From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #783 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 25 2002 Volume 01 : Number 783 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:16:54 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Letters: Mid-Year Observations On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:58:42 +0000 "Andrew Hall" writes: > I'm excited to hear about Thom and Scott's new theater. See D & C 122:7 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:31:40 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 17:19:17 -0600 margaret young writes: > HOW do you suggest we repent AS AN INSTITUTION? > Can we as Mormon writers/artists help that process along? An interesting question that occured to me a few weeks ago in different terms. A friend of mine tried to get a job at Latter-day Creations here in Orem. This friend is placing herself on the market because her husband is unable to work consistanly right now. In the interview process the fact was exposed that my friend has two small children at home. A cloud appeared over the face of the interviewer. Then my friend explained that her husband can't work, whereupon the interviewr said, "Can't or won't?" I was livid. Then it occured to me that this is why I write. I believe that if I can infiltrate the culture with my enlightened ideas, I can combat this sort of prejudice and have fun at the same time. It's a slow way to change an institution, by changing it's constituents one by one, but it's probably the most effective way. scott - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:09:22 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:01:49 -0700 JLTyner writes: > As the article says it is possible to be both a > rocker and an active, faithful member. A friend of mine is producing a series of short documentaries for KBYU or BYU TV called "Every Walk of Life." Each segment focuses on an LDS individual who may or may not be famous but who has accomplished remarkable things with their life. As my friend was embarking on the project and explaing to me the types of people he would be spotlighting he mentioned that he would be interviewing Randy Bachman (of BTO and The Guess Who fame). I told my friend how I had missed an opportunity before my mission to go to a fireside where Randy spoke. However, the last date I went on before entering the LTM (yes, LTM, not MTC) was with a girl who had gone to the fireside. Much of our conversation was her telling me things that Randy had said. I told my friend that he was getting the story second-hand, but, he ought to ask Randy about the time that he met President Spencer W. Kimball. Randy had expressed to President Kimball his anxieties about being a rocker and a practicing Latter-day Saint. Randy said that the rock-and-roll business made it extremely difficult for him to live that double life as a rocker and a Saint. He said that he would like to get out of rock and roll. President Kimball said that he wanted Randy to stick with it. He said words to this effect, "We need to be examples to the world. And we need good Latter-day Saints to be examples in every walk of life." So my frind asked Randy if that story were true. Randy confirmed it. And that's where the title of the series comes from. Rock on dudes and dudettes. J. Scott Bronson -- The Nauvoo Theatrical Society *********************************************************** "If I were placed on a cannibal island and given the task of civilizing its people, I would straightway build a theatre for the purpose." Brigham Young - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:34:42 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: [AML] RE: Postmodernism (was: English Departments Etc.) - --- Clark Goble wrote: > I should also add that I think the postmodern movement has a lot to > offer > Mormonism. Alfred Whitehead, the famous mathematician created a form of > postmodernism called process thought in the 1920's. Some, such as Blake > Ostler, suggest that this is very close to Mormon thought and can > illuminate > many aspects of Nauvoo thought. Others, such as Jim Faulconer at BYU, > are > very into Heidegger and feel that concepts such as Daesin explain the > Mormon > position. Indeed I think that many early Mormon ideas are closer to > postmodernism than they are traditional analytic thought. I notice from > my > reading and discussions with various philosophers at BYU that > postmodernism > is very popular there. I'm pleased to see this response from Clark. Jim Faulconer wrote a great essay on postmodernism and Mormonism that was geared towards an educated, but general audience that appeared either in BYU Today or the Clark Memorandum. I can't vouch for complete authenticity but a draft of that essay is available here: http://www.nd.edu/~rpotter/pomo.html This quote from the essay captures my experience with postmodernism in the academy: "Some Latter-day Saint and other religious thinkers find postmodernism helpful because it helps them identify cultural and intellectual elements that we have taken for granted because we live in a world that is very much a creation of modernism, itself one of the effects of the apostasy." Although I've also experienced the ragged, shoddy applications of postmodern theories and theorists that Clark mentions in his post. That gets quite tiresome. Postmodernism helped create a divide for me between eternal and man-made verities and practices. That division is impossible to complete---everything gets mixed up. But being aware of the mixture has enriched how I approach aesthetics, philosophy, history and science and esp. in relation to my testimony of the restored gospel. Joseph Smith was an amazing deconstructionist, imo. He just had access to eternal truths so that his deconstruction didn't lead him to relativism or nihilism. And don't get me started on postmodernism and the narrative structure of the Book of Mormon. That said, it does seem like some elements of postmodernism aren't all that different from healthy, skeptical attitudes towards culture and language and power and authority that have been around for awhile. And I don't enjoy much art that is directly, self-awarely inspired by postmodernism. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:37:50 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. Don't be so fast to edit my quote, Clark. I said "politicized postmodernism" very deliberately so that I could avoid the very arguments you make. If you had read her posts (or my responses), you'd know that Erin O'Connor isn't saying anything against *postmodernism*. But the politicized version of postmodernism (postmodernism that is internalized as a tool to advance a social agenda) has taken over much of academia--to our detriment. If postmodernists don't like being painted with such a dismissive brush, then it is time for you to speak out against the misuse of postmodernism in advancing academic agendas and not be so defensive about critics who aren't criticizing *actual* postmodernism. It happens that I agree with you about the usefulness of postmodernism and I would hate to see it disappear (just as I'd hate for traditionalist methods to disappear). At the same time, it sucks as a means of social organization and should not be allowed to dominate the academic sphere so uncritically. Jacob Proffitt - ---Original Message From: Clark Goble > ___ Jacob ___ > | She isn't a fan of [postmodernism] and her points are > well-considered > | and I have to say that they match up well with my > observations while > | an undergraduate and that the problems extend "even to BYU." > ___ > > Just to make a point as diplomatically as possible. I'm not > sure most in English departments are equipped to handle > philosophically difficult texts. When they do they write > things that *sound* similar but are without much content. I > don't want to generalize and say everyone in English > departments are like this. (Christopher Norris, for > instance, is primarily in English but has written some good > books on Deconstruction) However the problem is I think > training and background. By the same token I *cringe* when I > hear English majors discussing thermodynamics as they love > the idea but typically misunderstand it horribly. [snip] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:08:00 -0700 From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Chaim Potok Dies Just watched the DVD of "Fiddler on the Roof" last week and it stands the test of time, I loved it. On the same DVD, Norman Jewison, the director of "Fiddler" does a reading of some of Chaim Potok's stories. He is a role model for how many of us would like to write about the LDS culture and religion. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:32:18 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Programs for Poverty - ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen > > As usual, Jacob and I agree as much as we disagree. Our > disagreement centers on a few main points: > > >Problems of poverty and ignorance aren't solvable via programs no > >>matter how intelligently conceived or adequately funded. > The belief > >that they are is contributing to those problems. > > Demonstrably false. A great many governmental programs to > alleviate poverty are quite successful, provided that they > are adequately funded and intelligently administered. If it's demonstrably false, then you're gonna have to demonstrate. And you're going to have to demonstrate that the program was the cause of alleviating poverty, not like the breakfast cereal commercials where "part of a balanced meal" really means "beside a balanced meal." Now, since the Church has a Welfare program I'd better be careful to explain. I don't think that the Church *program* alleviates poverty. I think it helps change hearts and provides key resources in times of need, but I don't see that as alleviating poverty--the people who learn from it (both ministers and participants) alleviate poverty. Which is my way of saying that, like Mormon utopian governments discussed before, it isn't the program that has to change to alleviate poverty, it is the people within the programs. Just as some as-yet undiscovered government structure isn't going to create a Zion people, so too no program past or present is going to have the power to alleviate poverty--alleviate some of the more bitter effects, sure, but actually alleviate poverty, no. > >They are personal problems and > >must be solved on a personal basis, and even then solutions are only > >possible if people are motivated to solve them. > > This sounds very much like blaming the poor for their > poverty. It is quite true that the motivation of someone in > poverty is a key to escaping it. But the working poor I've > met (and in our old ward, they were very much the majority), > work a good deal harder than I do, and are highly motivated > to escape poverty. They can't, not because they're not smart > enough, not motivated enough, not driven enough, but simply > because it's next to impossible. And the programs which > could help aren't adequately funded. This is an article of > faith on the right, that programs intended to alleviate > poverty don't work and make bad situations worse. It's not > true; never has been. Obviously some programs work better > than others. In a lot of cases, the poor *are* to blame for their poverty. Being shy to say that is a part of what keeps people poor. Not that there isn't enough blame to go around--government programs, capitalists, businesses, and neighbors can all play supporting roles in keeping people down. Now, I'd be interested in the people of your old ward and how you'd define poverty. What constitutes "next to impossible"? And who are the poor? I suspect that our definitions of poor are out of sync. For example, I don't put any stock into comparative income evaluations which are a big part of claims that "the poor are getting poorer" (which I consider bunk). I'd be willing to bet that when you talk about "the poor" you aren't referring to the same folks I am when I talk about "the poor". That said, there are some people I consider poor with no blame to themselves. In those cases, I want to help them as much as I possibly can and will support any effort that will do the same. I don't see that in government programs, though. > >Again, I like the > >church's methods of handling poverty and ignorance because however > >flawed the decision-makers involved are, they're at least personal, > >available, and start from a position of intimate knowledge > of the real > >situation. It's a tough system to defraud, and one that is often > >eschewed for the easier options available from other > >sources-->preventing the long-term solutions that would > truly alleviate > >suffering. > > I'm a big fan of the Church welfare program. It helps. In > conjunction with government programs to alleviate poverty, it > can make a difference. Up to a point. Following the Church welfare program means not accepting government aid. You can't have them "in conjunction" within the policy of Church welfare. Exceptions might be made, but I haven't heard of them and would be surprised if they passed "official" muster. > >King Benjamin's solution to poverty wasn't governmental at > *all*. He > >didn't tell his people, "You aren't doing enough to help the poor so > >I'm going to take your stuff away and do it for you." He > *could* have > >done so (he *was* king) and he might arguably have done some actual > >good if he had. Instead, though, he worked by example (by > refusing to > >live a life of leisure) and by entreating his people to care for the > >poor among them. He rallied them to their personal duty, > not to some > >governmental program. He *had* force he could have > employed, he chose > >instead to teach and leave people to their responsibility. > > We don't know that. His great talk, the greatest ever given > on the subject, doesn't address issues of taxation at all. It > doesn't say anything about the existence of government > programs or the lack thereof. We can conclude that what he's > talking about urging greater private support for private > charity, or we could just as easily conclude that he's urging > his people to be less grudging in their support of public > assistance. The text supports either interpretation. What I > think he's saying is "I'm the king, but look at my palace. > Pretty shabby! I've kept your taxes pretty low when it comes > to supporting me. That was so tax dollars could be spent > where they're most needed, to support the poor. So get with > the program and pay up what you owe." Since all King Benjamin's examples were personal and his address was personal I think an assumption of personal (as opposed to governmental) responsibility towards the poor is warranted. He even makes it reflexive at one point (Mosiah 4:16 - "ye yourselves [should] succor those that stand in need of your succor"). Now, you can interpret it any way you want to, but if my interpretation is not a clear given, yours is less so. King Benjamin says (in so many words) that his responsibility is done, over. Not that we can't *both* be correct, really. I'm trying to avoid absolutes and I'd as soon avoid that one, too. Later on in the same chapter, he says, clearly referring to administering to the poor, "see that these things are done in wisdom and order"--which traditionally refers to church organizations (and is echoed in the Church welfare program charter if I remember correctly). I think that "see that they are" implies it won't be a governmental program (now if he had said "see that we can/do", that'd be different), but it could easily be so. At any rate, King Benjamin isn't threatening jail time or police action and his admonitions clearly advocate action by choice. All of which I take very seriously as a man with personal responsibility to care for the poor. And none of which I personally interpret as a call to support clumsy government programs that do at least as much damage as good. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 20:09:52 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. Responding to Clark: I'm not sure most in > English departments are equipped to handle philosophically > difficult texts. > When they do they write things that *sound* similar but are without much > content. I don't want to generalize and say everyone in English > departments > are like this. I think you are right about English professors not being (on average) as thoroughly grounded in history of philosophy as those in the philosophy department. But nonetheless English departments use deconstructive criticism and most current literary theory is derived from poststructuralist, postmodern-kinds of (non)roots. Not only in English departments, but throughout the academy, postmodernism has changed the way we do business. So one way to respond to the critics of the changing politics of scholarship is to say that nobody really knows what is going on (except in the Father discipline of philosophy) so how can we be critical. Obviously though, the critics are observing real change and they don't like it (whether such change is true to Derrida or not). I think the critics are often just saying (perhaps as you note very ignorantly of the philosophical roots) that they don't like the new politics and the way power is shifting. No one likes to be left behind and as traditional approaches have become less popular, many people feel threatened. > I should add that while many equate relativism and postmodernism this is > *very* unfair and wrong. Relativism is one of those "boogey men" that get > passed around along with "nihilist" or "pyrrhic skeptic." In > general it is > hard to find real *philosophers* who advocate such positions. > Unfortunately > it is easy to find people who have made na=EFve readings of > philosophers who > adopt these positions. I agree with that postmodernism and relativism are wrongly equated. However, even the theory text that I used to teach first-year English majors clearly pointed out the fallacy of those naive readings. So in my experience the ones who do make that equation are reacting with angry political rhetoric--Rush Limbaugh style--that likes to lump multiculturalism, feminism, postmodernism and relativism into Satanic bag of horrors in oversimplified and ridiculous ways. > This often happens even with philosophers who ought to know better. For > instance Habermas misreads Derrida quite badly in _The Philosophical > Discourse of Modernity_. Indeed a lot of his "reading" of Derrida is > actually dependent on an other person's readings while making an attack on > post modernism - Ellis. I'll note, with apologies to Pres. Bateman's > inaugural address, that this sort of plagerism of misreadings is rather > common in attacks on postmodernism. Few seem willing to try and grasp the > texts in their context. I understand that the postmodernism seminar held at BYU a few years back spurred apostle Eyring to meet regularly with Jim Faulconer to take postmodernism lessons--just to avoid the kind of misreadings that conservative rhetoric likes to espouse (Bateman's inaugural address). Others, such as Jim Faulconer at BYU, are > very into Heidegger and feel that concepts such as Daesin explain > the Mormon > position. This is an interesting way to defend postmodernism and I have to agree that my limited study of postmodernism has enriched my thinking about religion. Interestingly, religious study is now much more academically viable. Previously you would never find religious approaches openly taken at national literary meetings such as the Modern Language Association. Religion is "in" again, along with all other marginal discourses, because scientific discourse has lost its absolute stranglehold on truth. However, (although for Mormons it is second nature), I don't know if I would like to judge the value, interest or even usefulness of a philosophy or a philosophical movement by how well it can be used to prop up the Mormon position. I think Mormons are very good indeed at finding correspondence between Mormonism and almost any philosophy we may find important. > One big problem is that "postmodernism" is such a giant rubric. > Even if you > think folks like Richard Rorty or Jacques Lacan are full of it, does that > justify throwing Whitehead or Ricouer out with the bathwater? Exactly. I agree completely. The changes that have occurred in ways knowledge is considered and approached in the university will play out over time. Not everything survives. But I think one reason that Lacan and Rorty appeal to English department people is because the metaphor and play of language they employ is so fascinating, so complex, that the poetic mindset is drawn in. What one might criticize as nothing but mumbo-jumbo on a first reading can, with study, become enlightening and symbolically rich. Is this kind of study elitist? No question. But interestingly the traditionalists who defend James Joyce and T. S. Elliot as kinds of gods in the traditional canon, might find the current poetic philosophers not absolutely different in approach. Gae Lyn Henderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:05:33 -0600 From: "Hugh Stocks" Subject: Re: [AML] Chaim Potok Dies What a loss. And of course, for those who've read his _Book of Lights_ there's even a Mormon connection, since he writes about the Mormon Chaplain's assistant he had in Korea. The model for that character was Rowan Taylor, long a stalwart of the Mormon musical community in Southern California, and a member of the Canoga Park Stake. Hugh Stocks hstocks@vii.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 03:54:32 GMT From: daryoung@juno.com Subject: [AML] Dutcher, Mitchell, Parkin, Duffy and Me I have been greatly enjoying the most recent issue of Irreantum. I loved Alan Mitchell's "Dutcher and Me," maybe because I recognize a little of myself in it. I feel I have some sort of claim on Dutcher by virtue of--oh, I don't know, sitting at the same lunch table with him at the writer's conference or something. Because here I am in Pocatello where no one has heard of him and I am trying to get my friends to watch _Brigham City_ on video. And, since the video has that horrible horror-type cover on it, my best persuasion tactic is to say it was "made by an AML friend of mine." (We ARE friends, aren't we, Richard? I mean Ricky? Dutch?) Anyway, I enjoyed re-reading John-Charles (Jack-Chuck?) Duffy's paper on _Brigham City_ and Scott (Scotty) Parkin's response to it. Both critics have excellent points with which I agree. But I have a few comments in response to a very small portion of Parkin's paper. Parkin complains that he's "not sure it's entirely fair [for Duffy] to condemn Dutcher for failing to deliver on Duffy's hopes for more complex storytelling." But I feel that it is not without value for a critic to encourage greater complexity and point out where the work could improve. It implies a respect for the artist and the audience. True, not all stories are complex by nature, but Duffy's point that the story COULD have been more complex is a form of praise. You wouldn't bother writing a formal paper criticizing the lack of complexity in a television soap opera, for example, because its simplicity (simple-mindedness?) is inherent in its form. Duffy obviously does not think it is out of the realm of possibility to expect more of Dutcher. Neither do I. Later, Parkin says, "Duffy seems to be looking for hidden messages that I'm not sure are really intended." Of one of the "hidden" messages of the film that Duffy discusses, Scott says, "Certainly it's in there and functions as a recurring theme, but I'd hesitate to say that it's a primary (or secondary or even tertiary) message of the story." Parkin seems to be saying that we should not use messages that were not consciously inserted into the work as support for criticism about the work. I have two problems with this: first, how can we prove which messages, themes, etc. were inserted consciously and which subconsciously? And second--and more important--in order for criticism to be criticism we must assume that all elements of a work are functions of the artist's will. Otherwise, of what use is criticism? I don't say that it's impossible that Dutcher made some "mistakes" in the film or that elements of his subconscious influenced it--but I do say that we cannot discount! a critic's argument (as Parkin seems to be saying of Duffy's) by saying that his evidence is based on "unintended" elements. Always I believe and always I say on the List that criticism has immense value to the potential improvement of Mormon letters and that we do no favors by going easy on each other when it comes to criticism. When Duffy accuses Dutcher of being simplistic, I see behind that a belief that Dutcher could do better--or at least that SOMEONE could do better. Criticism implies a belief in the potential of an art. When we examine a work, we must give the creator all the credit for every element of it as if each tiny part was placed thoughtfully (which I believe Dutcher deserves). Though on the surface Parkin seems to have higher praise for Dutcher than Duffy does, I believe that Duffy's response is the more complementary--for it gives Dutcher the credit for consciously crafting every detail of the film, and engages Dutcher in a conversation that could lead to even greater work. I must point out that these comments of mine address only a small portion of Parkin's response. His entire response contains many valid and important points and is very thought-provoking and worthwhile. Darlene Young ________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:12:37 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Kathy Fowkes wrote: > Given all the prophecies regarding Zion that exist, and aren't very > hard to find, really (D&C is a great place to begin), and after > reading all your commentary regarding what y'all seem to deem > folklore, I have one question. In your estimation and conversation, > does prophecy that is not in the four standard works, or even > prophecy that *is* in the four standard works, equal folklore? > Because if it does, I object to the definition. Given what's been > said in this discussion, I haven't seen a big distinction made > between the two, and it's confusing the heck out of me. I don't believe that either scripture or the words of modern prophets is folklore. But I do think some of those words have been remembered fuzzily, some unrelated bits of revelation have been combined to generate new ideas or support old ones, and some general facts are put into specific contexts where they don't always fit. I consider those efforts to be folklore. Folklore does not imply inaccurate or silly, only non-doctrinal. Let me try to clarify some of my thought process so that I can be corrected correctly. The two specific issues I suggested might be informed by folklore as much as doctrine were the establishment of the New Jerusalem and the literal gathering of the Saints to Jackson County as events that would take place in the Last Days prior to the Second Coming. The New Jerusalem 1: Timeline ============================== The fact of the New Jerusalem is referenced in many places throughout scripture. In terms of apocalyptic context it's the scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants, the book of Ether, and the book of Revelation that seem to have the most direct bearing. Ether and Revelation are quite similar. Both are speaking about events to occur after Christ has returned and the judgement has occured. Ether 13:3 says: "And that it was the place of the New Jerusalem, which should come down out of heaven, and the holy sanctuary of the Lord." Revelation 21:2 says nearly the same thing: "And I John saw a holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." One can argue that this is a literal reference, that the physical city of New Jerusalem will literally come down out of heaven after the judgement. Some suggest that the City of Enoch itself may be at least part of the city of the New Jerusalem (see JST Genesis 7:71). One can also argue that this is a figurative reference indicating that the word of God (aka revelation) will come down to the earth and cause the New Jerusalem (aka, the city of God) to be built by the faithful. In either case, the timeline suggests that the city will be restored *after the judgement* which occurs *after the Milennium* which occurs *after the second coming.* (See Revelation 20 and 21:1-2, and Ether 13:8-10.) In other words, I don't perceive that either of these scriptures suggests that the Saints will gather at any time in the future to build the New Jerusalem *before* the second coming. Which is not to say that the Saints will not build a holy city, a Zion, *a* new Jerusalem at any time or in any place. But it also makes no specific statement about what *will* be built before the judgement, though *the* New Jerusalem will most certainly be established after it. The JST offers a reference to *a* new Jerusalem, a Zion or city of God that will be built prior to his coming in JST Genesis 7:70-71 (partial): "And righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine own elect from the four quarters of the earth unto a place which I shall prepare; an holy city, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion; a New Jerusalem. And the Lord said unto Enoch, Then shalt thou and all thy city meet them there..." So the way I read it, one or more Zion cities will be built as a general element of building the literal kingdom of God on the earth (most likely built during the Milennium itself when Christ reigns personally on the earth). There will be a special city, the New Jerusalem, that is the literal city of God and that will be established after the earth has been renewed. But there is no reference to a timeline of the building of *the* New Jerusalem in Jackson County after the Saints failed the first time, and before the second coming of Christ. If there is specific modern revelation to that effect, I am not aware of it and am happy to be educated. Otherwise, I have to take the speculation as common assumption based on a non-doctrinal source--aka, folklore. The New Jerusalem 2: Jackson County ==================================== Of course the effort of the Saints to build the New Jerusalem in Jackson County in the 1830s is well documented, as are the specific revelations indicating that city as the New Jerusalem. (See D&C 42, 45, 84, 124, 133) A great many plans, hopes, and promises were made about building *the* New Jerusalem in Jackson County. The Saints failed to live up to their part of the bargain and the Lord eventually released them from the assignment to build that city and its temple until some future time (see D&C 124:49). Jospeh Fielding Smith addressed the question directly in Doctrines of Salvation (Vol. 3, page 78): "Nearly 100 years have passed since the site of Zion was dedicated and the spot for the temple was chosen, and some of the members of the Church seem to be fearful lest the word of the Lord shall fail. Others have tried to convince themselves that the original plan has been changed and that the Lord does not require at our hands this mighty work which has been predicted by the prophets of ancient times. We have not been released from this responsibility, nor shall we be. The word of the Lord shall not fail. If we look back and examine his word carefully, we will discover that nothing has failed of all that he has predicted, neither shall one jot or tittle pass away unfulfilled. It is true that the Lord commanded the saints to build to his name a temple in Zion. This they attempted to do, but were prevented by their enemies, so the Lord did not require the work at their hands at that time. The release from building of the temple did not, however, cancel the responsbility of building the City and the House of the Lord, at some future time. When the Lord gets ready for it to be accomplished, he will command his people, and the work will be done." That I'm aware of, no specific timeline has been set forth since then about how, when, or in what context that city and its temple will be built. *It most assuredly will be built,* and it will be built in Jackson County, but I know of no specific promise that it 1) it will take place before the Milennium, or 2) that a general gathering of the faithful to that New Jerusalem will take place before the Milennium. I grant that such revelation may have been given; I only said that I am not aware of it. If you are, please educate me with specific references. The scriptures are replete with discussions of the gathering to both Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem, but none of them require that it happen at a specific time, and most of the scriptural references are actually somewhat vague about whether those literal gatherings will take place before or during the Milennium. There has been explicit reference to a great gathering of patriarchs at Adam-Ondi-Ahman immediately preparatory to Christ's coming where The Ancient of Days (aka Adam) will preside and receive the reports of those given keys and stewardship over the earth (see Daniel 7). But this is a council of patriarchs--what I would interpret as a limited priesthood council of some or all of the general authorities--not a general gathering of all faithful Saints. I accept as doctrine that 1) a literal gathering of the faithful will occur (or perhaps already has); 2) the New Jerusalem will be built in Jackson County; and 3) that Christ will begin his earthly reign from Adam-Ondi-Ahman in fulfillment of prophesy. But the common insistence that there *must* be a literal gathering to Jackson County along with the building of *the* great city of New Jerusalem--including its temple--as the precursors to the second coming strikes me as conflating the great council of the Ancient of Days (pre-Milennial) with the literal gathering (timeframe unclear) and the eventual building of the New Jerusalem or City of God (Milennial/post-Milennial). In other words, it seems more like folklore than doctrine. At least based on my limited exploration of scripture and modern revelation. Again, I accept that I may be in error on that; please educate me with specific references if my understanding is incomplete. My Thoughts on Prodigal Journey ================================= This is the foundation I used when expressing my frustration with what I see as the common perpetuation of elements of folklore in Mormon apocalyptic fiction. I perceive the consistent repetition of a literal gathering to Jackson County and the building of the New Jerusalem as self-evident, generally accepted, required precursors to the Second Coming of Christ as speculations, not doctrine. If they are speculations, I wish Mormons would be a little creative and come up with some other speculations. The scriptures support quite a few different possible scenarios--but one thing we know for sure is that the vast majority of the world (and the Saints) will be caught unawares and unprepared at the Second Coming. This epic gathering that appears in so many Mormon apocalyptic novels seems to fly directly in the face of that wisdom. But more importantly, I wish Mormons would be a little more creative in their speculations as to the specific social and political and economic conditions that will lead up to the last days. Just today I generated a list of six different forms of social collapse that are specifically supported in scripture and that all allow for the same apocalyptic outcomes. If I can generate those with one friend in a little over a half-hour, how many more should people who are actually creative be able to generate? Yet I don't recall many variations on the right-wing despotic overlord theme. I don't dispute the possibility that the events of the last days will come off as described in the common vision, complete with a great city and temple in Jackson County and a massive literal gathering of the Saints just prior to the Second Coming. It's possible. But based on my reading of the scriptures I'm not convinced that specific timeline is either likely, or even directly supported. Based on that opinion, I believe that it's not only possible, but a good idea for authors to explore those issues directly using their own minds to devise unique speculations on what might happen rather than relying on what I perceive to be a vision that may be allowed by scripture, but certainly isn't the only possible (reasonable) interpretation thereof. I never once disputed the idea of the New Jerusalem or its establishment in Jackson County. But I do dispute the commonly accepted pre-Milennial timeline as being doctrinal. Not because I think scripture or modern revelation is nothing but a collection of folklore, but because my limited study of both has led me to a different conclusion. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #783 ******************************