From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #904 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, November 21 2002 Volume 01 : Number 904 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:45:24 -0800 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] New Hymns Mary Jane Jones wrote: I've sung spirituals in several wards, both in Utah and here in South = Carolina. So far no one has told me I couldn't. Also, my husband is a = classical guitarist, and we perform together quite often. We've been = asked many times to perform in church, and have yet to run across a = bishop or branch president that wouldn't allow him to play guitar (and = we always asked first). =20 Oh, cool. Tell us next time you do and we may even buy a plane ticket to = hear you. I think my wife commented about something similar (guitars = music in Sacrament meetings) and our experience was different. In a Ward = where we were living in the San Fernando Valley one of the members of = our Ward had written an arrangement for guitar (he played drums in a = country band and is now a Bishop himself) that commemorated the birth of = his daughter and talked about the "Plan of Salvation" if I remember = right. The Bishop in our Ward at the time said guitars were not = appropriate for Sacrament meetings and would not let it be played (he = had a friend who was going to play it who was a professional guitarist). = He was a little hurt at the time. Glad to hear this is not the case all = over the Church. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:57:09 -0700 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Epiphanies In other words, they get the experience because of > activation of the area theoretically due to the injury. Interesting. It can't be > bad :). Maybe not, but it hurt like hell. Paris - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:04:27 -0700 From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] New DB Policy I respect DB's decision, and I respect Sheri Dew's clarification that "this is not a moral decision, this is an economic one." I interpret that to mean that she doesn't see it as DB's place to dictate what's right and wrong either, but that DB is a niche company. Most of their merchandise is church stuff. Most people who go to DB have that sort of thing in mind. If I want to buy an LDS novel, I'll go to DB or Seagull. I won't check Barnes and Noble for it unless I just happen to be there for some other reason, because their LDS selection is hit and miss at best. But if I want _The Scarlet Letter_, or anything else non- churchy,_ I'll head to Barnes and Noble. I won't even bother with DB unless, again, I was already there for something else. Perhaps I am wrong in how I picture the typical DB customer, but why would anyone go there unless they were looking for LDS materials? It's just that DB has an area of specialty. Most other retail establishments do as well. If I want a greasy hamburger, I'll go to McDonald's. If I want a taco, I'll go to Taco Bell. If I want groceries, I'll go to a grocery store. If I want to buy a computer, I'll go to Circuit City. Same difference. I don't see a problem with DB's specializing, unless: 1) DB is the only bookstore around, in which case they control what anyone can buy (but then someone could open a competing store with a different slant), or 2) DB encourages Barnes and Noble and everyone else to pull these books off their shelves also. And this isn't happening here. As far as the Evans book itself, I haven't read it either, although I have to admit that all the buzz is making me curious. It may be that it's not just that a woman spends the night with another man (without "doing anything") but that the woman turns to the other man for comfort in the first place--and finds it. If so, people who pick up the book expecting a warm fuzzy squeaky-clean experience may indeed be offended. Obviously DB could stand to make a lot of money on Evans's book, so their decision not to carry it was probably not made lightly. Another article ran in the Deseret News today that mentioned that Seagull had pulled the Evans book also. Unlike DB, they won't special order it, either. So DB is not the only one. (I'm gonna have to read that book and see what all the fuss is about...) Further implications to this policy are another matter. Kudos to Rebecca for outlining her opinion, which she probably knew wouldn't be very popular among many of the vocal folks on this list. Yes, many people want to see "real life" reflected in their reading. But many others don't. These are more the people that DB sees itself as serving. These people want to be able to walk into DB and feel like they're getting something safe, whatever it is that they choose. They don't want to be surprised by something halfway through the book. And they certainly don't want to get such a surprise from something they got at a "safe" store like DB. By the way, "real life" shouldn't just mean the coarser, more negative side of life. "Real life" should also include plenty of positives. That's real, too. It could be argued that LDS fiction has too many unearned positives, but that's a whole 'nother thing. Like others who have voiced their opinions, I'm concerned that some, or many, people will interpret this action as Church policy. This is why Sheri Dew specifically said that *this is not a moral decision, it is an economic one.* But, yes, there will be people who still interpret it that way. On the other hand, most of them probably already felt that way. They've already decided what kinds of books they want to read. DB is just going to help them find them. Maybe these people are shutting themselves off from some valuable reading material. To each his own. You snooze, you lose. We have our free agency to choose, among many other things, what we're going to read. That applies to everyone. Maybe some of these people will consider themselves morally superior to lowlifes who read such things as (gasp!) _The Scarlet Letter_. Again, they probably already did, anyway. Such a stance doesn't seem morally correct to me, but who am I to judge anymore than anyone else? One more thing. The Deseret News article today also said that DB formulated its new policy based on a survey of approximately 350 DB customers. To me, 350 seems a bit low to base such a sweeping policy on. And these were existing customers. Might they increase their customer base if they surveyed non-DB customers? If they asked them what they could do to get them to shop there? But then they might turn out to be another Barnes and Noble. And we already have plenty of those. - --Katie Parker - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:10:17 -0500 From: "Jim Cobabe" Subject: [AML] re: New DB Policy Then again, perhaps the new policy simply reflects resignation. DB is just facing the facts. Most authors will not happily submit to the DB standard of literary criticism. It is manifestly impractical to continue to expect LDS writers to respond to polite requests that they voluntarily observe the bounds of propriety in the exercise of their own artistic freedom, for the sake of promoting correct principles and praiseworthy standards. By and large the writers have demonstrated over time that they will not. Judging by the common sentiments of members of this forum, those who welcome such suggestions are in the minority. Resentment seem to be the more typical reaction to such counsel. Perhaps the tacit refusal of LDS authors to submit to constructive direction and thus create works that fully comply with LDS standards has actually forced the new policy. It would be supremely ironic if the arrogant overinsistence of LDS authors on absolute literary self-determination has destroyed the biggest potential commercial marketing channel for their products. Imagine the frustrated editorial reviewers at DB, ever reading manuscripts and new books in the vain hope of finding works that are praiseworthy, of good report, and require no apologies to preface their placement on the shelves of the bookstore that defines the literary presence of the Church. I personally would not be distressed to discover that classic fiction was no longer offered at Deseret Book. Nor would I be worried if none of the NYT best-sellers ever appeared there. For me, the public library is a fine source for such works. What I hope to find when I shop at DB appears to me to be exactly the genre they are trying to define with their new focus. And it suits me just fine. - --- Jim Cobabe jcobabe@hotmail.com When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less. (Humpty Dumpty) _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:13:45 -0700 From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] Y'All Need to Get Out More > << When we were house-hunting, one real estate agent we talked to (a > perfectly > nice fellow, by the way) opened a folder to introduce us to the house-buying > > process, and displayed discreetly but prominently inside the folder was his > > temple recommend. And thus we knew that he was an active Latter-day Saint. > > He > wouldn't have put it there if that wasn't a way of helping him to gain > clients. >> > > This is messed up on so many levels! Witnessing this trick would have caused > > me to suspect this "perfectly nice" character. This would be hilarious if it > > wasn't true. Outrageous. Unbelievable. > > May I please use this scene in a movie? > > Richard Go for it! Maybe it's hilarious even though it *is* true. (We ended up not going with him, BTW...:) - --Katie Parker - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:24:21 -0700 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] Levi PETERSON, _The Backslider_ (was: Tooting My Musical Horn) Levi, since you brought up The Backslider I must tell you that my husband and I just finished reading this wonderful book and we loved it. We enjoyed Juanita Brooks so much that we wanted to read more and I'm so glad we did. What a well crafted story with well fleshed-out characters. This book made me laugh out loud, cry out loud and made me so angry at one point I wanted to scream and hurl the book across the room. Although I don't know any people quite like these people, these characters were so real for me that I don't think I'll ever forget them. (I can't say that about most books I read.) Both of your books made the short list of Best Mormon Literature for us. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:31:26 -0700 From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] Adultery and Consequences Quoting margaret young : > Didn't Anita Stansfield write something similar to > Richard's book? It seems I recall reading AML comments about her book > with a very similar plot--except that the bad spouse either died or > asked for a divorce so the better marriage could happen. In _First Love and Forever_, (which is the first book in the trilogy where the wife is sealed to her abusive first husband instead of her wonderful second husband and the implications of the sealing are explored) Emily was originally in love with Michael, who was wonderful but he wasn't LDS. So she married Ryan, who was LDS and somehow she got this idea that it was the right thing to do. Fast forward several years--Ryan is emotionally distant and not very wonderful, and Emily happens to run into Michael again. Michael begs her to leave Ryan and run off with him. Emily carefully considers it, prays about it, and decides she'd better stay with Ryan. Ryan starts shaping up, though, but just as things look like they could work out with him, he's killed in a car wreck. So then Emily can marry Michael and live happily ever after (except, of course, for that sealing thing). That's something that's bothered me about Stansfield's books--Technically, they're very proper; Emily doesn't leave her husband or commit adultery or anything like that. But in spirit, she sure wants to. But since she doesn't actually do any of the technical stuff, her straying feelings are okay. They're even right, since Ryan's soon out of the picture anyway, and obviously she and Michael were always meant for each other and Ryan was always slime. A more realistic version of this would have Emily choosing to stay with Ryan, and then having to make that marriage work for another sixty years. This would include overcoming her feelings for Michael. Or perhaps she would leave Ryan and forge a new life alone, but there would be no Michael waiting for her. Probably the romance-reading crowd wouldn't buy it, though. - --Katie Parker - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:02:31 -0700 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] New Hymns Thanks Steve for taking time to tell us the fascinating story of how "As Sisters in Zion" came to be. It is certainly one of the most oft' sung new hymns in our ward. And yes it is fun to sing. I have sung it as a duet. Maybe your challenge will stimulate the birth of some *new* new hymns. Praise the Lord. I feel a song coming on. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:31:58 -0800 From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] Re: New DB Policy Yeah, what [Chris Bigelow] said. I don't think we want to alienate DB as an organization by rubber stamping our names on a petition to disagree with one of their policies. However, if *individual members* want to get friends and associates together to sign petitions, without using AML's name, that's a different can of something else. Go for it. I think the AML stands to lose much more than it could ever gain. We want to maintain a working relationship with Sherry Dew, and Cory Maxwell and company. We don't have to agree with their decision, but we don't have to overtly support it, either. Side note: I emailed DB a couple days ago with a question regarding changes in manuscript submissions, what kinds of things were they now looking for, and not now looking for in submissions with regards to violence, language, and immorality. Still waiting. Travis Manning - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:47:47 -0800 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Y'All Need to Get Out More Richard Dutcher wrote: "Witnessing this trick would have caused me to suspect this "perfectly nice" character." Richard, as a cop for 12 years, my husband told me many, many stories of people he stopped for violations from speeding to suspected drunken driving who managed to pull their temple recommends from their wallets instead of their drivers licenses. "Oops, my mistake officer." Yeah, right. Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:53:22 -0800 From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] Re: Newest Deseret News spin on Deseret Book - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Bigelow" > Deseret Book rethinks offerings > By Dave Anderton > Deseret News business writer > 11/20/02 > > Jon Kofford, vice president of marketing for Seagull Book & Tape, an > American Fork-based book retailer that also carries LDS products and is a > main competitor of Deseret Book, said its 18 stores originally carried "The > Last Promise" but pulled the book off its shelves after it was determined > the book did not meet the company's guidelines. > Unlike Deseret Book, Seagull Book will not special-order "The Last > Promise" for its customers. > "Deseret Book is instigating a new policy, and we've always had our > policy and pulled books off the shelf before," Kofford said. "We typically > have just focused on the LDS market, and we have carried very few trade > books." Well now, Seagull is also taking the moral high ground, or "always" has? Hmm. I think Seagull is in a safe holding pattern mentality. We'll all have to wait and see what DB really pulls from their shelves. If someone can get a list of DB's "banned books," let's publish it. Keep your eyes peeled. Travis Manning - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:16:59 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Truth and Mormonism John Dewey Remy wrote: > I am particularly interested in the "Epiphanies" and the "New Age Mormons" > threads. Interesting. I don't find these as interesting as some here, and I'm wondering why. Is it because it seems like a non-issue to me? I've grown up being willing to accept truth from whatever source. It's an attitude that's second nature to me. I haven't always defined "truth" as intelligently as I could, but if I considered it truth, I accepted it, regardless of its origin. So I guess I just don't see that much to say about the subject. Isn't it obvious we should accept truth from any source? - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:05:44 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] New DB Policy (comp 3) A compilation of my responses to the compilation: R.W. Rasband wrote: > My earlier post on Deseret Book and Richard Paul Evans was mistaken when I > said that the "Deseret News" article mentioned "The Scarlet Letter" as a > possible target for banning. The article didn't give any books as > examples. I don't know where I came up with that. Wishful thinking on my > part, I guess. It would have been too perfect. Perhaps from the Salt Lake Tribune article, which _did_ mention that book (and "Jane Eyre"). Kim Madsen wrote: > have upset some of your customers in the past. I firmly believe > that this is a knee jerk reaction to a very small and vocal > minority of your customers. So a survey said that Deseret Book customers don't like books that clash with their values. Of course no Mormon wants to buy or read a book that clashes with his/her values. My question is: who defines what "clashing with values" means? Rebecca Talley wrote: > I applaud Sheri Dew > and I wholeheartedly suppport President Hinckley and > his vision. Do I need to read smut to make me think? Who said anything about smut? Do you think the Richard Paul Evans book that was banned had smut in it? > Am I somehow unintelligent or less learned > because I choose only uplifting materials? No, but someone could be unintelligent or less learned in how he defines "uplifting." > Is there evil in the world? Yes, everywhere, but do I > have to bring it into my home through TV, movies, or > books? And how is telling stories about evil and its consequences actually "bringing evil" into your home? If you read a story where someone shoplifts, has shoplifting occurred in your home? > I, personally, want to go to DB, take my children and > know that I can choose a safe, uplifting book. Isn't this letting Deseret Book do your thinking and choosing for you? We decided in the council in heaven that it would be bad to let Lucifer do that for us. When it's Deseret Book, it's okay? > If I can't have the Spirit with me > while I read a book, it isn't appropriate. I shouldn't have read that collection of Dilbert cartoons? I don't recall having the Spirit when I read it. Of course, I don't recall being incited to sin either. > President Hinckley wants us, as members of the Church, > to choose uplifting material. If we choose smut then > we live with the consequences (as is plainly evident > in the world around us). There are those words again: "uplifting" and "smut." And what are the definitions of these? And why are your definitions required to be adopted by all? > It's up to each of us to > make that choice. No, it's up to Deseret Book to make that choice, because you want to go into a bookstore where that choice is pre-made: where it's "safe." > I see DB's decision as appropriate > and in keeping with President Hinckley's, and > ultimately the Lord's, view of what we should and > should not be reading. Deseret Book's business decision is now the will of the Lord. Deseret Book's choice on what is "smut" and what is not is now the Lord's definition. Deseret Book has become a prophet, speaking the mind of God, the will of God, and the power of God unto salvation. > By the way, I don't live in Utah and was not raised in > Utah. In fact, I grew up in a very liberal home that > contained questionable books, magazines, and TV shows, > and I remember how badly they made me feel. So don't buy or read them. But make that decision for yourself. You are relinquishiing your free agency to Deseret Book, letting them decide for you what's appropriate. Yes, I most certainly do call that "not thinking." Justin Halverson wrote: > Don't expect this seemingly logical argument to work. I've tried it with > some of those who DB is trying to attract with this discussion, and was > instructed that the stories in the Bible and the Book of Mormon are not > offensive because they are "not explicit." And the Richard Paul Evans book _is_ explicit? This response you bring up is bogus, because the people who give that response do not limit the definition of "smut" to explicitness. The mere mention of certain acts (sex, nudity, yada yada) is enough to declare something "smutty" or "not uplifting." Furthermore, does anyone who reads about Lot's daughters getting him drunk and becoming impregnated by him NOT conjur up explicit images as they read that? Or how about Onan "spilling his seed on the ground"? Any explicit image spring to mind there? Eric D. Snider wrote: > I don't know whether Jim has read the book in question or not, but > he's voicing an opinion I've heard elsewhere, among people I know > HAVEN'T read it. Basically, these people are assuming that because DB > won't sell the book, that means the book MUST be trashy. And there it is--the illustration of how this policy is in fact codifying an absence of thinking, a relinquishing of responsibility. Is this the road to eternal progression? Is this the intelligence that is God's glory? - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:06:11 -0800 From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Generalizing from Experience On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 22:48:03 -0700 John Dewey Remy writes: > Writers have the tricky task of keeping the audience in a > delicate bubble of virtuality for the duration of their experience. > This means that they can't burst that bubble by subjecting the > audience to events that they can't accept. This may have been > part of Stephen Spielberg's motivation when he chose not to > display some of the Nazi's most hideous acts in _Schindler's > List_ (he specifically gives the example of SS troops > throwing Jewish babies into the air for target practice). Horrendous. I think part of the reason for Spielberg's choice is that when we suspend disbelief we agree to believe that what we're seeing on screen is real, and that's too horrible to see. Even hearing it discussed in The Trojan Women is wrenching. I still remember how shocked I was watching Michael Cacoyannis's film in 184 JKB (before BYU moved the International Cinema to Kimball Tower) when the Greeks come for Astyanax. Then I ran into it again in Sartre's adaptation, which I find I had bookmarked with and old utility bill payment envelope. Consider Talthybios's comment, All very distasteful. I feel quite sick. That's the worst of war: Those who give the orders Seldom see the mess it makes When you hold a child by the feet And bash its head against a wall. (Ronald Duncan's version of Sartre's adaptation, Vintage paperback, 1967, p. 48) I dreamed last night (Oct 27, 02) that I was attending a triple execution for war criminals, and I had taken pictures of them up on the gallows. And the pix turned out to have surprising emotional power because behind each of the condemned was a poster of himself as charismatic leader. And yet, though I was taking pictures, I turned away from the execution itself. 00:03 11/19/2002 (I.E., it's still 11/18/02) I had an e-mail crash a couple weeks ago and have been sorting my 10,000 e-mails back into folders (including Deleted Items) and came across this from my drafts folder, and it reminded me that I had another execution dream last night. This one was around the time of the Crucifixion. The line I remember was something like, "At least the Monopoly game helped him," the implication being that the Monopoly game was a good teaching tool for some moral values, sharing, I think. I've always been fascinated and troubled by the concept of execution. Partly because I keep thinking how would I handle that, knowing that my death was sudden and certain at a certain time and in a violent way? Revelation 6:9, "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held," haunted me at times on my mission, and I said in a Zone Conference tesitmony meeting that possibly I might end up as one of those souls. I'm not sure I really felt that way, I was trying to figure out the power that scripture has for me. As I was trying to get back to sleep I remember the odd thought, 'What are all these dreams preparing me for? Wouldn't it be strange if they were preparing me to see the Crucifixion?' It occurs to me that a person having dreams that inevitably progress toward a vision of the Crucifixion (or, say, the death of Abinadi) would be the basis of a really fine horror story, and it would do what Eric Samuelsen talked about Nov 18 in the 'Book of Mormon in Film' thread, dramatizing the doctrinal aspects of the Book of Mormon. Because, of course, there is a horror story like that in the Book of Mormon. We live so long after the time of Jesus that it's a little shocking to read the words of prophets who lived centuries before him and realize they didn't know he would be crucified. Nephi's vision of the Son of God being tortured to death is truly terrifying to him. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 03:37:10 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] New Age Mormons? on 11/14/02 10:46 AM, Paris Anderson at parisander@freeport.com wrote: > I've been very disappointed in the Church over the last year, because there > never are results. With Ch'i Gung the results are dramatic. That's hard > for me to understand, because I know the Church is true and it is the > Kingdom of God. So what gives? Does that mean you might find answers in > the Church, but if you need results--go somewhere else? That's what > experience teaches me. > > Paris Anderson Down in Chile a "former" sister told me that she had been sick a long time and had prayed to Heavenly Father for help but she was still sick. One of her friends told her that all she needed to do was recite three rezos to Teresa de los Andes and she would be healed at once. She did the recitations and got better a few weeks later. This is why she was a Catholic again and not a Mormon. Teresa de los Andes was not even a Beata at the time so it was a pre-saint pre-beatus miracle. I asked her if she didn't believe in God then, since she had summarily rejected His power. That set her back a little, but what really got her is what my companion said. You have to have faith before you'll see any results. I've seen a great number of people healed, some of them instantly--in one case I actually watched a film of pain drain from a woman's eyes after I finished the sealing. I've read several other responses to your post and many of them make good points, particularly about how so much of the gospel is left open for personal learning and understanding. You have to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Every covenant with God is personal--Christ took on the sins of each individual, rather than "us all." Nobody can be healed except by faith, and if you only have faith in regimen and the arm of flesh why would you expect anything different. No results? Speak for yourself. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:56:31 -0700 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] New Age Mormons? On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:37:12 -0500, Walters, Isaac wrote: >I don't think I'm all that brilliant, but thank you for remembering me >so kindly. Yes, I am the Isaac you're thinking of. If you're >interested in more C.S. Lewis theatre, you should look for our >production this next summer of "Till We Have Faces". I'm very nervous >and very excited about it. Wow, you're doing this? That's my favorite of his novels. Please do = keep us posted on its progress, because I am now looking forward to seeing it. Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:47:16 -0700 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Adultery and Consequences Margaret writes: I'm not the least bit offended that no Deseret Bookstore will carry it. It'll find its own audience, which will no doubt be limited. But I am not bothered by Sheri Dew's moral decision either. This is a great post, Margaret, and explains exactly why I'm feeling all right about being on the black list. You made a wonderful case for HERESIES. You have discussed your students' questions before. They asked how you could write both HERESIES and your Des. Bk. project. I understand their question, I understand your acceptance of the paradoxes, and I understand Sheri Dew's decision. But I just cringe because I see that they have opened up a can of worms. (Or Pandora's box.) Who is offended by WHAT? There are so many differences! It is so VAST a subject, that we are in for it now. (I don't see how I can leave the list when the popcorn is beginning to pop.) Marilyn Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:52:36 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Porter Rockwell Actor James Coburn Dies >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Ivan >Angus Wolfe >Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 9:43 AM >To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >Subject: Re: [AML] Porter Rockwell Actor James Coburn Dies > > >> "The Avenging Angel" >> features a surprisingly well-balanced and sympathetic portrayal of >> Latter-day Saints, considering the fact that the filmmakers were not >> LDS and the film is set in a somewhat wild and occasionally violent >> Western milieau. >> >> - Preston Hunter > >I would disagree with that. I saw the movie and was sure it >was written by anti-mormons. Sure, individual Mormons could be >okay, but the church as a whole was portrayed as fairly >corrupt, bigoted, secretive and murderous. The Church, or the renegade and fictional apostle? I seem to remember Brigham Young as being rather heroic. > >Of course, I am colored by the fact it came out while I was on >my mission, and it became a stumbling block to quite a few >investigators, so I may have viewed it differently if the >timing were different. > This is quite possible. I used to feel that way about the book the 27th Wife because it came out while I was on my mission. Years later, however, when I began to study Church history and realized that most of the book, though fictional, was based on real history, I adjusted my views toward Church history. I no longer expect past or present prophets to be perfect people. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:17:48 -0800 (PST) From: Mary Aagard Subject: [AML] Need Info on Child Abuse Recovery I've been reading the list for a couple of weeks now. I'm excited to be a part of these discussions. I'm writing now to ask for a little help. To introduce myself: I'm Mary C. Aagard. I'm 22 years old. I'm from Burley, Idaho but am now living in West Lafayette with my husband while he attends Purdue University. I work in the interlibrary loan department at Purdue and am applying to get my Master's of Library Science. I'm a BYU Media Arts graduate and my connection to Mormon lit? I competed in the short screenplay contest at the 2nd LDS film festival and my script won third place. I'm a writer, but mostly a reader. And this list is a lifesaver while I'm here at work. (It's really slow right now.) Geez o' Pete that was a boring intro, so it goes. I'm doing research on child sexual abuse recovery literature targeted to Mormons or even Christians. I know that Cheiko Okazaki has a talk on tape about this, but I'm having a hard time finding any books, etc. written by a Mormon, for a Mormon about dealing with sexual abuse. If anyone has any ideas, etc, please let me know. Thank you. Also, as a writer, and a beginning one at that, I'm just starting to enter my scripts, stories, poems into contests, etc. and I'm wondering if you other writers out there are able to distance your person (who you are) from your writing, who your characters are. I mean, the script I entered into the film festival includes elements of my own experience. I was unable to attend the reading of the scripts and my mother-in-law went for me, and she made it a point to tell the audience that, indeed, I had suffered through some of the same trials as my characters. No big deal really, that's the risk you run when you write fiction with autobiographical elements. I was then overcome with this panic, I thought people would only like my story because they were taking pity on me, knowing that this had happened to me personally. I was afraid that actual events would overshadow the writing and make it less worthwhile somehow. Does anybody else have fears about this? [Mary Aagard] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:08:18 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Production of _The Crucible_ Last night I saw _The Crucible_ at BYU. And may I say, Eric Samuelsen, that it's the best production I've yet seen (Eric plays the role of the farmer Giles something). Maybe it's because I had good seats and could hear the dialogue well and really watch the characters, but I was thoroughly engrossed and felt unexpectedly strong emotions several times. Seeing the show at this point in AML-List discourse was particularly interesting. Not that it's entirely fair or justified, but it's hard for me not to picture Deseret Book shrieking "We saw Richard Paul Evans with the devil!" Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:18:01 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Missionary Farewells/Homecomings FWIW. Sunday, my son attended the best/worst missionary farewell ever. First, the guy missionarying was, like, 24. He hadn't gone prior to this = basically because of major league, near terminal shyness. Finally, screws = his courage to the sticking point and decides to go. Okay, time for his = farewell address. He hasn't slept for nights, stressing. He gets up = there, and locks his knees up. Three sentences in, he keels over in a = dead faint. So. Chaos. Consternation. Much bustling about. Finally he's settled on = a bench, his new Mr. Mac jacket tucked under his head. Now, the bishop is = faced with twenty minutes to go in sac meeting, and a konked out speaker. = The bish hasn't prepared any remarks, but he's got to fill time. This was = his approach: "Dear brothers and sisters, I'm sure we're all concerned = about Elder Jones, but I'm assured that he's going to be fine. And let me = just say one thing. We're all of us so grateful today that he's going on = his mission. He had to overcome so much to be able to go." (Pause. Deep = breath.) "Pornography is such a problem in today's society . . . ." Now, to the bishop, these were two separate and unconnected thoughts. = Elder Jones had not, apparently, any kind of pornography problem. The = bishop figured he'd express concern and then, new topic, totally unconnecte= d, began his own extempore remarks on pornography. All of which, after = the initial huge audience gasp, the bishop quickly clarified. But that = was one terrific missionary farewell. As it happens, that same Sunday, my nephew returned from his mission in = Chile, and my wife and I went to that one. What was comical about that = one were the many many statements the bishop felt compelled to make about = how this wasn't a homecoming, we don't have homecomings anymore, and = asking Spence to talk was just the ward asking a guy in the ward to give a = talk without that having any special significance, and the special musical = number performed by Spence's sisters didn't have anything to do with his = coming home either, but was just your common or garden ordinary special = musical number like we have from time to time, and how the reception = afterwards at my sister-in-law's house (which he mentioned three times) = was not a ward social or an effort on the part of the bishopric to do = anything homecomingly special for Spence, but just a private family = gathering, by invitation only, which invitation only coincidentally had = been extended to include the entire ward, but don't read anything into = that. It was priceless. And then Spence gave a lovely talk, and he's a = great kid who had a wonderful mission, apparently, and so all's well. = Love this new policy, though.=20 Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #904 ******************************