From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #774 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 Thursday, July 18 2002 Volume 01 : Number 774 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:46:58 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Great review! Thanks for it -- lots of thought-provoking stuff. I will admit to picking up the book at Deseret Book, seeing it was Linda's, and putting it back down -- the size was just a bit much for what I wanted at that time. I enjoyed your thoughts. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 7/15/2002 at 12:53 PM Scott Parkin wrote: >Adams, Linda Paulson. _Prodigal Journey_ (volume 1 of Thy Kingdom Come >series). 2000: Cornerstone (Salt Lake City). Trade paperback: 517 pages; >$14.95. ISBN: 1-929281-05-6 > > - ----------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 16:24:07 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Millennial Economics > 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. I read somewhere that it isn't so much that power corrupts -- it's that power attracts the corruptible. Large corporations spawn unrighteous behavior like a swamp spawns mosquitoes. That environment enables the self-serving and back-stabbing that characterize much of the corporate world. I think a lot would have to change in order for celestial corporations to be possible! >2. The United Order seems to be the economic system that God has established >as an ideal. On what basis do you say that? Because the Mormons tried it? >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. Maybe ownership is not all that desireable, then. Didn't the Indians get along fine with common hunting grounds, until the Europeans came along and decided, based on their culture, that if it wasn't fenced in it was free for the taking? The natives perceived land use differently. Those who participate actually own (as a stewardship) >their property. To me, owning and stewardship are two different things, so I don't know how to deal with this statement. What is a stewardship to you? >What they do voluntarily is to give back >to the community anything that exceeds their needs (and righteous wants?). How likely are people to do that? Some will -- but we'd have to free ourselves from the shackles of our materialistic culture (h'mmm, I'm thinking of the chains that poor old Jacob Marley has to drag around--not a bad metaphor). >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. That's interesting. That doesn't sound too bad, even to the greedy. Wonder how different all this is from the Evangelical concept of utopia? barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:24:02 -0600 From: Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Education Week Get-Together At 08:41 PM 7/15/02 GMT, daryoung@juno.com wrote: >Anyone up for an AML dinner outing the week of Education Week (August 19-23)? I think (selfishly) that that would be a great week to get together since some of us (well, me, anyway) will be in town. I'm interested. Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury workshop@burgoyne.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:42:53 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Education Week Get-Together Yes. We will be performing My Turn on Earth that week. More information soon to be forthcoming at this location. Thom > > And by the way, is Thom (and company)'s new theater up and running yet? Will you be performing anything that week that I should plan on seeing? I saw Marvin Payne's and Steve Perry's _Wedlocked_ at Ed. Week a few years ago and really enjoyed it. I'm sad to see they won't be doing another this year. > > -Darlene Young - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:03:36 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Conflict in Fiction (was: Satan Figures) - ---Original Message From: Scott Parkin > > > > Personally, I'm guessing that Mormon was thinking on a pedagogical > > level when making his editing choices. Not in a bad way, mind. He > > certainly had instruction in mind, at any rate, and there > isn't a lot > > of information from a detailed description of utopian society that > > will be beneficial to us. I mean, their lives just aren't terribly > > applicable to us. > > So is it possible that the creation of a perfect society is > so dependent on the time, place, people, and social needs > that there's no instructive value to providing the details of > one particular utopic implementation? Sure it would be > interesting to know, but the goal is not to impose Enoch's > system on us but rather to spur us to develop our own unique > system that meets our very specific challenges and needs. Not what I meant at all. What I'm saying is that the kind of society created by the post-visitation Nephites and the City of Enoch are dependent entirely on the unanimous decision of the people to live that way and that *any* people who whole-heartedly embrace that kind of unity need no instruction in how to bring it off successfully because the hardest part has already been accomplished and the rest can be worked out in due course. In other words, the social construct might be interesting, but the key to success lies in a willingness of the people, not in the structure itself. Not that there are isn't a specific structure involved (I *think* there probably is, but have no way to really support that), just that the people who choose to live that way will have no difficulty discovering and implementing it once they choose to do so and don't stand in need of reading the record of the Nephites or Enoch to find it out. > Which ties back to something Jonathon suggested--what if > social utopia is so localized to time and place that it might > be possible to set up several different systems at the same > time? Even more interestingly, that some (or > all) of those individual communities could be supported > equally by a super-organization whose only interest is the > individual welfare of people? An organization like the Church... I can see that happening as well. I suspect that there's one specific structure, but that suspicion is based on the very meager evidence that the City of Enoch appears largely similar to the post-visitation Nephites. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:43:09 -0600 From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] Re: Thoughts on Art and Literature - ----- Original Message ----- From: "aml-list-digest" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 05:42:55 EDT From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Education Week Get-Together Darlene, An Education Week get together at BYU sounds like a grand idea. It would give me the added boost to go with my wife again as we did for many years and also put some faces to those who post on AML. I have a difficult time talking to faceless friends, if you know what I mean. Glen Sudbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:17:00 -0600 From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Elijah Able Society I am now a grandmother. My daughter gave birth yesterday afternoon. 7 pounds 7 oz. unnamed girl. It was a thrilling experience. Now, on a previous subject, I did take a little time to go over the "Elijah Abel Society" document--and again, I am really disheartened that it is being taken so seriously and is so widely available. I started to do a point by point, but it just got too long. The biggest problem is that it assumes the "Curse of Cain" theory is Church doctrine, and I KNOW the author has an agenda. His official notice withdrawing his membership from the Church says that he takes great issue with the Church for not acknowledging that it taught the Curse of Cain idea to justify priesthood restriction. He goes to great lenghts to get Black latter-day Saints to call the Public Affairs office (though he gives no contact names) and to ask them what the doctrine is. He even provides phone numbers and instructions for contacting the office. It's not real hard to see what he's up to. Public Affairs has no tract and no answer except, "We do NOT KNOW WHY the priesthood restriction was in place" and "The statement of 1978 continues to speak for itself." He paraphrases scripture and quotes from Joseph Smith unfairly and uses archaic logic. The real problem, though, is that he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is trying to put his own ideas in place of actual doctrine, and actually trying to get missionaries to use his tract as a "download tool." Such a shame. And more a shame that so few seem to see through him. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:18:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Rich Hammett Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Elijah Able Society On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, margaret young wrote: > The biggest problem is that it > assumes the "Curse of Cain" theory is Church doctrine, and I KNOW the > author has an agenda. His official notice withdrawing his membership > from the Church says that he takes great issue with the Church for not > acknowledging that it taught the Curse of Cain idea to justify > priesthood restriction. He goes to great lenghts to get Black > latter-day Saints to call the Public Affairs office (though he gives no > contact names) and to ask them what the doctrine is. He even provides > phone numbers and instructions for contacting the office. It's not real > hard to see what he's up to. Public Affairs has no tract and no answer > except, "We do NOT KNOW WHY the priesthood restriction was in place" and > "The statement of 1978 continues to speak for itself." He paraphrases > scripture and quotes from Joseph Smith unfairly and uses archaic logic. > The real problem, though, is that he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He > is trying to put his own ideas in place of actual doctrine, and actually > trying to get missionaries to use his tract as a "download tool." Such > a shame. And more a shame that so few seem to see through him. I've got a historical question, from somebody who lives in the south, but was fairly young in 1978--wasn't this official Church doctrine? I'm not quite sure what makes something "official", but I heard this doctrine preached from the pulpit, and I'm pretty sure I read it in lessons that had made it through the correlation committee. It's obvious that he has an agenda, but it's also obvious to me how painful it could be for people to deny what was clearly taught in the Church up until 1978. I think we can be faithful members, and still acknowledge that some early leaders allowed their feelings to influence church policy. rich - -- \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / rhammett@HiWAAY.net "Better the pride that resides / in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 12:23:30 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Thoughts on Art and Literature Jana Pawlowski wrote: > Todd Petersen wrote: > > Writing is not a science. Science is a science. Writing is a craft, it's > an art, but it's not a science. Some have thought literature followed some > kind of algorithm and have written about it, but it doesn't. > > Jana writes: > I have to semi-disagree with Todd on his Science Vs. Art declaration. I've > always thought the opposite: that Science was more of an art than Art is. > And this has recently been confirmed in my study of Descriptive Astronomy > and Physics. (I can only pray that my departed father-in-law and mother-in > law are helping me from the other side of the veil, because they were > brilliant and adept in the subject respectively.) > > First, read the definition of "Scientific Method" from my textbook, > "Astronomy: A Beginner's Guide to the Universe" by Chaison and McMillan. : > > " A set of rules used to guide science based on the idea that scientific > "laws" be continually tested and replaced if found inadequate." > > Sounds familiar to rules of good writing. Not only that, but the authors > use the word, Beautiful, in a very poetic sense in one of the first chapters > (I just tried to scan for the exact quote, but can't find it.) The problem is that in the physical universe things tend to behave consistently under controlled conditions. In other words, the hammer falls every time you drop it (unless some predictable or evident force stops it). This makes systematized study possible, and suggests that physical observations made today will remain true tomorrow--unless conditions change. People are nowhere near as consistent, either in how they react to stimulus or in how they interpret identical data. Given an identical input of words, one person may say "I felt the stirrings of the Spirit" and another may say "I felt the beginnings of nausea." That's what agency gives you--the ability to act and interpret by choice, not by nature. And that agency makes predictive modelling of human reactions and behavior less reliable. The same words will not necessarily evoke the same response from different readers. So while I absolutely agree that one can learn rules of effective writing, I also believe that those rules are not necessarily consistent over time and across different audiences. I hate the idea that writing is a purely mystical act, but because it's so tied to the infinitely changeable minds of Humanity, there is something to be said for the idea that good writing can't be easily reduced to a single, consistent, reproduceable formula that will be the same tomorrow as it is today--as most studies of physical sciences are. FWIW. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:01:35 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Originality in Art Reading Scott Parkin's comments on Linda Adams's novel, and their back-and-forth, got me started on an internal conversation about the importance of creativity in artistic work. Which, I think, led me to a new understanding of one of the fundamental divides in Mormon art, and art in general. Scott wants to see a variety of stories told. Although he does not say so, it's only a small step from his position to a position that I have heard others on AML-List articulate from time to time (I think Thom Duncan among them), and that is very common among artistic communities of every sort: that art is most valuable when it provides a *contrasting* perspective from what we already know, or think, or believe. So from this perspective, difference--originality--in fiction, or other art, is a strong positive value in itself. And then there are others who, while valuing art, want it to do something almost exactly opposite: that is, to retell the stories we already know and believe, but to tell them well and affectingly. This, for example, is (I think) the key motive behind almost all truly epic storytelling, historically speaking: to tell in powerful form the foundational story of a particular community. This, of course, is an oversimplification: there are more than two positions, and it's possible (for example) to be original in craft but orthodox (for lack of a better alternative term) in message/storyline. But I think the tension between these two positions really is fundamental, and underlies much of the conflict that is generated within an artistic community such as that of Mormon letters, and between such an artistic community and the larger community of which it is a part. When I think back on Pres. Kimball's message on arts in the gospel, the clues seem to point toward a desire for the second kind of art--affirming, retelling, not challenging. I think we see that same mindframe in the message of some like Boyd K. Packer who affirm the value of art but do not see any value to art that challenges "received" versions of the key stories we have to tell. At the same time, some like Thom Duncan and Eric Samuelsen, I suspect, see no value in art that does *not* add something new to our perception. Indeed, I wonder whether they would consider art that does not innovate in some way--whether in craft, message, approach, whatever--art at all. Conflicts of this sort, in my view, underlie (for example) the differing opinions about the value of Gerald Lund's work. It seems clear that his intention has nothing to do with giving us new and different perceptions of the restoration, but rather of giving us more vivid perceptions of the story we already know. I'd say the same (in a different vein) relating, say, to Greg Olsen's artwork: no real new perceptions, but a vivid image placed upon an old perception. I think it's important to acknowledge that great art *can* be written from both perspectives. I suspect the works of Homer were not original within his culture. At the same time, their value *to us* probably has something to do with the fact that we don't know the preceding myths. For us, they *are* the literary wellspring, not the end product. Which brings me back (sort of) to Scott and Linda. Scott expresses, and Linda agrees, a wish for stories that tell a *different* end-time scenario than what Mormons typically believe. At the same time, Linda's own story does not attempt to do such a thing, but rather tries to make sense of Mormon folklore in a creative and logically consistent way. But I think that what will appeal to many Mormon readers is precisely that Linda *has* given the familiar scenario (though apparently with a few different twists). Would such readers enjoy the "different" scenario that both Scott and Linda call for from other authors? I doubt it--because they don't go to art to see a different vision; rather, they go to art to see their own existing vision spelled out in imaginative detail. Part of this may have to do with different views of what the artist's role is. There's a long tradition to the artist as visionary, with the notion that what the artist is peddling is his/her own view of reality. But there's an at least equally ancient tradition of the artist as spokesperson for the community, whose business isn't to compete in the sphere of ideas but rather to express existing ideas in a given format. Artist as craftsman, not visionary. I think that the view of artist as visionary (and/or alternative voice) is a pretty dominant in the larger artistic community, and is the criterion by which Mormon artists will or won't be taken seriously in the world as a whole. However, I think that the view of artists as craftsmen is the one that most Church member hold for those whom they think of as "Mormon artists" and is the role with which the Church as an organization is most comfortable for artistic creation related to Mormon themes. I'm not sure there's any way to avoid the dichotomy, and I'm not even sure of the practicality of mutual friendly coexistence between these two perspectives. Those who see the artist's primary responsibility as linked to originality of thought are likely to be seen as presumptuous by the other group at precisely the point when they succeed best as artists, according to their own values. On the other hand, those who do not place high value on originality are likely to be seen, by those who do, as sellouts, or not real artists, or (at least) as unworthy of serious attention. Hence (for example) the conflict in groups such as AML about how seriously popular fiction should be taken. On the one hand, proponents of popular fiction understandably find their neglect arrogant and disrespectful. On the other hand, when popular fiction is considered in such venues, it is usually in terms of criteria according to which it has a hard time competing--criteria that place a high value on originality, which (I would argue) is not only not valued, but positively punished by popular readers in any field, including Mormon fiction. Anyway, that's my thoughts on the topic today... Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:47:47 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Originality in Art Jonathan Langford wrote: > Which brings me back (sort of) to Scott and Linda. Scott expresses, and > Linda agrees, a wish for stories that tell a *different* end-time scenario > than what Mormons typically believe. In terms of the specific subject matter (Mormon apocalyptics) I think Linda's ideas become very interesting. At the risk of picking on Linda, she says she wrote using those specific assumptions because they met the audience on it's own turf using settings and major plot elements that are familiar and comforting (as it were). She doesn't claim the lore as true, only as common. Yet Linda also suggests that she doesn't really accept this commonly held view as doctrine. Of course part of the problem is that there are few authoritative statements on exactly what the specific events of the last days will be (though there is plenty of speculation by a surprisingly diverse set of Mormon writers), so to some degree it's anyone's guess as to exactly what will happen. Which is why I'm surprised that there has been so little guessing at anything but the standard global conspiracy crackdown version of events. Part what interests me is how this one apocalyptic vision became so firmly entrenched in the Mormon mindset. I've speculated before that it's just an update of the Mormon foundational experiences--eviction from Missouri and Nauvoo, and a near war of eviction in Utah. In very real ways, the Mormon world experienced apocalypse in both Missouri and Nauvoo, and because those foundation stories end with corrupt politicians using government troops to suppress/oppress our religious, economic, communal, and political freedom, we assume that the next crushing of our freedom will take place in pretty much the same manner. I can accept that. But I also accept that this is a very different world than it was in the mid-1800s, and I'm a little surprised that we haven't updated our doomsday scenario to take a newer world into account. In an odd sort of way, it suggests that the Mormon worldview is a fantastic one (in the mythopoeic sense). It's been argued that in fantastic literature the answers (Golden Age) are found in the past, where in science fiction the answers (and Golden Age) are created in the now or found in the future. But of course we believe that our own created society will fail and it will take a restoration of the original society to bring general good into the world. Which I suppose makes me a heretic for wanting--and believing--that the Mormons of here and now can create a community of extraordinary righteousness in the very near future. Part of learning to become as God is to learn to create a paradise of your own making. > Would such readers enjoy the "different" scenario that both Scott > and Linda call for from other authors? I doubt it--because they don't go to > art to see a different vision; rather, they go to art to see their own > existing vision spelled out in imaginative detail. I can't argue except to say that I think part of the reason for the general apathy toward Mormon literature is precisely because we offer only existing artistic, social, cultural, and political visions rather than offering a wider variety of views. Isn't part of agency having a choice among many options, some of them equal in value and quality? Because I'm not necessarily calling for a massively different assumption, only a somewhat different one. Instead of borrowing the right-wing black helicopter nightmare, why not build something more uniquely our own. Organized oppression creates easy choices and opportunities for grand heroism (good things when telling an adventure story) but isn't one of the Mormon nightmare scenarios that people will just ignore us? That we will be found irrelevant, and perhaps even silly? As Linda reminded me in a private note, our lore of the last days suggests that temples will dot the landscape--something that's awfully hard to do if the Church is being forcibly suppressed. What if we threw a baptism and nobody came? Is the fault ours for not being righteous enough to convert others? Is our example so ordinary that people see no reason to choose us over any other vision? Because we know that the righteous will be hated by the wicked; therefore acceptance and marginalization is proof that we have in fact grown ripe in our own iniquity and bland in our belief. Lukewarm. Every bit as powerful a warning story about getting your life in order, but with not a single despotic overlord or jackbooted stormtrooper in sight. Or what about a fragmented Mormonism? We have a rich history of fundamentalism, rebaptism, and attempts to reform the Church and return to a truer foundation. What if the Jackson County faction built a sort of hasidic Mormonism for the ultra-orthodox but still accepted the authority of the GAs, while rejecting the righteousness of the majority of members? They could certainly pass the temple interview, but the social fragmentation could be ugly. How's that for a nightmare scenario? Both ideas fit well within established lore. > Part of this may have to do with different views of what the artist's role > is. There's a long tradition to the artist as visionary, with the notion > that what the artist is peddling is his/her own view of reality. So is the fact that we believe in modern revelation and a sort of central orthodoxy part of what leads the general Mormon public to avoid competing speculative visions? Except that the general authorities remain quite silent on most of those matters. Are we so afraid of leading the hearts of men astray that we become afraid to offer a view and the inherent invitation for opposing view implied in that offering? Wasn't it the slothful servant who did nothing and just waited for the Master to return? I'm not agitating for suppression of one vision in favor of another; I want to see many visions and the dialog that comes out of it. Thought experiments, not social movements. Active discussion of our ideas and hopes and fears that challenge us to have reasons for our beliefs, that reach into the minds of the many different kinds of good and faithful Mormons and their radically different social and political assumptions. I don't believe such a thing has to challenge anyone who doesn't want to be challenged. But for some of us it's through the challenge that we come to more solid foundations in faith. Isn't my faith worth building, too? > I'm not sure there's any way to avoid the > dichotomy, and I'm not even sure of the practicality of mutual friendly > coexistence between these two perspectives. Certainly not within the market segments defined by the current publishers. DB can't allow challenging visions for fear of losing it existing conservative readership. Same with Covenant. And there just aren't any other major players in Mormon publishing right now. It just feels like a bad kind of statis to me. Not so much a response to Jonathon's post or his ideas as yet another braindump by a frustrated writer who wants to like Mormon fiction more than he does. Sigh... Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #774 ******************************