From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #771 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 Tuesday, July 16 2002 Volume 01 : Number 771 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:42:35 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Satan Figures ___ Kathy ___ | The evil no longer served a purpose in their lives. They'd | grown far beyond needing any outside "spur" to do good or | be good, to choose right and be righteous. ___ A couple more thoughts to go along with my post on utopias. While God doesn't need a Satan as a spur to himself, he may need it for freedom of the sort the Book of Mormon describes. (2 Ne 2) I don't want to get into a theological discussion, given the list guidelines. I'd simply point out that the kind of freedom the Book of Mormon describes requires there *exist* both good and evil for a being to be free. If God is free then that suggests that he be exposed to evil. So I'd reject your assertion about there being no need. Further God "needs" evil so as to aid his children. So while he may not need it for himself, that doesn't entail his not needing it. Finally, as I discussed in my utopia post, *needing* evil doesn't seem to be the determining factor for whether evil is present. This then gets us the debate about evil in this life. Does evil exist because we need it to grow or does it exist because we have the freedom to choose? One choice tends to put God as picking out all our trials for us and eliminates peoples ability to choose. The other choice puts freedom first, but downplays evil as a "spur" as you call it. I suspect that the reality is somewhere in the middle. ___ Kathy ___ | If this (and I have no doubt of it) is the destiny of man, if | he so chooses, is it possible in the here and now to write a | novel without a satan figure, whether that figure be oneself or | any of the other three traditional adversaries that make a | story a story, and make it compelling enough? ___ Is there a book without conflict that is interesting? Yeah we can read poetry about how pretty things are or praising God. But personally I think if that were our entirely diet of art I'd get bored fast. I could only sing so many hymns of praise before I'd be left wanting more. Which gets us back to Brigham Young's insistence that God is progressing in some way. I like the old Jewish notion that God is eternally holding back the waters of chaos in an endlessly repeated battle of creative power. The problem is literature is that even when you eliminate the Satan figure as a formal Satan figure you simply recreate him as a psychological dynamic, a metaphoric presence in the conflict against nature, or so forth. The very *structure* of narrative requires this repetition of the archetypal myth of the battle of good and evil. We have a conflict of some sort in which the hero is at risk, reach a climax of the battle and then find the hero either triumphant or conquered. That *is* narrative. There is no other form that I'm aware of. Break that mold and suddenly it really isn't a novel anymore. I obviously have my doubts about the utopia you describe. (I like the notion of a utopia endlessly deferred - sought for but always undercut before it is fully achieved) But in asking the question of literature you really are asking the same sort of question Plato asked in _The Republic_. While he excluded poets because they created a secondary "imitation" or reality, I think that is but one nuance of what he was doing. Perhaps any real ideal utopia must exclude the poets because literature itself inherently deals with evil? As such it too is the "serpent finding its way into the garden." - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 19:50:51 EDT From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Satan Figures Kathy, As writters, my partner and I have also pondered the question of how stories, especialy fiction, will be written in a time without conflict, pain, sorrow, and death. Since we suppose, hopefully so, that we will be living and maybe writting stories during the Millennium the question is more than theoretical. And if writting will change then, should we change it now to less model the high action, revenge plots of much writing and most movie making? I wonder too if Mormon left out much detail on the Golden Years following Christ's appearance to them knowing us well enough to understand that we would find descriptions of peace, joy, happiness for hundreds of years a boring read. Glen Sudbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:26:06 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias The problem with Utopias is that they have to confront the issue of "utopia for whom?" This was a problem even in the practical "trying things out" attempts at utopias in 19th century Utah. They wisely tried many variations on the theme of the United Order. One frequent problem was how to deal with "cheaters" or people who wanted out. Most presentations of utopias leave that part out. Of course Utopia literature has been around with us for thousands of years - going back at least to Plato's Rebublic. Plato famously excluded the poets from his utopia and various inclusions and exclusions have been thrown around ever since. Utopia schemes continued through such famous works as Augustine's _City of God_. We have the start of modern Utopia schemes in More's _Utopia_ and they have gone on non-stop ever since. (Often becoming the subject of religious communities theology) I must admit though that for me the satires of utopias are much more interesting than any particular utopian scheme. Who can miss out the critique of the utopia movement by Swift in _Gulliver's Travels_? Of course in saying that we must point out that More's _Utopia_ is itself highly ironic. It is akind of Augustine inspired theological critique of Plato's _Republic_. But in doing so it takes a somewhat pessimistic view of man - much like I think the debates between communism and capitalism as "utopias" often debate. The problem of this utopia as an ironic literary critique is that it quite naturally leads us into more pessimistic utopias and even the nihilistic anti-utopias such as Orwell's _1984_. Huxley's _A Brave New World_ is an other. Suddenly the very notion of utopia seems to entail the notion of its doppleganger the anti-utopia. And, as the Leninist form of "utopia" shows us, one man's utopia is an other man's hell. It is often interesting me (to make reference to Kathy's post) how little of the real utopias we learn. The city of Enoch gets a few brief verses with little about its real practical workings. 4th Nephi, which ought to be the most interesting and informative is a brief summary instead that they made it and then lost it. It is almost the Cliff notes version of _Paradise Regained_ done in reverse. Kathy says of the City of Enoch had not evil in it. Well, that's true to a degree. But how? Does this mean they all practiced birth control so that no evil little brats got born? She says that the Celestial Kingdom had not evil but immediately followed up this comment with "they were all cast out." That seems to suggest that the Celestial Kingdom *did* have evil in it. So how was this resolved? We speak of a war in heaven, which seems pretty intrinsically related to both utopias and our notion of "Satan figures." The very notion of a war says something rather profound about utopia and their possibilities. Does a "celestial" utopia always require violence to maintain itself? I'd note that with the City of Enoch it seems to have been incessantly involved in wars. (A post-deluge version of the cold war? A competition between "utopias?" A second kind of "war in utopia"?) One can't help but wonder what the folks *outside* the city of Enoch thought about Enoch and his city. I bring that up because while young I'd always heard of 19th century Utah as a kind of utopia which outsiders kept trying to destroy. Indeed the presentation of na=EFve Utah history sounded very similar to the story of= the City of Enoch. The only difference is that there seems to be a mixing of moral failure (we couldn't live the laws and they were taken away) and outside interference (OD-1 in the D&C). But once you start reading a less "eschatological" oriented telling of the history things get rather murky. We discussed Bigler's _Forgotten Kingdom_ here a few weeks ago along with the various books on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It makes one wonder whether Enoch's war had collateral casualties as well. Of course we don't want to think about all those details. And that tends to be part and parcel of the "pure" utopia literature. No messes. The dirty little questions of actual implementation and how to deal with conflict somehow never pop up. Yet our own theology of the war in heaven suggests that even God couldn't avoid those issues. There always seems to be a serpent in the garden, no matter what we do about it. So, casting evil "out" of the utopia - whether the celestial kingdom, the city of Enoch, the post-advent Bountiful or whatever never really lasts long. And if it is like that, can we really say that they are completely pure? How can we say that heaven was without evil if 1/3 of its inhabitants had to be cast out. Color me doubtful, but that is a lot of exclusions to retain ones attempted purity. Which brings me back to the literature again. More's _Utopia_ was a word coined as a pun. The pun's irony has largely been forgotten by the modern audience. The word can me both "no place" or "good place." We focus on the meaning of "good place" to the exclusion of the "no place." That sense of "can it *permanently* be achieved" still is present. Yet I think More's view that it must remain an ideal is lost. I don't want to prattle on too long about the interesting undertones of Utopia schemes, especially Mormon ones, so I'll just add a link that hopefully some will read. This is a nice collection of discussions about Utopian writing. Perhaps some others can take the literature and see how the Mormon place in it arises. http://osu.orst.edu/Dept/philosophy/club/utopia/utopian-visions/ Of especially interest ought to be the uniquely American utopians. I don't mean simply the religious movements that started here, such as the Amish. I am thinking of perhaps Emerson and Thoreau who were of the same general period as Joseph. Indeed the early Mormon quest for utopia was but one of many movements at the time seeking the same thing. Some Utopias are a looking back - trying to regain what was lost. Some reject modern advances, such as the Amish. Such Luddite utopias remain with us. Others are place faith in a technological utopia, such as were very popular at the beginning of the 20th century. All of these have their anti-utopian literary critiques, as I mentioned. And all, I believe, have the seeds of their own destruction in their roots. I'll be up in the Canadian rockies for a week. So I fear I'll miss the discussion. But hopefully the above will inform our discussion. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 18:00:18 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias - ---Original Message From: William Morris > > When people are righteous enough > to actually make a Utopian society work (i.e. live the law of > consecration) it will resemble the ideal forms of socialism. > This is what will happen at the Millennium. I disagree. Once we're righteous enough to form a Utopian society, the government will *be* a kingdom and the economics, in my opinion, will resemble the church with distributed power (i.e. no central distribution of goods and services). Neither of which is much like socialism, even it its ideal forms. > Communism suppresses free ageny; Well, communism gives a lot of power to those who can suppress free agency. Communism isn't *itself* responsible for the suppression. I'd say that communism, by creating a central source with a lot of power, makes bad behavior very rewarding. > capitalism creates greed and too often violates the principle > and practice of charity and love. I really dislike the whole capitalism = greed trope. I went so far as to pen an essay describing why that is just not so (http://www.jacob.proffitt.com/Greed.html). Capitalism doesn't *create* greed, it cripples it. And capitalism can't violate the principles of charity and love, that requires agency. Capitalism makes charity less *necessary*, but it doesn't stand in the way at *all* if people want to practice charity and love. Not sure what you meant on that one. > But I don't think the key to this discussion revolves around > the realtive merits of either system---you don't find many > hard-core socialists in the Church. The key is in how you > characterize the economic system that will be ushered in at > the Millennium. Both sides tend to agree that the law of > consecration will be lived and will work because of the > righteousness of the people and because economic functions > will center in the Church. Those who talk about socialism are > viewing things from a broader historical and more abstract > perspective. Since communism has been discredited as a viable > system in practice, those who can see its merits must > separate out the principles from the way it was implemented. And I disagree with that impulse. The problems of socialism are not a manifestation of poor implementation. The problem with socialism is structural--socialism fails because power is centrally concentrated. It, too, makes bad behavior rewarding, just not as rewarding as communism. If you want socialism to actually have a shot at achieving its purported goals, you'll have to look at the church as a model and devolve power to the point of actual contact with those needing services. And you'll need to find a different name for it because at that point, it isn't socialism any more. But of course that structural change also cripples agendized lobbying--those who have an eye on changing the system--because they have to diversify their efforts and their costs go up. Which is why I don't expect to see it happen until people aren't so interested in dictating the social actions of others. > Those who advocate the capitalist view also do so on > abstract terms (esp. the free agency thing) but their > arguments are also more grounded in immediate history and in > the attitudes of Church leaders during the cold war. They > refuse to abstract socialist principles from the way they > were (mis)applied in the Soviet Union and China because to do > so would be to condone/validate those regimes. As a capitalist, I don't refuse to abstract socialist principles from their misapplication in China and the Soviet Union. I'm more than happy to consider the abstract principles of socialism. But then, my actions look the same as if I had refused because I don't think it's a system I want anything to do with. I'm not a fan of the abstract principles even in their pristine condition. > I think this is a place where (and it looks like you are > going to be doing this Scott) literature can really help us > define and address these 'fundamental questions.' Right now > we're caught in this idea that a combination of democracy and > capitalism is the 'best possible system.' I'm not sure what you mean, here. Voltaire-ism aside, I don't know of anyone in my circle of LDS acquaintance who claims that a combination of democracy and capitalism is the 'best possible system.' I certainly don't. 'Best for our current fallen state' I might go along with, though I'll probably concede 'best for our current fallen state that we know of' if pressed. On the subject, I personally suspect that the 'best possible system' is a kingdom ruled by a righteous king and a support/economic system similar to our current church structure (which, I should explicitly add, I suspect might contain imperfect implementations and need some millennial modifications as well). Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:18:35 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars D. Micheal wrote: I suspect the new paper would get a lot of subscriptions. But would they get advertisers? Advertising Keeps a newspaper alive. And how many subscribers would go out of their way to find this new newspaper? Editors from the tribune couldn't take list of old subscribers to the tribune with them when they start a new paper. Those list would belong to the new owners of the tribune. That would be theft, and that a bad thing to have on your record if you're trying to establish a relationship of trust with the public. Yes, the editor could go start a new newpaper, but it would be at least ten years before it would have any impact on public thought. An I bet such a newspaper would be bankrupt in three years. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 18:01:26 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Unbiased Presentation Of course there is bais in news reporting. There has to be. The first bias occurres when deciding which story to cover. Paris Anderson (My computer was in the shop last week and I'm just trying to fill my quota.) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 18:35:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] "Choose the Rock" There is an interesting article by Rebecca Vernon in this week's Salt Lake "City Weekly" about young Mormon rockers. It examines the perceived contradictions between so-called Mormon culture and the rock 'n roll world. The kids in this piece aren't squishy soft musicians like Jericho Road; they look to LDS people like Randy Bachman and Mick Ronson (David Bowie's late guitarist) for inspiration. The link is at: http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2002/feat_2002-07-11.cfm# (Rock is evil, of course. Lex De Azevedo, Jack Christianson, Ernest Wilkinson, and a thousand seminary teachers have said it, so it must be true. Elvis was in training to be the antichrist but he got fat; Madonna has just handed off the official title of The Whore of Babylon to Britney Spears; and Michael Jackson is surely on of those bizarre creatures mentioned in the Book of Revelation, like the one with the head of a bumblebee and the body of a West Valley City used-car salesman.) ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:37:58 -0700 From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Fascinating topic for discussion and for trying to figure it's literary possibilities. A United Order or combo of such with capitalism sounds plausible, but here's some more food for thought: We won't be the only ones around during the Millenium. The righteous of all nations, kindreds, tongues and creeds will be preserved to live during that time. Thus, you will have plenty of Mormons, Muslims, Baptists, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, Lutherans, Taoists, Amish, and, (big gasp), Atheists, Agnostics and Practioners of Dahnhak, (and anyone else I left out), who will be here on earth. How will their economic needs be served? After all, they will still have their agency. Will they just fall in line, 'cause gosh darn it, those Mormons seemed to have gotten this whole Second Coming right, or will there be a separate system they will paricipate in? Will the two systems eventually out of choice of both groups merge together? Might make an interesting topic as part of a whole plot in a Millenial short story or novel. But whatever direction it might take, I think that people being able to make choices and not be coerced is an essential part of how things will work. I obviously believe people who would convice by flattery, force or artiface would have already been removed from earth, so the question also becomes how will these things be decided? Another good component of the plot I'm envisioning for such a tale. How might good people come together and decide such things in peace and harmony and still possibly differ in the method and systems chosen? Ah, the possibilities...... Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:08:53 -0600 From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: Re: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars >>> dmichael@wwno.com 07/11/02 02:52PM >>> > >This whole mess shows the shortsightedness of certain Mormon thought >processes. The Deseret News is supposedly trying to get control of the >Trib to censor out stories critical of the church. Yet all the Trib >managers have to do is go start another paper. Then the News has >absolutely no influence in how that paper runs. The whole thing will >have been a waste of time. Starting a newspaper is not that simple. Newspaper subscriptions are down all over the country. Few cities can support two daily papers, and it's mostly the afternoon papers that are dying out. The DesNews is not motivated so much by a desire to censor, but a desire to survive. Without the Trib, there are still the Denver Post and Arizona Republic that will publish articles critical of the Church. The Church wants to assure that it has *a* voice through the DesNews; it's aware that there will be other voices. MBA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:03:07 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Samuel TAYLOR, _Heaven Knows Why!_ (Review) Taylor, Samuel W. _Heaven Knows Why!_ Aspen Books (Murray, Utah), 1994. Trade paperback: 256 pages; $7.95. ISBN: 1-56236-217-8 Samuel Taylor wrote this book in 1948 before going on to a successful career in Hollywood where he was the brainchild behind _The Absent Minded Professor_ and the films that derived from it, including the recent film _Flubber_ starring Robin Williams. Though this book revolves around distinctly Mormon characters and situations, it was written for a general audience. The setting is a generic desert valley somewhere in Utah, set in a post-WWII timeframe. The characters are a vivid assortment of rural Utah types. This is a farce, a comedy of errors revolving around the misadventures that follow a poorly planned visitation from beyond the grave by proud old Moroni Skinner to his shiftless, lazy (but good-hearted) grandson, Jackson Whitetop. Moroni Skinner prompts young Jackson to seek after his love, the bishop's daughter, and before it's over Jackson ends up dealing directly with The Trouble, a long-standing feud between those who live at the north end of the valley and those who live at the south end over how (and where) the Mormon chapel should be built. This is a fun, energetic story that's an absolute joy to read. It pokes good-natured fun at rural Utah Mormons while telling an engaging, entertaining story about young Jackson Whitetop's misaadventures while trying to do the right thing as he understands it. The writing is smooth and vivid, and the situations are just plain fun. The venerable Richard Cracroft once declared it "The funniest Mormon novel," and I'm not sure I can argue with him. Though originally written over fifty years ago, the humor stands the test of time. If you can get a copy of this book, read it. It's a roaring success at everthing it attempts to do and a prime example of what Mormon authors are capable of when they relax a little and are willing to recognize the foibles and oddities of Mormon culture. Normally this is where I would end my review because there isn't much else to say about the novel--it's a great read for anyone, but especially for Utah Mormons. The book succeeds on its own terms and deserves to be read. But in the author's introduction he asks some questions that I think ought to be addressed. He generally opines the often negative response he received from Mormons when this novel was first serialized in Colliers and expresses some frustration at the Mormons' apparent inability to laugh at themselves. He says: "This was my first novel, and one thing I've learned since then is that Mormons are passionately proud of being the Peculiar people, but heaven help the author who points out the peculiarities. ...We can sit around all night howling about Word of Wisdom stories--but should we put them in print? ...[perhaps] in the intervening decades the Mormons have matured to the point where we can now chuckle rather than bristle at some of the foibles and conceits of our culture. If not, heaven help me." Since this novel was originally published Mormons apparently have gained something of a sense of humor about themselves. Books like "Paradise Vue" and others have succeeded in the last two decades where they did not succeed earlier. We may not have a lot of humor about ourselves, but we do have some. So why did the author apparently receive so much resistance to this novel when it was first published? While it's clearly out of date now and falls into a category of novel that can be wistful and humorous about the distant past (thus making it less immediate, relevant, and telling), when this novel was first serialized in 1948 it was quite timely. One always hates to get too serious about a comedy, but I think there are some aspects of this novel that would have made it hard for Mormons to accept when it was first published. Everyone had a problem with the Word of Wisdom and was a closet coffee drinker, from the bishop to Jackson Whitetop to the bishop's daughter. Everyone. While their faith was very pragmatic and sensible, not a single character expressed a strong testimony in the literal truth of the restored Church--something that sounds like an apology for our beliefs. This attitude is exemplified by the bishop's wife, Beryl Jensen, who said: "Beryl Jensen had lived the gospel, and she felt it was a way of life that made people better. But she'd never put too much stock in it as the word of God. That business of Joseph Smith and the golden plates had always been just a bit too much to swallow. It seemed to her that Joseph made entirely too many mistakes to have been guided by the Lord. ...She defended the gospel. But she didn't really have the faith." (49-50) The result is a story that *only* reveals the foibles and conceits of Mormon culture without showing any of the more intimate things that also characterize what it means to be Mormon. The story *only* shows those who are silly or arrogant or dishonest or narrow minded without allowing a single Mormon to be an ordinary human. Of course that's a feature of the screwball comedy--everyone's goofy, and for there to be a comedy of errors there have to be a lot of errors. Such stories are not intended to show anyone as normal, but rather to expose all of the potential silliness inherent in the situation. It's comedy, not history. And certainly not realism. But the author asked, and I think this is part of the answer. When all you show are the warts--albeit with humor and style--a people who already feel besieged by negative public opinion will tend to see only an exaggeration of their faults, not the humor that should be taking the sting out of those faults. To learn to laugh at oneself is hard; it requires that defensiveness be set aside so that we can laugh together. As long as that defensiveness remains, the target of humor will feel laughed at and demeaned. Regardless of the author's harmless intent. If Taylor had included fully believing, normal Mormon characters would it have appealed more to Mormon readers? Maybe. But it probably wouldn't have been nearly as funny, and would have enjoyed less general success. Should the Mormons have accepted it more than they apparently did? Probably. But in 1948 Mormons weren't known for their ability to laugh at their own errors; they wanted general acceptance so bad that they saw any pratfall as a blemish on their good name. Their beliefs were not a joke and they didn't care for any portrayal of them as such. Samuel Taylor wrote a very funny book that deserves to be read and appreciated by Mormons everywhere. It's slick, well plotted, fast paced, and is generally everything that any reader could hope for in a comedy of errors. The author was clearly stung by its limited acceptance when it was first released. I hope Mormons have learned more of a sense of humor since then, because it would be a shame if people couldn't appreciate the quality of this fine comedy by one of Mormondom's first successful general market writers. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 12:33:53 -0700 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: [AML] Millennial Economics The threads on the subject of Mormon Utopias and Lund's, _The Freedom Factor_, present a challenge for writers like Scott who are interested in trying to predict the future in a realistic way. Thought I'd give you a few perspectives that might help in the analysis. 1. Corporations are just a way for a group of people to do business together. I was a corporate lawyer, and found partnerships to be a real problem. That's because there are so many things that come up while your doing business that you never expect, and partnerships are basically ways for people to do business together under their own set of rules. The problem is that they rarely sit down and actually agree on all the rules before they start doing business. Corporations, on the other hand, have all the rules specified in advance. These are based on centuries of business experience and usually represent what you would have decided to do if you had known you were going to run into that particular problem in the first place. I much prefer corporations to partnerships for doing business together. There's nothing really evil about corporations, per se. It's just when you behave unrighteously, cheating on the corporate rules or the accounting conventions, that you run into problems. There is, of course, the problem of anti-trust, but that, again is intended to curb unrighteous abuse. Therefore, I think you could find corporations in the millennium. 2. The United Order seems to be the economic system that God has established as an ideal. But it is far more capitalistic than most members of the Church realize. For example, every member of the United Order was entitled to borrow money from the Order once--interest free! You could do it again only if you faithfully repaid the first loan. That's a fabulous way to create wealth and make a society grow rich fast. It obviously works well in a capitalistic system. 3. Communism doesn't work for the following reason: An individual has no perception of ownership without possession. Possession is the right to exclude others from using, possessing, or consuming of the thing in question. If I possess nothing (as I do when we all own it in common), I do not perceive that I have anything. This is often true in a capitalistic society, e.g., when I own some kind of intangible interest in something of value that I can't use. That's why Bill Gates thinks he's not nearly as rich as we all say he is. He owns stock in his own company that IF he sold it would be worth a great deal, but that's not the same as having that money in the bank, especially since he would not sell it because he doesn't want to lose control. So he doesn't perceive that this stock has value outside the control it gives him. Anyway, given this aspect of human nature, communism is doomed to failure because the only way to possess anything in a communist system is to consume it. That is, if we all own a piece of fish, the only way I can exclude your use, possession, or consumption of that piece of fish is to grab it before you do and consume it. Thus, all economic systems that strictly adhere to ownership in common are doomed to overconsumption. 4. The United Order is a capitalistic, private ownership, system of economics that places upon the individual the responsibility of making all things in common. Those who participate actually own (as a stewardship) their property. Thus, they can possess things (an exclusionary right, remember) without consuming them. What they do voluntarily is to give back to the community anything that exceeds their needs (and righteous wants?). 5. This results in a unique disincentive. Normally, in a corporate world, the incentive is to increase stock value and profits (that is, to make more than the officers and shareholders need). In the United Order, that incentive would not exist. This would change the objective of greed that has resulted in so many problems of late. You would just give the excess back to the community anyway. So what exactly would the incentive be? This would be a fascinating issue to explore in a book such as Scott is working on. 6. The law of tithing was given to the Church to replace the United Order. There is some scriptural indication that a tithe (10%) represents the average amount that we would give back to the community (the excess over our needs) if we were in the United Order. It may be that it is the only effective way to operate the United Order in large scale economies. That's another interesting thought to project in Scott's story. What if everyone in the world paid tithing and it was all administered for the benefit of the poor? Interesting thoughts, I hope. Tough assignment. Good luck Scott Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 20:12:53 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Thoughts on Art and Literature I like Strunk and White: _Elements of Style_. Strunk's philsophy is one I have a hard time actually putting into practice but it's worth a try. His rules are three: Be concise, be concise, be concise. It's a very short and very excellent book. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 20:36:46 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias The best explanation I've ever read for socialism is in _Starship Troopers_ by Heinlein. It's a kitchen parable: I take apples, sugar and flour and make a passable pie that neither decreases nor increases the value of what I started with. It's still worth $5. A worse cook takes the same material and renders it inedible--burnt to a crisp. Now $5 is $0. Hand the same material to a great chef and he could sell the thing for $25. Value is quintupled through skill and knowledge, and it didn't take him nearly as much time and effort as my mediocre pie. This is one of the reasons the original United Order had problems. Some of my ancestors were involved, incidentally. They were too rigid about everybody taking turns. Specialization is really the essence of "capitalism." Socialism promised that we could all be butcher, baker and candlestick maker every day, wander from job to job and thus get all the work done. As knowledge continues to double every few years that hope grows ever fainter. The United Order designed under the Law of Consecration could work even so, since it's voluntary, allows for specialization and does not have to be communal. I think that was the principal mistake in the original UO. Too much community. It's the same mistake made by the Pilgrims at Plymouth. I wrote up my own perfect communism a number of years ago. It was before Star Trek: The Next Generation came out but it includes a number of concepts that were duplicated in TNG. Essentially its like an anthill of Holodecks, where everybody's equal and can do any kind of simulation that they want, but have no contact with anyone else. Labor is robotic; people live for fantasy. The story is really about a group of hacker/rescuers that subtly alter the programs to snap people with the proper mental profiles out of their simulations and then eventually they teleport them out and bring them into a real world society. Incidentally the Bible and particularly St. James play a role in convincing people there's more to the world than simulations. Annoyingly enough _The Matrix_ came out and now my whole idea is useless. It may have been written in 1986 but nobody will believe it now. Talk about back burner. SF was never my strong suit anyway but since the same idea has been developed a dozen times since it was once marketable. Amazing. Whenever I read one of those bumper stickers with "Visualize World Peace" on it I have to shudder. I can visualize world peace--a vast dictatorial police state where nobody DARES do anything that is unapproved. _1984_ is the only utopia available to mere mortals. Thanks but no thanks. The Mormon kind of Utopia will have to wait for a different type of universal dictator. Once every knee bows and every tongue confesses I don't think anybody will think of rebelling. Then the whole concept of "Noplace" will be gone, and good riddance. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:58:45 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Must "Mormon utopia" and "United Order" be synonymous? I hope not. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:55:34 -0600 From: Cathy Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias It is interesting to read this discussion from the POV of systems--in other words, externals. The internal realities are what have always baffled me. We often make *huge* assumptions that as a group--large or small--we share basic mindset, spiritset, heartset. Then when we actually get down to problem solving or even just plain communication, we think, "Who *are* you and what planet did you come from?" This has happened to me in neighborhood reading groups, homeschool groups, ward committees, and so on--and I acknowledge that I'm certainly not the only one thinking "Who are you?" Others are no doubt equally nonplussed by *me.* So I always shrug and think, "Well, God is going to have to work a mighty miracle to establish Zion." Cathy Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #771 ******************************