From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #754 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 24 2002 Volume 01 : Number 754 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:23:01 -0600 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture I don't know anyone in Happy Valley who would not accept a black president of the church if he spent a goodly amount of time as an apostle. Once people here get to know black people they go out of their way to accept them. We have the neatest black man in our bishopric and he is by far the most loved man in that group. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:59:19 -0700 From: "gtaggart" Subject: RE: [AML] Doctrine Versus Culture Robert wrote, "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 think you were really thinking of Elder Helvecio Martins, recently of the Quorum of the Seventy, baptized in the early 70's in Rio, and much, much darker than Camargo. Both wonderful men, by the way. Interesting note about him: He was baptized before the revelation on the priesthood. When the church organized the first stake in Rio, he was called to the stake Sunday School Presidency, either as President (as I remember it) or as a counselor (as I've read elsewhere), even though he still couldn't hold the priesthood. As I recall, Bruce R. McConkie organized the stake. To occupy that position today, you need to hold the priesthood. Greg Taggart - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:46:44 -0700 From: "Shelly Choong" Subject: Re: [AML] Labor Horror Stories Chris Bigelow wrote: > The spring issue of Irreantum (now at the printers) has several short > stories on the theme of childbirth, including one by Linda Adams that goes > into a lot of detail about the labor and delivery of a woman's first child. > > If you're not a subscriber and want this issue, send $5 with a note ~Thanks Chris, but I think I'll pass. What I do think would make an interesting topic for Irrenatum to explore would be what it means to be a childless mother in Zion. Sheri Dew gave a talk about that earlier this year, and I found it to be an interesting approach to the issue. ~I've appreciated everybody's posting on this subject. Just getting some feedback has helped. This is a tender issue for me right now because at 39, my biological clock isn't just ticking. It's tocked. There seems to be various stages of dealing with being childless in a church that values children as much as we do. And I suppose this is just one more stage. ~Thanks again. Shelly (Johnson-Choong) http://www.shellyjohnsonchoong.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 22:19:28 -0600 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Changing Names The current (July 2002) Writer's Digest has an article addressing this very issue. It's called, "To Tell the Truth," and deals with the difficulty of writing an truthful memoir, especially when the real people involved will be reading it. It also (briefly) addresses what to do to protect yourself (such as gathering as much evidence and other information as you can, rather than relying on just your own memories). Thought it might be helpful. :) Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 06:42:45 -0600 From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Setting Goals I wrote: > >Even > >the prophet at the time (whom I love deeply) was tell missionaries to set > >baptism goals (1000 per missionary per mission, but 500 per mission for > >German missions). Reality was about three orders of magnitude less. We >had a > >general authority come to the mission and chastise us for not having > >companionship baptism goals. Eric Wrote: > Missionary work is funny. It's not, mostly, about Huge Moral Dilemmas (Nothing Very Important, Fires of the Mind). It's not about Heroic Self Sacrifice (God's Army). It's not about The Triumph of Naivete (Saturday's Warrior). I mean, it can be about those things, but they all seem to miss the point a bit, I think. Missionary work is about bureaucratic self-importance, and that's funny. It's about working until your heart breaks to achieve certain impossible number goals, and that also seems to me pretty funny, Orwellian funny at least. It's about Motivational Speeches, all of which strike me as amazingly funny. It's about bothering people at home who don't want to be bothered, because your priority is Bearing Testimony of The Truth and theirs is Getting Dinner On Followed By TV; that seems to me very funny indeed. Missionary work is funny, and I don't know that that's ever been explored. (Maybe I should. Hmmmm. . . .) > Eric Samuelsen Of course it's funny. Baiting the dog. How a greeny learns they are the worst mission in the world. A district meeting where they compare the worst X, the most off-the-wall door approach, the best hazing. An accidental date to the opera. Stealing, copying, and returning the old companion's journals. Trying to buy a gun from an investigator. Zone conferences. Wagering on a diamond-wearing sister missionary's future. Paper airplanes and firecrackers. Street preaching and singing/preaching at Mardi Gras beer garden. Tracking in the wrong area of town. Meeting an investigator at her workplace--a public restroom. Why don't you break down and read *Angel of the Danube*, which has been called Serio-comic by Cracroft. You get all this and folk tales, and the serious search for meaning. But I disagree with Eric--yes it is funny, but it is also about heroic self sacrifice, moral dilemnas, and the Triumph of Naivete. If not the last, there would be no worldwide Mormon church, only a small religious community on the Amish scale. Miracles happen. Alan Mitchell - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:59:26 -0600 From: "Robert Starling" Subject: [AML] Re: 1. Sued by anti-Mormons and 2. Minority Report Here's an answer and a question/comment... RE: At 03:25 PM 6/18/02, you wrote: >It resulted my being sued by anti-Mormons twice, once for $3million and = once > for $25 million. >On what basis? that you had no right to show them up or reveal the flaws i= n= =20 >their arguments? The basis for one lawsuit was that I had "interfered with a prospective = economic relationship" between the producers of "The God Makers" film and = the church that was going to show it (and take up a collection for the = producers), because I wrote a letter to the pastor of the church. The judg= e= said I had a right to be a "film critic" and express my opinion, so the = case was thrown out. In the second lawsuit, someone (in Texas I believe) had re-typed my rebutta= l= to the movie and added a disparaging note about the star/producer, which = was claimed to libelous. In this case, I had a few thousand copies of the = paper in circulation to prove that my original did not contain the offendin= g= paragraphs, so I was in the clear. >so the pre-emptive imprisonment of anyone for the crimes >that they might commit seems to fly in the face of well-established law. >I'll be curious to see how Spielberg handles this idea in his new film, >_Minority Report._=20 Many on this list may have read Gerald Lund's "The Alliance", which also = deals with a future society in which technology makes possible the arrest o= =66= people who are merely _thinking_ about committing a crime. The work of th= e= "thought police" in this case are seen to be implementing Lucifer's plan = =66rom the pre-mortal existence by making _sure_ that no one sins. It's an interesting parallel. Robert Starling - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= - --- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for= = the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:54:19 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons and Topaz A correction... I wrote: > The prophet at the time was Heber J. Grant who had served a mission in Japan > and was generally beloved by the Japanese people (his translation of the > Book of Mormon is still the preferred edition for many Japanese even though > a newer more accurate translation is available). Of course Brother Grant directed Alma O. Taylor to translate the Book of Mormon; Grant himself was probably not strong enough in the language to do such a translation himself. To further clarify, that older translation is not generally available today but is reported to me (by one former missionary to Japan) to be quite beloved among some older Japanese who link it in their minds to President Grant. Thanks to Andrew Hall for providing me with direct, updated information on a datum that I had dredged up from an old, uncorrelated (and un-source-checked) memory. This history stuff is harder than it looks... Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:33:03 -0700 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Labor Horror Stories At 10:34 AM 6/15/02, Shelly (Johnson-Choong) wrote: >>~I was going to remain a lurker, but this thread hit home. I'm = childless. >>Not by choice. But that's a whole different story. The thing is, I = want to >>know why Mormon women do this sort of thing? Why is it whenever a = group of >>Mormon women get together for Enrichment Night, or gather in the hall = of the >>church, the conversation always gets around to their 36 hour labor = sessions, >>etc.? >> >>Any ideas? Ronn said: >When I was growing up=B9 and would go with my parents to visit my = mother's=20 >family, my cousin (who was about my age) and I would try to figure out = why=20 >so much of the conversation of our elders revolved around the latest=20 >hospital visits, or just the general everyday aches and pains, of=20 >themselves or other family members. I suspect the explanation is = similar. > >Maybe it all boils down to something as simple as "Misery loves = company"? > >If so, though, why does no one want to hear me describe my symptoms = when I=20 >am not feeling well? Maybe this all goes back to the old days of pioneers and maybe even the = Civil War and other things. What I'm trying to say here is if you have = ever watched old war verterans it gets to a point in the conversation = they start talking about how many bullets they took in the war. Or my = scar is bigger than your scar therefore I'm tougher. He who has the most = scars is toughest of all. Having spent many a summer going to visit relatives and hearing many = conversations inevitable you would hear "Did you hear about so-and-so? = Poor dear, she had xx hours of surgery and is still sick, etc." My guess = is it was a way of getting respect (scars) or sympathy (poor dear) but = in either case it can leave the wrong impression if the same story gets = told over and over. My personal opinion of Sisters who talk about their labor pain/times is = they are trying to find out if they fit in. I know how Shelly must feel. = I have known people in some of the Wards we have lived in where they = were childless and not by choice either. Hopefully the sisters are not = insensitive about your situation. One suggestion I could make is find a = good sister who you feel you can be close to and see if they have any = clue of what they are trying to accomplish/figure out when this kind of = conversation comes up or talk to one of the Relief Society Presidency = and see if they have any ideas how to get your feelings known and = understood.=20 Point of reference and point of view is huge in liturature but many do = not realize how big this is in life as well. Everyone wants to relate on = some level. Wanting to relate to someone's experience and not being able = to (and feeling you should) can impact you on a "Self Esteem" level. It = is like wanting to walk a mile in someone's moccasins and every time = they hand them to you to walk in they take them back before you can put = them on. 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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 16:56:17 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] Responsibility and Medication (was: Ghostly Query) - ---Original Message From: Clark Goble > ___ 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. > ___ > > 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. Interesting idea. I agree that "drowning out bad feelings" isn't the issue. And I don't think it is that alcohol incapacitates people, either. At least, not as such. I think the core issue is one of judgement and personal responsibility. Alcohol impairs judgment. Although people may speak of "numbing the pain" what they are also doing is drowning out legitimate burdens. It's one thing to alleviate your pain, but you must be careful to a) take the responsibility to balance the benefits vs. detriments, b) consult resources that can provide crucial information on the planned solution, and c) ensure that any solution doesn't impair the ability to fulfill other important obligations. Alcohol just doesn't fit the bill. If you have such serious problems, then self-medicating is only going to make those problems worse--predictably worse. Drinking to alleviate pain is, simply put, irresponsible. Taking psychotropic drugs like Prozac et. al. is fundamentally different because doing so is a function of responsibility--you recognize your pain, you seek help, you become informed and seek the advice of professionals, and you monitor your condition to weigh the benefits and possible draw-backs. > 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? Because the way they choose to "treat" their emotional pain is to abandon their responsibility. If *you* don't want to be responsible for your actions, some other entity is eager to pick up the slack. By drinking alcohol or taking illegal drugs, you are declaring in a very real way that *you* don't care what you do or what happens to you. It's a clear declaration and as such, it doesn't surprise me that you forfeit certain intrinsic protections. Not that I think it is a terribly common occurrence, really. Just that the justification can be deeper and harder to dismiss than you've outlined here. > 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 think it can go beyond mere suggestibility. If you deliberately forfeit control of yourself, then you really have no call to be surprised if something else takes control. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #754 ******************************