From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #744 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 14 2002 Volume 01 : Number 744 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:12:42 EDT From: BroHam000@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Models for Mormon Art Julie, I'm curious; did you ask the man who critiqued your painting why he had that reaction, why he equated Mormon and Nazi propaganda? You say he seemed to like it. I don't believe people in general would have that reaction. However, I think there is not harm in "generalizing" one's subjects. Linda Hyde - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:25:08 -0500 From: "b5dorsai" Subject: Re: [AML] Lynching the Speaker I always have enjoyed the definition that Orson Scott Card gave in his book "The Saint's Dictionary" on Adam. He said (I am paraphrasing here because I do not have the book in front of me) that "Adam was the first man to blame a woman for his own actions." Rick Thomas San Antonio - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:39:07 -0500 From: "b5dorsai" Subject: [AML] Re: Umberto Eco Actually, I felt that Umberto Eco's book "Foucault's Pendulum" gave a wonderful look at conspiracies and the people who follow them. When I read it, I enjoyed it because of the many times that it caused me to go back and reread a passage or chapter because what I later read made me see the scene in a different manner. Rick Thomas San Antonio - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 02:36:47 -0500 From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: RE: [AML] Baby Exhaustion For those who have been participating in or reading this thread, and are wondering if anything could be worse than the extreme tiredness some mothers here have been describing, I recently received a message about a survey () directed toward women who have the debilitating conditions known as "chronic fatigue syndrome" (also called, primarily outside the US, "myalgic encephalomyelitis") or fibromyalgia. For those who may be unfamiliar with it, CFS/ME itself causes the type of crushing fatigue that surprised many of the mothers who have posted here (and it doesn't come with any built-in guarantee of eventual relief, such as when the kid finally gets older), so I cannot imagine how a woman already suffering from CFS/ME who becomes pregnant can cope. (In the cases of most of the women I know who have CFS/ME and children, the children were already at least of school age when their mothers became ill, and even then the women found it almost impossible to cope with the demands of everyday life.) (I realize this is pretty far afield, but thought some here might find this information of interest or perhaps useful.) - --Ronn! :) "Life is one long process of getting tired." - --Samuel Butler, 1912 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:15:08 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Re: Umberto Eco Mary Jane Jones wrote: > "The Name of the Rose" was made into a film in 1986 starring Sean Connery, F. Murray Abraham and Christian Slater. I enjoyed it as a teenager--the film was exciting, creepy in a uniquely medieval way and just philosophical enough to make a teenager feel intellectual but not lost or bored....I saw it on video, but I think it's rated R for intense thematic material and a scene with partial female nudity. My friend's dad who was watching it with us made us fast-forward that scene.... Not especially partial. And it was a sex scene, a peasant girl having sex with a young monk. - -- 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, 12 Jun 2002 02:33:48 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Censoring Comments lajackson@juno.com wrote: > I prefer to call it "that pagan school to the north, from > which the First Presidency and five of the Twelve > graduated." I just like to point out that the school color is the same as the godless Communists. > There may be many things I wouldn't say, but I don't > think I would lie to keep my job. Heck, I've lied to _get_ the job. (If I used smiley faces, I'd put one here.) > I recognize the differences of opinion on > this list, but I personally believe there is no R-rated > film worth the price I would have to pay to see it. I > believe that the risks of viewing and the resultant > thoughts and actions far outweigh the benefits. Risks? Actions? Have I missed something? Generally my actions after seeing a movie, even an R-rated one, is saying, "What did you think of that one, honey?" as I walk to the car, driving home, and having a snack as I turn on the TV. > As a personal decision made over 20 years ago after > seeing two of them, I have not attended them since. Now that would depend a great deal on _which_ two you saw. > As a priesthood leader, I would counsel accordingly, > including what prophets have said on the matter. Ooh, ooh! Is it time to resurrect that thread again? What prophets have said about R-rated movies? [MOD: If we must go here, I suppose we must. But I'd really rather put it off another half-year or so...] - -- 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: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:17:50 -0500 From: Maren Allen (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] re: Baby Exhaustion >I used to wonder the same thing, and worry about being critized for doing so, but... finally came to the following conclusion: I will be about 40 when my oldest daughter graduates from high school. Say I spread my children out over 10 years(not saying I will, but for easy figuring), I'll still only be 50 when my youngest graduates from high school. I could easily have many, many years left to travel (when I will be more much more financially secure), build a career (I don't have to wait until they are all out of school to start this), serve several missions with my husband, the list could go on and on. > >AND, (as if that wasn't enough), there has been some recent research that has shown womens fertility can start rapidly decreasing as young as 27... > > > >--------------------------------- >Do You Yahoo!? >Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup [Maren Allen] - ---------- Do You Yahoo!? <Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:19:18 -0600 From: Ken Burton Subject: [AML] Understanding Others (was: Money Matters) To Jacob and Cathy: I have read many things written by or about people who do not feel "accepted or acceptable" in "the church" (and not just the LDS church). In all of that reading, there are few things that have been to me as poignant as these posts. I am and have been in priesthood leadership positions and worry greatly that I might have created some of the pain that you describe. I have never experienced these things first hand myself and it is very difficult to imagine how you must feel/have felt. I can, from my experience, tell you that there are a great many (perhaps 20 families in our ward alone) who have at one time or another felt similarly, although not always because of financial reasons. Some of them no longer wish to be associated with "people who don't understand, won't understand, or don't/won't care". It is crucial that the leaders know how people feel, know the people they serve. It is also very clear that pride in leaders blinds them and makes them unapproachable sometimes. And even at that some may think I am being generous. It does seem a far cry from Zion, doesn't it? Thank you for opening your hearts to share. Mine was touched ... [Ken Burton] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:54:12 -0600 From: Kristi Bell Subject: RE: [AML] Ghostly Query The William A. Wilson Folklore Archives at BYU has an abundance of accounts of supernatural experiences. I am also aware of a LDS folklorist who has done some work with the Japanese/Mormon connection. Feel free to contact me at 422-6041. Kristi Bell Curator, Folklore Archives - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:14:15 -0600 From: "Rachel Ann Nunes" Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture > I was talking to Scott Parkin the other day, and imagining what it would be > like to have a non-native english speaker as the Prophet. Sure, we expect > hispanic and japanese people to accept prophecy in English--but could we, as > a (US) culture, be humble enough to except the reverse? I say no. Or rather, NO! Being married to a foreigner, I have noticed a distinct difference in the way he is treated in Utah because he has an accent. This has influenced the development of my ethnic theory, which basically states that people who speak with an accent are called to supportive roles, usually secretary or teachers, but not to positions of authority. Not in Utah anyway, though there are a few exceptions. (I've noticed my ethnic theory doesn't hold true in some wards in California and perhaps in a few other states.) My husband, a genius in the world of computers and a excellent provider for our family, is often frustrated because the counselors and presidents he works under are out of town a lot and can't do their calling, simply don't show up, or they come but haven't done what they've promised or been assigned. My dependable husband usually takes up the slack. He never complains, mind you, except that one time a few years ago when he showed up at a elder quorum presidency meeting and the president had canceled it (for the sixth time) without informing him. My husband doesn't believe in my ethnic theory. He understands that some leaders do not seek out advice of the Lord as well as they should when extending callings, and that mortal men are prone to mistakes and preconceived ideas, but believes that the Lord's will prevails ultimately. Okay, I can go with that--because as long as there are dependable people (foreign-speaking or not) like my husband to step in and do the work, it really doesn't matter who is called to what. My husband tells me that in the off-chance my theory is correct, I ought to be grateful he'll never be called to anything that will take him away from our family for longer than he already is. And I am, VERY GRATEFUL and RELIEVED. I love having him around when we need him. But I wouldn't be honest if I didn't admit that I also feel guilty and selfish at my relief. If he had stayed in his native Portugal instead of immigrating so that I could be here to write, he would have had many more opportunities to grow spiritually. His leadership ability, his compassion for others, perhaps even his understanding of the gospel would have increased. I know these traits in myself always increase when I am put into such positions. So by insisting we stay here in this basically egocentric culture (the Church is the only true Church; Americans are the smartest most capable people in the world), I sometimes feel I've cheated him. But if we lived in Portugal, I would have had also been given time-consuming callings. (The Portuguese are very accepting of accents--especially American ones--and never doubt my intelligence because of a few language blunders.) I wouldn't have had so much time to write my novels. Is that selfish or what? I'm glad foreign-speaking leaders are being called to be General Authorities. I can't help but notice that under their accents most--like my husband--speak English very well. Certainly better grammatically than many of my neighbors. But will this lead to acceptance of a foreign-speaking prophet? I seriously doubt such a prophet would be accepted in Utah or in most wards in any state that are predominantly made up of white Americans. Not in our lifetimes anyway. Things would have to change dramatically for that to happen. To be fair, I don't believe that most people who practice this exclusionism even understand how much they doubt the intelligence and abilities of those who speak English with an accent. But it doesn't change the fact that it happens every single day. Rachel _______________________ Rachel Ann Nunes (noon-esh) Best-selling author of the Ariana series and A Greater Love Web page: http://www.rachelannnunes.com E-mail: rachel@rachelannnunes.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:08:20 EDT From: Kimheuston@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Umberto Eco I'm not a great fan of Umberto Eco's myself, but if you enjoy the thickness of his historical description, you might enjoy Ross Dunn's novel _Ex-Libris_. (He's the guy who wrote _Brunelleschi's Dome_.) It ties together a rare book dealer in Restoration London and an adventurer who bridged Elizabethan England and the beginnings of the 30 Years War in Prague. Kimberley Heuston - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:11:46 -0600 From: "Eileen Stringer" Subject: [AML] R-Rated Movie Resurrection? (was: Censoring Comments) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "D. Michael Martindale" > Ooh, ooh! Is it time to resurrect that thread again? What prophets have > said about R-rated movies? > > [MOD: If we must go here, I suppose we must. But I'd really rather put it > off another half-year or so...] Personally I would like to see that particular thread entombed another couple of years at least before it sees resurrection morn........ Eileen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:51:01 -0600 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Change Names or Not? >From: Barbara Hume >Reply-To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >Subject: [AML] Change Names or Not? >Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:29:01 -0600 > >I'd like the advice of the writers and publishers on this list. I'm I vote for nonfiction. Personally, I would find that fictionalizing it would weaken the story because anything that was too far out I would think of as fictionalized. The nonfiction sounds much more interesting to me as it is a first-hand account of something we are more likely to hear about third, fourth, or 25th-hand. The fiction version I would likely pass on. The non-fiction version I would read eagerly. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:53:53 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Attacking the Family In Mormon culture, there are a lot of phrases, cliches perhaps, things we = say that are widely believed and accepted but that we don't really think = about much. I'm very interested in those sorts of ideas, because I think = they can become good material to write about. Anyway, someone on the List = said something like this: "There are a lot of forces out there in the = world, in popular culture especially, which are trying to destroy the = family and which we need to watch out for." And so I started thinking = about this notion, asking if it's in fact true. Are there forces trying = to destroy The Family? What do we mean by The Family? What are we = talking about? First of all, it interests me that we talk about The Family, instead of = our own personal families. It's as though the institution of The Family = is what's under attack, that the very idea that we should organize = ourselves into families is regarded in some circles as a questionable one, = that we have to vigilantly defend not just our own circles of kinship, but = the very notion of kinship itself. If this is what is meant by attacks on = The Family, then I have to say that it's a very questionable notion, that = Families are under attack. I suppose it's possible, if pressed, to find = some small body of academic literature proposing that families be done = away with, that children be raised by some other means than by their = parents, or to find some similar anti family agenda by some body or = another. But to suggest that such ideas are in any way mainstream is = simply nonsensical. =20 So what do we mean by the idea that "families are under attack?" I'd like = to round up a few of the usual suspects. DIVORCE: Divorce rates are usually cited in this regard, thought of as unacceptably = high and possibly rising. Metaphors involving 'tides' are usually = employed. Well, a divorce can often be devastating to any individual = family, and so a rising incidence of divorce might be regarded as evidence = that families are in trouble. Except I'm not sure this is the case. How many married couples do you know = who have gotten divorced? Laying in bed last night, I could name, off the = cuff, a hundred or so, and I suspect most of you could too. Obviously = some of these couples I know better than others, but when I've known the = circumstances of these divorces, I have to say in most cases, the divorce = was a very good thing, a positive development, not just for the divorcing = couple, but also for their children. Two of my sisters-in-law were = divorced, one following a long pattern of psychological abuse by her = husband, and the other following a long patter of serial adultery, also by = the guy. (I don't mean to imply that divorce is always the guy's fault. = It just was in these two cases.) A hundred years ago, it was very = difficult for people to obtain a divorce. A hundred and fifty years ago, = it was well nigh impossible. The fact that people who are utterly = miserable with each other can now legally put an end to a marriage that is = torture for both strikes me as a positive thing. The fact that people who = are in horribly abusive relationships are not forced to live with their = abusers seems to me a wonderful advance. =20 So in what way is divorce a bad thing? In what way is divorce either a = cause or a result of current culture's 'attack on families?' Well, when = have I known of divorces when I didn't think it was a good idea? The = answer: when a guy dumped his wife so could get him one of them there = trophy wives. =20 It seems to me that pop culture attacks families primarily by objectifying = and sexualizing young women. By promoting an absurd and impossible = standard for female attractiveness, pop culture creates a generalized = dissatisfaction with the actual facts of actual sexuality. The concept of = 'family' is weakened when the commitment to marriage is weak, when society = seems to be in the business of hedging bets and checking out the grass in = other pastures. =20 POP CULTURE Most pop music consists of love songs; this has been true ever since = people started writing songs. Most drama has at its roots a conflict = between men and women; this has been true since Attic Greece. What role = does pop culture play in attacking families? What specifically is = happening in current pop culture now that might be construed as such an = attack.=20 On the surface, this charge is ludicrous. Nearly all sitcoms are about = families. It is exceedingly rare for married people on television to = cheat; when they do cheat, it almost never works out, and usually they're = punished. Single characters in most movies do sleep around, and usually = romantic attraction is a key plot element, but when movie characters are = married, they either are faithful to their spouse, or if unfaithful, it = almost always ends badly. Romantic movies involving single characters are = actually about the creation of a new family, and so it's difficult to see = how they might be seen as constituting attacks on existing families. =20 I know this assessment flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but it's = true; adultery is very very very seldom treated as a positive thing in = either movies or TV. The film industry generally is very conservative in = this regard; most studios won't greenlight a script that promotes sexual = immorality. Of course, studios define sexual morality differently than we = do; if consenting adults have 'strong feelings' for each other, conventiona= l Hollywood morality suggests that they can and should act on those = feelings. But since the goal of acting on those 'strong feelings' is = ultimately to form a new family, it's hard to see how romantic comedies, = as a genre, are anti-family. =20 Pop culture, however, is almost always about fantasy, not reality. = Conventional Hollywood morality is not anti-family directly, but it's also = not true; the picture it paints of sexuality is a false and misleading = one. Families are essentially never attacked directly in films or on TV. = But when images of impossibly gorgeous people engaging in impossibly = rapturous sex (and by this I include the gorgeously backlit clinch that is = the staple of all films with love story subplots, which means basically = all movies) absolutely inundate our culture, again what is promoted is a = generalized dissatisfaction with actual sex within the context of actual = marriage. And in moments of emotional vulnerability to which we all are = prone, is it possible that that dissatisfaction could heighten temptation?= =20 Of course pop culture also promotes the notion that couples should prove = sexual compatibility before marriage, and that notion is also destructive = of families, for lots of reasons that I'm sure we all agree with. Among = all those reasons, let me add that the 'lets prove our love, let's make = sure we're compatible' is just endlessly manipulable, right up there, as a = line, with 'of course I can get you that screen test.' Anyway, to build a = relationship on the foundation of 'let's try this out and see if it works, = 'cause we can always back out later,' feels so . . . pat and shallow and = rationalized. =20 HOMOSEXUALITY It's hard for me to see how gay marriage threatens The Family. It seems = to me that proponents of gay marriage are in fact very much pro Family, in = that they see families as something inherently positive, so much so that = they want the definition of Family to expand, so that it can include all = committed monogamous relationships. So on what basis is it legitimate to = oppose such a definitional expansion? Children? Those children who are reared in same-sex households have no = particular tendency towards same-sex attraction, no more so than children = raised in heterosexual families. Gay men have no greater tendency towards = pedophilia than straight men. Children taught by gay teachers do not = become gay as a result. =20 No, it seems to me that the Church, by opposing gay marriage, is trying to = accomplish one specific and limited objective: to give support and = encouragment to LDS people who suffer from same sex attraction and who are = trying to fight it. At a time when everything in our culture is saying = 'give up, give in," the Church continues institutionally to insist that = there is another alternative, a very difficult and painful one, but also a = possible one. =20 Well, in conclusion . . . I don't have any conclusions really. Just = thinking out loud. It's an interesting issue, though. I think of my = family being under siege, and what worries me is the sexualization of = society, the unreality of so much pop culture. Fantasies are great, in = their place. As long as they're clearly labeled as such, and tempered = with some hard edged realism. Eric Samuelsen =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:01:39 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Mormons and Topaz I'm looking for information both on official statements by the Church (if there were any) regarding the Japanese internment camps of WWII, and on the thoughts and opinions of individual Mormons on that issue--particularly those with direct experience, be it when friends were sent to an internment camp, when one was set up near their home, or any other direct connection. I know it's an odd question, but it ties back to a number of discussions we've had on this list recently, including issues of racial trust among Mormons and an arguable tie to secret combinations, as well as a tangential link to the Japanese/Mormon ghost lore thread and our intentional double-standard on the ugly things "we" do versus what "they" do. In the end, I would very much like to learn the different facets of the Mormon mind on that issue, and to compare it with what I can learn of both the broad American and Japanese mindset. I've already run into quite a few mistrustful glances and questions about why I want to dredge up ancient history; I find that reaction as fascinating as any other. I happen to live about 100 miles northeast of the Topaz internment camp here in central Utah, and on a lark I drove down to visit it yesterday (after a misdirected attempt last week that put me atop Topaz Mountain--about 20 miles northwest of the internment camp site). I was able to interview some local residents and did an extensive walking tour of the camp itself (guided by the director of the Topaz Museum). I was quite disappointed to note the hundreds of bullet holes in the official marker at the Topaz site; entire sections of the metal plaque had been obliterated. Perhaps my perspective is warped, but I couldn't help but note some striking parallels between the experience of Japanese Americans being forced to relocate to Topaz (and Manzanar and Tule Lake and many other camps) as a result of government mistrust and persecution based on fear and misunderstanding of their motives, and similar experiences by early Mormons as they were forced to relocate time and time again. Of course the contexts were entirely different, as were the social assumptions of the times. Still, from my perspective there seem to be rather substantial resonances between the two events and I'm curious to know whether Mormons of the time noted that. I'm planning several novels that would use this research, one intended for a Mormon audience and one for a national audience, and I am quite interested in understanding the authentic mindsets of people on all sides of that issue. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:10:16 -0600 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion >From: Maren Allen (by way of Jonathan Langford > >AND, (as if that wasn't enough), there has been some recent research >that >has shown womens fertility can start rapidly decreasing as young >as 27... Tell me about it! My eggs are currently degrading! Add to that the Newsweek fertility issue of a few months ago and it's a wonder that I'm not deaf for the ticking of my biological clock. Aaaah, the pressure. And this thread isn't helping, my friends. Because I know I want to have kids and y'all are scaring the heck out of me. Man, alive! Sometimes I think we have way too much childbirth/child rearing full disclosure. The pendulum has swung with a vengeance. I am a writer/editor on a parenting resource website that has very active message boards. Often women share their "birth story" and I have recently come to the conclusion that it is just not healthy for me to read them anymore. Every time I read one I learn something new about childbirth that freaks me out. (ie "mucus plug" I will say no more so that those who don't know what I'm talking about can live on in blessed ignorance.) Oh I am so freaked out, ladies. And yet at the same time....tick tick tick....my eggs are degrading....every year that passes decreases my ability to become pregnant by 10%....tick tick tick... Down with full disclosure! Maybe that book should be marketed in brown wrapping so as not to scare off those of us in the pre-conception stage of life.... Only partly in jest-- Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:10:49 -0600 From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: Re: [AML] Change Names or Not? Barbara Hume wrote: > > Here's my question. Should she tell the story as straightforward > nonfiction, with real names and everything? That seems the most > truthful and useful way to do it. But what kind of liability is she > setting herself up for if she does that? On the other hand, how much > of her credibility does she lose if she decides to fictionalize the > story? LOTS of legal liability here, unless ALL of the "real names" folks sign waivers and agreements beforehand. My suggestion: Change all the names, and after that only fictionalize what's necessary to avoid liability and slander charges. She might even consider using a pen name. Then put BASED ON A TRUE STORY right on the cover. Sell it nationally. Sounds like a winner. BJ Rowley - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:15:41 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature ___ Bill ___ | Speaking of conspiracies then and now, I have often wondered | if any of our Latter-Day Writers have addressed the issues | raised about the church in *The God Makers.* ___ There is a book called _The Truth About the Godmakers_. I believe the author consented to put up an online version. There are dozens of online apologetic websites that deal with the charges. FAIR is probably the best known of these sites and tends to be a little more thought out than most amateur apologetic papers. (Many of which give about as much creative "doctrine" as the stereotype of a High Priest's lesson) http://www.fair-lds.org/apol/ I don't always agree with apologetics. I think that some times they go for the best light on any historical site, using imprecision of knowledge as a way of saying that things didn't happen. However they often do provide a much needed check. And on the egregious anti-Mormon stuff they do quite well. I don't know of any that deal with conspiracy theories per se. I must admit that back on my mission though I always got a kick out of _The Godmakers_. I especially love the conspiracy that we're taking over the Pentagon. The ending is especially "nefarious." I half wonder if Decker didn't just borrow wholesale from _The Protocols of Zion_, an infamous anti-semitic track. Back when I worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory there was a great conspiracy along the Decker lines. Basically a very disproportionate number of leadership positions were held by Mormons. In fact of the top three positions at the lab back then (early 90's) two were Mormon. It was joked that if you attended one of the two wards you could get to know most of the various group leaders and the like. Well some guy got fired and blamed in on a Mormon conspiracy. He said we were running DOE. He'd paint graffiti all over the state that was anti-Mormon and claimed this vast conspiracy. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:35:28 -0600 (Mountain Daylight Time) From: "Brian Utley" Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture [Of course the native language of Jesus of Nazareth was not English, and = He is the prophets' prophet]=0D =0D I couldn't help being offended the other day when I opened the new Ensign= =2E=20 (This, because admittedly I have a raging love for the the native peoples= of Central American and Mexico, which sometimes causes me to react to excess when I think they are being slighted.) =0D =0D In the illustration (painting) opposing President Monson's lead article, = the Savior is shown blessing the little children, presumably in or near the unnamed city in the Land Bountiful where He appeared to the Nephites, et = al, a year or so following His resurrection. In the background, hovering in = the air above the group are unseen angels. White, blonde-haired, nordic ange= ls. As if the artist, the Ensign editors, and the official organ of the Chur= ch is telling us that this is what angels look like. Seeing this, I uttered= a resouding "balderdash!" Rather, I would suspect that the angels there present, and who would have been most interested in these moments, likely were the ancestors of the children, certainly persons from among their ra= ce who had passed on and who were close to them and to these marvelous, anticipated circumstances, and who likely now were recently resurrected beings. Not young missionary-type lads from Scandanavia-angel-land or th= e Angelic-Germanic-North. =0D =0D We seem to fall very easily into these kinds of ethnic traps, equating righteousness and celestial franchisement with membership in a white-skin= ned master clique. Even our artists, illustrators ,and storytellers, who should be compelling themselves to see with a more clear eye before they commit themselves to paint and paper, and pen and ink, seem to fall into such traps, perhaps to the unfortunate misleading of us all. In any case= , I believe that it is time for more thoughtful consideration in how we regar= d, and how we publicly present and represent, racial distinctions and differences within the Church. Also, it's time for us simply to tell the truth in our most powerful images. In our art and in our stories. Don't you think?=0D =0D Brian Utley=0D Keystone Project=0D - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:35:51 -0700 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Change Names or Not? Barbara R. Hume wrote: > Here's my question. Should she tell the story as straightforward > nonfiction, with real names and everything? That seems the most truthful > and useful way to do it. But what kind of liability is she setting herself > up for if she does that? On the other hand, how much of her credibility > does she lose if she decides to fictionalize the story? > IMHO It may be the most truthful, but it won't be the most useful. Most people are already well aware that polygamists are out there and thriving. Heaven only knows they get enough publicity. So identifying the culprits in this particular story will do nothing to inform the audience about anything they need to know. On the other hand it will bring lawsuits and revenge onto the author and her new family. She probably should use a pseudonym to hide behind. I strongly believe that well researched fictionalized truth that is painful to tell, is a far better way to get the truth out to the public than a documentary which may hurt innocent people. The fictionalization of the facts will not weaken the story, as long as the story stays close to the real facts and doesn't stretch the truth or distort it. > Anyway, does anyone feel strongly that such a story should be told as it > happened (from her viewpoint, of course)? Or should names be changed to > keep from enriching a lot of lawyers? > I feel strongly that the story needs to be told, but the names and places as well as the exact details of the situation should be altered so as to protect innocent people, and also protect the author. We have enough rich lawyers lying in wait to ensnare the unwary without giving them such a rich treasure to fight over. >Oh and should it be geared to the > national market? I like the idea of showing that these fundamentalist > groups are not Mormons. Yes!!! Mainstream it by all means and use every truthful means at your disposal to show the world that these pretenders are not recognized as members in good standing in the church. Regards, Bill Willson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:45:49 EDT From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Change Names or Not? Just knowing that some of the fundamentalists can also become very violent, I believe I would change the names, but otherwise leave the story as it happened. Put a notice in the front of the book explaining why the names were changed. It sounds like an interesting book. If & when it gets published, be sure to let us know. I'd be interested in reading it. Karen [Tippets] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #744 ******************************