The bishop? Other fathers? Theoretically, the whole hierarchy of the Church is filled with fathers, not all of whom are comfortable with their role as arbiter of value, as validator of the hopes and desires and faith of others. Many of those fathers find judgment and condemnation easier than approval and compassion, and feel that a lack of condemnation is the indicator of approval. One can seek approval in any number of places, but honest judgment is rare and precious and proof of real love. To correct is to show real concern. A certain amount of this kind of judgment is not only good, but is crucial to our whole concept of progression. If we don't analyze ourselves and condemn the errors in our behavior, how can we repent? How can we ever hope to become perfect, to become as God, if we don't ruthlessly expose our flaws and seek constantly to repair them? It sometimes feels like our entire focus in the Church is in seeking and exposing flaws, in removing the blemishes in our beliefs and behaviors. But where's the approval? For fear of complacency, we withhold praise and instead bestow judgment. We dare not be found guilty of declaring that all is well in Zion. Yet the effect--for some of us at least--is that we seem to declare that nothing is well is Zion. There is no approval for a job only partially completed. Since none of us will become perfect in this life, there can be no acceptance of our incomplete offering. Of course that's a pretty substantial overstatement, but for many that's how it feels on some days and at some times. But the issue carries over into our offerings of literature or art, as well. On the one hand we want to encourage our religious community to share expressions of hope and faith by whatever means we can, and painting or drawing or telling a story is one of the most familiar expressions of that hope and faith that we have. On the other hand we want artistic expressions to be not only heart-felt, but also to be of real value when compared to the same kinds of offerings made in the larger artistic community. For many of us the expression of our inmost thoughts and the expression of our religious hopes and convictions are pretty much the same thing. Which creates yet another opportunity for judgment and being found wanting--on topics that I'm not really convinced we're all qualified to judge. So where's the line, and what responsibility to do we have to each other both to criticize in hopes of developing excellence, and to accept and approve the often clumsy but well-meaning attempts by members of our religious community to express a faith we may not always feel confident about expressing? If we respond to an offering with thundering silence what message are we sending, and what is our social reponsibility to create communities of inclusion and approval? As much as I like this forum, I admit that it confuses me at times. We range from the literary to the social to the religious with relative ease--I'm not always sure where the lines are. The result is that we seem to discuss the fact of being Mormon as much as the specific expression of that being in literature, and that blurring of the lines between my social/religious community and social/artistic community disorients me quite often. In the end, I suppose it's an unanswerable question--what is the right amount of approval to give each of us a solid foundation for believing in the validity of our own hopes and faith? Of course the converse is also there: how much criticism and condemnation is necessary to keep us moving forward and developing more and better expressions of our hopes and faith? Obviously the answer is relative to each and every one of us, so there's no meaningful answer that can be given. And if I didn't feel that my own foundations were weak at this point, I wouldn't have spent so much time asking an unanswerable question. Still, I think the idea that each of us seeks both acceptance and challenge is a fundamental element of who we are, and as Mormons the extension of our social/religious hopes into the other aspects of our lives is part of the challenge of being who we are. Because we do analyze and criticize and judge ourselves so very often, I wonder if there might not be an important social value to a literature of validation and acceptance in addition to our literature of criticism and improvement. Neither alone is enough, and each seems as important to building a whole community of inclusion as the other. But that's an old argument and I know I'm in the minority, so I'll end this and go to bed now. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #734 ******************************