From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #776 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, July 19 2002 Volume 01 : Number 776 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:30:20 -0600 From: Cathy Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Scott Parkin wrote: So the question remains--if people become loving and charitable and concern themselves with the welfare of others as much as their own comfort, how would that change of attitude manifest itself? . . .What kinds of changes would that entail, in your opinion? I think that's the basis of failure for most of the social/political/economic experiments: the focus was on creating the institutions first and hoping those institutions would change hearts. When the hearts failed to change, the institutions failed. Right on. I think we have no clue what kind of institutions might emerge when people's hearts do change. Have you ever heard of modestneeds.com? This English professor set aside $500 a month to give to the poor and needy. Many others have responded with funds and he sends out money to people in emergencies and with special needs. One guy, by himself, making a difference. Occasionally you run into people with good hearts who set out to make every moment better and every gesture generous. I wish to be such a person myself someday and each day I try for it. As to institutions to support this? Who knows? It's anybody's guess. When enough people make the internal change and really live in a state of compassion and charity, I'll bet that the right form will emerge. Cathy Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:46:35 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Originality in Art > I disagreed, for example, with Thom's position that Greg Olsen's work isn't > "art" because it doesn't do something new -- who says it has to? > Well, I did. If not, why do it? Anyone of adequate artistic technical skill can paint a picture of a Caucasian Christ who apparently took a bath after climbing to sit on this rock and overlook the city of Jerusalem. Is Christ so spiritually superior that he doesn't sweat? That his feet don't get dirty? And maybe I should look more closely at the painting but I don't recall seeing Mary Magdalene lurking in the background so I wonder who was available to wash Christ's robe? Olsen's Christ is a male model. His hair is long but not so long that we would call him a hippie. His hands (complete with the elongated thumbs) are the hands of a poet, not of a working man. > And I > personally feel great distaste for the Dali portrait of Christ that he > praises for being different. It's not great art because it's different. It takes Christ and uses artistic means to portray his worldwide importance. He's suspended on the cross above the earth signifying his importance to the history of the world. This Christ is portrayed as fairly Caucasian and beardless but not out of a desire to be non-offensive to the conservative, untrained Mormon audience, but to show His universalness -- Dali's Christ is the Christ of the whole world. Olsen's is the Christ of the American Republican. Not to mention that Dali's mastery of anatomy makes Olsen's painting look like a stick figure in comparison. Olsen wants to show a Christ most already believe in. Dali wants to widen our concept of Christ to something greater than the Savior of a Chosen People -- rather, the Savior of the entire planet. > There's room in the world for both types of art. There will always be both > literary fiction and genre fiction -- perhaps the best we can do is to stop > sneering across the dividing line at each other. Far be it from me to deny Olsen the right to portray Christ anyway he wants to. But just as he has the right to do so, others have the right to hate his work. But accepting his work as on a parellel with real art merely because of the First Amendment does Art and the Constitution a great disservice. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 19:12:16 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] 3 LDS Lit Queries - ---Original Message From: Travis Manning > > Third, does anyone know if author John D. Fitzgerald is > Mormon? Fitzgerald is the author of the "Great Brain" > children's book series of the 1940s. He also wrote a > biography/family history book about his own father's family > called _Papa Married a Mormon_, copyright 1955, by > Prentice-Hall, Inc., 298 pp. John was never baptized LDS. John and his sister both remained catholic. Tom D. was baptized LDS and served a mission to China. That's as much as Melissa and I have ferreted out, so far (Oh, and the "Academy" that Tom *actually* attended was the Brigham Young Academy in Provo). We read the "Great Brain" books to the kids a while back (all of them) and enjoyed them (though I noticed a hardening in the last few--made me wonder if there wasn't a score to settle there and some bitterness at Tom's success and social assimilation). We *very* much liked "Papa Married a Mormon" also by John D. (kind of a grown-up story about the same area and closer to actual events--though obviously still fictionalized somewhat). It has one of the most sympathetic depictions of early Mormons I've ever read from a non-Mormon. I came to have great respect for Bishop Aden and wonder who John D. might have met to give him such an impression. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:12:51 -0500 From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Elijah Able Society Barbara Hume: I was living in the south in 1970 when I was first tracted out by two young missionaries. When I learned about the restriction and asked about it, the explanation they gave me was that ... Has anyone ever heard that one? _______________ That's pretty creative, IMO. I've heard a few of those pieces before, but hardly any of them were ever official. I think that sometimes when a person has trouble dealing with an issue and doesn't know what to say about it, that person will just make up a thing or two to fill in the blanks. I think for many it is a natural human trait to want to be able to answer every question that comes along. It is very difficult to say, "I don't know." But used effectively, that phrase can be very powerful in the right circumstances. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:38:12 -0600 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Elijah Able Society I'm afraid getting very far into this would take us away from the AML agenda, but briefly, many Church leaders taught what was the common thinking of the time (1800's): That the "Negro" was cursed as the lineage of Cain, whose seed had come through the flood via Ham and Canaan ["servant of servants"]. The "doctrine" included the idea that no person of African descent would receive the priesthood until after the millennium. Through the 20th Century (especially in the 1940's through the 1960's), Church leaders didn't mention the "Curse of Cain" nearly as much as they did "something antemortal" which had apparently occcurred, since cursing a lineage because of the act of one person seems contrary to the idea that we're punished for our own sins, not someone else's. (Curses are conveyed through the generations by teaching false doctrine.) The idea of "antemortal" sins covered "fence sitting" and the "less valient" theory. However, in the 1960's, President David O. McKay is reported to have said definitively that he considered the practise a "policy" not a "doctrine." Big difference between those two words. That leaves room for white folks to take some blame and for tradition to own its own. Some leaders, such as Hugh B. Brown, tried actively to get the policy changed--and nearly succeeded in 1969. It was very much on Spencer Kimball's mind long before 1978, and though he had defended the Church policy all his life, he went to the temple daily to pray over the possibility of a change. The rest of the story is pretty well known, I believe. It is undeniable that previous Church leaders taught many things, including Curse of Cain, Curse of Canaan (both mainstream philosophies of the day used to justify slavery), and antemortal sin or fence-sitting. Of course, they also taught Adam/God and a number of other ideas we no longer subscribe to. I think we're back tracking whenever we repeat the ideas promulgated prior to 1978. Even though _Mormon Doctrine_ still needs some massive revision on the subject, I consider what Bruce R. McConkie said on the subject to be inspired: "Forget what I have said or what George Q. Cannon or any other Church leader has said prior to 1978. We were working with limited light and knowledge." Elder Alexander Morrison, when pressed on why the Church had restricted the priesthood from Blacks, said "We don't know the reason." When asked specifically if Mormons believed in the Curse of Cain, he repeated, "We don't know the reason for the restriction." Elder Marion Hanks has suggested to Darius and me that he thought the priesthood was not given to Blacks until Whites were ready to treat them with full charity and brotherhood, which is similar to Gene England's idea that we were living a "lesser law" until ready for a higher one. Those of you at the AML "extra" session heard Darius Gray talk about the restriction being "not a curse but a calling." We go into some detail about that at firesides, but I won't do it here. Suffice it to say, I have a personal policy of challenging anyone who suggests that contemporary Mormons believe any of the "cursing" ideas. If some do, I suggest they follow President Kimball's example and visit the temple with a prayer in their hearts. The change of 1978 was not some act of mercy towards a cursed people. It really was a revelation. Section 93 of the D&C is still true: all are innocent at birth. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 19:14:34 -0600 From: katie@aros.net Subject: [AML] GREEN, _Hearts in Hiding_ (Review) Green, Betsy Brannon. _Hearts in Hiding_. Covenant, 2001. Softcover, 2= 99=20 pp., $14.95. Reviewed by Katie Parker My first recommendation here is to all those people who would like to rea= d LDS=20 fiction but can=92t stomach all the moral lessons and fictional faith-pro= moting=20 events: You might like this book. The characters are LDS, and they go t= o=20 church and read the scriptures, but the importance of religion to the sto= ry=20 really stops there. You won=92t find any preaching, you won=92t find a s= tory that=20 exists only to teach a lesson, and you won=92t find a fictional God const= antly=20 tweaking the picture and causing all sorts of improbable miracles. What = you=20 will find is romance, suspense, and intrigue, all within LDS standards. = Even=20 the romance doesn=92t get too sappy. But it gets better. Betsy Brannon Green can actually write. I don=92t k= now how=20 many LDS novels I=92ve stumbled through that have decent plots, but are p= oorly=20 written. In a poorly written book, that=92s how you get through: you st= umble. =20 The prose is clumsy, the characters are often mere cartoons, and you are=20 constantly aware that you are reading a book written by someone you may n= ot be=20 able to trust because they can=92t even write. But Green=92s writing is = much=20 stronger, in that her characterizations and settings are fuller, and the = prose=20 seems almost invisible because it creates something larger than the words= on=20 the page. This is something that is unfortunately still rare in LDS fict= ion. =20 I hope that the standards will become higher as more writers like Green e= nter=20 the scene. Those of you who are looking for deep explorations of issues and characte= rs=20 will not find much of that here. This is a typical LDS romance and suspe= nse=20 story through and through; minus the lessons, miracles, and overall chees= e. =20 And it=92s entertaining, it=92s clean, and it=92s very readable. A lot o= f folks are=20 looking for just that. The premise is quite interesting. Kate, a young pregnant LDS woman, is t= aken=20 into protection by the FBI after her agent husband is killed, and she=92s= given a=20 new identity and a new husband, Mark Iverson, in a small town in Georgia.= This=20 opens the door for all kinds of plot material, which unfortunately is exp= lored=20 only superficially. What=92s it like being married to someone you don=92= t know? =20 To take on an identity completely foreign from your own? To have to lie = to=20 people, constantly, about who you are and even to act differently? These= =20 problems are addressed somewhat, but the characters don=92t seem to have = much=20 difficulty adjusting. There are a few minor problems, such as the fact t= hat=20 word gets around town that Kate and Mark (who are going by other names) h= ave=20 marital problems because they never show any affection and don=92t even s= leep in=20 the same room. So, these two virtual strangers have to start kissing eac= h=20 other in public. Fortunately, they enjoy it. (And a note to anyone who=92= s=20 wondering about the moral issues surrounding this: Mark is also LDS, and= the=20 FBI required them to legally marry each other before they left for Georgi= a and=20 assumed other identities. The idea is that they will have the marriage=20 annulled upon returning home.) There are other questions, too, surrounding Kate=92s first husband and wh= ose side=20 he was really on. Some scenes are packed with suspense. Many other scen= es,=20 perhaps too many, depict their new lives in a small southern town. They = do=20 illustrate the peacefulness of small-town life and help to bring home th= e=20 painful reality that none of this is real for them; the killers could mov= e in=20 at any time, or the FBI could send them to their =93real=94 homes. But I= agree=20 somewhat with the reviewer in _Irreantum_ who says that the middle of the= book=20 drags. We see Kate and Mark decorating their house, cooking dinner, taki= ng=20 naps, and so forth. We see them opening up to each other and growing to = love=20 each other as well, but they do take a lot of naps and eat lots of dinner= s. =20 Green writes well enough that it=92s usually still fairly interesting, bu= t=20 perhaps she should have pared this part of the book down. Those who want a deep exploration of issues here are not going to find th= em. =20 But those who are looking for a good fun read with LDS standards and minu= s=20 the =93sappy=94 elements of other LDS fiction need look no further. Bets= y Brannon=20 Green is a great addition to the Covenant line-up of authors. Her third = book,=20 _Until Proven Guilty_, will be released in August. Keep an eye out; we s= hould=20 be seeing more from her. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:37:53 -0500 From: "kumiko" Subject: [AML] Re: 3 LDS Lit Queries John D. Fitzgerald was a Mormon. I do not believe, however, that he was ever a baptized Latter-day Saint. Ethnically, he was half-Catholic and half-Mormon. John D. Fitzgerald was "born in Price, Utah, in 1907 to a Scandinavian Mormon mother and an Irish Catholic father, he grew up influenced by both cultures. He left Utah behind at age eighteen..." (http://humanities.byu.edu/MLDB/94/godfrey.htm : Audrey M. Godfrey : "The Promise Is Fulfilled: Literary Aspects of John D. Fitzgerald's Novels") I have read Fitzgerald's "Great Brain" juvenile novels. The central character is a Gentile (non-Latter-day Saint) living in a predominantly Latter-day Saint community in turn-of-the-century Utah. The central character is in many ways Fitzgerald's fictionalized younger self. From what I've read about and by Fitzgerald, I believe that the Great Brain character's non-LDS status reflects Fitzgerald's own favoring of the Catholic/non-LDS half of his identity over his Mormon half. His novels paint a picture of turn-of-the-century Mormonism that is largely unprecedent in the extent to which a non-LDS writer of national status depicted Mormons with warmth, affection and realism. Preston Hunter - ---------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 19:19:27 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] Acquiring Labels - ---Original Message From: The Laird Jim > > Capitalism was a slur > that they invented for those who were trying to adapt to the > real world that Smith expounded. It's rather like yankee--a > slur worn proudly just to show 'em. Or like Mormon, for that matter :) Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 19:39:01 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Elijah Able Society Rich Hammett wrote: > 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. A lot of things have been preached from the pulpit that were later rescinded or clarified, and institutional racism was one of them. That we know better now in no way changes the fact that a lot of questionable or untrue ideas were offered as doctrine for many years. That's part of the joy of being Mormon--we believe in continuing revelation, ongoing progression, and repentence. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 19:31:33 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Kathy Tyner wrote: > Great article. Thanks to R.W. for sharing it. > As the article says it is possible to be both a > rocker and an active, faithful member. In > our Northiridge, California ward our Elder's > Quorum Pres. belonged to a rock group > called "Spaghetti Western" that we saw > perform at The House of Blues on the Sunset > Strip a few years ago. He is now Bishop > Hollister of the Northridge 1st Ward, a rocker > AND a Bishop, wow. and Susan Malmrose wrote: > I'm a closet rocker. Among my music-oriented friends, I'm not a > closet-Mormon. But among the Mormons I know, I'd be pretty reluctant to say > what I'm about to say: I'm totally into stoner rock and doom metal. :) So what constitutes a "rocker?" One who listen to modern rock? One who plays it? If the definition is loose enough to include country, rap, and the six thousand flavors of alternative, I suspect about half of the American Church qualifies. I'm curious for a couple of reasons. I've ended up doing both (listening to old Black Sabbath as I write), and will have to admit that I really enjoyed playing bass in an alternative rock band just a few years ago (my wife was the drummer, and at least one other List member was in the band with us; I'll let him identify himself if he chooses). I know that as an individual what I most like about rock music is the music itself; the lyrics are usually somewhere between irrelevant and dumb, with a few either rising to interesting or falling to grotesque. The costumes are kinda silly (IMO), and the lifestyle is somewhat less than appealing, but I love the energy. I stopped caring about the videos sometime in the late 80s. I think it was my father who first pointed out that "A Passage to Bangkok" by Rush is a drug song. As a twelve year old that hurt my head because otherwise Rush was known for intelligent lyrics that stayed clear of the standard "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" stuff that dominated popular music. I had shown the record jacket to my father because I though the 2112 collection on the front side was an interesting representation of Satan's plan (portrayed as a bad thing), and I thought it was cool that these non-LDS Canadian rockers could come with something that looked darned close to gospel truth. When my mother read the lyrics of "Mother" by Pink Floyd she just about threw my entire collection out. I got a really good set of headphones after that and kept my music to myself. To this day I think she took those lyrics as a general condemnation of Motherhood even though I think they were meant as an autobiographical comment by Roger Waters on his own life and experience. Oh well. I'm not sure when I started listening to lyrics, but it's been recently. I find myself arguing with them a lot now, but I still like the tunes the lyrics are delivered in. I disagree with a lot of Neil Peart's social and political stances, but I still love the fact that he has those opinions and that Rush couches them in interesting music. I recently started talking back to David Bowie while listening to Diamond Dogs (a very old song from the 70s), but that didn't keep me from enjoying his creativity and admiring some of the social commentary he was trying to make. I just have to ignore Metallica's lyrics because they make me mad--which is annoying, because I *really* like the music. Godsmack is a whole different problem. I don't accept a lot of the messages those bands are trying to offer, but then I don't accept the messages Gerald Lund offered in _The Freedom Factor_ or _The Alliance_ either. If you include what I consider to be the partial messages or incomplete presentations, I argue at least as much with LDS authors as I do with rock lyricists. For me, at least, that's half the fun of it. But isn't rock music like any other input from any other source? Don't we need to think about everything we hear and evaluate it against our own knowledge and revealed gospel? Does the presence of any false teaching require us to reject the entire thing, or only to be aware of that falseness? I know that I've thought as much about what I believe (and refined those beliefs) while arguing with rock lyrics as from nearly any other source--including Gerald Lund. Though arguing with talk radio hosts is still where I have the most fun. When I played in an alternative rock band one of the things that differentiated us was that our lyrics, while sometimes deeply introspective and occasionally dark, never glorified evil things as good--often pointed out the ugly results of evil things, but never glorified the fact of that evil. Even the songs we covered were songs we thought had valid lyrical content (though in one case we mocked a song by performing it in such a way as to communicate exactly the opposite of its intended meaning--vastly improving the song in the process, I believe). I don't remember being shunned for being in a rock band, or for having a mid-back ponytail, even though I lived in Utah's most conservative county. Maybe I was but I just don't remember it, which in a way means it never happened because what good is a shunning if the victim never notices? Did I mention that everyone in the band had a temple recommend--and used it? I will say this, though. If I could get that band back together I'd do it in a heartbeat. I wasn't a creative guy; I just played bass. But making music with my friends was some of the best fun I've ever had, and I recommend it to anyone. Scott Parkin (golly that was a long post on a subject that wasn't nearly as serious as all that...sorry for being incomprehensibly verbose yet again) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 19:50:54 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias - ---Original Message From: Scott Parkin > > So the question remains--if people become loving and > charitable and concern themselves with the welfare of others > as much as their own comfort, how would that change of > attitude manifest itself? For starters, they'd know more. Actual charity and loving concern will motivate people to get to know one another--they wouldn't let surface reassurances assuage niggling concern. They'd all be busybodies, but with the kindest intentions, realistic expectations, and an eye for true assistance as opposed to a desire to be right or to reinforce some societal ideal. Then, because help often takes collective action, they'd learn more about how to manage resources effectively--they'd want to know what works and what doesn't and they'd want to *explore* tough trade-offs instead of being content with easy sentiment or unearned authority. To me, that means they'll discover and adopt decentralized decision making with a standard, shared distribution and communication system. Or, as I've been trying to say, they'd adopt a system like that used in the church today. > Would the goal of distributing > wealth more evenly result in changed social, economic, or > political institutions? What kinds of changes would that > entail, in your opinion? Changed institutions? Sort of, but not in the way you'd think. The biggest barrier to health and well-being in the world today isn't economic. So you might do anything economically. Since the key barriers are social and political, you'd have some broad changes there though. Petty tyrants and meaningless turf wars would cease and that's a substantial proportion of the worlds current set of rulers. You'd have an awful lot of vacancies at the top because the top is self-selected for those who crave power and are willing to abuse it. This will help the whole idea of sovereignty and kingdom to soften to the point of irrelevance (because they'd be barriers and not facilitators of well-being). And if your decision making is *really* local, then there isn't much need for territorial boundaries beyond the neighborhood level. So for the roles that government currently assumes: - - There is no tragedy of the commons because the basis for such tragedies is selfish greed. - - Regulatory control would become the ideal of the principle it is now--instead of a check for fraud (and greed, and so on), it would become solely a check for error. As a result, regulatory processes would move largely in-house and become a small fraction of what they are today. - - Military? What's that? Light peace-keeping forces might be needed for when tempers flare, but they'd be the "sleep it off in a cell" kind of units. - - Welfare and social services would be handled locally and without the *huge* overhead it currently sustains. - - Funding for the arts, um, good question. Depends on what role you see for art in the ideal society. Since "funding" isn't an issue, though, I'm guessing some as yet unexplored system will be needed. In addition: - - Whole industries would disappear (weapon manufacture, stock brokers, insurance, lobbyists, unions, others I can't think of off the top of my head). - - Whole industries would appear (maybe, hard to predict, traveling scientists/teachers to disperse needed skills, unified distribution systems). Come to think of it, though, you're going to need some flexibility in this because you'll have certain functions that require a great deal of mobility. Freighter Crews, long-haul truckers, theater/music/comedy groups, Airplane crew etc. You'll need to be able to have services available for them, so you can't be entirely dependent on a local bishop for all your needs. Of course, given adequate communication infrastructures, mobility is less of a concern, but you still have to have a way to allocate responsibility (stewardship) in geographically challenging situations. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 19:54:56 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias At 07:47 PM 7/17/02 -0600, you wrote: >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? Interesting, considering that in the Protestant apocolyptic fiction venues, Mormonism is not even mentioned. We do not appear as either bad guys or good guys -- we are apparently part of the ignorant mass of people who are not with the E-vangelicals, and therefore not worthy of notice. Likewise, in our fiction, we tend to put what we call The Church in the center, and push everyone else to the edges because they don't really count -- they are unbelievers (infidels, outsiders, non-us, wrong). That's one reason our literature is so often boring -- everyone in it is Us, and we are not everybody -- we are not all of God's children. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 21:23:49 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Scott Parkin wrote: 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? Scott--That is probably the most important things I read on this list since I joined. Write it. Now. The reason it is so important--and terrifying--is that it isn't so distant. Everyone of us--even us enlightened bastards--have some of that quality. If you write it you may cause a few people to examine themselves and their motives a little more closely. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:41:51 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Millennial Economics on 7/16/02 3:24 PM, Barbara Hume at barbara@techvoice.com wrote: > 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. > > 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). There was more to this post but these are the two that stood out to me. The fact is the Indians didn't have common hunting grounds. They had a concept of ownership just as developed as any other group of people in the world. They fought constantly over resources just like everybody else. They were not magical creatures from another planet but human beings like the rest of us. You say that they perceived land use differently--and so they did, since only a minority of them were agrarian. The Five "Civilized" Tribes had their own versions of deeds and inheritance rights for land, and had a quite complex system of planting that allowed the land to lie fallow to keep it working. Here in the southwest the Hopi and Pima fenced in their fields just like the settlers did in New England. Had to live in castles, too, since the Navajo and Apache perceived land use differently and came to take their corn pretty frequently. The fences weren't to keep people out any more than the fences anywhere else. They're supposed to keep animals out, like say peccary. The hunting tribes did share hunting grounds after a fashion--so long as they didn't run into enemy tribes or tracks they didn't bother with fighting over the country. The various sorts of settlers didn't think the land was free for the taking--otherwise they wouldn't have bothered fighting the Indians ever. It would've been a one-sided fight if that had happened and the Europeans would've lost. They intended to take the land, because there were no kings to tell them they couldn't, and the Indians never had power enough to stop them. Even the Iriquois Confederation never had enough power to do more than kick at the gallows steps. It's not like it happened only here. It happened in Africa, India, China, any island you care to name--because the Europeans were technically superior. If it had been the other way around we might be living in Hamburg speaking Cherokee or Bengali. Some people like to think that only the "Ice People" of Europe would do such a thing but people are people. It works both ways. Whoever gains the advantage tends to use it, and in all of history there are only a few opposing examples, and America is responsible for most of those examples. Not consistently, of course, but there is no precedent in history for Germany and Japan after WWII. There's no precedent for George Washington relinquishing power voluntarily after winning a revolution, either. These things are extraordinary and unusual, just as was the Iriquois Confederation. I'm still waiting to find out what's wrong with a materialistic culture. I don't understand. Since there is no other kind, what exactly are we shooting for? The millenial economy will still be materialistic. Lusting for wealth is not the same thing as wanting a better car or computer or tennis shoes. It's better for people to run after material things than several less palpable objects, however. Lust for power over other people is worse than wanting to upgrade your stereo. Even if the only reason you want to do it is to keep up with the Joneses. There's no doubt that setting one's heart upon the things of the world is a bad thing, but that doesn't mean that we all have to live in camel-hair shirts in the desert and forego toilet paper and french fries to prove how much power the spirit has over the body. I'm a Mormon--I could care less about such gnostic things. Very few religions believe that God is Himself material--but this is such a one. He has form and substance, and is not purely of spirit. Neither are we. Greed and envy are bad. It doesn't follow that money and material goods are bad. St. Paul didn't say that money is the root of all evil, but that "the love of money is the root of all evil." People say the love chocolate but I hope they're just exaggerating. If they really do then I suppose it would be a bad thing and they might suffer for it when they have to face justice. It doesn't follow that chocolate is inherently evil. I equate money with sweat. If I look at something I want to buy I judge how much I'm willing to sweat for it. I need to get a new truck soon, but I'm going to suffer with my little one for another six months because I'm not willing to sweat as much as I'll have to if I get what I want now. It may hurt my back on the long commute but oh well, I'll just have to suffer. It won't hurt as much as a $600 payment. If I wait I won't lose as much on my current truck and I'll have some down payment money to lessen the burden. This is a real concern, something that is important in my life. The fact that it concerns material and money doesn't bother me a whit. I could get a cheaper little car and use it to commute, but then I couldn't get away from the city and smell the pines. Sorry, no; I'd rather be materialistic and get what I want. Marley's chains are lusts and loves and unfulfilled promises, not the fact of wealth or material goods. He loved money, he was dishonorable and dishonest, he was miserly and cruel. To re-re-relate this to literature, I don't write for money (yet). I don't even write for the hope of money. If I never make a dime I won't stop, because I love it. The fact that it is considered "art" and therefore somehow better than shoe selling or street sweeping makes no difference to me. I would love to do it for a living but that doesn't mean I'm willing to live in a shoebox to accomplish that goal. I'm not. I'd rather have a car, and a computer, and a television, and a bunch of books. I want a refrigerator and a toaster and a microwave. I could live without them. I just don't want to. Being a writer is inherently materialistic, anyway. I take existing material, such as research or background information, and turn it into a story, which also gets to be called material. Then I try to sell my material to a publisher for material bucks, and hopefully my material will show up in bookstores with real carboard covers. I still don't get it. What exactly is wrong with materialism? Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:10:45 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) At 12:53 PM 7/15/02 -0600, you wrote: >. And while I admit that I haven't researched modern revelation, the >idea of the gathering to Jackson County seems more folklore than >doctrine--yet that gathering in that place is a consistent element of Mormon >apocalyptics. I see no reason to believe that the whole eleven million of us will trash what we have and migrate to boring Missouri. This planet is covered with children of God who need what the church has to offer, and they'll need it even more in the dark days. The faith will be where the stakes of Zion are. The church has not spread over the earth only to contract to a single (overcrowded) space at some point. barbara hume, frustrated with ideas that float around freely with nothing to hold them up unless they are her own half-baked notions - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:06:39 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: [AML] Personal Goals and Personal Thanks I have a personal goal that comes up for review every week. I try to write at least 1,000 words each day, which means at least 6,000 words each week since I don=B9t count Sundays. I keep a tally in a database for each day and week, which both keeps me honest and gives me reason to try harder if I haven=B9t been keeping up. I just looked it over and noticed how much of my daily writing is related t= o AML. It might be a bad thing since it takes away from progress on a book, but that=B9s not how I see it. Without AML I would=B9ve missed my goal much more often than I actually did. I only count 500+ word responses in my tally, but there are enough of them to put me over the top several times in the last few months. I just want to tell you all how much I appreciate it. I enjoy the give and take and get finished with work each Wednesday spoiling for another fight. Jonathan has to rein me in all the time =8Ccause I tend to be rambunctious. If I slip something past him and you do feel insulted please don=B9t be. I take offense at so little that I don=B9t see why anybody else should be more sensitive. I realize that it=B9s wrong to feel so, but there it is. I have to remind myself constantly because there=B9s no gut to it. There are few things I like more than debate, and I never really get enough= , sort=B9ve like bacon when I was a kid. You never get enough bacon when there are seven kids and as the oldest you have to be self-sacrificing and noble. So it is with debate, because everyone gets offended too quickly and I neve= r get finished. I had three people walk out of the room the other day while = I argued with another. It wasn't even acrimonious! Just 'cause I'm yelling doesn't mean I'm mad. We're still friends and all, and I didn't even win. You may think my posts are long, but they=B9re about half of what I want to say most of the time. Be concise, eh? I do try. Thanks a lot for fighting with me. It=B9s a real pleasure, and one that I hope will be repeated often. This week has been particularly interesting and I=B9m currently annoyed about the only twice per day rule just now. I'll live till next week. Keep up the great work folks! Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #776 ******************************