From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #753 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 21 2002 Volume 01 : Number 753 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:14:25 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Style in Types of Literature As I was reading an article in the Ensign this morning (my competitive righteousness claim for the day), I finally realized what my problem with it is. Some people on the list have expressed a distaste for the publication, and I've considered many of the complaints a form of literary elitism: "This magazine does not meet my high standards for literature." I like getting the Ensign, because I find many good concepts in its pages. (When you're as full of faults as I am, just about any article is a call to repentance.) But I noticed how hard I have to work to extract those concepts from the pages -- rather like mining for gold nuggets -- and I decided it is that institutional writing style. I can imagine editors at the Ensign, who perhaps receive manuscripts that have some life and personality in them, but then must blandize and homogenize them into that same old boring, somewhat pompous style. It pushes your eyes away from the text and makes them slide across the page, and then you have to go back and deliberately extricate the thoughts you want. The information is good, but it makes you work for it. Surely this is not a Good Thing. Later today I had another, more worldly, thought about writing style, this one about genre fiction. I just read another of those Clive Cussler adventure novels about Dirk Pitt. I enjoy those books for the most part, knowing not to expect emotional satisfaction from them, but they have all the flaws that romances are accused of having -- improbable heroes, impossible plots, cliches, formulaic elements repeated in every book, purple prose, stereotyped characters -- could it be that they are popular despite the flaws because they appeal to the male fantasy rather than to the female fantasy? I mean, how ridiculous is James Bond? barbara hume, who figures things out about ten years after everyone else, but I have fun - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:19:35 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Ghostly Query Nan McCulloch wrote: A woman in Relief Society was bearing her testimony concerning some genealogy work that she was doing. On several occasions she smelled the distinct odor of cigar smoke in the room where she was working. No one in her home smoked so this was very puzzling to her. She eventually recognized the presence of her grandfather (a cigar smoker), who had absolutely no interest in the gospel while living, and sensed that he was ready to have his work done. I have thought a lot about this. Did the spirit have the power to manifest his presence thought the perception of cigar smoke or was it her sub-conscious mind at work? > Spirits often announce themselves or identify themselves through smells. The sense humans (live ones) most strongly associate with memories is smell. That story is not in the least unusual or extraordinary. In fact, that Relief Society sister should consider herself lucky. My grandfather announced/identified himself with the odor of urine soaked overalls. And that pretty well sums up his sense of humor, too. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:08:04 -0500 From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: RE: [AML] Ghostly Query At 05:40 PM 6/18/02, "Clark Goble" wrote: > ___ Kathy ___ >| George Ritchie's account of being taken by an angel to a bar >| to witness an alcoholic's fracture of spirit and the attempts >| of evil or unclean spirits to enter through the fracture and >| take possession of the addict's body is plausible, given our >| actual beliefs, though others may disagree with me on that >| point. > ___ > >The problem is the implications of this notion of inebriation facilitating >possession. For instance if alcohol and presumably pain killers do such a >good job, shouldn't we expect people to emerge from operating rooms >possessed fairly quickly? *Obviously*, the difference between alcohol and anesthesia that allows the drunk to be possessed but not the sedated patient is that drinking alcohol is a willful sinful act. It isn't called "demon rum" for no reason . . . ;-) - -- Ronald W. ("Ronn") Blankenship mailto: ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:23:01 -0500 From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] re: Utah/LDS-Made Movies on AFI's "100 Years, 100 Passions" List Randall Larsen wrote: >>I didn't notice it if you mentioned Sam Taylor the >>greatgrandson of Pres. John Taylor. He was the writer >>of the original Sabrina. He also wrote a comedy about >>"Flubber" and a Flying Car which starred Fred McMurray. >>The second picture probably failed to make the AFI list. Thank you very much for reading the "LDS-made movies among AFI's To 100 Most Romantic Films" report. And thank you for remembering Sam Taylor, a truly under-appreciated American writer, screenwriter, and a great Latter-day Saint. Alas, Samuel W. Taylor, the Latter-day Saint writer did not write "Sabrina." The writer of that wonderful movie was Samuel A. Taylor, the non-LDS writer. Easy to be confused. They are both accomplished screenwriters, and have similar names, but not the same person. Samuel A. Taylor (non-LDS) wrote a number of other films, including: The Love Machine (1971); Topaz (1969); Rosie! (1968); Three on a Couch (1966), and best of all, Alfred Hitchcock's "Vertigo" (which, interestingly enough, was also included in AFI's "100 Years . . . 100 Passions" list, despite featuring a wonderfully twisted "romance" -- one of Jimmy Stewart's most out-of-character roles -- but one that really highlighted his talent as an actor. Samuel W. Taylor (LDS) wrote the story that was the basis of "The "Absent-Minded Professor" (1961), and also a sequel, "Son of Flubber", and also a TV version and a much later Robin Williams version "Flubber". His other movies include: Bait (1954); Man with My Face (1951); The Man Who Returned to Life (1942). He also wrote for Alfred Hitchcock's TV show. But probably his greatest literary accomplishment is his novel "Heaven Knows Why!", which has been mentioned recently on AML-list in the discussion of Mormon books featuring "ghosts" (Moroni Skinner is a spirit, not a ghost). One of the great cinematic crimes of the 20th century is that "Heaven Knows Why!" has yet to be made into a feature film. Hopefully the 21st Century will rectify this matter. >>Perhaps I missed it but does Don Bluth get a mention for any of his work at Disney or on his own? AFI's "100 Years . . . 100 Passions" list includes only 2 animated feature films: "Lady and the Tramp" and "Beauty and the Beast." Two of the animation directors on "Lady and the Tramp" -- Les Clark and Eric Larson -- were from Utah (probably LDS). But none of Don Bluth's Disney movies are included on this particular AFI list. And, actually, the only Disney movie Bluth actually DIRECTED was the short New Testament film "Small One." He was animation director on "Pete's Dragon", and an animator on The Rescuers (1977); The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977) and Robin Hood (1973). *** >> Hal Ashby's "Coming Home" (1978) was quite controversial... Just a note on Ashby. He is, indeed, a native of Ogden, Utah and a graduate of Utah State University in Logan. But he was raised in a very broken down, alcoholic home. I don't know whether or not he was ethnically Mormon, but he was not raised LDS. More typical of Latter-day Saint moviemaking of the late 1970s was Charles Sellier's "documentaries": "In Search of Noah's Ark" (1977) and "Beyond and Back" (1978), Bill Anderson's "Apple Dumpling Gang" (1975) starring Don Knotts, and the Osmonds' "The Great Brain" (1978, starring Jimmy) and "Goin' Coconuts" (1978, starring Donny and Marie), all of which were somehow overlooked by the AFI. I actually haven't seen "Goin' Coconuts." Is it a passionate movie? - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:44:19 -0700 From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture From: "Thom Duncan" > From: "Barbara Hume" > > > > Now, that could make an interesting LDS book. The Lord calls a man from, > > say, Portugal to be the prophet, and the Caucasian American contingent of > > the church says, "No! We won't have it! He's not One of Us!" Then what > > happens? Does the Lord accept their dismissal of His choice, or does he > say > > to the Causcasian American bigots, "You're out.We'll just go along without > > you." There are some interesting precedents in the Old Testament to this > > sort of thing. > > First of all, it wouldn't happen that way. > > First, the man from Portugal would be called as an Apostle. If he then > outlived the other apostles, he would become prophet. During that long > time, it would be expected that the Saints would have got to know him > somewhat, so there would probably be little problem with accepting him > whatever his race might be. > OTOH, first let's imagine that our fictitious/someday Apostle is not only Portuguese-speaking, but also very dark of skin. (I'm thinking of Elder Helio da Rocha Camargo from Brazil, who, IIRC, was very dark.) I can see some members doing exactly what some other members did in 1978; just plain stop going to church. I don't know any personally who did that -- living in Canada, esp. Northern Canada, will do that to you %-) -- but I'm sure any of you who've lived in Utah or in the deep South probably have heard of at least one or two. And if/when such an Apostle succeeds to the Presidency, I could see more people just plain stop going to church. The stretch to 'people who don't sustain the new Apostle/Prophet' to 'people who split from the church when that happens' to 'people who go completely ape over the idea' is not a particulary long one, IMHO. For an immediate, recent example of 'people who split from the church when X happens', check out The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days. These people in Manti UT split from the church after the 1990 revision of the temple endowment ceremony. Any bets on how many similar groups will pop up the day after the first black Apostle is called? Anyhow, Barbara, thanks for the idea. I'm not up to a book as yet, but a few short stories could very well be in order.... > OTOH, if the Church at large refused to accept him, the Apostles would have > to get together and receive revelation on another candidagte. Or, perhaps, the Apostles would have to get together and beat the Church at large over the head with a very large, very figurative stick. > I say all this, of course, as if this speculation (based on the way prophets > have been chosen since the time of Brigham Young). The Lord could trump my > opinion at any time. As he could do to all of us. Robert ********************************************************************** Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too 'Man is that he might have joy--not guilt trips.' (Russell M. Nelson) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 15:48:47 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Satan Figures (was: Conpiracies in Literature) ___ Jim ___ | I didn't know that Gordon Dickson was dead! I guess I'll be | waiting a few years longer for the end of the Childe Cycle. ___ Yeah. It sad, although I think you can get an idea of where he was going with the series by reading _Time Storm_. It is thematically quite similar. I must admit that Dickson did shift things from his original outline. There were to be a few more historical novels covering both the Renaissance general Hawkmoon and also Milton. He touched on those figures as historical musings by main characters. But I believe that originally it was to involve time travel. There used to be a very good essay regarding his plans and the themes within the series at the back of _The Final Encyclopedia_. Although to be fair the last few books were far weaker than the others in the series. I have to admit that I loved the way Bleys was cast as a kind of Islamic version of Lucifer. He's sad and melancholy - sort of the guy who is vastly smarter than everyone else and feels the weight in this sad way. Shades of Milton, but with a distinctive twist. He's almost *not* a bad guy. Satan is probably an oft used character in fantasy, and in literature in general as an archetype. But the Bleys Ahrens character of Dickson is the most believable version of Satan I've ever read. It probably "explains" one of the big problems I had with Mormonism when I was younger. What was Satan thinking? I mean here is this guy who thinks he is smarter than God, apparently wants to help people, yet is characterized as evil incarnate. And yeah he is evil, but what is his motivation? In Dickson the difference reading _Young Bleys_ verses the way the character appears in _The Final Encyclopedia_ is remarkable. In the earlier book you only know the character indirectly. He leads a secret conspiracy of "Others" who are taking over civilization. He seems completely evil, and yet at the same time a distorted mirror of the hero. In _Young Bleys_ Dickson fleshes out the character, using several psychological theories of how a Satan-like personality could develop. Further the most haunting scene in the book is Bleys fasting non-stop to try and have a spiritual experience and being unable to. By lacking that spiritual element he almost has no choice but to become what he lacks. Yet that making himself a God always has a hollowness to it which then becomes part of his personality. He inability to know God ends up being an inability to really be human. Having said that though the book isn't as great as the early books. The sequel, _Others_, is not good at all and ends up being little more than the tedium of how to run a conspiracy and manipulate governments. ___ Jim ___ | I believe that the only place that villains ARE forward-looking | is in literature. ___ Sometimes. You have interesting counter-examples. Think _Beyond the Thunderdome_ in which the Tina Turner character is trying to re-establish civilization. It's looking back in a sense, but looking forward in the sense of creative civilization. ___ Jim ___ | His goal is to eradicate all life in the world, but he of | course uses lies to persuade people to follow him. ___ Nihilism is an excellent role for villains. And there is that sense of nihilism in many Satan characters. Even the Bleys character is nihilistic. Of course Bleys is more in a Neitzschean sort of way in which he doesn't know the implications of his own belief. The ultimate nihilism of the sort you mention is the old Beserker stories. (I forget the author - I think it was Frank Saberhagen) There you have some weapons that were programmed for war and exceeded their programming and took on the characteristic of eradicating all life. I suspect that originally it was meant as a metaphor for atomic weapons. It took on an interesting life of its own with the combination with the Frankenstein or golem myths. This then arises in movies like the Terminator series and perhaps some cyberpunk thrillers. Of course I'm sure to the computer they *are* forward looking. Take _The Matrix_. There the computer is looking after itself and is a devil only in the sense of the old Gnostic demiurge. Orson Scott Card's version of the devil in the alterative universe retelling of Mormonism is also a character of this sort. There the devil isn't a person so much as he is the concept of unmaking as opposed to making. It's a little odd as he basically moves to making both the devil and god fairly "Platonic" like and quite un-Mormon. (Although I believe he was inspired by the hermetic view of Mormonism that came from Quinn's _Mormonism and the Magic World View_) Still I'm not sure how we reconcile the Card view of the Devil and his conspiracies with the fairly complex picture given in The Pearl of Great Price. It's odd that both the Beserker view of the devil and the Bleys kind of devil seem so much more believable than the traditional view in fantasy. (i.e. in Alvin Maker or popular series like that Robert Jordan work) ___ Jim ___ | It's the sophisticated followers that I'm having trouble with. | The foot soldiers are no problem, its the leaders. They're | going to try to convince what amounts to an apostle to rebel | and become perdition, cause he KNOWS the truth. That's my | dilemma--how do I marshal arguments designed to convince a | prophet that won't convince a reader? ___ I think part of it is the old Book of Mormon adage of the "live life wild now and at worst you'll just have to repent later on." Typically the "prophet" like character have some life of asceticism and offering the world really is a big temptation. It is the story of the 40 days in the wilderness. If you were wandering in the wilderness living on locus or worse yet fasting and Satan offered you a big meal, plus a few ladies in waiting to give you a massage, would you do it? This is itself just a variation of the old "vanity is the root of all evil." Satan works through some character flaw which only occurs because of the vanity of the main character. Thus if a good "prophet-like character" is jealous, that jealousy is played up. (Look at the Cain and Abel story) ___ Jim ___ | Hannibal Lector is not a convincing villain in this sense. He | couldn't convert anybody, which is why the ending to _Hannibal_ | is so silly. His arrogance is just too great to be convincing. ___ Well I'll agree that the Lecter-Clarice romance wasn't well written. But I think what Harris was doing was critiquing the reason the film _Silence of the Lambs_ was so popular. It was that odd relationship between the two characters. That people liked it basically for romantic reasons was very warped. So Harris writes a black comedy in which the Clarice - Hannibal "romance" is a type for relationships in general. What the ending shows is that Lector *can't* convince Clarice. So instead he effectively rapes her mind. He uses all the cunning of psychology and chemistry to brainwash her. But what does this say about Hannibal himself and the place of mental illness? Effectively what Hannibal must do is make Clarice as insane as he is. But if mental illness is both biological and also due to psychological trauma (as the novel suggests with Hannibal's history) then that ought to be able to be done to Clarice. This is itself then a black comedy critique of the classic Romantic view of romantic love as a kind of madness where you lose yourself in the other. Unfortunately Harris didn't pull it off. As for Hannibal being that arrogant, I'm not sure he is per se. The only scene that is "unbelievable" in this way is how he escapes from the pigs. In the film that is quite unbelievable. In the book though there is a missing character that makes it more believable. (Especially since, as I recall, she had been a patient of Lecter) But Lecter as a devil character is interesting. He is persuasive, but persuasive because he knows how our minds work. So he can use the deficiencies of our psyche to control us. And when he needs extra help, well there are lots of psychotropic drugs out there that he can use to weaken the spirit. Of course Harris is, like so many before, giving psychology as a science far more power than it really has. Heavens, psychology is still very primitive - especially compared to physics or chemistry. Perhaps this psychologist as magician type metaphor will be more true in the future, but right now it certainly isn't! I always chuckle when a book or movie portray the psychologist as having all this secret knowledge that makes them the master manipulator. If anything the opposite is true! (And I love _Good Will Hunting_ because of how it treats psychology) ___ Jim ___ | I have to admit however that it was _Silence of the Lambs_ that | first set me onto Marcus Aurelius, who remains my favorite | philosopher. I owe that to Hannibal Lector's "Simplicity! Read | Marcus Aurelius. Ask of each particular thing what is it in | itself, in it's nature." ___ I must admit I'm not too big a fan of Aurelius. He is my least favorite Stoic. (Give me Seneca over Aurelius any day) As a coincidence Stoicism is my main topic of study at the moment. Hannibal's use of Renaissance stoicism certainly is important to the character though. The Aurelius quote proves why I twist in my seat every time someone quotes "to thine own self be true." If Hannibal was fulfilling his nature in the Greek sense of the notion, do we really want him to? I always bring that point up in church. I guess I've not quite reached my "self-censorship" stage, as others in the thread from last week have. I should add that the reason Hannibal kills is because the individuals he kills aren't acting in a harmonious way, according to the Stoic ideal. He has de-humanized them in such a way that they have become only cogs in a cosmic machine. (A common view of Stoicism) Thus he kills the 1st string cellist because she was playing poorly in a symphony. His apparently grotesque ways of killing and even cannibalism end up being part of a Stoic kind of irony and the view of sympathies within stoicism. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:13:49 -0500 From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Secret Combinations in Literature Many of the conspiracies I hear mooted in church (and elsewhere) are difficult to identify as 'left' or 'right.' For instance, there's the ever-popular issue of governmental erosion of individual liberty, which comes from paramilitaries, religious fundamentalists, op-ed columnists for the _NY Times_, and various law school profs. In some versions it's a conspiracy, in others it's part of a reasonable discussion on current approaches to security issues and terrorism. Conspiracy theories focusing on government misbehavior, even the behavior of particular branches and agencies of government (CIA, FBI, BATF, DoD) come from left and right, and it's often hard to identify whether the source is a left-wing or a right-wing loon. Paranoia isn't ideologically biased, and even people with paranoid delusions may have enemies. The need to identify a conspiracy idea with an ideological orientation is perhaps related to our need to categorize (dichotomize?), even when categories fly in the face of reality. Every interesting nut is interesting in his own way and deserves to be studied as an individual. Many of them self-identify as left or right, but there's no more reason to ask them what they think of themselves than there is to ask a platypus what it thinks of itself. It's an interesting object of study, not a dinner date. A platypus isn't a liberal or a conservative; it's a platypus. I think the same is true of conspiracy nuts. People who write about platypusses (platypi?), alas, often have feelings of disdain for nature's oddities, so they prefer to associate the platypus with the ideologies of their ex-spouses (most of whom were slime). It can make their writing turgid. Oliver Stone's movies are usually intrinsically silly, but the ideological baggage he brings to bear on his conspiracies is so much baroque icing on the cake. It's like putting silly ears on the platypus. Isn't that over-kill? If we're going to write about secret combinations, why hobble the story with ideology? The banal desires of conspirators are universal (though usually tightly controlled) and apolitical. Aren't they already interesting enough that way? Jim Picht - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:13:57 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Ghostly Query ___ Kathy ___ | From my point of view, there is a choice involved, conscious | or subconscious, that a person makes when they (or *I*, past | tense, having done this myself when I was 15) get so drunk | or toked that they can't feel or think straight. ___ I don't want to get away from literature too much. There is a danger that this could turn into a science discussion. So I'll try and focus on the "literary" emphasis of these stories. If anyone is interesting in the science discussion, the mailing list Eyring-l discussed this issue a few days back. Anyway the issue is that what allows the people to be possessed wasn't the alcohol, in your mind. It was their intent that caused the problem then it would occur whether they drank or not. Now there is a kind of "folk" doctrine that our habits stay with us forever and this is why it is easier to repent in this life than in the spirit world. While I've heard authorities make both comments, it technically isn't a doctrine. (And there are some problems with the notion IMO) The difficulty is that if *alcohol* is bad because it is a way to "drown out" bad feelings, then shouldn't the desire for any such substance do the same? The danger in these folk tales is that they seem to fit perfectly drugs such as Prozac or Zoloft. Why is it those are acceptable ways to drown out pain or depression but alcohol isn't? (Ignoring the WoW ban, for the moment) Psychotropic drugs like Prozac can create far greater personality changes than alcohol. The difference seems to be that alcohol makes one inable to function. That's a social no-no and so we have these stories (Which I see more as parables) that discourage it. The danger I see in these sorts of stories and urban legends is that I think they teach a rather pernicious idea. While I can't say for sure, I suspect that those attempting to drown their sorrows in drugs or alcohol really are suffering a great deal of anguish. They are attempting to "treat" themselves. The problem with drugs and alcohol is that they don't solve anything. They numb the pain rather than cure the pain. But when used as a kind of psychological crutch of this sort, that's exactly what is going on: a kind of pain killer. My problem is why deadening oneself to a kind of emotional pain could possibly be conceived of as opening oneself to the devil? I can see one doing stupid damaging acts under the influence - especially the way these substances affect some peoples personalities. But why is "emotional pain" bad to treat while physical pain is OK? If alcohol or the like open us up to the adversary it is simply because he is no dummy. He recognizes that it is easier to manipulate people when their inhibitions are down. But then it is easier for mortal people to manipulate others as well. That's why a common technique in spying is to get your target drunk so as to make it easier to get information. Further you see the same phenomena at dance clubs or the like. The girls who are intoxicated become prey for sexual predators. Until the last decade that kind of "date rape" was acceptable. I bring up the example of date rate (which I recognize is not a black and white issue) because that is how I see these people. This oft told story really teaches something quite contrary to what I see in the gospel. I find it interesting as a folk tale. But the way it is used is dangerous. (As are most "possession" stories) ___ Kathy ___ | If this were the case, then why would the gospel writers have | bothered to make an account of just how many evil and unclean | spirits were cast out of individuals, such as the seven who | were cast out of Mary Magdelene by the Savior, or others who, | when asked their identity, were so many they called themselves | "legion", and were sent into a herd of pigs and ran off a | cliff? ___ Saying that most cases of "possession" are actually mental illness or the like isn't saying that it never happens. Not having first hand informed witnesses of what happened there, I can't say for sure what went on. However if Christ said there were devil possessing her, then I'll trust him. Unfortunately the accounts we have were written long after the fact by people other than Christ. Even if it were something else going on, how would Jesus explain it to a bunch of basically uneducated people in Palestine? I think that there is a danger of projecting their descriptions into our worldview. When I was a kid my Dad had us read various descriptions of the last days in Isaiah and Revelation. He'd then ask, well if you live back then and saw a tank or an airplane, how would you describe it to the people around you? It was a really interesting Family Home Evening less and got me thinking about those sorts of issues at the ripe old age of eight. I think it still applies. We have to remember that people until recently had no idea about science. In the 17th century a lot of what we take for granted as basic engineering or science caused people to get labeled as witches or the like or possessed. Through most of humanity people have been ignorant and superstitious. This isn't to say that there aren't really miracles or the like. Far from it. However it does suggest that how people interpret things can be very culturally dependent. There's an old quote by Arthur C. Clarke that says, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." That is very true. So let me ask you. If someone like the mathematician from _A Beautiful Mind_ was sent back to the year 100 AD, how would people view him? How about someone with a brain tumor? What if you gave a powerful modern synthetic drug like LSD to someone without them knowing about it. How would they describe what happened to them? I think that you'll find "devils" as a nice simple explanation that most people would apply to all these very explainable phenomena. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:45:10 EDT From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Ghostly Query In nursing school there was a psych unit that spent time teaching us about the ins and outs of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia where people do hear voices or see things. I thought it particularly interesting to hear the instructor discuss the voices as being a sign of mental illness when we teach our children to listen to the "still small voice." Not long afterward, I had occasion to get acquainted with someone who was a new convert to the Church. I told her that I wanted to ask a very personal question and asked her about it. She said that she had heard both the voices of her illness (whether evil spirits, malfunctioning mental connections, or whatever) and the voice of the Spirit. She said that there was very definitely a difference and she could tell where the voices were coming from. Karen [Tippets] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:58:14 -0700 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Attacking the Family >> Divorce is bad, and you know someone who's better off divorced. = There's no >> conflict there, so long as we remember that the first statement is a >> statistical generality, and the second is a specific case. Thom Duncan responded: >I contend that many members of the Church don't have the ability to see = the >subtleties you suggest. I want to add something here. In the number of Wards and Stakes my = family has been in there have been several divorces. Unfortunately, most = have been where the husband initiated the divorce. In each case the = woman was better off for a variety of reason (except financially and all = of the women got the proverbial screw put to them where it came to = either Child Support of Alimony) after the divorce but in each case = their self-esteem was crushed. I am convinced down to the depths of my = soul that the Spirit is probably screaming in the Bishops' or Stake = Presidencies' ears to not give some of these clowns Temple Recommends = because of either how they treated their family before the divorce (wife = and/or Children - step or biological) or how they treated them in the = divorce proceedings. Either way they have violated the covenants and = meet the criteria of D&C 121 or since the divorce in dealing fairly with = their fellow man (especially that updated clause about financially = meeting their previous family's needs and their obligations). To me it = is a travesty that they have no clue what they did wrong and many times = go on to do the same things, and commit the same sin over and over = because no one has the intestinal fortitude to call them on what they = are doing and either hold a Priesthood Court or sit them down for some = serious counseling which should include removal of their recommend. You can probably tell I have a strong opinion about this right now due = to a dear friend of mine whose divorce just became final. For the record = - - do not get me one on one and ask my opinion of this kind of stuff. I = may use words not fit for a Temple attending member. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:10:58 -1000 From: "Randall Larsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Utah/LDS-Made Movies on AFI's "100 Years, 100 Passions" List Preston, Thanks for the correction on Sabrina. Actually the values of Sabrina aren't LDS. The Movie Sabrina is a typical Greek new comedy (as Nibley would say). Girl meets Boy. Girl can't marry boy because boy is rich and girl is poor. In the end the couple live happily ever after when its discovered that by some quirk of luck (good investments) the chauffer's daughter is now rich TOO. Now that they are BOTH rich they CAN marry. **** Do you know what episodes of Hitchcock Presents that our Sam wrote? I knew Sam and was particularly interested in his writings about Mormon History: Nightfall at Nauvoo, the Kingdom or Nothing, (compiler) John Taylor Papers I and II. **** On the OSMUND movie Goin Cocanuts (a take off on the Marx Bros. Goin Bananas). It was comedy (forgettable for the most part). It had a nice chase scene in boats. The Osmunds were friends with Dr. Winn in Studio City. I worked with Dr. Winn on video productions. In the late 70s when the Osmunds wanted to set up a video editing facility in LA, I recommended through Dr. Winn that they lease a building on La Brea about half way between Wilshire and Santa Monica Blvd. I thought it would be good to be near the ad agencies on Wilshire. It put them out of Hollywood however so they didn't get much business. In Hollywood it is very important to do business at the center. That is why the Osmund's Orem studio was not such a good idea in the first place. *** I don't know whether Reed Smoot is on the AFI 100 yet but I notice he is getting a lot of high profile work these days. He DP'd an interesting Short film in the 70s called "The Rainbow War" Anybody seen it? This Smoot short is still shown frequently in intercultural training programs? Arafat and Sharon should probably view this picture. kind regards, Randall Larsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #753 ******************************