From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #849 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Thursday, October 3 2002 Volume 01 : Number 849 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 18:07:10 -0600 From: Cathy Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Culture: Good & Bad Rob wrote: What should we do? We give. For me, this is a double-edged sword, because day by day as I struggle to learn to be charitable, to live a life of giving, the rewards and washes of spirit come back so manifold that it's a total spiritual high whenever I do it. The immense shock of joy, learning to live a life of giving, is enough to keep you trying to do it. At present, my daily work with troubled teens has amplified this again and again, because I experience huge and wonderful rewards every day. And the backwash of all this is then sitting through meeting after meeting which unfortunately don't thrill in the same way. It makes going to church even more frustrating and bland. This doesn't mean I have any particular issues with any particular people in my ward--on the contrary, I love them all so much. It's just that the experience of the meetings seems pretty inconsequential much of the time. Of course, it's not *always* unrewarding. I remember my most recent good experience in church. The main speaker was a man who'd been a patriarch much of his life and now was too old to serve in that position but still highly honored. He was so old that much of what he said didn't make any sense at all. But the spirit! It was so powerful that we came out of the meeting a mile high, hardly having understood a word! Cathy Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 21:01:53 -0400 From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Culture: Good & Bad Eric Russell wrote: "I am currently a senior English major at BYU and while I cannot speak for all of BYU, nor for how BYU used to be, I can say that this is stretching it when it comes to the BYU English Dept. I have recently taken classes where feminism, Marxism, psychoanalysis and post-structuralism were all taught in detail and often in ways that could be perceived as contrary to church ideas. I have also taken classes in gothic literature where sexuality was the standard for daily discussion and classes where BYU policy and Mormon culture were criticized on a regular basis. Never once in any of these cases did any of the students have a problem with what was being discussed." I hope that BYU has changed to allow the openness of discussion that Eric points out. I, too, studied English at BYU. What dominates my memories of discussions of Marxism, feminism, and sexuality in literature is not the openness Eric discusses. and most of the professors who openly criticized either BYU or church culture in class did so accompanied with plenty of backside-covering. I did take one class in which we studied both Marxism and feminism in depth. And the students were very open to talking about the ideas. It was an amazing class and very much changed me as a student. But it was evident from the teacher's attitude that he was frightened that he could get in trouble because of what he taught and believed. And as far as sexuality goes, yes it was discussed. It was discussed more maturely in some classes than in others. But it was almost always accompanied by snide or embarassed snickers coming from different areas of the classroom. Perhaps the problem here is one of temporal distance. I'm looking back at classes I took more than three years ago (I graduated in 99) and Eric is looking at classes he is currently enrolled in. And I'm also looking at BYU from the perspective of having attended another, academically far superior university (boy that sounded cocky--it wasn't meant to--UVA simply has a much better and much more rigorous English department than BYU does). So I'm probably approaching this with an unfair comparison in my head as well as the temporal distance. I would love to be wrong in my opinion on BYU because I think it has the potential to be the best academic and spiritual environment possible. But that will only happen when fear is not a dominating motivation behind what is and is not taught in the university and when both professors and students alike approach their studies with openness and honesty. [Amelia Parkin] _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 04:22:33 EDT From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Publishing Options I have to think that there is (or should be) space in our Latter-Day world for all types of literature/art. If we only had a diet of steak, life would become monotonous very quickly...as well as unhealthy. There is value in variety--even in having an array of fluffy desserts as a change of pace. While our writing talents are as varied as our life experiences, so are our preferences for various types of literature, film, plays, music, etc. Some of the material out there is thought provoking, some of it is pure escapist. I enjoyed "My Turn on Earth", just as I also enjoyed the opera "Pilgrim's Progress", but for totally different reasons...and I have learned a few verses from "My Turn"'s songs, where I never learned any of the score from "Progress." My level of ability in music is very much related to that fact. If the Nauvoo company can provide a variety of material to potential customers, more power to them. If in the process, they can expand the tastes of some folks, even better. I only wish they were closer. (Do you suppose we could find a way to eliminate Wyoming & most of Nebraska so they would be?) Giving people things that they enjoy isn't bad, any more than a person having a variety on the dinner table is bad. If we're so concerned about quality, then we need to make sure the fluff parts of the buffet have some intrinsic value as well as the meatier items. Cheers for those who did a good job on "My Turn." May the successes continue, and may it be possible to provide a smorgasbord of material to potential customers...and keep them coming back for more. We'll all be winners in the end. Karen Tippets - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 09:41:31 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] _Charly_ (Film) (Review) I appreciate N. Paul Pehrson's positive take on Charly. I completely agree = that Jack Weyland, like most popular novelists, understood and succeeded = in communicating with and moving his audience. The gist of my review was, = however, that if you liked Charly the novel, you'd like Charly the movie, = and if you didn't like the novel, you wouldn't like the movie. For me, = when I read the novel, I didn't like it. It's not my kind of novel. I = thought the sad bits were funny. Lots of people loved it. I didn't. And = I correspondingly didn't like the movie much, though I did like it better = than the novel. =20 So my opinion of Charly is absolutely correct in every particular. I = think it's an awful novel. I'm not part of its audience, I wasn't moved = by it, and it would be difficult for me to enumerate the tortures I would = submit myself to rather than read it again. As far as the issue "does = Eric Samuelsen like this novel" goes, which was the issue I was addressing,= my opinion is completely and everlastingly right. What I did not say, = and would never say, is that those who liked it are wrong for doing so, or = are inferior to me in judgment, intelligence, etc. I wouldn't say that, = because it isn't true. =20 Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:59:24 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Publishing Options Your "word of mouth" hasn't had its chance yet, Scott. At Cedar Fort and Salt Press, we're doing what you are talking about. Also, Horizon is not dead, but very healthy. And Cedar Fort gives new authors an opportunity without breaking the publishing company. New authors pay about half. However, Cedar Fort does publish some works (like Rachel's) without requiring money. They do 24 unpaid projects a year. And YOU ARE RIGHT, the books are not selling huge numbers of copies. And you are RIGHT, the Mormon public doesn't know what its missing as long as we don't put any meaty stuff out. So we're trying to do it! However, Signature does put "meaty" stuff out and always has, and the sales aren't huge there, either. I feel your frustration, but it seems even insiders (literary people, people in the know) aren't paying any attention to the progress that is being made. Kudos! Marilyn Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:01:00 EDT From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] _Charly_ (Film) (Review) In a message dated 10/1/02 2:25:12 PM Mountain Daylight Time, paul@abinidi.net writes: << Jack Weyland planted a seed with _Charly_, a seed which blossomed, and whose fruits we all reap today. >> The seed turned out to be a weed, and it choked out all the wonderful variety of other plants and seeds that were beginning to grow. The danger of works like CHARLY: when they succeed financially, publishers want more of them (and very little, if any, of anything else). In my opinion, rather than being a great blessing to LDS fiction, CHARLY and its spawn have proven themselves to be the enemy. More than two decades after CHARLY's publication we have shelf after shelf of market-censored mediocrity to choose from. And it's our own fault, as a people, for buying it. We've created a marketplace where works like Scott Bronson's as yet unpublished THE WHIPPING BOY have no place. Shame on us. My anxiety for the infant Mormon Cinema is that our people will spend their entertainment dollars on movies like CHARLY and THE SINGLES WARD and will withhold their support from films like BRIGHAM CITY. And then, twenty years from now, we'll have shelf after shelf of empty-headed, false-hearted, and mediocre movies based on mediocre books and lousy screenplays. If so, we will surely "reap the fruit," but it will be a bitter fruit, the accurate expression of our culture's tastes and the shallow thoughts in our Mormon brains. Feeling a little cynical today, Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:17:29 EDT From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Publishing Options (was: Mormon Culture) In a message dated 10/1/02 1:59:17 PM Mountain Daylight Time, scottparkin@earthlink.net writes: << BC did well enough to enable Dutcher to make his next film. >> Thanks for the good PR, Scott, but the truth of the matter is: because of BRIGHAM CITY's financial failure, I'm having a bugger of a time trying to get another film financed. I may be forced to direct SINGLES WARD 2 just to put food on the table. Richard - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 08:51:06 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] NELSON & LARSON, _Soft Shoe_ (Daily Herald) Good things come... Playwright finds creative partner after 20-year wait ERIC D. SNIDER The Daily Herald Wednesday, October 02 PROVO -- Relationships, love and, yes, a little song-and-dance are at the heart of "Soft Shoe," a new musical comedy opening this week in Brigham Young University's Pardoe Theatre. "There are three characters in my play, and all of them have come from quite dysfunctional settings," said BYU theater professor George Nelson, 47, who wrote the book and co-wrote the lyrics for the show. "It's that mess of trying to deal with love and life and what it takes to be happy." And it's all set against the backdrop of vaudeville's fading days, during the 1930s. One of the characters, unwanted by his mother, has been dumped off as an apprentice at a theater; another character has come to town looking for her father, whom she never knew. Despite the heady subject matter, Nelson said the play is a comedy, and a romantic one at that. "I think a lot of musicals have pretty light characters," he said. "I've tried to write deeper characters, dealing with deep issues, but in a romantic- comedy way." His composer and co-lyricist is Daniel Larson, 24, a BYU senior and one-time student of Nelson's. His collaboration with Nelson came 20 years after Nelson began writing the play in the hopes of one day finding a songwriter. Nelson had approached several composers, some of whom were interested but none of whom could commit to the project. Then came Larson, a theater education and music double-major who sought advice from Nelson on writing for musicals. "I've always wanted to write a musical, and I was frustrated because they don't have a program at BYU for that," Larson said. Nelson said he "felt inspired" to show his script to Larson. "I gave the caveat that if I didn't like his music, we wouldn't have a relationship, and if he didn't like my play, let's not waste time," he said. Three months later, in December 2001, Larson came back with rough versions of several songs. Nelson said, "After having waited close to 20 years to hear these characters sing, I literally burst into tears." Recalling the incident, Larson said, "It was kind of funny, because I didn't know if he hated the songs or loved them. I didn't know what was going on." Larson wound up using bits and pieces of lyrics Nelson had sketched out, adding to them and changing them where necessary. Through the collaboration process, no songs were scrapped entirely, though most were rewritten, as is usually the case with a musical. The show makes it debut tonight, with Nelson as director and Larson as musical director. "I really asked to (direct)," Nelson said. "I knew that we'd taken it through the reading phase, but it still needed a lot of rewriting. I've taken 24 pages of dialogue out of it in the rehearsal=20 process. I felt like I needed to be there all the time anyway." Nelson and Larson have nothing but praise for each other and for the collaboration process. "It has been amazing," Larson said. "George= =20 is so open to ideas. I want people to tell me exactly what they feel, and that's the way I like to work, too. We're both like that, so it worked out well." Of his student and prot=E9g=E9, Nelson said, "He so brilliantly took what I had scratched out and made it work. I think his work is stunning." Nelson directed BYU's production of the opera "Tartuffe" last year and the Joseph Smith-centered play "Burdens of Earth" the year before that. "Soft Shoe" stars Marvin Payne, Tom Every and Tia Marie Majeroni. Copyright 2002 by HarkTheHerald.com _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:32:29 EDT From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Publishing Options In a message dated 10/1/02 2:49:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time, ThomDuncan@prodigy.net writes: << I've ripped Saturday's Warrior apart on this very list but if it didn't exist, Mormon theatre would be in far worse shape than it is now, if it existed at all. >> I beg to differ. SATURDAY'S WARRIOR did to Mormon theatre what CHARLY did to LDS fiction and what movies like THE SINGLES WARD and CHARLY may be doing to Mormon cinema. They are the weeds that reproduce so rapidly and grow so big they choke out the other plants. All the writers and aspiring theatre producers out there, at least those who want to be successful, try to duplicate De Azevedo and Stewart's SATURDAY'S WARRIOR instead of building on Duncan's MATTERS OF THE HEART or Samuelson's THE SEATING OF SENATOR SMOOT, which they probably have never even heard of. Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:45:18 -0400 From: "S. Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Sitcoms I hope you give us updates as things progress with your class! I was raised by television. I still watch it like it's my surrogate mother. I saw most of the John Ritter sitcom. Thought it was pretty boring, but you can never expect a show to be as good or as bad as the pilot. (Pilots are always horrible.) One gripe I have with sitcoms is how the fathers are always portrayed as stupid, bumbling goofs. It works on the Simpsons (probably because every man really is Homer). But it gets irritating on sitcom after sitcom. Anyway, I know a television writer, and when I went to LA last month was talking to him for a few minutes on the phone. Asked him about what he had going on--it was the week everyone was pitching pilots for next year's season, and he had a few he was pitching. He mentioned that American Idol filmed in his building, and that no one expected it to be such a big hit. We discussed how television/Hollywood works--someone stumbles onto a successful premise, and then everyone else rushes around trying to copy it. Nothing original ever seems to happen by design. Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:18:05 -0700 From: "Kathy Fowkes" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Clean-up Commentary Thom: How does renting the CleanFlicks version of Titanic do this? Me: Titanic isn't on my list of worthwhile films. I think it was a serious piece of garbage (story line) with great special effects. I wouldn't buy it, edited or not. Now the similar sketching scene in "As Good As It Gets" was powerful, beautiful and lovely, IMO, but I don't remember it well anymore. I just remember it made me want to cry, the way the artist character treated Helen Hunt with such kindness and made her feel truly beautiful, and the kindness and love she showed him as well. And there wasn't even sex! Imagine that. ;-) The language throughout the movie made me cringe and I can do without it (hearing profanity brings all that back to me and I find myself swearing again after seeing movies with heavy profanity, and I *hate* that), and I'd rather not see nudity even in a sketch, but this was done so tastefully that I wasn't uncomfortable as I would have been if it had been intended to be erotic and steamy. I wouldn't watch it with my kids yet, though. The adult themes of this movie are not yet something I want to discuss at length with them beyond what we already discussed and have already lived through in our lives together. Thom: That being said, I still think it is the moviemakers right to make the movie anyway he wants. But I did read enough about the film ahead of time to know I would see this scene, and made a concious decision to see it anyway. Me: That's great. I agree. A moviemaker should be allowed to make a movie any way he wants. What I want is to choose to see a movie edited. You want to see it unedited. I think we should both be allowed to see a movie the way we each feel comfortable. If I paid for it, why can't I do what I want with it, and edit it to my preference? As long as I'm not going around showing it to audiences, how does it hurt the artist for me to do this? Thom: But nevertheless, if you wanted to do a film like that, I believe you would have the right, just as I would have the right to choose not to see it. Me: I'm not arguing the right of the filmmaker or playwriter to create what they want. I'm only arguing my right to do with it what I please after I've purchased it. Thom quoting me: >Ultimately, if >it comes down to a choice, I'll choose the better sex in my >real life over the "full artistic expression" in a movie. But >I'm hoping the edited movies are here to stay so I don't have >to make that choice. Thom: Why don't you want to make that choice? I personally wouldn't have it any other way. The ability to make choices is also a god-given right, and I'm not about to abdicate that right to some nameless committee in Hollywood of Pleasant grove. Me: I'm not abdicating my rights to a nameless committee. I can't even figure out how you arrived at that idea. I don't want to have to choose between a purity of mind and heart that I'm trying to achieve, and giving up movies altogether. If I watch movies Hollywood's way, I give up any chance at that purity -- for me, sex scenes very much affect me that way. I feel slimed and my ability to feel/hear the Spirit is diminished. But I don't want to give up seeing movies. I love movies. I love stories. I always have. I was saying that if Hollywood gets their way and causes the demise of businesses that edit movies for content, I will have little choice but to pass on most of Hollywood's offerings these days. Where in that am I abdicating my right to a nameless committee? [Kathy Fowkes] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 18:44:21 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Culture: Good & Bad on 9/26/02 9:05 AM, David Hansen at hpalaw3@wasatch.com wrote: > I'm not sure I was the one Ivan was directing his culture post, but being a > pessismistic cynic by nature (one of my worst faults), I don't agree that you're a cynic. Pessimist maybe, but cynicism is a really really harsh self-condemnation. Most people who claim to be cynics are merely disappointed idealists affecting a pose, and from the rest of your post (and many others) I don't think you're nearly enough of a poseur to be so roundly condemned even by yourself. Cynicism is about as evil as one can get, and unless you're all fake and no real you can't really be one. The Unabomber is a cynic. Lenin and Stalin were cynics. There are a few in Baghdad right now, and quite a few in Europe--and some in Congress, too. Cynicism (in the modern sense) is not to be claimed lightly. If you mean to lay claim to Diogenes-style of cynicism (which I suppose would have to be the "real" cynicism) then it wouldn't be so bad, but you ought to differentiate between then and now. Wandering through Athens with a latern looking for an honest man isn't quite the same as believing that since everyone is wicked, there's no point in trying to do anything good. That's the modern kind of cynic--pure pragmatic selfishness. Ugh. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:28:41 -0600 From: "Lee Allred" Subject: re: [AML] Mormon Themes in National Market Lisa Turner asked: >>What experience have any of you had with publishing stories, >>essays, novels, etc. with Mormon themes outside the >>Mormon market? Lisa, I write for the national sceince fiction/fantasy market and have sold a number of Mormon themed short ficiton pieces (novella, novelette, and short stories). The national SF market, while not anxiously engaged in seeking out Mormon themed work, isn't adamantly opposed to them either, as attested by the data on SF and Mormonism/SF Mormon Authors compiled at www.adherents.com. Several LDS authors --including, most famously, of course, Orson Scott Card-- write for the market and they include LDS themes, sometimes LDS-specific story elements as well, in their stories/novels. Perhaps the most movingly Mormon (but utterly un-overtly Mormon) SF piece I've ever read is M. Shayne Bell's "And All Our Banners Flying," reprinted in last year's SF issue of AML's IRREANTUM magazine (list members gladly can tell you how to subscribe!). For a more complete picture of Mormon SF and a suggested reading list, see Marny Parkin's Mormon SF Bibilography http://home.earthlink.net/~marnyparkin/index.html .) If you like SF/Fantasy, you owe it to yourself to check out Susan J. Kroupa, Dave Farland, Alan Lickiss, Diann Thornley, and other SF writers cataloged there. Other national genre fiction markets boast LDS authors; Anne Perry in the Mystery field (check her interview in IRREANTUM--subscribe now!); Brenda Novak, Elizabeth Lane, and several others whose names I'm blanking on at the moment in the Romance field. Simply being written by an LDS author doesn't neccessarily mean a particular novel/story will have LDS themes, but often they do. And since they're speaking to their larger audience, there often is not only a Mormon resonance, but one hetrodyned with the resonances of the larger outside culture. Since part of this list's purpose is to allow us writerly types to occasionally promote ourselves, and I've been very silent of late, I'll go ahead and list my Mormon-themed contributions: "For the Strength of the Hills" (reprinted in IRREANTUM--subscriptions available!), an alternate history specifically about Johnston's Army and the 1857 Utah War; "The Greatest Danger," in which Mormonism --and Lorenzon Snow's couplet "As Man Is, God Once Was/As God Is, Man May Become" plays a key role in the main character's decision to stand up against the evil society he was born into; "Hymnal," where an old 1950 LDS hymnal (via an LDS couple) save the universe from final entropy--the story ends with the congregation singing "The Spirit of God Like A Fire is Burning," no less. A short story of mine due out in a forthcoming fiction anthology edited by Harry Turtledove is an allegorical look at Mormonism's radical take on Adam and the Fall. Another story due out in ASIMOV'S magazine, while having no overt Mormon references, will resonate with those who thrilled in days of yesteryore to that old Seventies Bookstore classic, "The Fate of the Persecutors of Joseph Smith." - --Lee Lee Allred - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 20:59:43 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Culture: Good & Bad On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 21:01:53 -0400, Amelia Parkin wrote: >I hope that BYU has changed to allow the openness of discussion that = Eric=20 >points out. I, too, studied English at BYU. What dominates my memories= of=20 >discussions of Marxism, feminism, and sexuality in literature is not the= =20 >openness Eric discusses. and most of the professors who openly = criticized=20 >either BYU or church culture in class did so accompanied with plenty of=20 >backside-covering. >Perhaps the problem here is one of temporal distance. I'm looking back = at=20 >classes I took more than three years ago (I graduated in 99) and Eric is= =20 >looking at classes he is currently enrolled in. I doubt that it's a matter of temporal distance, because I graduated from that program in '94 and had any number of classes in which we openly discussed feminism, Marxism, sexuality and the like. The only classes in which there was any reluctance or tittering were the large literature = survey courses, and I think that was because many of those students were being exposed to that kind of discussion for the first time. (And in some = small part that was the professor's fault, much as I admired and respected = her.) All that really means is that Amelia and Eric and I all had different experiences. I graduated during all that fuss about English professors being fired or losing tenure, and while I have no idea what actually happened, most of the students I knew believed that it was mainly due to = the political beliefs those teachers were expressing publicly and in class. = So I can easily imagine later professors being very reluctant to go near certain subjects, if they shared that suspicion. It's been ten years since I officially entered that English program, and = I read other people's impressions of it with...ambiguous feelings, I = suppose. It's clearly not the university I attended, and yet it still is, in some ways. I no longer feel qualified to say "this is how BYU is" because in every case--most of which are not related to the English department--it turns out they don't do it that way any more. If I dwelt on it too long, I'm sure it would be rather depressing. But I don't. Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:28:32 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Culture: Good & Bad >One Sunday in RS the teacher asked what it meant to be--what >was the word...something negative. I can't remember. That's >going to drive me nuts. Anyway, the bishop's wife spoke up and >said that what came to her mind was tattoos. She spoke >disparagingly of people with tattoos. I pity da foo' that says tattoos are evil in my presence. My daughter has one and she was raised in the church. The last time I addressed this issue in a class, I reminded folks that if our bodies are temples, isn't adding a tatoo a lot like painting the wall of the temple? Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #849 ******************************