From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #736 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, June 7 2002 Volume 01 : Number 736 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:42:35 -0700 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments > So I guess I want church meetings to perform a different function than most of > my ward members want. > > Stephen Carter You know, almost every time I see someone on this list describe their ward or a particular church experience, I end up thinking, "What world do *they* live in?" And then I realize--oh yeah, Utah! Seriously, a lot of what's been described on this list is really foreign to me. But maybe that's just because I live pretty much completely outside of the Mormon culture. Susan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:04:05 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Random Thoughts D. Michael Martindale: >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. The Todd Solondz film "Happiness" does this very thing. Its protagonist (one of them) is a pedophile. He is also a regular person who feels guilty about his urges and actions. That's one of the reasons that film was so controversial: This guy's a pedophile, but he's not a demon. Like D. Mike said, they're one of the few remaining groups that are OK to classify as nothing but monsters. Eric D. Snider - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:22:43 -0700 From: "jana" Subject: [AML] AML-List Review Selections Hi folks: Here is the latest batch of selected reviewers. If you are on this list, = please email me your snail mail address so I can send = your requested title. If you weren't selected for a book this time = around, but would still like to review something, please contact me-I've = got several books still available. Thank you, Jana Remy - ------------------- One Side by Himself: The Life and Times of Lewis Barney Harlow Clark Red Water Boyd Petersen The Ten Lost Tribes: A People of Destiny William Morris Happiness Pursued: Time-tested tools to turn anxiety into happiness Jerry Tyner Molly Mormon? Kathy Tyner Waltzing to a Different Strummer Laraine Wilkins The Nauvoo Temple Stone Melissa Proffitt Nauvoo: the City Beautiful Jeff Needle Saints at War Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:33:09 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Random Thoughts At 12:55 AM 6/5/02, you wrote: >. 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. Mary Jo Putney's The Spiral Path is a novel that does just that. The book itself is marketed as a contemporary romance, but it's far more than that. The pedophile character had both negative and positive effects on the hero as a boy. I'd never seen a writer deal with the subject as she did. As a writer, she deals with the theme of redemption in very moving ways. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 14:25:48 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Dave SHIELDS, _The Pendulum's Path_ (Review) Thank you for this lovely note. It is much appreciated, and very encouraging. I'm not sure I know about your book, mentioned in your tagline. Has it been reviewed here? Thanks again for the good thoughts. HOJONEWS@aol.com wrote: > > Jeff and AMLers: > Jeff, this is a lovely review. As an author, I was especially touched by > your ability to stumble over roadblocks (poor editing) without condemning the > entire work. It is also a rare (maybe professional) reviewer who can write a > paragraph like the one above about a subject he/she holds dear and not be put > off enough to downgrade the overall rating. Thank you for that. > As an aside, if Dave Shields is not part of this group, he should know > about it. A greater number of fine literary minds in one place, I have not > encountered. > Carolyn Howard-Johnson, Author of This is the Place, > an award-winning story about a young journalist who writes her way > through repression into redemption - --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com or jeffneedle@nethere.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 21:24:34 -0400 From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Brigham City Believable Character? 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 I can't really identify the experience (s) because You-all decided that one shouldn't refer back to church jobs because it is competing, but My experience has indicated that it is _very_ possible even likely, that porn was the cause, not necessarily of a specific act, but of a general swing into a depraved mental state, and that eliminating the porn (not an easy task at all) frequently brings individuals back into a sense of communion with the Lord. 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 http://www.PuppenRich.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 20:23:45 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Accepting Each Other's Offerings On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 23:24:04 -0600, Scott Parkin wrote: >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. I don't know if you're in the minority, but I'm also not entirely sure = what you're asking for here. This started out asking the question Why do we always tell stories about the extremes, rather than the median? Which I think morphed into, We tell them because they're striking, but what = effect does a constant diet of extremes have on our listeners? I agree with you that it's frustrating to always and only hear about the really far-out stuff, especially when it's tied in to a moral of "and that's how I know = God exists." Well, what if your story isn't quite so extraordinary? Does = that mean you're not worth God's notice? (It doesn't, but if all you had to = go on were tales of life-threatening disaster and miraculous saves, you = might start to think otherwise.) But it's the idea of a "literature of validation and acceptance" that I'm not quite sure I understand, probably because I'm not certain what you = mean by "literature of criticism and improvement" as well. I know I seek out stories that seem to reflect my own experience, but I don't think of them= as specifically written for that purpose. In fact, I tend to think of = wanting approval as a bad thing--not that I think people should be trained by whippings alone, or that it's bad to enjoy praise. It just gets paired = in my mind with a sort of pitying back-pat that I wouldn't have gotten if I hadn't been so darned needy. So I think it's a conflicting situation: on the one hand, people need = praise for the good things they do; on the other, it should be genuine praise. = And that's probably not what you were talking about anyway. But you've = piqued my curiosity. Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 14:17:37 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Virus Heads-up (Comp 1) [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From adamszoo@sprintmail.com Thu Jun 06 20:11:43 2002 Original from Sharlee Glenn: I got the dreaded KLEZ virus, and I'm still trying to figure out how. I NEVER open attachments unless I know they're coming. So, I didn't catch the KLEZ by opening an attachment. _______________ I use McAffee antivirus software. I've been receiving this one DAILY for about a week or more. It also comes with a second, buried virus, Exploit-MIME. My software catches it and I delete it; no harm done, but it's annoying. I believe anyone may go out to the www.mcaffee.com website (or Norton) and look up information on all the current viruses. If you own antivirus software it is *also* important to download new upgrades very frequently. The KLEZ virus is relatively new. My software wasn't catching it until I did this--it had been six weeks since my previous upgrade. Many of these new viruses prey on a loophole found in Outlook/Outlook Express. If that's the program you use for your mail, there is a default setting somewhere that you have to turn off, to prevent it from opening these things automatically. Outlook is the only program where you *can* get the virus just by "opening" the email, because of this loophole. I don't know more than this how it works. I stay safe by using Eudora. :) I think there are directions for this on the McAffee website though. Best of luck! Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com - ------------------------------------------- >From lajackson@juno.com Thu Jun 06 21:55:34 2002 Sharlee, you didn't do it, but your mail program did it for you. Your computer tells me that you use Microsoft Outlook Express, version 6.0, which has a setting that allows you to preview messages before you actually open them. It is also one of the most common programs targeted by viruses (because it is so widely used). Yes, unfortunately in today's world, if you are using the right program with the default (or wrong) settings, an email message can now get you without any effort on your part. A more knowledgeable computer specialist could fill in the details, but I believe there is a way to set your mail program so it won't do anything with a message until you have a chance to delete it. If there isn't, I would begin using a different mail program. The malicious programmers can stay ahead of the programs we routinely use becaue they don't get updated and fixed as they should. Books have been written on the subject. ( <-- Poor literary tie-in.) A good virus checker would also catch KLEZ, unless you got it when it was a new virus. Larry Jackson - ------------------------------------------------ >From Jacob@proffitt.com Fri Jun 07 00:56:00 2002 - ---Original Message From: Ronn Blankenship > >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. Um. How not? How is it possible to get out of debt if you don't ever spend less than you make? It isn't possible. > Even the meanest shack-even BYU-approved student housing > -generally > charges a certain amount per month in rent or house payment. > Then there's > utilities (like electricity, heat, water, and sewer, not a T1 > line and > premium cable TV), and repairs or emergencies. And "a piece > of hud" (I've > never heard it called that before, so I guess here's at least > a nominal > literary tie-in in that I learned a new expression) still has > to be paid > for, filled with gas, maintained regularly, and insured, and > may be in the > shop frequently enough that it ends up costing you every bit > as much per > month as the payments for a relatively fancy new car (which > may spend just > about as much time in the shop as a "piece of hud"). And we haven't > mentioned food, or clothing (even DI puts a price tag on its > merchandise) > or medical expenses, or any of the other necessities that > make up even a > minimal cost of living for an individual or especially a family with > children. For some people, it's not "stuff" or "parties" > that make it > difficult to make ends meet, but *necessities*. I'm not sure I understand your scenario. Are you saying that people have to eat and so-on? I don't believe I ever said otherwise. You *should* provide for your family in any (legal and moral) way that you can. But if you are so destitute that you can't provide even housing and food, then it is time to talk with the bishop. It is the *point* of Fast Offerings to help people in such dire straits. A member of the church should never have to turn to debt for such necessities. Now, I can see, from your example, how your main concern might be education. Personally (and I *think* "officially") education is one of those things that justify debt. I think that's implicit in the "Perpetual Education Fund"--which is set up and *sponsored* by the church. But even then, it's important to care for the family, and do everything in your power to provide for them. As to working yourself to death in order to get an education, I think that a lot of people take this *way* too far. Often, it'd be worth it (and a good idea) to save first. If you have children, then they are more important than your education or career. Most people can make enough to support their families in other ways. > For a concrete example, I am going to describe the situation > of someone > whose situation is well-known to a number of the members of > this list, who > will certainly know who I am talking about. However, I won't > use any names > or other identifying information. This person lost her > husband awhile > back, leaving her a single mother with a number of children, > most of which, > to use the current politically correct term, have "special > needs." She > does the best she can to be a good mother-a better job than > many in what > would be considered more fortunate circumstances manage to > do-and provider > to her children, but she has had health problems of her own > and not long > ago was injured at work and so was unable to work for an > extended period of > time. She told me that during that time her mother came by > and they looked > at her families expenses and income, causing her mother to > say "I don't see > where you can cut back any more. You need more money," to which she > replied, "Ya think?!" All principles have exceptions--mainly because principles conflict with each other and different principles have differing priorities based on differing circumstances. But in this case, your friend is another example of why we have Fast Offerings. Sure she should do what she can to provide for the children herself, but she needs help and should probably (I'm not her bishop, so who knows really?) receive it. There's a scripture in the D&C that tells the church to get off their can and support the families of those on missions. Nothing wrong with that. If she's cut her budget to the bone and working as much as she can, then others should step in to make sure she can spend time with her kids. But I know a number of people who have "cut to the bone" who nevertheless have large-screen TVs, DVD players, premium cable channels, and an ever-expanding library of books and videos. There's a disconnect there. Stuff is nice, but we don't need anywhere near as much as we tend to have--and if we have enough and are still working insane hours, then we are showing what our true priorities are. > And it's not just single mothers with children: young men > who should be > building their careers or in their "peak earning years" are > injured on the > job or in traffic accidents or contract some illness which > leaves them > unable to work (or at best only able to work a few hours a > week at a job > that is not strenuous, and maybe not even that much on any kind of a > regular basis), so they and their families are forced to try > to get by > perhaps on disability or workmen's comp payments, which > anyone who has > known anyone who has had to live on such payments knows are not > adequate. There's no two ways about it: these people, too, > need to find > some (legally and morally acceptable) way to _earn more money_. Right again. But again, that's what Fast Offerings are *for*. > >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 > six years from now, at least his wife and kids won't lose the house? Now you're just making excuses. Who knows what the future will bring? What ifs are nice, but they are hardly a way to illustrate (or invalidate) a principle. What if the second coming arrives in three years and he's wasted all the time he had with his kids? And what are the consequences going to be after five years of hard work when his kids are now teenagers and they don't know who he is? And if he dies in six years, how much bigger a tragedy is it if his kids don't know him at all? And as long as we're tossing out what ifs, what if he sold his house and bought a much cheaper one, saved his money, and/or bought life insurance? i.e. What if he had less *stuff* instead of working himself to death and never being home? > >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 > crying because they are physically hungry . . . Sure. If they're hungry, then you do what it takes to provide the sustenance they need. But if they have food and shelter then the physical part is taken care of and it's time to make sure the spiritual needs are met. And since we live in the U.S. the vast majority of people have all that they need to survive physically--at the same time they're suffering spiritually. All just to have more stuff. > Note: I'm not arguing with Jacob. I realize that most of > the time he is > correct: people get overextended by spending too much on > luxuries, and > having more money coming in will just allow them to spend more and go > further in the hole. I just wanted to point out the > exceptions to the rule. I don't mind exceptions, but often enough exceptions are just excuses. We can't say what the spiritual state of any particular person actually is, so it's hard to make righteous judgments about whether they're justified in ignoring their families. I'm only talking about principles here, and as a principle, families come ahead of career. Providing a bunch of caveats or manipulated circumstances doesn't counter that core principle. I often wonder why it is that we seem so compelled to counter tough gospel principles when we learn them--as if we can avoid having to do it if we come up with enough excuses. You get this when you talk about how women should be primary caretakers, how men should be an integral part of their families, how we should have children if we can, whether or not to go into debt--in short, anything that asks us to do something hard. I'm not the arbiter here and I hope I haven't set myself up as such. God gave us the principle that families are more important than career and we choose whether or not we follow. Balance is hard and a true struggle and I'm relatively certain that few of us get it exactly right. We shouldn't guilt-trip each other and we should be loathe to make accusations, but anyone who has pangs of guilt upon hearing a principle needs to honestly find the source of that discomfort-and frankly, it is their duty to do so, not mine. Now, I can see how examining exceptions is a useful way to explore and establish boundaries. But I don't think that's really why we are so quick to say "yeah, but . . ." when we hear a difficult principle. Too often, we're trying to point out that exceptions exist so that nobody will be tempted to tell us that we're doing something wrong. In the end, what it comes down to is that we who are fortunate enough to live in the industrialized west have no business sacrificing our families to further our careers--particularly when starvation and exposure aren't even in the equation. If you feel your individual circumstances counter a principle, go for it. If I'm responsible in some way for your spiritual welfare, I might (depending on circumstances) ask you to rethink. Otherwise, I'm just talking principles that are applied in different ways for different people and circumstances. Jacob Proffitt - ------------------------------------------- >From dmichael@wwno.com Fri Jun 07 01:18:11 2002 Sharlee Glenn wrote: > How exactly does this work? > Anyone? And how do I prevent it from happening again? Quit using Microsoft products, for starters. D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com - ------------------------------------ >From rexgoode@msn.com Fri Jun 07 06:00:27 2002 Sharlee, I am not certain I should take list bandwidth to answer this. My prior message about the virus was sent to the list to assure subscribers that the chances of AML-List actually sending out this virus is fairly small. It's entirely possible for it to look like it came from the list. The virus can spoof an email to look like it came from any valid address it finds in someone's address book. Briefly, some people set their email client software to open and run attachments without asking the user for permission. You might want to look your mail software over to see if there is an option to turn it off. I'm not an expert on every email client, but if you would like to write me directly so as not to take up list bandwidth, I'll see if I can help you. I just want to reiterate, because I saw another message that looked like someone might think AML-List could send them a virus. The chances are very low. A fellow subscriber's infected computer could send you a virus and the virus would make it look like it came from the list, but the list is not likely to send it to you. Rex Goode - ---------------------------------------------- >From dale@farnsworth.org Fri Jun 07 08:17:54 2002 With some e-mail programs, such as MS Outlook, that interpret programs embedded in e-mail, you can catch a virus by opening the e-mail itself. If you have you e-mail program configured to preview e-mail when you click on it, you can get the virus just by clicking. - -Dale Farnsworth - ------------------------------------ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 21:29:44 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Accepting Each Other's Offerings Gae Lyn Henderson wrote: > Yes, a steady diet of such thoughts > might indeed be a simple pity party. But I guess the point for me was that > I believe cultural expectations have forced many of my life decisions. Just a quick backpedal here--I in no way intended to suggest that the discussion on baby exhaustion or the stress on Mormon mothers was a snivel, because I don't think it was. It's an important issue that we all need to be educated to and that we all need to consider when trying to understand how and why people interact as they do. The question about pity parties, etc. was actually intended to reference my own snivel, not your discussion of an important social issue. I'm very, very sorry if I miscommunicated my intent--the only shot I intended to take was at myself. > I think one root cause of anger in Mormon women is the destruction of her > autonomy. Mormon women learn to interact deferentially, as if powerless, in > their relationship to both the church and to their husband. [SNIP] > "Hence, this unhealthy dynamic (taught as vital to her religious > devotion) then enters into a marriage. What else could be expected other > than the anger naturally resulting from the repression of her own > self-interest and self-love. She is understandably confounded by the > dominant Mormon teachings of sacrifice and obedience." (trying to be careful so as to stay within List guidelines...) This is an area that fascinates me in general. My wife and I carefully planned our family, including waiting several years after marriage (four years, as it turned out) to have children because we wanted to ensure that we had a mature relationship among ourselves before we added the stress of children to it. Of course we also wanted to give Marny her chance to graduate and decide whether to pursue a teaching career. We never felt institutional pressure to have children immediately (we live in Utah, and lived in Provo/Orem at the time), and were counselled on many occasions to be thoughtful and to plan how and when our family would be formed. Our first three children came exactly on schedule and as a result of a specific plan. The fourth was off schedule, but in the plan for six months later so no harm done. My point is that we felt none of the social/institutional pressure that you seem to have been subjected to, and I'm curious to understand why. Sure, a lot of people shared their opinions on what the right thing to do was, but we took those opinions as carrying no more weight than any other opinion and made our decisions on our own in by our own methods--and never felt in any way that we were violating policy or being anything less than careful and as godly as we knew how to be. I would love to claim special enlightenment or social innovation, but in the end we did what we thought was right (as did most of our friends) while feeling full fellowship with the Saints. We just didn't experience the same social and cultural pressures that you did (or at least I don't think we did; I'll have to discuss that with Marny tonight...). I believe we go through generations in the Church where certain issues so dominate the cultural dialog that they become key inflection points for entire generations of Mormons. I know that when I read John Bennion's book _Falling Toward Heaven_ I was a bit confused by his presentation of a Mormon cultural belief in an angry, vengeful god because I have no such belief and don't recall it ever being preached to me in church (the fads when I was growing up were the tail-end of the fence-sitter era, the tole-painting explosion, and the "personal relationship with Christ" thing that got a little out of hand for some). I don't claim that John's observation of Mormon culture is wrong, I only claim that the issue he is still trying to resolve is one that I was never required to deal with; the culture had changed and new key issues had taken over. I don't know how much of that is regional, how much of it is time-dependent, and how much of it is a matter of one person's observations of a scene differing from another's observation of the same scene. I admit to being clueless pretty much all the time, so it's possible that I just didn't notice that I was violating cultural expectation on so many things. I guess I'm now making up for lost time. (I mean that seriously, btw. I simply don't see things that other people see and have to derive most of the meaning of things in deconstruction and analysis after the fact. A result is that I miss a lot of jokes, and irony is almost completely lost on me. So I admit freely that the social expectation may well have existed in my ward and I was just blissfully and clueless unaware of it.) Which raises a question for me on how we deal with social/cultural issues in fiction. I know, for example, that the angry vengeful god is something my father did struggle with (and not always successfully). Perhaps I'm the benefactor of his struggle because while I always perceived my father as harshly critical and prone to rapid and condemning judgment, he always taught me of a caring intimate God that was individually concerned for each of us. My father's private stories within our home created a different conceptual world for me than that which others may have been experiencing. So what does that mean in terms of telling our stories, and in terms of identifying and establishing markets for those stories? I know that my father was very impatient with the Mormon lit he tried to read in the mid-1980s because it dealt with issues that he had already resolved in his own mind and that he considered irrelevant. I know that I have had a similar reaction with much of the fiction I've read in the Mormon market over the past few years. We discuss issues on this list that I would love to see in fiction, but that I don't recall seeing much of...yet. That seems to suggest that LDS publishers' current tendency to focus on specific types of stories (teen morality tales, light historical romance, murder thrillers) results in a nice (if limited) bottom line, but also results in a narrow cultural literature that ignores entire generations of would-be Mormon readers. It's part of why I evangelize that we all tell our stories and that we demand that the market provide more variety to us (and we reciprocate by actually buying those varied titles)--if we want to develop a Mormon cultural literature we need to tell the stories of all generations and races and genders, all social and economic and religious viewpoints. Which (believe it or not) ties back to the idea of viewing each others' offerings with a bit more charity than I think we often do. We rush to declare a story or a form or genre irrelevant because it doesn't reach us as individual readers. But readers are varied (even Mormon readers ), and in many cases irrelevance is in the eye of the beholder. And we've already noticed some of the single members or this list as they've raised their hands and said "I get exhausted, too; stress is not the sole province of mothers/fathers/married people/young people/old people etc." But the larger cultural dialog seems to focus on one group at a time. I suspect we often withhold our stories exactly because we suspect that they're irrelevant to everyone but ourselves, and I think we're almost universally wrong in that assumption. So how do we encourage a wider variety of stories on a wider variety of issues? I really want to know, because I really want to see those stories on bookstore shelves. Scott Parkin (Who apologizes profusely for the snivels of the last week or so; I've been feeling very sorry for myself recently and have let that self-pity dominate my posts. While this list has indulged my tendency to snivel, it's not fair or right for me to take up space in this forum as I try to work out personal issues. Repenting now...) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 16:40:47 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] RE: Money Matters (Comp 1) [MOD: This is a compilation post.] [MOD: I sense that we're getting off-topic with this discussion. I'm going to send out the current set of comments, but would encourage anyone wanting to take further comments to bring in a stronger literary connection--e.g., how the different financial outlooks/experiences of individuals can be featured in Mormon literature--and less of the discussion of how, whether, and to what degree debt is or is not acceptable.] >From barbara@techvoice.com Thu Jun 06 18:12:51 2002 While I was making really good money not too long ago, I paid off all my debts except for the mortgage, which I paid down as quickly as I could. When the computer industry tanked and my clients stopped hiring contractors for big jobs, my income decreased quite a bit -- but I never felt it. I had gotten rid of those monthly envelopes with the windows in them. I still had plenty of disposable income, because it wasn't all eaten up with stupid debt. I'm still saving, and still investing. Now things are starting to look up again, but I'm not going to whip out the old credit card. No way. Economic slavery has to be a tool of the Satan because it's so destructive to the human spirit. It's a lot worse than not having an SUV or whatever ridiculous trendy object people put themselves into bondage for. barbara hume - -------------------------------------------- >From tlaulusa@core.com Thu Jun 06 19:15:15 2002 The best advice we've heard on debt recently was that paying off debt may be your best form of saving. The leader was talking about prioritizing where your money is going. Obviously, if you have high interest debt, it may be better to forgo putting the highest possible amount in your 401K at the expense of paying off old debt or not incurring new debt. And, in this class dealing with finances, nothing was ever stated as a hard and fast, you must do this, rule--except tithing, first thing off the top. My knowledge about finances and debt sounds like it was accumulated in much the same way and time frame as yours, Jacob. Not as early as I would have liked now with hindsight. But a great benefit even if we are spending some time overcoming some years of bad decisions. I don't think much has changed in what we've been taught about finances over the last 50 or so decades--I mean in official publications of the church. Isn't it interesting how one person's experiences can differ so much from anothers. I *do* think that incurring debt has become much easier and accepted, and that marketing is the number one business in America. Tracie Laulusa - ----------------------------------- >From Jacob@proffitt.com Fri Jun 07 00:56:00 2002 - ---Original Message From: Ronn Blankenship > >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. Um. How not? How is it possible to get out of debt if you don't ever spend less than you make? It isn't possible. > Even the meanest shack-even BYU-approved student housing > -generally > charges a certain amount per month in rent or house payment. > Then there's > utilities (like electricity, heat, water, and sewer, not a T1 > line and > premium cable TV), and repairs or emergencies. And "a piece > of hud" (I've > never heard it called that before, so I guess here's at least > a nominal > literary tie-in in that I learned a new expression) still has > to be paid > for, filled with gas, maintained regularly, and insured, and > may be in the > shop frequently enough that it ends up costing you every bit > as much per > month as the payments for a relatively fancy new car (which > may spend just > about as much time in the shop as a "piece of hud"). And we haven't > mentioned food, or clothing (even DI puts a price tag on its > merchandise) > or medical expenses, or any of the other necessities that > make up even a > minimal cost of living for an individual or especially a family with > children. For some people, it's not "stuff" or "parties" > that make it > difficult to make ends meet, but *necessities*. I'm not sure I understand your scenario. Are you saying that people have to eat and so-on? I don't believe I ever said otherwise. You *should* provide for your family in any (legal and moral) way that you can. But if you are so destitute that you can't provide even housing and food, then it is time to talk with the bishop. It is the *point* of Fast Offerings to help people in such dire straits. A member of the church should never have to turn to debt for such necessities. Now, I can see, from your example, how your main concern might be education. Personally (and I *think* "officially") education is one of those things that justify debt. I think that's implicit in the "Perpetual Education Fund"--which is set up and *sponsored* by the church. But even then, it's important to care for the family, and do everything in your power to provide for them. As to working yourself to death in order to get an education, I think that a lot of people take this *way* too far. Often, it'd be worth it (and a good idea) to save first. If you have children, then they are more important than your education or career. Most people can make enough to support their families in other ways. > For a concrete example, I am going to describe the situation > of someone > whose situation is well-known to a number of the members of > this list, who > will certainly know who I am talking about. However, I won't > use any names > or other identifying information. This person lost her > husband awhile > back, leaving her a single mother with a number of children, > most of which, > to use the current politically correct term, have "special > needs." She > does the best she can to be a good mother-a better job than > many in what > would be considered more fortunate circumstances manage to > do-and provider > to her children, but she has had health problems of her own > and not long > ago was injured at work and so was unable to work for an > extended period of > time. She told me that during that time her mother came by > and they looked > at her families expenses and income, causing her mother to > say "I don't see > where you can cut back any more. You need more money," to which she > replied, "Ya think?!" All principles have exceptions--mainly because principles conflict with each other and different principles have differing priorities based on differing circumstances. But in this case, your friend is another example of why we have Fast Offerings. Sure she should do what she can to provide for the children herself, but she needs help and should probably (I'm not her bishop, so who knows really?) receive it. There's a scripture in the D&C that tells the church to get off their can and support the families of those on missions. Nothing wrong with that. If she's cut her budget to the bone and working as much as she can, then others should step in to make sure she can spend time with her kids. But I know a number of people who have "cut to the bone" who nevertheless have large-screen TVs, DVD players, premium cable channels, and an ever-expanding library of books and videos. There's a disconnect there. Stuff is nice, but we don't need anywhere near as much as we tend to have--and if we have enough and are still working insane hours, then we are showing what our true priorities are. > And it's not just single mothers with children: young men > who should be > building their careers or in their "peak earning years" are > injured on the > job or in traffic accidents or contract some illness which > leaves them > unable to work (or at best only able to work a few hours a > week at a job > that is not strenuous, and maybe not even that much on any kind of a > regular basis), so they and their families are forced to try > to get by > perhaps on disability or workmen's comp payments, which > anyone who has > known anyone who has had to live on such payments knows are not > adequate. There's no two ways about it: these people, too, > need to find > some (legally and morally acceptable) way to _earn more money_. Right again. But again, that's what Fast Offerings are *for*. > >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 > six years from now, at least his wife and kids won't lose the house? Who knows what the future will bring? What ifs are nice, but they are hardly a way to illustrate (or invalidate) a principle. What if the second coming arrives in three years and he's wasted all the time he had with his kids? And what are the consequences going to be after five years of hard work when his kids are now teenagers and they don't know who he is? And if he dies in six years, how much bigger a tragedy is it if his kids don't know him at all? And as long as we're tossing out what ifs, what if he sold his house and bought a much cheaper one, saved his money, and/or bought life insurance? i.e. What if he had less *stuff* instead of working himself to death and never being home? > >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 > crying because they are physically hungry . . . Sure. If they're hungry, then you do what it takes to provide the sustenance they need. But if they have food and shelter then the physical part is taken care of and it's time to make sure the spiritual needs are met. And since we live in the U.S. the vast majority of people have all that they need to survive physically--at the same time they're suffering spiritually. All just to have more stuff. > Note: I'm not arguing with Jacob. I realize that most of > the time he is > correct: people get overextended by spending too much on > luxuries, and > having more money coming in will just allow them to spend more and go > further in the hole. I just wanted to point out the > exceptions to the rule. I don't mind exceptions, but often enough exceptions are just excuses. We can't say what the spiritual state of any particular person actually is, so it's hard to make righteous judgments about whether they're justified in ignoring their families. I'm only talking about principles here, and as a principle, families come ahead of career. Providing a bunch of caveats or manipulated circumstances doesn't counter that core principle. I often wonder why it is that we seem so compelled to counter tough gospel principles when we learn them--as if we can avoid having to do it if we come up with enough excuses. You get this when you talk about how women should be primary caretakers, how men should be an integral part of their families, how we should have children if we can, whether or not to go into debt--in short, anything that asks us to do something hard. I'm not the arbiter here and I hope I haven't set myself up as such. God gave us the principle that families are more important than career and we choose whether or not we follow. Balance is hard and a true struggle and I'm relatively certain that few of us get it exactly right. We shouldn't guilt-trip each other and we should be loathe to make accusations, but anyone who has pangs of guilt upon hearing a principle needs to honestly find the source of that discomfort-and frankly, it is their duty to do so, not mine. Now, I can see how examining exceptions is a useful way to explore and establish boundaries. But I don't think that's really why we are so quick to say "yeah, but . . ." when we hear a difficult principle. Too often, we're trying to point out that exceptions exist so that nobody will be tempted to tell us that we're doing something wrong. In the end, what it comes down to is that we who are fortunate enough to live in the industrialized west have no business sacrificing our families to further our careers--particularly when starvation and exposure aren't even in the equation. If you feel your individual circumstances counter a principle, go for it. If I'm responsible in some way for your spiritual welfare, I might (depending on circumstances) ask you to rethink. Otherwise, I'm just talking principles that are applied in different ways for different people and circumstances. Jacob Proffitt - ------------------------------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #736 ******************************