From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #737 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 10 2002 Volume 01 : Number 737 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:52:45 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thom Duncan" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments > > > > Anyone else censor themselves this way? > > > Since I don't attend, I have to find other outlets for my censorship . The Ensign is at the top of my list. Every issue seems to have one article that is interesting, but the rest is pretty boring stuff. I suppose the articles are interesting to some, but not to me. The Church News is another example. So why do I read them? Because they act as something of a barometer of the state of the Church, and I feel that I need to keep up with that. [Jeff Needle] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 20:53:24 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments I used to worry about censoring myself at Church. Now, I just don't talk at Church. I go to sacrament meeting and sit in the back row. The rest of the time I sit in the foyer. It's not that I am offended or anything. I just feel that I'm not playing the same game and I can't relate to people. I don't have to worry about censoring myself on this list. Our Illustrious Moderator does that for me. God bless O. I. M. Paris Anderson [MOD: I can but do My Humble Best...] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 17:27:22 -0700 From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments Oh yes, I've censored myself on many an occasion. But, sometimes I just can't keep my big mouth shut. In the recent Sunday School lesson several people have mentioned, out teacher took the same tactic of pointing out how many "church type" pictures they have in their house and how special that makes them feel. Everyone had something to say about that to the affect of a "yea verily" endorsement. I couldn't hold back any longer. I raised my hand and said that although I had many of the same things in my house and enjoyed them, the way the people in the house live and love each other and the Lord is what makes the difference in the atmosphere of the home. In "The Other Side of Heaven" I saw only two pictures-One of Jesus and one of Pres. Mackay in their make-shift chapel. People couldn't afford such things in their homes, yet they were wonderful, spiritual, people. The Gospel Doctrine teacher said he agreed with my comments and thanks a lot for turning his whole lesson on it's head. (He was grinning, we get along well, honest!) But still mentioned it was nice to have those things, but hey I made my point. :-) Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:55:46 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] LDS Parenting Books (was: Single Parenting) Somewhat related to this thread: My visits to Deseret Industries always yields a large number of "family-oriented" books. A few of them look read. Most look like they've never been opened. A few are still shrink-wrapped. My question: how widely are these books really read, as opposed to how widely they are published? The doctrinal books generally look read, but the family stuff is different. [Jeff Needle] - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:26 PM Subject: [AML] Single Parenting > Another book moms might want to look at is my _Single Parenting_ book, published a while ago by Deseret Book but still generally available. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 13:12:22 -0400 From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments I used to sit and either fume or whisper asides to my wife whenever inane platitudes were being substituted for the gospel, or when writing primary-level lists of basic principles on the board was substituted for teaching and learning. No more. I talk and express myself and take the contrary view and try to get good discussions started. I'm a teacher, I do it for a living am pretty darn good at it. Some time ago I decided that I was abdicating my gifts by being a passive and frustrated Saint during these abominable Sunday lessons so I quit being passive and now we have good and engaging and meaningful discussions in both Sunday School and Priesthood. Last Sunday was particularly good. The EQ president wanted to talk about setting goals and was floundering in platitudes. He was lost and the class was lost. I'm his 1st counselor, so at the appropriate time, I blurt out that I thought setting goals was contrary to what Christ taught. I quoted "Consider the lilies..." and "...take no thought for tomorrow," and "...all these things will be added unto you," and "Christ is the potter and we are the clay..." and launched into how this was not only the essence of Christ's philosophy, but it has its corollaries in Zen (be an empty vessel free of desires) and Star Wars (feel the force, go with the flow). Then I asked where could I find some chapter and verse on setting goals so I could see where I was wrong and the manual was right. And we had a very good discussion. No contention, lots of Spirit. This is pretty typical. And oddly, whenever visitors from on high (the stake) visit our tiny branch in the middle of nowhere, they invariably comment on how good the lessons are. This massive change of mindset came one Sunday when the SS teacher asked the question (pertaining to resurrected and/or translated beings) "How do we know the apostle Paul is really dead? Total silence. He called on me: "Tony?" I said, "Same as with McConkie, because they both finally shut up." And it was fine. I wasn't alienated or struck by lightning or called in. In fact, it led to a good discussion. I have come to believe that we who can think and have some ability to apply reason and intelligence to our church doctrine have a gift and we ought not to sit on it. To you self-censorers out there, quit hiding your light under a bushel. Speak up and don't let the disapproving old biddies get you down. Tony Markham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:30:45 -0600 From: "Eileen Stringer" 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 I have to agree with Susan on all points except one, I live in Utah, in Salt Lake even and I must say that much of what is described on this list is outside my experience as well. I find few people in my Relief Society and Sunday School classes censoring themselves and I have never been taken to task for the way I teach Relief Society or Sunday School and my methods are far outside the "Mormon Cultural Orthodoxy." Our ward consists of several elderly widows whose sons or daughters are on the different general boards of the Church, in the Presiding Bishopric, seventies and even an apostle. These people from "downtown" have come off and on and we regulars have never felt the need to censor our comments. During one of my lessons there were three GA's wives in the room and one of the references I was using was the Book of Common prayer, none of them batted an eye and one asked where she could find the book I was reading from. We also have one old gentleman takes certain delight in seeing how far over the line he can go each Sunday and especially when these downtown visitors show up. Maybe I have the luck to be in the few wards in Salt Lake that are like this, but I have been in 5 in the past 13 years since moving here and have not had the excruciating experiences that others on this list have had. Nobody has ever questioned what is on my walls, in my bookcase or my video shelf, very little of it from Deseret Book. Maybe I have found a way to be "in the culture, but not of the culture." Eileen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 16:55:36 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Lynching the Speaker (was: Censoring Comments) (Comp 1) [MOD: This is a compilation post. Several responses on this one...] >From lajackson@juno.com Thu Jun 06 21:55:13 2002 Barbara Hume: Once a brother in my ward gave a talk about how his wife always gave birth without the benefit of painkillers, ... He was fortunate he did not make his speech in Sunday School, where he could have been lynched from the basketball standard. There would not have been enough husbands in the crowd to save him. _______________ Some husbands around here, myself included, would have helped with the lynching. Larry Jackson - ------------------------------------------- >From amyc@xmission.com Thu Jun 06 22:11:19 2002 If you hear an utter and complete piece of garbage like this in Sunday School or RS, you can at least raise your hand and say: "Although that has worked out well for Brother Whoever and his family, I just want to point out to the rest of you that this concept is not a gospel teaching." It's direct, it's friendly, and it doesn't start a huge fight. Hopefully. If you use the right tone. BUT if it happens in Sacrament Meeting, that's another problem. What do we do when we hear such tripe coming over the pulpit? How do we voice our disagreement, or should we at all? Personally, I consider the above comment a form of blasphemy--perhaps not evil-intentioned, but still. I have gotten up and left in the middle of Sac Mtg talks before (only a few times) because I've been so put off by hearing personal opinion preached as gospel. Is that the best way to react? Probably not. All I know is I sure feel a lot better in the foyer. Amy Chamberlain - -------------------------------------- >From Jacob@proffitt.com Thu Jun 06 23:03:44 2002 What husband in his right mind would have *wanted* to help him? I'd have been one of the first to throttle him. Jacob Proffitt - ----------------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:35:52 -0600 From: Russ Asplund Subject: [AML] Dealing with Consequences (was: Money Matters) [MOD: I think Russell raises a fascinating question with regard to our literature: Do we do a good job of writing literature that shows people dealing successfully with consequences? And an accompanying social question, which nevertheless I think goes well with some of the other questions we've been considering on this list: i.e., what is our attitude as church members toward helping people deal with consequences, as opposed to prevention? I'd like to focus the discussion in these directions, if we could, rather than talking about specifics of how people can/should get out of financial and other situations once they're in them, which really is beyond the scope of AML-List...] > ---------- > From: Richard Johnson > > As for debt. None of the "Brethen" I've listened to said "don't go > into debt at all" They just say except for a house or _maybe_ a car be > very hesitant to go into debt. Anyone who has been in the position of > giving out welfare knows how frequently the dire straits that families get > into are the result of stupid debt. > > And some of us know because we _are_ stupid. Reading this and the other threads on stresses, be it baby or financial or social, reminds me of the book I always wished someone would put out. It would be title something like, "So You've Screwed* Up, Now What?" Because it seems like we always get advice on what to avoid, be it sin or debt or running faster than we have strength--but I'm never quite smart enough to listen. And their never seems to be much advice about what to do once your up to your armpits in consequences. My favorite character in the Book of Mormon is Zeezrom, because he is one of the few bad guys in the scriptures you ever get to see repent. Not with some huge experience, like Saul or Alma, that set him up to be a prophet. But just by realizing he screwed up and feeling bad about it. You here about him later, doing work as a missionary, but he never becomes a prophet. I just hope he toughed it out and made it. I can envision myself as Zeezrom far easier that I can seeing myself as Moroni. I'm just not the type. Russell Asplund ps. I'd write the book myself, but I still haven't figured out what to do. Maybe when I'm older and wiser, assuming I become either. *In my more bitter moments, I use other wording. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 13:26:27 -0600 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments [MOD: I'm allowing Marianne's reply, but let's not get into another what-is/what's-not discussion of Church doctrine here, unless we can give it a clear literary tie-in...] >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. Thom, my friend, I'm not sure Elder Oaks would quite agree with your paraphrasing ("there's nothing wrong with homosexuality"). The distinction that has been made is that homosexual acts are sins, not homosexual feelings. If there was indeed "nothing wrong" with the concept of homosexuality then the act would most likely not be a sin. Saying "there's nothing wrong with homosexuality but homosexual acts are a sin" is like saying "there's nothing wrong with premarital sex except for when you actually do it." Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #737 ******************************