From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #793 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, August 5 2002 Volume 01 : Number 793 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:43:46 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" > > About 10 years ago at my BYU ward I was surprised to see a girl bring in her > guitar to do the musical number in Sacrament meeting. More shocking, when > she > stood up to sing, the bishop pulled his guitar out from behind his seat (I > hadn't seen it earlier) and stood up to play and sing with her. I asked him > about this later, said I was so surprised to see that after having heard you > couldn't do such a thing. He responded that the most important thing was > letting this girl be able participate in the meeting this way. I admired his > attitude. Must not have been too wrong, he was later called as stake > president (or maybe that was his punishment?). > > John Perry > Provo There is a crown of glory in the Celestial Kingdom waiting for this kind, wonderful Bishop who knows what the gospel is about -- placing people before programs. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 11:54:34 -0600 From: Lynette Jones Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Kathy wrote: >Is this primarily a Utah phenomenon? If so, I count myself >blessed to reside in California. Sadly, this is a struggle in many places. I've heard new bishops in wards of the Southern United States decry publicly the fact that the Saints of Mexico help keep the welfare programs of the South in the black. I've heard Bishops of western parts of Salt Lake County decry their members for the fact that other parts of the valley and country keep their stakes in the black on welfare needs. I have come to the conclusion that much less of that is needed and much more of a forum about Mosiah 4:24. I would like to challenge someone to take us on a journey of exploring how this applies to several different saints of varying incomes, because few of us has what we consider enough. In fact, it is very true that the more we have, the harder it is to tithe. It is also harder to increase our fast offerings to reflect our greater income. The whole of Mosiah 4 would be a good outline for the story. The phrase "if I had" brings up a whole slue of scripture. I have a lot of respect for those who suffer and must use the LDS Church Welfare system. Some few Bishops and Relief Society Presidents have been burned by those who live to use the system. That is one place that LDS Social Services can and should help. But, Social Services are very limited at this time, mostly because we are still so deeply in the "dark ages" concerning the causes and therefore the healing of mental health. Lynette Jones - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:13:55 -0700 From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Irreantum Cutbacks - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Bigelow" > Irreantum's printing costs have recently increased by 75% at BYU, and the > AML's finances have reached drought status. As a result, we are now forced > to regress the magazine to staple binding, reduce page count, and stop > sending out as many free sample copies. > Chris: Exactly how much would it cost, per issue, to maintian the perfect binding and the higher page count? Jana Remy - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:31:32 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Kerry Blair Query I don't get the print magazine on a regular basis, so I likely didn't see it. But thanks for the info! I'll pass it along to my friend. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 8/2/2002 at 12:51 PM Vholladay5254@aol.com wrote: >Jeff, did you see my review of Kerry's first three books in the last >Irreantum? - ----------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:35:33 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] English Departments Etc. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacob Proffitt" To: Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 1:47 AM Subject: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. > ---Original Message From: Thom Duncan > > > > > But I also recognize that postmodernism has some serious weaknesses > > > that make it harmfully non-LDS as well--like the absence of even > > > potential absolutes or standards. > > > > You do not refer, of course, to Joseph's words to Nancy > > Rigdon in his attempt to get her to accept his proposal for > > plural marriage (paraphrased): "What is wrong under one > > situation can be, and often is, right under another > > situation." What is less absolutist than that, a saying that > > suggests that marrying a married man may under certain > > conditions be wrong but may be correct if God commands it? > > I might be, but not in the way you mean. Sure a given act may be right > or wrong because circumstances are different--which appears properly > postmodernist. But the *reason* it is right or wrong is because *God* > commands it--which couldn't be *less* postmodernist. Actually, one cannot prove that God says anything, only that one believes God said something. God can be used to rationalize immoral behavior just as he can be used to teach moral behavior. > There is an > ultimate "correct" and "all truths may be circumscribed in one great > whole." Postmodernism doesn't allow those doctrines--no ultimate > authority and no unifying whole. For all the inappropriate appeals to > authority that we dislike and argue over, Mormonism *does* have the > right to call on *the* ultimate authority to which one will submit or be > damned. *Very* un-postmodernist. As long as Mormonism continues to teach that Man has free will, that man is ultimately responsible for his own choices, how can that be un_postmodernist? How can God honor a person's free will choice if, in making that choice, they commit a horrible sin? If Free Agency means anything, it means that my version of Mormonism as revealed to me by my personal wrestlings with the Spirit is just as valid in the long run as your version of Mormonism, or anybody else's for that matter. An example of perfectly acceptable versions of Mormonism, neither of which will get you in trouble. Let's say you pay tithing on your gross income and I pay it on my net. According to the Church Handbook of Instructions, either form is considered acceptable tithing, and either form will not prevent you from getting a temple recommend. And that's only one example of our very postmodern religion. Seeing R-rated movies for instance will not prevent you from getting a TR. There is no One-Size-Fits-All Mormonism. Such creedism is what Joseph decried. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 18:50:00 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. ___ Jacob ___ | But the *reason* it is right or wrong is because *God* commands | it--which couldn't be *less* postmodernist. There is an | ultimate "correct" and "all truths may be circumscribed in one | great whole." Postmodernism doesn't allow those doctrines--no | ultimate authority and no unifying whole. ___ Once again this isn't quite true. Postmodernism certainly changes how we look at these things, but it doesn't decry ultimate authority. Indeed two main figures who appear in postmodernism - Heidegger and Derrida - often treat Being as this authority. There's a great book that compares Heidegger to some of the classic neoplatonic theologians of the medieval period called _Forms of Transcendence: Heidegger and Medieval Mystical Theology_. Likewise Caputo's _The Mystical Element in Heidegger's Thought_ goes through how he treats Being itself in a manner akin to Meister Eckhart, the great mystic theologian. Now *how* Heidegger views the transcendent is different from what we find in modernism (roughly thought since Descartes) But that this Being is the absolute seems quite apparent. Where these forms of postmodernism critique modernism is in the idea that there are grand narratives we can make that *prescribe* how Being gives to us our encounter with the world. Put an other way, it is the view that Being determines all this and we *can't* say why Being does what it does. We can merely accept what is given. Now this view of Being (ultimate reality) seems a little different from what we find in Mormon thought. We make a clear separation between God and Being and the source of life. God is in the universe. For traditional Christian theologians God is the creator all ex nihlo and thus they can make a connection between God and Being. (Although in so doing they often do run into their own problems of heresy) Mormons however can simply accept that existence is how existence is -- without why. God accepts this and works within this just as we do. The only thing we can state for sure is that existence has been given to us as it is given. And that is a rather absolute pronouncement. Further the Mormon view that something is true *because* God commands it is itself open to analysis. What does it mean for God to demand? Is it true because God commands it or does God command it because it is true? In other words is God creating reality or is God existing within reality and working in accord with its limits. There are many interesting theological issues here. I think that the Mormon position moves these questions out of the ontological arena (as questions of the nature of existence) and into the social arena. In other words when we speak of God commanding we are speaking of a relationship between the commanded (in this case Joseph Smith) and the commander (in this case God). The nature is *not* ontological, as traditional Christianity tends to assume, but fundamentally social in a manner akin to how a father relates to a son. Very postmodern. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 13:54:04 EDT From: Kimheuston@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Unsavory Etymologies I've been waiting for someone to add that American colonial court records are full of the acronym for fornication and unlawful carnal knowledge. Kimberley (Heuston) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 17:12:34 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Programs for Poverty Thanks for pointing those specifics out, Larry. I was unaware of those statements and it looks to me like Jonathan's points were closer to the mark than my own. It seems that the key is the wise use of resources and the goal of self-reliance. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 20:12:02 EDT From: BroHam000@aol.com Subject: [AML] Jan Karon's Mitford Series I just finished reading In This Mountain, the latest installment in the=20 Mitford series by Jan Karon. I am curious to see how many on the list are= =20 familiar with this series, and what your thoughts are on it. =20 I think they're wonderful books. For those who don't know the series, each= =20 book revolves around an Episcopalian minister, Timothy Kavanaugh, his=20 ministry, his life, and the lives of those around him. If you think it=20 sounds mundane, you're partly right. What is a marvel to me is that Karon= =20 fills the mundane life with meaning, inspiration, and joy (which is the way= =20 it's supposed to be, but what a gift to be able to capture that!). The=20 stories are everything that make for a good read, without any sensationalism= =20 or pandering. Honestly, I am filled with admiration. All the characters= are=20 "everyday people", whose lives are very Hometown America - and they are=20 totally endearing. Further, Karon tackles extremely difficult situations= and=20 moral conflicts head on, with no pat resolutions, while chronicling very=20 believable growth in her characters. I can't say enough about how I enjoy= =20 and appreciate this very wholesome, uplifting, and edifying literature=20 (section 50:13-24). Anybody else out there care to address the Mitford=20 books? Linda Hyde - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 18:43:46 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] E.R. PAUL, _Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology_ (Review) Title: Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology Author: Erich Robert Paul Publisher: University of Illinois Press Year Published: 1992 Binding: Hardcover ISBN: 0252018958 Price: $32.50 Reviewed by Clark Goble I originally bought this book it for Paul's discussion of how the early apostle Orson Pratt integrated science and religion. Surprisingly the book turned out not to focus on theology that much. It thus isn't what most might expect from the title. I must confess, however, that I found the book a pleasant surprise. It focuses less on the specifics of how Mormons have dealt with scientific assertions than the general sweep of science in Mormonism. That isn't a bad thing. Indeed it is just those sorts of questions in history that have brought a recognition that science, especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, was more complex than many thought. Over the last few decades, historians have seriously rethought the relationship between science and religion. The traditional view of a "war' between them is misleading and usually incorrect. Paul adroitly applies these recent movements from the philosophy of science to the history of Mormon thought. Given that approach, a lot of Paul's book will be familiar if you are already read recent history and philosophy of science. Paul shows how the changing view of science within Mormon corresponds to the view of science by America in general. His thesis is that the acceptance of science by Mormonism was partially due to Americans in general not distinguishing between science and technology. Since technology brought wealth and progress, science was good. It was not until the 1940's that Mormon apostle-scientists like John Widstoe began discussing science as a fallible and tentative approach to knowledge. Before then a relatively na=EFve adoption of scientific realism was the rule of the day. (Best seen in Orson Pratt's odd adoption of Newtonian mechanism to Nauvoo theology) Paul deals with the "anti-science" and neoliteralist movements in Mormonism but puts them, I think, into their proper context. He discusses things like how Evangelical creationist arguments made it into the CES manual of the 1980's and some of McConkies writings. However he doesn't take the myopic view that I think many commentators have. Further I think he provides a very good argument for why debate within Mormonism over Genesis tends to be largely irrelevant in the minds of most Mormons. Even when there is a caution and worry about things like evolution (as even in Widstoe and Talmage), there also is a sense that it is less pressing and significant an issue than for Evangelicalism. This is because the *important* issue for Mormon theology isn't the physical creation of man but the spiritual relationship between man and God. The focus of "creation" for Mormons isn't the creation of mortal bodies, but our pre-mortal existence. The issue of material creation is thus less a theological problem than it simply is an issue of literal approaches to scriptural exegesis. I'd not thought of the issue in that way before, but I think Paul is quite right. Unfortunately Paul doesn't deal with the specific issue of Mormon materialism. He instead focuses in on Mormon thought relative to general cosmology and the issue of a plurality of worlds. While this once was a big issue in the history of science and religion, I'm not sure it is that interesting to a modern audience. Still he does deal with some issues in the history of Mormonism. For example he deals with Fawn Brody's discussion of Thomas Dick influence on early Mormon thought. He provides good arguments for why Dick's theological and science writings weren't that significant an impact on early Mormonism. (I've read all of Dicks works and had reached much the same conclusions) Overall Paul doesn't deal with a lot of interesting theological issues that arise between Mormon thought and the science. For instance Moreland in _The New Mormon Challenge_ has raised some questions regarding Mormon materialism. As I mentioned, despite ignoring many specific issues in Mormon theology, it does provide a very useful discussion of science *in* Mormonism. It is helpful to remember that within Mormonism a form of scientism reigned for nearly 40 years. Since Paul is a historian of science, he is able to discuss these issues in terms of the general history of science. This context has often been ignored when historians have examined Mormon thought. For instance many people might find Paul's discussion of hermeticism a useful balance to the way Quinn discusses the general issue. (Paul doesn't spend a huge amount of time on the issue, but does point out the relationship between hermeticism and science and ties this to Mormon theology) If you are looking for a general book about the basic approach of Mormonism to science, then it is probably difficult to imagine anyone writing a better book. As I mentioned there are many issues the author doesn't go into. He doesn't attempt to provide a modern way of reconciling Mormon theology with science, for instance. He does, however, provide good reasons why such quests have been less relevant since the 1940's though. We simply don't have systems of theology such as by Roberts or Pratt who attempt to reconcile science and theology as a consistent system of metaphysics. While some might criticize the book for what it isn't, that hardly seems fair. For what the book attempts to do it succeeds admirably. Overall I recommend the book whole-heartedly. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 19:19:34 GMT From: daryoung@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Scott wrote: "Their son had been a wrestling champion and they compared his hard work in becoming a star wrestler to becoming a star worker in the mission field. When his mother stood up to lead off the talks, she quoted the lyrics to 'We Are the Champions' by Queen and used that song to establish a theme that all the other speakers addressed." Did the person who was asked to say the benediction cry out, "Give me an R! Give me an O! Give me a C! Give me a K! Give me a Y!"? I wouldn't have been able to sit through those talks with a straight face. (If you don't know what I'm alluding to, you've got to go read Neal Chandler's "Benediction," one of the best LDS short stories ever written.) 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: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 14:22:58 -0500 From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Call for Entries: Eclipse Film Festival The Eclipse Film Festival in St. George, Utah will be held November 8th and 9th this year. The event is presented by the Community Arts Division, City of St. George. Matthew Fackrell is one of the principle organizers. The festival's organizers are calling for entries, and are particularly interested in films by Utah filmmakers. Important dates: September 6th: Early Submission Deadline September 20th: Late Submission Deadline October 4th: Accepted Films Announced October 14th: Tickets Go On Sale November 8th & 9th: Eclipse Film Festival, 2002 Entry Fee: For short films and short documentaries, $15 for the early submission before September 6th, and $20 for late submissions after September 6th and before September 20th. For Feature Films, $25 for early submission and $35 for late submissions. More information available on the festival's website: http://www.eclipsefilmfest.com/ Previous winners at the festival include BYU film students Bryan Lefler and Krisi Church. Preston Hunter - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 16:00:00 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Moderator on Postmodernism Etc. Folks, This discussion has been interesting, and I think there's still a lot of positive territory that it could cover. I'd like to encourage everyone to remember, however, that the topic of AML-List is neither university politics nor philosophy, though both both of these touch fairly closely on matters that *are* on-topic for AML-List. For now, I'd like to encourage people to keep on writing and responding, but to try to shift the focus somewhat to discussing the effect of postmodernism on literary interpretation and the practice of literature. In the process, it's certainly appropriate to comment on both (a) how postmodernism and its uses have affected the experience of those studying literature (as students or professors), and (b) how literary types have used and/or abused the philosophical ideas that underlie postmodernism. But I'd like to see an emphasis on the literary tie-in. Given the fact that AML-List volume is pretty light right now, I don't plan to be hardnosed about this. Just a suggestion that I think it would be good to try to tie the topic closer to AML-List's true subject area. Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful participation. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:37:58 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Irreantum Cutbacks Thanks for asking, Jana. It would take about $700-800 extra per issue to maintain 100 pages, perfect bound. Right now we have a great summer issue (Terry Tempest Wms, Levi Peterson, Dan Wotherspoon, several more) that we're trying to decide what to cut from. One concern is that renewal rates and people who subscribe after receiving a sample issue are both fairly low. I wonder if the magazine lacks interest or has too broad a focus (trying to cover the full cultural spectrum). I'm personally committed to continuing the magazine in some form as long as circulation stays above 100, but I would be open to someone else coming forward with a stronger vision and demonstration that they can and will keep the quarterly going. FYI, right now the magazine's paid circulation is 240 AML members, 88 Irreantum-only subscribers, and 30 retail copies, for a total paid circulation of about 350. That's neither a low point nor a high point, but the trend is currently downward. If anyone has some tax-deductible charitable funds handy, that would be great, otherwise we'll downshift and move forward in a lower gear for now. Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 23:03:51 -0700 From: "jana" Subject: [AML] Carol Lynn PEARSON, _Day Old Child_ (Review) This review is by Delsa Anderson - ----------------------------------------------------------- Day-Old Child and other Celebrations of Motherhood. By Carol Lynn Pearson Illus. By Traci O'Very Covey Gibbs Smith, Publisher (Layton, Utah) 2001; 32 pp. ISBN 1-58685-072-5=20 Suggested Retail Price: $9.95 The best way to read Carol Lynn Pearson's new book is aloud, so you will = more surely notice her sly rhymes and the rhythm of her style. When you = read silently, as my granddaughter once said, explaining the speed which = is so much faster than reading aloud: "There's this thing you do with = your eyes!" However, that same speed can enable Carol Lynn's nuanced = phrases and tricky, sometimes Ogden Nash-like rhymes to elude you. For = instance, in her poem Diapering at 4:00 a.m., notice the placement of = stratagem and 4:00 a.m. He created the heavens and the earth And the seas, and the naked, needing Infants crying to be held. He thought it all up This clever stratagem. And yet- I'll bet he smiled When he thought about diapering at 4:00 A.M. Carol Lynn is quirky, and takes us unaware with a sudden knowledge that = she has slipped in another rhyme. But where is it? What word, or group = of words, in this case, did she use to get past our guard? Her rhymes = are never where you expect them to be. I liked Mother to Child, especially the first phrase. Look- Your little fist fits mine Like the pit in a plum. ******* I'm your mother, true, But in the end Merely an older equal Doing her faltering best For a dear, small friend. In The Ninth Month, she speaks to her unborn baby. Being a duplex I have been happy, my dear, To loan you half the house Rent-free and furnished As best I could. You have been a good Tenant, all in all Quiet, yet comfortably there Tapping friendly on the wall. ******* But we will keep in touch. There are bonds, my dear, That reach beyond a block Or a mile or a hemisphere Born of much love and labor. I approve the move And gladly turn from landlady To neighbor. The illustration is delightful, showing the mother's torso as a house = with a small locked cottage attached, and mother just unlocking the = door. The illustrations deserve attention, as there is one to illustrate = almost every poem, and they are an integral part of the book. First you = notice the ovals. Although I tired of the salmon-and-pink color = scheme; the illustrations by Traci O'Very Covey were sometimes very = clever, sometimes mundane, but always egg-inspired. Even the straight = lines were curvy. Motherhood was the theme--the ovum the scheme. Mother, = baby, downtown skyline, megaphone-all straight lines curved. Pearson = and Covey have collaborated before, in Fuzzy Red Bathrobe. Day-Old Child has probably been read aloud more than any other of Carol = Lynn's poems since the year her first book of poetry came out. It's a = favorite in Relief Society, Mother's Day Programs, and the home. It's = the lead poem in this book; it's also the title. As you reread it, = then continue with the collection, you can see the change from the = conventional every-other-line rhyming system to her present, seemingly = haphazard placement of offbeat rhymes. I don't think this poet is ever = haphazard. The poems that would seem to be so "easy to write" have a = singular warm charm and denouements that catch the reader off guard. This is a very small gift book, so the price seems heavy: $9.95 plus 7% = tax =3D $10.25, divided by 8 ounces (which includes the dust cover) = comes to $1.25 per ounce. The new mother or the old mother who receives = this book will probably cherish every ounce, if she's a Pearson fan. = Count me in that group. Somewhere, in almost every poem, she manages to = surprise me. Target audience: Mothers of any age, Pearson fans; gift buyers for = mothers. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:51:38 -0700 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" > Scott wrote: > > "Their son had been a wrestling champion and > they compared his hard work in becoming a star wrestler to becoming a star > worker in the mission field. > > When his mother stood up to lead off the talks, she quoted the lyrics to 'We > Are the Champions' by Queen and used that song to establish a theme that all > the other speakers addressed." Yesterday in testimony meeting a young father who had just blessed his baby bore his testimony, and he talked about how when he was a kid his father took him driving in a fancy Cadillac, blaring Derek and the Dominos (one of Eric Clapton's early bands), a song called "Why Does Love Got To Be So Sad?" He shared how his father took that opportunity to explain to him why love doesn't have to be sad--and tied it in to temple marriage. I guess a lot of rock music provides excellent teaching moments, if nothing else. :) Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 15:04:48 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. ___ Jacob ___ | Conservatives, by definition, believe in keeping things the | same unless long debate and reason dictate a change, and even | then, that change should be introduced slowly and monitored | carefully. ___ This is another example of why I think the "liberal" - "conservative" terminology is more misleading than helpful. For instance much of modern conservatism is anything but classically conservative. It is all about ideologically driven change. Now some of those changes may hearken back to a culture or ideology of the past. But it can't really be called conservative. If we are speaking about "political conservatism" in America I think we are more talking about what might be called progressive liberalism (the left wing of the Democratic party) and what might be called Reaganism (the right wing of the Republican party) Beyond that you almost always end up equivocating over the many senses of the terms "liberal" and "conservative." This is how we end up with such oxymoronic statements like "conservative liberal." Part of the problem is that the conservative - liberal taxonomy assumes there are only two views when in fact there are *many* views. (And I'd add that I think this desire for simplicity is itself the cause of many problems) ___ Jacob ___ | Liberals, by definition, want extreme changes of social | structures and they want it right *now*. ___ I think if you read through the link I posted you'll see that the current debate about postmodernism is really about liberals who fit the "conservative" definition you gave above and liberals who want something different. I don't think your use of the term "liberal" is really that helpful. ___ Jacob ___ | Postmodernism, with it's destabilizing arguments and | undermining of authority is very much an easier tool for | liberal politics than for conservative politics. ___ Not at all for the simple case that tradition political liberalism simply disagrees with traditional political conservatism over what the authority is. Both require authority. This is why so many liberals fear postmodernism. It undercuts their claims to authority (a meta-text) as much as anyone else. This is why it shook up both Marxism and Freudianism, as I've mentioned. Further many would say that a kind of laissez-faire competition of ideas and capital is what many mean by "conservatism." Yet that is itself a move against authority. Indeed if you read some of the liberal rhetoric about postmodernism you'll find it is this fear of capitalism into academia that really makes them worry about postmodernism. This is why many of these traditional liberals react by calling postmodernists capitalists or even conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. Really, the battle in academia is quite different than you describe. One need only do a google search of conservatism and postmodernism shows that most of the debate is liberal postmodernists making apologetics of postmodernism so that they *aren't* considered the same as Rush Limbaugh. If your view of postmodernism in English departments is true, why this odd discourse going on at the moment? The fact is that English departments were co-opted by "political liberalism" decades before postmodernism was discovered by the humanities. ___ Jacob ___ | The problem is that conservatives have a single meta-text | (reluctance to implement extreme, rapid change) whereas liberals | as a group have a million sub-texts all working together | without a cohesive framework. ___ As I mentioned your view of conservatism is as problematic as your view of liberalism. It's hard to call the revolution of 1994 and the Contract With America conservative in your use. (Just look at the rhetoric used) Further to seriously argue that conservatives have a single meta-text demonstrates perfectly this rhetorically lumping together of radically different movements. For instance there is often a *huge* gap between social conservatives, such as are found in the "moral majority" and economic conservatives who promote more laissez-faire approaches to government. Most importantly you've changed the terms "liberal" and "conservative" away from either their academic methodology, their ideology, or even their epistemology to a "likes change" vs. "dislikes change." Thus Newt Gingrich is a liberal and the democrats become the conservative party. ___ Jacob ___ | What I want to do is tell people that standards *do* have value | and that postmodernism *needs* the presence of standards to be | useful (postmodernism turned on itself is just too ridiculous | to contemplate seriously). ___ How can postmodernism *not* be turned on itself? I think that your understanding of postmodernism doesn't match mine. Further what do you mean by "standards?" It would seem to me that in academia of *all* places it is most important to question standards. That doesn't mean to simply reject them. As I've said there is a huge difference between skepticism, relativism, cynicism and postmodernism. ___ Jacob ___ | Can't you see why this is frustrating? ___ I can see why you're frustrated. But that's not the issue (as I see it). The problem is how you are analyzing the problem. ___ Jacob ___ | How, exactly, does postmodernism allow for a standard it | doesn't simultaneously undermine? ___ Existence. Repetition is untrustworthy but there is a given. We encounter the world. That fact of encountering is absolute. Might I suggest you read through Jim Faulconer's essay on postmodernism? He goes through a few of these issues. http://www.nd.edu/~rpotter/pomo.html I listed several major postmodernists who speak of this. That you appear unfamiliar with these things which form the rhetorical foundation of postmodernism make one question your attacks on postmodernism. Are you really sure what postmodernism is? Now certainly postmodernism rethinks these things. However these issues have changed in how they have been viewed over time. For instance the change ushered in by Descartes was a massive change over what went before. If you are interested in the issue, I'd suggest looking at Levinas' discussion of ethics as arising from the absolute alterity of the other we encounter. Originally this was discussed in the context of our encountering God, but came to be viewed in terms of our encounter with any person as other. (Other than who we are) Levinas has been a popular thinker at BYU precisely because of how he explains the abolute nature of God. It is a way that allows Mormonism to keep a notion of the absolute without following the mistakes of Hellenism, Scholasticism and Modernism. ___ Jacob ___ | I'm not ignoring the debate--it just hasn't been any use to | get in their ring and use their rules. It's become abundantly | clear that entering a ring owned by your opponent with rules | set by your opponent is a waste of time. ___ In other words your complain has *nothing* to do with postmodernism. It is simply the fact that liberals control most of the humanity departments and don't like conservatives. They don't play fair and so you are upset. It has nothing to do with postmodernism at all but simply office politics. ___ Jacob ___ | What matters is that I see people who cry "academic freedom" | to oppose *my* standards who are simultaneously willing to | subvert "academic freedom" when supporting their own standards. ___ Then why attack postmodernism? Why not just attack people who are hypocrites? This is why this is my pet peeve. It seems like "conservatives" (whatever that means) are upset at not getting a fair shake and so start attacking something unrelated. It doesn't make much sense. It is akin to those suffering economic problems to find some racial group to stereotype for their problems. Conservatives can't (or more likely won't) battle the hegemony in the humanities and so instead look for an academic whipping boy. It is a rather odd phenomena. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 15:44:12 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Jan Karon's Mitford Series Funny stuff, I tried to read the first book, got about 100 pages into it, and dropped it. I don't know if I just wasn't in the mood at the time. I may have to try again. - ----------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:52:04 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance A long time ago Thom Duncan wrote, responding to Margaret Young: > > Further wasn't institutional racism really mainly a manifestation of > > individual racism? Other than structural changes that took place in 1978 > > (the theological nature of which is still debatable) what did the > > institution (rather than individuals) do wrong? > > It allowed the untruths of certain very important Apostles and their > Sons-in-Law to be published with the apparent agreement of the Church. We > realize now that Mormon Doctrine by McConkie contained thousands of > doctrinal errors and even though it was initially quashed, it was eventually > published. Several generations of Mormons were influenced by MD and its > personal opinions posing as official doctrine. The institution (meaning the > Church) could have insisted that the book never be published and even now, > could insist that it be taken off the market. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I may have to reverse myself on the desire to see some sort of direct statement from the Church on (what I see as the error of) the historical priesthood ban. My reasons relate at least partially to Thom's statement here. The Church has largely stayed out of endorsing any particular book--and by extension decrying any particular book. That choice is not unlike the effort to stay out of political or social discussions, as well. Yes, the Church has been known to participate actively in both, but the policy during my generation has been to keep a distance. Perhaps that's because they don't want to issue statement that they'll have apologize for later. Perhaps it's because they don't want to generate more heat on a particular issue that could create divides among members with different ideas on the issue. Maybe it's because the Brethren haven't come to full agreement on the issue and thus can't make a unified statement. Maybe there is no orthodox answer. Maybe it's because the vast majority of issues that people get excited about are a matter of individual choice and not institutional direction. Maybe we have to decide most of this stuff for ourselves, and it's to our ultimate good to be forced to research and pray on our own rather than await an orthodox institutional pronouncement. We've had this discussion before and come to little agreement on what the role of the institution should be; I doubt we'll find resolution on the issue in the near future. But from my perspective it's one of the fundamental questions of our relationship as individuals to the Church--how many of our opinions do we need to have taught from the pulpit? Similarly, how important is it for us as individuals to prove other individuals wrong? It's a difficult question for me. As it turns out, the commonly held belief among the leadership of the Church for many, many years was that Joseph Smith instituted the priesthood ban, yet the earliest specific reference to that policy was offered by Brigham Young sometime in the 1850s (I think). It turns out they were wrong in their assumption, and that they supported a policy based at least partially on incorrect information. Does that invalidate them as men of God trying as hard as they can to do the right thing? I don't think it does. When President Kimball was considering the change in policy it turns out that he asked Brother McConkie to research the question of scriptural or revelatory basis for the policy banning blacks. Brother McConkie came back with the conclusion that there was no actual doctrinal basis for the policy--despite his own very strong opinions on the matter. He learned, he changed, and he supported President Kimball with vigor in his decision to move forward and change the policy. Though he had reservations about mixed race marriages as a social challenge, he fully supported the new policy. Their hearts had changed, and so the policy could also change. It's been argued that the reason for the ban was not because of any alleged premortal unrighteousness by blacks, but as a test for both blacks and whites to see how we would all treat each other within that context--and to see how we would all act when the policy was changed. That makes a lot of sense to me. A lot of people have a hard time with the fact that Church leaders are sometimes just plain wrong, and that fact tests their faith in very serious ways. But what good does it do us to condemn? We've learned better, so now the right answer is to move forward in the light of that new knowledge. I think we often feel betrayed because we trusted the source to be absolutely correct (or at least "most correct") on the subject. But even the GAs are learning. So maybe it's best to leave most issues alone, be they social or political ideas offered in books or talks. If nothing else Brother McConkie taught us to learn the truth of any principle for ourselves, and that even the GAs are not yet perfect in knowledge or works. It's why personal study is still pushed as a critical foundation of a personal testimony. Which is not to say we should mistrust the words of the General Authorities, but rather that we should always seek our own confirmation. So maybe the Church has neither responsibility nor right to issue apologies or statements of regret. But I still think the Church can provide correlated materials that do help explain the context, the facts, and the reasons that led to change. When used as part of a lesson plan on continuing revelation and the evolution of the Church that includes a direct discussion of both the polygamy issue and the priesthood ban. Studying the ways we have changed as a Church is just as important as studying the ways we've stayed the same--and discussing the differences and reasons for each. In the meantime, what I'd *really* like to see is a book published through DB that offers that context in clear terms. The fact is that John Lund's book _The Church and the Negro_ is still accepted by many as doctrine; I would like to see a new book that directly addresses the fallacies and misconceptions that book so eloquently perpetuated. Those ideas reflected the belief of one generation and informed the understanding of at least one more generation. As a new generation seeks wisdom from their fathers, those ideas can be passed on to yet another generation (my father in law lent me the book from his personal library). Part of the problem is that the core doctrinal assumption of Lund's book--that some people were born into black skin (aka, a cursed bloodline) as a consequence of premortal failure--existed only in order to justify the priesthood ban. Remove the ban, and the speculation on premortal righteousness has no purpose. Yet many hold to that doctrine despite it's vague foundations and (now) unclear need. It was a step on the path toward better knowledge; now that we have new knowledge I believe we should directly and clearly discard the less complete reasonings so they can no longer confuse. This can be done with a new book that has the power to inform and educate people in the safety of their private places. Given a few years to perpetuate, these new ideas become common in only a few years. When the official curriculum of the Church reflects that new understanding, a new generation now has a completely fresh foundation on which to develop an even greater understanding. It's through the foundational literature that we learn and change and grow. Some ideas are best offered through historical or doctrinal works; some through fiction or essay. Our struggle to learn more and better is just as important a part of our collective literature as the fact of change or the explication of new understanding. Many struggle to accept and integrate new ideas; fiction and essay have the power to dramatize that struggle and show people that's it's okay to struggle with change. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #793 ******************************