From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #799 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 12 2002 Volume 01 : Number 799 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:49:59 -0700 From: "Tait Family" Subject: Re: [AML] Request for Prayers If you'll indulge a personal note on a personal note, I feel compelled to respond to this thread. My grandmother, Wanda Snow Petersen (whom I have mentioned as having been a friend of Virginia Sorenson and Sam Taylor) died early this morning. She suffered a stroke three weeks ago, a week before my children and I returned to Texas after a month-long visit. We had arrived in late June, just in time for a wonderful 90th birthday celebration, which she, and we, enjoyed very much. Truly there are not many left like Grandma anymore. Her parents were both children of polygamy. She grew up on a dirt farm in Wellington, Utah, and mostly raised her own family there, too. No running water or electricity in their home until the mid-1940s, and then the new house burned down and they had to start over. Grandpa had a debilitating stroke in 1956, and the next year they sold the farm and moved to American Fork, where Grandma dug right in as a much-loved elementary school teacher and president of everything she ever joined (including Pen Women and League of Utah Writers). She was gifted with children, with a firm sense of what their limits and opportunities ought to be--something that is rare indeed. After she retired in 1977, she traveled--China, the South Seas, Russia, Israel, Scandinavia, a semester abroad in London and Europe with BYU students young enough to be her grandchildren. We were forever picking her up and dropping her off at the airport. She wrote letters and brought home gifts and we all gathered for the obligatory slide show. The other thing she did after she retired was write. She wrote her autobiography and then book after book about various ancestors and family stories. In this, perhaps, she was the most typical of all Mormon writers--answering the charge to preserve our family histories, always mindful to show the faith and virtues of our forebears. She financed publication of her books by taking out loans--virtually the only enterprise that she ever borrowed money for. She tried to sell them, but I am sure she ended up paying back most of the loans herself. She leaves no estate of any monetary value, but that's because she spent her earthly wealth on things of much greater value. She used to tell us, 'I'd rather give you money for something important now than save it up for when I die." Grandma was my mother in many respects--my own mother, her daughter, being unwell. As I have mourned this week, I have not taken comfort in the scriptures or in prayer as much as I have found solace in poetry. Gerard Manley Hopkins: "Margaret are you grieving/over golden grove unleaving?.../Tis the blight man was born for/ Tis Margaret you mourn for." And Seamus Heaney's exquisite sonnets "Clearances," written at his mother's death: "Then she was dead,/ The searching for a pulsebeat was abandoned/And we all knew one thing by being there./The space we stood around had been emptied/ Into us to keep, it penetrated/ Clearances that suddenly stood open. / High cries were felled and a pure change happened." Thanks for listening. Lisa Tait - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 15:13:56 -0600 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. Barbara wrote: I think I'm glad I'm no longer teaching English at a university. I also think that if I never hear the word "post-modernism" again, it won't be too soon. One of my BYU students said in class that Postmodernism, if taught correctly and understood correctly, could really teach people humility, since one of the main ideas contained in postmodern perspectives is the fact that human knowledge can't really grasp truth. This student said that people who think they can use their intellect to come to a true knowledge of things are basically trusting in the arm of flesh. I think that young woman was right. I also told her and the whole class that Moroni's take on language is just like Derrida's. He said that the Book of Mormon would be more accurate if it hadn't been translated so many times in the writing process. The Book of Mormon has missing texts, fragments, and Borgesian compilor/editor as a central authoring identity, and nested, interlocking narratives (especially in the Book of Mosiah -- track all the narrator shifts in the book, I dare you. I did it once, and it was really cool). I sure am glad that I DO teach in a university. That way I get to hear the word "postmodernism" once or twice every day, if I'm lucky. Then when I go home for Family Home Evening and discuss Michael Ondaatje, Andrew Goldsworthy, and Jasper Johns with my wife, or talk Francis Bacon (the painter) with my bishop during a temple recommend interview, I can feel like I'm already up to speed. More postmodernism please, that way I'll be humble enough to do anything. - -- Todd - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 17:32:34 -0600 (MDT) From: Fred C Pinnegar Subject: Re: [AML] Invoking Emotions And that is my favorite picture of Him--knoting those cords and working up a good solid streak of righteous indignation to go after those guys in the temple. Reminds me of a line from a great poem by Rob Carney called "That Bad . . . God from the old days appeared to me in the form of a 40-gallon hat:" He says "Stand warned: I've been diagnosed "predisposed," meaning likely not to put up with crap." Infinitely better than those pictures of the young girl Jesus preaching to the elders in the temple that the nineteenth century loved or Jesus the Viking, as Arthur Henry King called him, in the red robe. As the Carney poem suggests, there is something Old Testamentish--as it properly should be, given our understanding of Jehovah--about Christ that we must reconcile with any perception of him as the Prince of Peace. Fred Pinnegar > > There is only one emotion that I believe is not morally or spiritually > > neutral--anger. > > Think about Christ rebuking the folks outside the temple? Joseph Smith > rebuking the guards at Liberty? Strong emotions both. Was the spirit not > present at those times. > > I think Mormons have a misconception that anger is not a Chirst-like > emotion. Anger toward sin and hypocrites -- you can't get more Christ-like > than that. The uncontrolled anger due to pride is the bad kind. > > Thom > > > > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 17:59:40 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Programs for Poverty - ---Original Message From: Harlow Clark > > On Tues, 6 Aug 2002 Eric Samuelsen wrote: > > 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. > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 Jacob Proffitt replied: > > > 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. > > Or perhaps those books are studies of poverty programs that > do work, since an assertion that programs don't work to > alleviate poverty implies a request for counter-examples. Based on their titles, they appear to be about how poor people are subject to lots of costs that keep them poor. Not that I object to the premise that people have a lot they have to pay for, but I'm not likely to move from there to the corollary that those costs are responsible for keeping people poor. And I'm not saying I *won't* read them. In my own, brash way that was my attempt to solicit more information about the books to clarify the intent and usefulness of reading them (and stating factors that would play against possible assumptions). Looking at it now, it looks more challenging than I meant it to be, though accurate. > I can think of two very good examples, micro-credit lending and > the Perpetual Education Fund. A year ago this spring I went > to the dentist before my newly laid off dental benefits > expired. I wondered whether to take Martin Cruz Smith's > Stallion Gate or Muhammad Yunus's Banker to the Poor in with me. Two wonderful programs. Again, though, my point is that the key to escaping poverty isn't the program, but the change of heart. And I'm rethinking that point, really. I mean that might be well and good in the United States, but I think both the Perpetual Education Fund and micro-loans are good examples of programs that depend first on people changing themselves, then leverages their determination to lift themselves out of poverty. In other words, it seems to me that the people couldn't escape poverty without the programs and can with them. That indicates an inability to leave poverty without that aid. Pretty convincing. I think it's less applicable for those of us who live in the United States, but it certainly undermines my fundamental argument that programs *can't* be key in the process. The right attitude has to exist--that's crucial and without it no program is going to be successful. But I'm thinking that there are instances where the right attitude is not enough and some outside assistance is needed. I'm relatively confident that such assistance is not needed in the U.S. with our higher wages and existing infrastructure, but since my fundamental argument needs amendment, I'm not opposed to amending further. One fundamental I *will* hold on to is that any program that desires to help the poor escape poverty needs to be down in the trenches with them, understand the situation thoroughly, and bring motivation and attitude into the decision-making process (all of which are fundamental to micro-loans and the PEF). > On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 15:43:56 -0600 "Jacob Proffitt" > > writes: > > ---Original Message From: Ivan Angus Wolfe > > > What is odd to me is how this seems to get translated by > the local > > > leaders (nearly all of whom I've been noticing are doctors and > > > lawyers) to "have no debt at all - and invest all your money." > > > > Well, not an entirely inappropriate message. Whether you're a > > doctor, lawyer, brick layer, convenience store clerk, computer > > programmer, whatever, it's by far best to have no debt at all and > > invest as much as you can. > > > > > Any debt *is* bad. Even debt on a house isn't a happy thing and is > > best avoided. Sure, all things in measure, but with debt, > there just > > isn't much to recommend it. Debt, like alcohol and cigarettes, is a > > way of making short-term, seemingly beneficial decisions that bind > > you to long-term detrimental effects. > > While I don't have much argument with either of these (though > I'm hardly > debt-free) I'm not debt-free, either. My comments are at least partially aimed at myself. > Anyway, after thinking about all these big corporations > cooking or half-cooking their books, words about the virtues > of investing all you can seem a little naive, and I keep > remembering the adage, 'Don't invest more than you can afford > to lose.' I'm not advocating that we invest blindly, and I'm not saying that investing is some panacea that is good all by itself. I'll attempt to clarify: First, all debt is bad, but sometimes situations arise where you have to choose bad vs. worse. More on that below where you make that same argument. Second, investing is a good idea, but not everything we call investing is good. Unfortunately, many people approach investing in such a way that they might just as well be playing the lottery. "Real" investing means allocating your money wisely. After debts are paid and needed living expenses, some money should go to savings for liquidity in emergencies. Some should go to planned future expenses. All of it should be engaged with a goal in mind and placed accordingly. Money is a big part of our lives and I've come to assume that God means us to learn essential lessons from things that large. Personally, I think the lessons involved (in learning how money works) concern overcoming ignorance, fear, and/or greed. Overcoming ignorance, fear, and greed is hard, but required by wise stewardship. As such, our financial decisions should be based on our understanding, our future needs, and our current assets. > There's a literary aspect to this, if you think about > investing and debt as competing social narratives, and think > about the narrative strategies people use to try and convince > us to do either one, but there's a more direct literary > tie-in when I think about Jacob's comment, "Any debt *is* bad." > > My work requires a computer. If I can't type my stories at > home I have to go somewhere where other people also want to > use a computer. The travel and waiting for that other > computer is not a good use of time, so my wife and sister > gave me some money for my birthday, which covered about 40% > of the cost of a new computer. I decided to buy it on credit > because I would spend less on interest than on gas and time > to drive or pedal a disk of stories over to American Fork if > I waited to buy until I had all the money. So in that sense I > suppose my debt is my investment, the thing that allows me to > continue my literary production, and, I hope, get rid of a > lot of my other debt. Like I said above, there are a lot of things that are bad and sometimes we must choose between them. Debt for capital investment (as in a computer) is sometimes warranted. I don't regret the student loans accumulated for my education (well, the *amount* wasn't justified, but the fact of them was). I *do* regret frivolous expenses that have been added to my debt load. It wouldn't have been bad to forgo a DVD player a couple of months so I entered a bad debt with no counter-balancing worse (not being able to watch DVDs hardly counts as a bad thing, really). Not being able to make a living, or having to undergo the costs of training for another career might very well be bad enough to offset the bad of having some additional debt. Maybe. My main point is that we acknowledge that debt is bad and that we not make financial decisions in ignorance or based on fear or greed. The biggest trouble with making those trade-offs is that too many people aren't sufficiently aware of the price of debt. The payments *seem* to be small and the benefits seem large. It can *seem* to be a good thing and worth entering, but too often there is insufficient weight given to future costs. > "But if you go out into the real world you cannot miss seeing > that the poor are poor not because they are untrained or > illiterate but because they cannot retain the returns of > their labor. They have no control over capital, and it is the > ability to control capital that gives people the power to > rise out of poverty." --Muhammad Yunus, _Banker to the Poor_, > p. 141. Yunus also said, It is not the poor who are > uncreditworthy, but the banks who are unpeopleworthy. I'm wondering what Yunus thinks is keeping people from controlling capital? Why can't people control the returns of their labor? Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 19:26:30 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Polemical Style (was: Newspaper Wars) - ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen > > Marianne never even tries to be fair or reasonable. > She's pure vitriol, all the time. I'm a little concerned that we fall into the same errors we attribute to others. I think Marianne Jennings is too polemic. She sometimes is deceptive and I certainly wish she'd moderate herself to, well, the truth. But this statement goes too far. Nobody is pure vitriol all the time and I would hope that our criticisms not only attempt to be accurate but kind as well. Her columns misrepresent others, true, and assume the worst from others and she engages in unwarranted alarmism that I disagree with wholly. The lesson there is that, even if you disagree with her you don't partake of the same faults of exaggeration and misrepresentation. > She just despises > 'liberals,' especially those found in Hollywood or academia. > (And, of course, there are plenty of kooky liberals in > Hollywood or academe, I don't deny that at all). And, here's > the thing, I think she thinks she's funny. I think she > thinks that accusing Bert and Ernie of being gay role models > on Sesame Street is funny, that that's what passes for > satirical wit in her particular corner of the political > right. But it's funny like those really aggressive t-shirts > you see at county fairs are funny, the kind that say "I go > from zero to horny in 6.8 beers." I don't think she thinks its funny at all. If she did, she wouldn't prevent her children from watching Sesame Street. She's in earnest, as much as others think that's funny. At least, as much as I can gauge her motivation. > At the same time, I should say two things about her. I do > read her. I read her column every week. Every Monday, I try > to take a double dosage of my blood pressure medication, > because Monday is Marianne day, and I know I'm going to read > her column, even though it's bad for me. She's sort of > fascinating. I do find myself wondering what silly nonsense > she's going to spout (as offensively as possible) this week. Again, I think this is a mischaracterization. She may state things as extreme as possible (I think that might be true), but I don't think she is trying to be as *offensive* as possible at all. For one, I think she could be a lot more offensive if she wanted. I'd be willing to bet that I could take any article of hers you name and rewrite it to be more offensive (without resorting to anything that'd keep it from being published, either). > And she's an interesting study in a certain segment of > contemporary Mormon society, an interesting study in a > certain kind of Mormon conservative. Now, take Jacob > Proffitt as one kind of Mormon conservative. Jacob and I > disagree all the time, but we're still friends. Maybe, if I > sat down with Marianne, I'd feel the same way about her. But > it's one thing to have two people study certain public policy > issues and come to different opinions about them. It's quite > another to turn absolutely every dispute and disagreement ad > hominem. There's such an 'us vs. them' streak in Marianne, > and I see that in a certain kind of Mormonism. Such a > tremendous tendency to judge and condemn, which we see > sometimes, unfortunately, in Mormonism. See, in my opinion, I think more Mormon conservatives are like me than like you describe here. I think that those who judge and condemn are a small minority (though a vocal one). Now, you (Eric) are in a situation where you are vulnerable to those willing to judge and condemn and you have to be hyper-aware of them. I can understand being sensitive and wishing they'd disappear altogether. That's a worthwhile goal and probably achievable, though hard. Still, I *do* believe it is a small minority and that Mormons are, on whole, more accepting of others and kind than the surrounding general population. We might suffer from a degree of provincialism here in Utah, but that's understandable and something we'll overcome--because we're willing to listen to others and learn new things about them. And I'd like to see that reflected in our art. It takes a certain amount of confidence to be LDS--if only because we insist that people have their own testimonies. As such we tend to have strong opinions and to express them relatively freely (again, compared to the overall population). But I also think that, due to the gospel emphasis on charity and service, we are also more kind and forgiving than our rhetoric would seem to indicate if seen only on the surface. > I also think the Deseret News should keep her column. I > don't think they should fire her, or whatever it is you call > it when you don't renew a syndicated columnist. She's so > extreme and so nutty that she does my side more good than > hers. I personally know two former conservatives that have > become card-carrying liberal democrat pinkos, solely because > of Marianne. Frankly, she makes all conservatives look like > loonies, which conservatives all aren't, but as a liberal, I > find it hard to mind much. Really, those of you who don't > read her column, you're missing a treat. She's out there. I read her occasionally, but on Jewish World Review. Personally, if she's carried in the Deseret News, I'd rather that they replace her with Linda Chavez, Michelle Malkin, or Kathleen Parker (assuming they don't carry them now). Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #799 ******************************