From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #796 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 Wednesday, August 7 2002 Volume 01 : Number 796 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:39:25 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. [MOD: I think Clark raises some interesting questions here about how literary analysis is conducted, potential problems with literary analysis for the believing Mormon, and how content from other fields is/ought/ought not to be used in literary analysis. I'd like to see some of these broader questions discussed, including the experience of others who have inhabited literature departments. (I note, with no disrespect intended, that neither Clark nor Jacob has actually taught in a literature department, nor even I think completed an advanced program.) Come on, all you List members from English et al.; what think ye of all this?] I don't want to say too much, because I think most of my responses would simply be re-iterating what I've already said. There were two small points I wanted to address before dropping the topic though. ___ Jacob ___ | I'll become postmodernist: I think we're talking here of two | different meanings of postmodernism being used interchangeably. ___ Well, we may be equivocating (which isn't really postmodern). However the problem is once again that this second sense of postmodernism is nothing more than "bad scholarship." However *exactly* the same phenomena occurred prior to the popularity of postmodernism in English departments and the humanity. Read a lot of the feminist criticism, or New Criticism, or Mythic Criticism. Most of it is facile, faddish and easy to "fake." The problem isn't postmodernism (of whatever sense of the term). The problem is that English departments tend to do poor scholarship and that the departments are run according popularity contests. That's what I was trying to bring out by pointing out that what these departments are doing now is simply what they did from the 1950's-1970's only with a new name. A couple of days ago I made the point that I think this occurs because of the claim of a literary truth. I'll not repeat that, but I think the problem isn't this faux postmodernism but the humanities in general. That may come off as elitist. But I feel that pretty strongly. To me those silly battles in the BYU English department in the early 90's are really a manifestation of the same thing. I love literature, but I honestly wonder how anyone could handle making that their major. Which is a variation of a question that was raised here a few months ago. How does Mormonism affect how you read literature? I suppose this is just the question of whether literature in academia conflicts with Mormonism. I know that biology has traditionally got the big questions because of Evolution. However it seems to me that English departments and perhaps sociology are the ones with the biggest conflicts. ___ Jacob ___ | Talk to 100 college students who have taken English or | Philosophy courses what postmodernism is and see | which definition you come up with. ___ I think philosophy students would have a much better idea of what it is since they are required to read postmodern authors carefully. (i.e. Heidegger, Derrida, Rorty, etc.) Perhaps someone who has only taken introduction to philosophy. . . ___ Jacob ___ | Better yet, look at the syllabus of 100 college courses that | supposedly teach or are based on postmodernism. ___ I actually do read these sorts of things. Indeed several people have sent me requests for more information because of this thread and I've sent them to those sorts of things. My favorite is the following: http://www.angelfire.com/de/jwp/ By and large I find the stuff about postmodernism on the web is quite good. No worse than what you find on Descartes, Nietzsche, Kant or others. (Which isn't to say there isn't a lot of garbage - but that's true of anything.) What is so amazing to me is how many *good* analysis of literature there are out there using postmodernism. For instance here are a few I liked on Shakespeare after just a few seconds on google. I haven't seen too many really bad "political" ones. (Which http://eserver.org/emc/1-2/degrazia.html http://www.eastern.edu/academic/trad_undg/sas/depts/english/SiriThesis.htm Anyway, in terms of what is written I simply don't see *that* big a problem. Yeah I'd hate to be in an English department. Yeah there are plenty of small obscure journals that appear to exist only to fill out associate professor's vita regardless of quality. But there are lots of interesting criticism written. And I *honestly* don't see it particularly worse today than in the days when other forms of criticism were the "fad." - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 01:37:09 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Programs for Poverty [MOD: This has been an interesting conversation; however, I'd like to suggest that any further discussion come back, somehow, to something more connected to Mormon literature...] - ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen > > Me, a couple weeks ago: > > >> 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. > > Jacob threw down this particular gauntlet, and then, poor > man, had to wait while his opponent skulked off to > Disneyland. (Actually, we went to Northern California, so it > was Paramount's Great America, but same diff.) I've been keeping myself busy annoying Clark. Probably just as well you were away... > Still, there > that ol' gauntlet is, laying there on the ground. May I > please beg the indulgence of our esteemed moderator, and > offer a response to Jacob's challenge? > > When we think of 'government welfare,' most people focus on > just a few, controversial programs: ADC (Aid to Dependent > Children) and food stamps probably top the list. Those > programs have been both attacked and defended,and attacking > or defending them may be the most significant difference > between the political right and left. I believe that some of > those programs have been successful and can be defended, but > they're not quite what I have in mind; they're not clearly, > obviously successful. You've opened up the discussion to *all* government programs--many of which weren't primarily aimed at alleviating poverty. As such, you've opened this up to government bad vs. government good and that's too large for the list--or at least too large for me. Also, you snipped my further explanation that describes why I make the statement so blanket and why I don't think even *Church* programs alleviate poverty, either. > Far more successful would be some of the following (and I'm > only going to describe a few): > > Rural Electrification, the REA and the TVA and similar > programs. > Headstart and school lunch programs. > Pell grants, GSL's and other student loan programs. > FHA, Fannie Mae, and other housing loan programs. > Civil rights laws and enforcement agencies: > The GI Bill, and VA. > I could name a hundred more brilliantly successful government > programs that alleviate poverty. Some are controversial, > like labor laws. I'm very pro-union; some people aren't, so > I usually don't like to list them. But for my grandfather, > the steel workers union is the single biggest reason he was > able to rise from poverty. Some of those are just fine, some less so, none of them alleviate poverty. Certainly not long-term. Again, I explained this before when I said that programs don't alleviate poverty. Poverty is alleviated by changes of heart and work and growth. > >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. > > Interesting, since King Benjamin absolutely prohibits our > saying that the poor are to blame for their poverty. No he doesn't. He prohibits us from withholding our substance from the poor who are threatened by death if they don't get assistance. He tells us that we are not allowed to say that someone deserves to *die* just because they made poor decisions. Life is more important than teaching some moral lesson to people not ready/willing/likely to learn. > >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 define poor as people who go to bed hungry on a fairly > regular basis. You had people like that in your ward? So much so that you'd describe them as a majority? > > 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 don't put much stock in 'em either. I think the government > poverty index is fatally flawed, in that it indexes poverty > to food costs, not housing costs. I think there are far more > poor people in America than official government statistics > suggest, and that they're getting a lot poorer a lot faster > than we currently suspect. Either measurement is flawed. If you define poor people as those who go to bed hungry on a regular basis, I think you'd be hard pressed to a) come up with a way to measure them and b) find very many in the U.S. at all. Barring children who are dependent on their parents/guardians for food and shelter, people in the U.S. who go to bed hungry regularly are doing so out of choice. Too many programs exist for the express purpose of giving people free food for people to go hungry on a regular basis. I don't know of *any* who fit that description. And if you have a hard time with rising housing costs, give it another year--maybe less. There's a glut right now brought on by over-investment and speculation that is due for a correction. Talk to people in construction right now and you'll find that jobs are increasingly scarce and workers are having to be more mobile to remain employed. Bad enough when caused by an honest growth slowdown, but we've also had a period of speculation (where owners leverage equity to purchase more real estate because, hey, real estate always goes up, right? Just like stocks do . . .) Pursued too avidly, it leads to self-sustaining price inflation that eventually runs out only to have those prices fall dramatically (and people who owe $300,000 find themselves with $100,000 worth of real estate). That's what we've seen in the last three to five years and has caused what you see in housing prices. It'll reset soon and those prices will go down--probably dramatically. I think it has already plateaued with housing costs stabilizing and time on market extending (some three times longer or so as far as I can tell). > >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". > > Some things are obvious; drug and alcohol addictions > obviously hold a lot of folks back. If there's a single > demonstrable failure among all government programs for the > poor, it would be current drug laws, which provide for > absurdly draconion penalties for minor drug offenses, ruining > the lives of thousands of young people who, because of a > single mistake, become career criminals. Frankly, I agree with you here, but I have to be careful because I'm not a drug-legalization advocate. I just think the penalties are disproportionate, particularly in practice. Functionally, drug use carries penalties harsher than dealing (because dealers have more leverage for plea bargains and higher up dealers have enough money to hire better lawyers and/or elude authorities). > But aside from > that, I would say two things hold folks back, make it > impossible for the working poor to escape poverty: chld care, > and housing expenses. Those two expenses just eat people up. > I've seen it hundred times, people (usually women, sometimes > single women, but not always) work long hours with great > diligence, but can't get ahead for a second, because of the > difficulty finding decent child care or decent housing. A > third huge expense is medical; you can survive for awhile > without health insurance, but every day you're rolling the > dice. So then one day, you roll your ankle, and suddenly any > progress you've made is lost. Housing is harsh, but then, people's standards have risen enough in the last three decades that it doesn't have to be--the vast majority of people today live in houses that are larger and have more amenities than the houses their parents had at the same stage in life. It'd be a *lot* easier to afford housing if you had the same standard as they had before. Child care is voluntary--at least, for the *vast* majority of cases. Raising children is a choice and I cringe at the heartless, selfish decisions that thrust children into day care so young and so long. The third is trickier because health care *is* expensive and our system is messed up in huge ways--mostly because those choosing the service are not those paying the costs. Having a baby with a full week hospital stay used to be affordable to the vast majority of people who could pay it out of pocket (more or less). Not hardly possible any more. Insurance started out a good idea, but like unions, they've drifted so far in their current implementations that they've become part of the *problem* and are no longer a part of the solution. > I'd suggest some further reading. A great book on welfare > is a recent one, LynNell Hancock's Hands to Work. Barbara > Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed is terrific. There are any > number of far more scholarly works, the titles of which I > can't remember right now. Why? Are you assuming that my problem is education? That if I knew what you know that I'd agree with you? That isn't often the case, as much as it is often the assumption. I know it is *hard*. I know that people struggle. I know what it costs to live and I know what it is like to live on poverty-level income. My dad went back to school (BYU Law School) with 7 children and my mom didn't work outside our home. He graduated with *9* children. It was probably pretty hard on them, but it wasn't on us kids because they did what had to be done and made it through. Since I'm the oldest, my memory of that time is relatively sharp and I can tell you that we didn't go to bed hungry and we didn't really know how little money we had. We had a good home, friends, faith, and we learned the things we needed to know to become responsible adults. > >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. > > Not so. The bishop's handbook is filled with programs that > he can recommend to struggling families. Seriously, bishops > can't counsel families to send their kids to Headstart, or to > apply for an FHA loan? Nonsense. Again, you're equating > 'welfare' with 'ADC'. Actually, you missed the clarifications by Jonathan that showed just what you say. Church policy is to use the resources you have available and to use any outside sources in such a way as to promote self-reliance. I was wrong in my interpretation of the more limited documents I have as resources. > >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. > > How can you possibly say this? He's the king. L'etat c'est > moi. He's the head of the executive branch of government. > He's probably also the entire legislative branch. He's > probably also a one man judicial branch. He's the government. And his vocabulary is all chosen with individuals in mind. Where he could have said "a man" he said "you", and where he could have said "your king" he said "I". He wasn't speaking from organization to collective, he was talking from person to person. At least, that's my interpretation of the address, and I think it is a fully supportable one. > Look, I like Jacob, and I think he's a friend, and our > differences on these questions are, I hope, the differences > of friends. But as Mormon culture has become increasingly > conservative, so have conservative ideas begun to permeate > our culture. This is not a bad thing. But it becomes a very > bad thing when we begin to conflate our own personal > political agendas with the culture itself, or, heaven > forfend, the gospel. And that, frankly, is an interesting > subject for writers, especially writers who have a political > bent. What is the relationship between culture and Truth? > What is the relationship between conservatism and Mormonism? > As a writer, I'm interested in the interstices of those > relationships. Me too, which is why I enjoy your ideas, even when we disagree. LDS culture *is* very conservative, and exploring the relationship between culture and Truth is not only interesting, I think it is crucial. An idea I stole from the movie "Pleasantville"--worthwhile flick altogether. It may be all well and good to hire the wagon driver who doesn't know how close to the edge he can get (because his job is to stay as far away from it as possible). But *somebody* had better be walking up to the edge to take a peek over now and again or you'll risk more than a wagon--you'll risk the whole wagon train and closing down important infrastructure if the edge was undercut and nobody knew it. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 08:42:15 -0600 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Chaim Potok Dies When Potok visited BYU, he said his work was greeted with "ambivalence" in the orthodox Jewish community (though I'm sure the ultra-orthodox Hasidic community would've been less "ambivalent" and likely quite harsh.) My impression was not that he was an outcast (he was an ordained rabbi), but not fully accepted--rather like Maurine Whipple in our own culture. I recall his discussion _My Name is Asher Lev_ to a group of Jewish mothers, one of whom had a singular question about Asher's choice of art (the portrayal of his own parents being crucified): "But why would he want to hurt his parents like that?" [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 10:52:52 EDT From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias In a message dated 8/6/02 10:51:06 PM Mountain Standard Time, ersamuel@byugate.byu.edu writes: > One final salvo: > > >In the eighties when taxes went down charitable giving rose much > >more sharply than ever before. > > Sure. Makes for a nice tax deduction. Private charitable giving is > subsidized by the government. It is, in short, a government program. > > Eric Samuelsen > > Glen Sudbury Writes: Just because the government gives a tax deduction for various personal spending items such as private charitable giving, private or home education, tithing, or any 501 3C foundation or corporation does not make it a government program unless one has made the assumption that all money belongs to the government and it gets to deside how we will spend it. Maybe that is not what you're saying here, but it strikes me as a bit of a stretch to say my church contributions being a tax deduction makes the Church, "in short" or in long a Government program . - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 09:00:49 -0600 From: margaret young Subject: [AML] re: Institutional Repentance I'm going to do an unusual thing and let you see a small portion of t= he last installment of _Standing on the Promises_. I do this because I'= m reading various reports of who did what research and see that nobody = so far has a sense of just how extensive the research was on the subject= of blacks and the priesthood. Not only did Bruce McConkie research it, EVERY MEMBER OF THE TWELVE did. In addition, President Kimball asked= a number of people, often during interviews for leadership positions, w= hat they thought of the issue, and what they thought would happen were blacks to be given priesthood rights. This is not a final draft, but= it might give you an idea of some of what preceded the revelation. It a= ll reinforces the idea that we must study out an issue in our minds befo= re expecting revelation. President Kimball's son, Ed, gave me much of t= he information. BEGINNING OF PASSAGE: I wonder if you remember Spencer Kimball like I do. He was round, mostly bald, and had big ears and thick glasses. Most the world wouldn=92t call him handsome. Then again, most the world looks on th= e outward appearance, not the heart. That man=92s heart made him beautiful. By this year, his voice had been plundered by cancer, and his damaged heart was familiar with the operating table. He was old = and he was weak in many ways, but strong in the most important. I can st= ill picture him making his slow way to the Salt Lake temple day after day= , solemn as the spires above. He=92d climb to the fourth floor, and a= fter everyone else was gone, there he=92d kneel and pour out his heart to = God, wanting only what God wanted. He knew a possibility lay before the Church which would matter in all nations. It was as important as wha= t Paul learned the day he was told to carry the gospel to the gentiles: that what God had cleansed no man should call common. Brother Spence= r knew he could receive revelation=96if he was ready to. "Lord , he prayed, I want only what is right. We are not making any plans to be spectacularly moving. We want only the thing that thou d= ost want, and we want it when you want it and not until." Besides making those many petitions to the Almighty, he asked each member of the Twelve to research the issue, to review what all the ea= rly leaders had said, and to search the scriptures. They all had to stud= y this out in their minds. Such was part of opening their hearts and e= ars to whatever God would tell them. For months, the First Presidency and the Twelve talked over these matters in the temple, and President Kimball met with each apostle to hear what he had to say on the subject. It was Thursday, June first, that the general authorities were holdi= ng their regular monthly fast and testimony meeting. When dismissal tim= e came, the members of the Seventy and the Presiding Bishopric were excused, but President Kimball asked the apostles if they=92d be will= ing to remain in the temple. The time was come. In that raspy, tender growl, President Kimball as= ked each of these men to tell how they felt, what they had learned, how t= hey should proceed. For over two hours they talked, and bonded in a unit= y we all ought to feel. Each man understood that the Lord was in char= ge, and they were dependent on Him. They surrounded the temple altar. Spencer Kimball himself requested = to be the voice. He knelt and pleaded with God to make his mind and wil= l known. He begged for direction which could move the Church forward a= nd open the borders so we could take the gospel to all nations, kindreds and tongues, that the fullness of the restoration could be given all men, based only on their worthiness, not their race or color. He tol= d the Lord if it wasn't right, if this change was not to come in the Church, that he would be true to the policy all the rest of his life, and fight the world against it if that's what was required. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 08:20:16 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias on 8/6/02 11:05 AM, Eric R. Samuelsen at ersamuel@byugate.byu.edu wrote: > One final salvo: > >> In the eighties when taxes went down charitable giving rose much >> more sharply than ever before. > > Sure. Makes for a nice tax deduction. Private charitable giving is > subsidized by the government. It is, in short, a government program. > > Eric Samuelsen Wrong-oh. When they kept more of their money instead of having it stolen by the government they were more charitable in general. The rate went from 70% to 28%. Charitable deductions don't make the difference. The amount the gov got went up too--doubled in nine years, way beyond inflation. Best of all the top 1/%'s share of taxes went from 18% to 39% in 1989. Paid more to the government too. Forced government charity is not the same as the voluntary kind. Ole King Benjamin didn't confiscate at the point of the sword and then redistribute. He set a good example and preached. Not the same thing at all. I've read a number of books where merchants are particularly singled out as those who never give charity. It's so common that it's a cliche in historical fiction and fantasy. If you go back a little and look at real history, however, you'll find that merchants were always the most generous of the wealthy. Once upon a time the truth was more recognized. Jane Austen's Emma was proud and silly, but spent many hours helping the less fortunate. Ivanhoe fought for Rebecca without thought of reward. Both were upper middle class, of course, but Ebenezer Scrooge hadn't been invented yet so it was more natural to be truthful rather than cajoling. Of course my only contact with Ebenezer Scrooge is in literature and movies. Never met such a person--I know CEOs and lots of wealthy Republicans and not one of them is remotely similar. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 10:07:57 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Education Week Get-Together At 06:05 PM 8/6/02 +0000, you wrote: >Also, I got paltry few suggestions for an eating establishment. Please, >please, if you're familiar with the Provo/Orem area, could you suggest >something? I'm leaning more towards Orem so that we can escape the Ed. >Week crowds, but make a suggestion. Prestwich Farms in Orem has a separate room for large parties. They serve what I consider a good variety of foods, so if you don't like one kind of ethnic food, you're not out of luck. (I, for example, dislike Mexican food and Indian food.) We'd need to know how many people plan to attend and then find out if the room is large enough. barbara - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:49:30 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: RE: [AML] Unsavory Etymologies I think you're right Eric. I must say that the word grates on my nerves. It's not one we use in our homes, hear at church, or even with most of our non-member friends. But when I'm in the store, at the library, on the street...whatever, I hear it a lot. It's more routine than commas or periods. Especially with young males--age 6 and up. Tracie Laulusa > > I think the F word isn't a swear word anymore. It's become casual conversational. > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:27:46 -0700 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance Here is what I found in my research of the Priesthood Revelation in 1978. I feel it is from good authority, and I do not believe those people who are in the position of leadership in the church are in the habit of lying. ___________________________- Few things have had a greater impact on the gospel's worldwide progress than did the revelation received in 1978 through President Spencer W. Kimball extending the blessing of the to members of all races. Over the years, Blacks had been free to join the Church and were welcomed at its activities, but they could not receive the . Latter-day Saints accepted this as inspired, but it increasingly became the subject of criticism and attacks, especially during the widespread agitation for civil rights in the 1960s. A few, even within the Church, tauntingly suggested that the Prophet should "receive a revelation" to change the policy. Significantly, however, the revelation did not come in the face of these pressures, but it came in due course over a decade later when such agitation had largely ceased. Just as had been the case in 1890, divine revelation rather than external pressures brought the important change. Over a period of several months the General Authorities discussed at length in their regular temple meetings the matter of extending the blessings of the priesthood. In addition to these deliberations, President Kimball frequently went to the temple, particularly on Saturdays and Sundays when he could be in that holy place alone in order to plead for guidance. "I want to be sure," he later reflected. In recalling the events associated with this time period, President Kimball explained: I remember very vividly that day after day I walked to the temple and ascended to the fourth floor where we have our solemn assemblies and where we have our meetings of the Twelve and the First Presidency. After everybody had gone out of the temple, I knelt and prayed. I prayed with much fervency. I knew that something was before us that was extremely important to many of the children of God. I knew that we could receive the revelations of the Lord only by being worthy and ready for them and ready to accept them and put them into place. Day after day I went alone and with great solemnity and seriousness in the upper rooms of the temple, and there I offered my soul and offered my efforts to go forward with the program. I wanted to do what he wanted. I talked about it to him and said, "Lord, I want only what is right. We are not making any plans to be spectacularly moving. We want only the thing thou dost want, and we want it when you want it and not until." On 1 June 1978, nearly all the General Authorities gathered, fasting, for their regular monthly meeting in the temple. After this three-hour session which was filled with spiritual uplift and enlightenment, President Kimball invited his counselors and the Twelve to remain while the other General Authorities were excused. When the First Presidency and the Twelve were alone, he again brought up the possibility of conferring the priesthood on worthy brethren of all races. He expressed the hope that there might be a clear answer received one way or the other. "At this point," Elder Bruce R. McConkie recalled, "President Kimball asked the brethren if any of them desired to express their feelings and views as to the matter at hand. We all did so, freely and fluently and at considerable length, each person stating his views and manifesting the feelings of his heart. There was a marvelous outpouring of unity, oneness, and agreement in the council." After a two-hour discussion, President Kimball asked the group to unite in formal prayer and modestly suggested that he act as voice. He recalled: I told the Lord if it wasn't right, if He didn't want this change to come in the Church that I would be true to it all the rest of my life, and I'd fight the world . . . if that's what He wanted. . . . I had a great deal to fight, myself largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life till my death and fight for it and defend it as it was. But this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it. Elder McConkie further described the occasion: It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. . . . And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord. Reflecting on this experience, President Spencer W. Kimball and President Ezra Taft Benson and others of the Twelve concurred that none "had ever experienced anything of such spiritual magnitude and power as was poured out upon the Presidency and the Twelve that day in the upper room in the house of the Lord." During the following week, an official announcement of this revelation was prepared under President Kimball's direction. On 9 June 1978, this inspired announcement was approved by the General Authorities and was issued to the public. "As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth," the Brethren declared, "we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords." Witnessing "the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld," Church leaders pleaded "long and earnestly" in behalf of these people. "He [the Lord] has heard our prayers," the Brethren affirmed, "and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings off the temple" (Official Declaration 2). This revelation was approved at the fall general conference that year, and was added to the Doctrine and Covenants as "Official Declaration 2" in the new 1981 section. The impact of this revelation was far-reaching. Faithful black Latter-day rejoiced as they received long-hoped-for ordination to the priesthood, mission calls, calls to serve in bishoprics or stake presidencies, and, of course, the eternal blessings of the temple. In November 1978, just five months after the revelation came, the First Presidency called two experienced couples to open missionary work in the black nations of Nigeria and Ghana. Source: Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture, Vol. 1: The Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1989], 570.) ___________________ Isn't this the Lords plan to teach every kindred tongue and people the plan of salvation and the gospel of Jesus Christ? This is what we need to be writing about instead of arguing over whether or not our early prophets made any mistakes. Of course they made mistakes. We all do. That is what we are here for. No mortal, save Jesus, was ever on this earth in a perfect state of grace. We come to earth to learn how to apply principles of righteousness. The process of learning requires that we make mistakes, and hopefully we learn from those mistakes. Fortunately the ban on the priesthood, no matter what its source has been lifted by God, acting through his prophets, seers. and revelators. God is in charge, and with his help we will get the job done, if we all work together and quit bickering. Regards, Bill Willson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 14:28:42 -0700 From: "Kathy Fowkes" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" [MOD: Kathy raises a very interesting and I think important question here about whether emotions really are spiritually neutral, etc. I'd like to see some further discussion of this point--including how it applies to literature intended (for example) to invoke feelings of fear--e.g., horror stories. Let's have a good, rousing--but respectful--discussion.] >>With all due respect to the idea of music being neutral--hogwash. >>Who hasn't seen a baby calm down with a soothing lullaby? Hasn't >everyone >>heard a particularly jammin' song and couldn't help but tap their feet >when >>it came on the radio? >I mean, it's all morally neutral. Of course music is effective; that's why we like it so much. That's >why we love it. Different sorts of sounds evoke different emotions. I just think all >those emotions are morally neutral, and that's why they'd better be spiritually neutral. Otherwise >we'd only be able to feel the Spirit when we felt certain emotions, whereas we need the Spirit >during all emotional states. >Eric Samuelsen I know, Eric, that you will be able to talk circles around me on this one, but I disagree on some very fundamental levels. During my depression years I found it extremely difficult to feel the Spirit due to the great degree of despair and fear I was in. When I reached a point where I was no longer in that state, my ability to hear the Spirit increased. Even now, ten years (plus) later, if I'm in a place of fear, anger, obstinancy (pride), hate, or any combination or type of these, my ability to hear the Spirit is lessened. To whatever degree I am in a place of these negative emotions, that is the degree the Spirit cannot get through to me. Emotions like these are so loud in their clamour in one's heart, and the cacaphony of blaming, yelling, accusing, and vengeful dialogue is so loud in one's mind, that the Spirit just can't get through. Negative emotions that come under the "headings" so to speak of hate, fear, pride, and anger (a hopeless despair includes all of these) harden one's heart to the Spirit. Love, faith, joy, peace, or even a *desire* to feel these things (because that desire is a step toward God rather than away from Him) softens the heart, and allows the Spirit to flow more freely and be heard more clearly. See 2 Tim 1:7, and the topical guide under fear, hardhearted, stiffnecked, and/or pride. Emotions are never neutral in terms of being able to feel and hear the Spirit, and music, because of its ability to evoke those emotions, is also not neutral, unless it is never played, or never heard. Is it even true music if it is never heard, never played? To me, essentially deaf to written music, it is only markings on a page, until it is played. It only becomes real and meaningful when heard by a listening ear and a heart that responds. I also looked up 'song' in the topical guide -- I don't even begin to comprehend the meaning of music to our Father in Heaven, and how it was used in the Israelites' relationship with God, but what I saw in the OT alone makes me certain that to Him, music is definitely not neutral. Is there a book that discourses knowledgably on the OT and song? On a different note, 2 Chronicles 29:27 says, "And when the burnt offering began, the song of the LORD began also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained by David king of Israel." But I doubt I'll see anyone playing the trumpet in Sacrament Meeting any time soon. I sure wish I could have heard that guitar though! That is an instrument I sorely miss in church. (Catholic mass...the nuns played guitar a LOT when I was growing up.) Kathy Fowkes - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #796 ******************************