From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #921 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, December 11 2002 Volume 01 : Number 921 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 02:21:52 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] EVANS, _The Locket_ (Deseret News) Deseret News Sunday, December 8, 2002 'Locket' gets spot in a TV Hall of Fame The show airs tonight; Evans befuddled by Deseret Book decision By Scott D. Pierce Deseret News television editor Richard Paul Evans is certainly happy when someone buys the rights to one of his books. He's even happier when one gets made into a TV movie. But selling those rights is where his involvement in the process ends. That was certainly the case with "The Locket," which airs tonight at 8 p.m. on CBS/Ch. 2 as the 214th presentation of the "Hallmark Hall of Fame." "It's almost a non-experience. . . . They leave me out of it completely," Evans said. "I didn't even know they were producing this." Movie rights for "The Locket" were sold to Hallmark about four years ago, but as far as Evans knew, nothing had come of it. And he was disappointed when those years passed without it's being made into a movie. "I was told that they will sometimes pay a lot and keep it just to keep someone else from making it. So I was really happy when I found out they were producing it," Evans said. "I'm excited for it. 'The Locket' was one of my favorite books." He learned about the TV movie when a fan who had come across information on Vanessa Redgrave's Web site inquired. "I responded that there was no plan to make any movie even though they had purchased the rights. I sent it off to my agent, who called (the production company) and said, 'They just finished casting with Vanessa Redgrave,' " Evans said. Surprise, surprise. Evans was, not surprisingly, thrilled to learn that not only was the movie being made, but that Redgrave, an Academy Award winner, was starring in it. (The cast also includes two- time Oscar nominee Mary McDonnell and Chad Willett.) "I love the casting," he said. "I am just an incredible 'Camelot' fan. In fact, I was just heartbroken to see Richard Harris had died." "The Locket" is the third of his novels to be turned into a TV movie, following "The Christmas Box" in 1995 and its prequel, "Timepiece" in 1996. But Evans said he doesn't let the possibility that a book could end up becoming a movie affect how he writes. "No, not really," he said. "Every now and then it will cross my mind - is this movie material?" He did say that "sometimes, as a creative device" he allows himself to "sit back and look at it as a movie." He also admitted he's hoping that his latest book, "The Last Promise," makes the transition - and that he's looking for bigger things from this book. Or at least a bigger screen. "'The Last Promise' feels like a film. The first five people who read it of the advance reading group said that," Evans said. "And then when we sent it out to CSI, that's what they said - - this is your shot at cinema." (His publisher is currently talking with various production companies, but no deal has been made yet.) Evans has also learned that what he wrote doesn't always make it into the screenplay. He said he's enjoyed all of the adaptations of his novel, but "It was a tremendous lesson to learn that they really don't follow the book." If a "Last Promise" movie does follow the book, "It would be a PG. Someone could turn it into more. It would be a mistake, but. . . ." And he remains befuddled by Deseret Book's decision not to carry "The Last Promise." When he first heard about it, "I thought it was a joke. "When I talked to my agent, it took me five minutes to convince her it wasn't a joke. She absolutely refused to believe it. "The Last Promise" is about a woman in an abusive marriage who forms a relationship and emotional attachment to another man. But, despite what some people seem to believe, Evans insists there is no adultery in "The Last Promise." "Well, if they had sex, I would've said so," he said. "They didn't." Not that he's particularly worried about the Deseret Book ban. It may even be helping sales. "I'm having record signings," Evans said. "I'm having people come to signings who don't even usually buy my books. One person said, 'Hey, if they tell me I can't have your book, I'm going to have it.' " For the moment, however, he's just happy to be selling more books. And he's happy that Hallmark chose "The Locket" as its latest entry in the "Hall of Fame" franchise. The "Christmas Box" and "Timepiece" movies were produced by Hallmark Entertainment, a different division of the same company. And the "Hallmark Hall of Fame" not only carries with it a higher budget and better marketing, but a definite cachet as well. They're all owned by Hallmark, but I had never made the differentiation between Hallmark Entertainment and 'Hallmark Hall of Fame.'. . . It was, like, 'Oh, this is really Hallmark,' " he said. "If you're going to have something produced on TV, Hallmark is the way to go." Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 10:31:58 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] re: Adultery and Consequences As much as it grieves me to have to disagree with my friend Margaret = Young, I do think I need to clarify something. >do you REALLY >think your whole family would have been supportive had another man >"provided the impetus" for the departure? The "I've found someone >else" >line changes everything, doesn't it? Suddenly, the abused one is the >unfaithful one, and the script has been entirely overhauled. =20 Again, we're talking about a book, Rick Evans The Last Promise, in which = adultery does NOT take place. He reiterated it yesterday in an interview = in the DN; no adultery takes place. The fact that he can't write, and = that the scene in which adultery does not take place reads a lot like a = scene in which it does take place is, I think, the crux of the matter, and = may be the basis for DB's decision. But to take a piece of bad literature = and extrapolate it to real life, yes, I would say, ABSENT ADULTERY, that = our family would be relieved if the friendship of a better guy had = provided one of my sisters-in-law with the courage to leave a horrible = one. Otherwise, I do think you're right:=20 >I know far too much about it and have seen too >many romanticized departures from a lousy marriage into the loving arms >of an apparently great person--who turned out to be somewhat less. I >ALWAYS warn people who are ending their marriages that they need to be >very careful of the rebound syndrome.=20 And that's also true, of course. >So your review of the book >persuades me even more that it is not evil, but insipid and >wrong-hearted. =20 Insipid, absolutely. Wrong-hearted? It's two things; a portrait of an = abused woman, and a romance novel. Evans has, in real life, done a great = deal for abused women. I think he thinks he's writing honestly about = abuse, in an effort to give encouragement and hope to women who are in = abusive relationships. He can't write, and the romance novel part of the = book does overshadow the portrait of abuse. The road to aesthetic hell is = indeed paved with good intentions, and while I give Evans credit for = having them, of course the book is terrible. =20 >Once again, I think Sheri Dew was bold in refusing to >sell a book that would certainly have made DB a big buck.=20 Well, maybe. But I see no evidence that she refused it due to aesthetic = objections. Maybe she did; that's a nice thought. But her objections are = moral, and that's where we disagree. A woman tempted to commit adultery = who doesn't? That just doesn't seem so bad so me, especially when she has = every possible reason to go ahead with it. Again, I just don't buy = Sherri's responses to this controversy. I think someone high up read some = sort of advance publicity blurb on this thing and told Sherri "you're not = carrying this book. Make it happen." And everything since has been spin. Evans could have fixed the problem though. That's the biggest point. = First of all, he could have written the scene in question so you had no = doubt what did or did not happen. Second, he could have actually shown = his heroine agonizing over the decision. Third, he could have cut most of = the melodramatic crap about the boyfriend's past. Fourth, he could have = created some kind of honest, plausible scenario for her escape from her = husband--her present escape is nonsense. And fifth, if he's going to show = a married woman kissing another man, he's got to show some kind of = consequences. =20 But then, he wouldn't be Richard Paul Evans, would he? Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:22:55 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] _The Sopranos_ (TV) A prominent theme of both the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price is the "secret combination", a conspiracy of men that infects society "to murder and get gain", to prey on the vices and weaknesses of their fellows. This interest is consistently reflected in the larger American popular culture as reflected by the popularity of the "Godfather" movies. One of the best current manifestations of this fascination is HBO's series, "The Sopranos", which had its blazing season finale last night (but which will be repeated many times this week.) This show dares to imagine a mobster who is half-monster, half-man; a killer with a heart and soul who is grasping towards redemption. Tony Soprano (the great James Gandolfini) is the leader of the Mafia in New Jersey. He began seeing a psychiatrist, Dr. Melfi (Lorraine Bracco, as the perfect therapist) to deal with his clinical depression and crippling panic attacks. (One of the charms of the show is frequently you can't tell if it is satirizing psychiatry or not.) One of the other shrinks who appeared on an episode mentioned Dostoevsky and "Crime and Punishment" and, seriously, that is what is going on here: an intense moral accounting of what it will take to save Tony's soul. Most of his associates are sociopaths, like the increasingly unhinged Paulie Walnuts (Tony Sirico), a darkly amusing homage to Joe Pesci in "Goodfellas". But Tony is different. (He is an unlikely companion to another television mass murderer trying to repent, the vampire Spike of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer.") Last night things reached a climax of sorts in Tony's marriage when his wife Carmela (Edie Falco, another amazing actress) finally threw him out of the house and her life. Twenty years of hurt and resentment came boiling out in this blistering installment; for a moment I thought I was watching Albee's "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?". The impact was devastating, especially on the kids. College-age daughter Meadow has been making great strides this year towards becoming a good person. One worries if this will set her back. This season has been criticized as lacking the focus of the previous seasons. But the show is still head and shoulders above most of its competition, including the vastly overrated "The West Wing." If it had been a feature film, last night's episode would have been rated "R" for coarse language and violence. But if you can get past that, you will find some of the most morally penetrating television you will ever see. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:49:40 -0600 From: Linda Adams Subject: RE: [AML] Filling Our Minds At 11:56 AM 12/5/02, you wrote: >Judges 19, where a man of god cuts up a woman >into twelve parts. Wait wait wait. Tell the whole story, Thom--this unnamed woman still haunts me, after reading Judges earlier this year. She was already dead when the man cut her in pieces. And it was NOT a man of god, but her own husband. She was his concubine. They were traveling home and taken in by an old man in Gibeah, so they wouldn't have to sleep in the street. As in the story of Sodom and Lot, the wandering-streets-looking-for-strangers men of Belial came over and asked to have the husband brought out "to know him." The old man offered his own daughter, instead, and that wouldn't do; so the man brought out his *own* woman to them (notice he does not offer himself), and they "abused her all the night until the morning." She managed to crawl home before she died on the doorstep. One of the saddest scriptures I've ever read follows (Jdg 19:28): "And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered." THEN he took her body home and divided her up and sent her into all the coasts of Israel--so everyone would know what happened, and all that saw it said it was the worst thing ever done in Israel. The backstory is far more gruesome than the chopping in pieces, but all we ever hear is the end of the story. Definitely, uh, NOT a love story. Oh, and in Judges 20, all Israel goes to battle against Gibeah, the tribe of Benjamin, and about near wipes out the whole tribe, over this. It was a big deal. Not something without repercussions. Anyway, a side tangent, but I wanted her story told better here, that's all. It really affected me. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo/linda - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 01:12:11 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] CALL, _Mormonville_ (Deseret News) Deseret News Wednesday, December 4, 2002 Author 'infiltrates' his culture By Lee Benson Deseret News columnist CEDAR HILLS =97 Jeff Call is a Mormon and a journalist who lives in Utah County. So guess what his first novel is about? "Mormonville" is a 302-page book about Mormons, journalists and Utah County. Mark Twain would be proud. As it is with most books that are labors of love, Jeff Call's first novel started with a single thought that took seven years to get down on paper. He was unemployed, newly married and living in a tiny apartment in Lindon in 1995 when he attended a The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints conference meeting and heard Church President Gordon B. Hinckley talk about an interview with broadcast journalist Mike Wallace that had recently aired on "60 Minutes." The encounter between the New York journalist and the head of the Mormon Church caused Jeff's mind to wander until it stopped on a novel idea: What if a fictional New York journalist came to Utah "undercover" to write a book about the Mormon culture? Intrigued by the concept, and with plenty of time on his hands, he started to jot down ideas for a plot, characters, and that staple of all good stories, plenty of conflict. Seven years later, Jeff has a full-time job (he is a sports writer for the Deseret News), five kids and a mortgage - and his book is hot off the presses. Did Jeff have any idea what he was getting into when he started "Mormonville?" Of course not. "There is no way I could possibly quantify how many hours I spent writing this book," he says. He wrote in, around, and between everything else that was going on. On road trips to cover away games, he would steal a few hours in a Holiday Inn in Albuquerque or Ft. Collins. In the late spring, when the sports seasons lull a bit and yardwork can still be dodged, he would sometimes write two or three days in a row. Words turned into sentences, sentences into paragraphs, paragraphs into chapters, and finally a book emerged, which Cedar Fort - a Utah County publisher - has published. Since being released regionally in August, "Mormonville" has already sold nearly 3,000 copies, indicating that Jeff wasn't the only one who thought it would be interesting to see what a skeptical New York journalist would find if he moved to Utah County - where 91 percent of the population is LDS - and lived for a year. Or at least what journalist Jeff Call envisions the skeptical New York journalist would find. Lured by piles of money, the New York journalist comes to Utah, and to life, as protagonist Luke Manning, who reveals his identity to no one. From Page 27: "As much as he loathed having to hang out with these people, he knew it was the only way. He had to find out the inner workings of the church and the experiences of the regular church membership, to discover what they honestly felt and thought. Which was why no one could know his real purpose in Utah." What Luke finds in Utah County at first surprises him, and then alters his life in a way he could not have imagined . . . But if you think Jeff Call spent seven years writing a book just so I can ruin the ending . . . You can check it out for yourself at area bookstores or by logging on= =20 to www.cedarfort.com. In the meantime, Jeff has a few new ideas he's kicking around. "I'd like to write more books," he says. It's like childbirth. Once the product is delivered, you forget what you went through to bring it to life. Copyright Wednesday, December 4, 2002 _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.=20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 19:37:05 -0800 From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] Re: Film-Adapted Mormon Authors I'll tell you what author I'd like to see have a film adaptation: Brady Udall's recent book _The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint_! I think it would be great. Richard D., why don't you get on that in a year or two, or somebody. Travis Manning - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:12:59 -0700 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] New DB Policy On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:56:37 EST, RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: ><< It was all the other > textual elements that made me certain that I would gain nothing of = value in > watching the movie. >> > >I understand your point. I feel the same way about "American Pie" and = other=20 >such movies. I've seen the trailers, I've heard the storylines, and I'm = not=20 >interested. But I'm also not offended by them. How can I be? They're=20 >strangers to me. Normally I don't speak of being offended in this way, because I agree = with your more personal definition of the word. But in my response I used = that word in the context I read into the first message--that of being = "offended" by fiction at Deseret Book and therefore insisting that it not be = available. This is not the same as your definition, which I think is quite = different. You might as well ask how any of those customers could possibly be = offended by the presence of books they're not even going to read. So in this = case, you and I are using different definitions of the word. Which is fine = with me, because I think it's more important to address your next statement: >I do think, however, that you've handed "Titanic" an unfair judgment. I = know=20 >it is fashionable to dislike the film, but, in my opinion, there is so = much=20 >to praise. I think it is extremely unfair to me to characterize my decision not to = see the film as nothing more than a fashionable response. I told you exactly why I don't want to see it; I'm not opposed to anyone else seeing it. = I'm certain there is also much to praise about it. I personally felt the = full impact of the Titanic tragedy when I was a teenager reading about the subject, and again last year in reading Connie Willis's novel _Passage_. But I know a lot of people only truly realized it when they were watching James Cameron's film. If that's what it took, then bravo for him. What = I do *not* believe is that the fact that *you* find something praiseworthy = in it means that I must also--or that my lack of desire to see it means you ought not to either. >In response to my sharing a friend's view on the film, you said: > ><> > >Of course not. I was merely sharing another point of view. I wonder if = you=20 >would feel differently about "Titanic" if my friend had shared his=20 >interpretation with you before your friends had shared theirs. Remember that all my friends had positive reactions to it, although those reactions ranged widely from "perfect" to "nice story, don't think I'll = buy the DVD." It was not their interpretation that decided me; it was the details they related that did it. I would have loved to hear your = friend's Christ-imagery interpretation, because I collect strong readings of texts= of all media, but I highly doubt it would have swayed me. But I might have shared my husband's interpretation of the Disney song "A Whole New World"= as a metaphor for sexual initiation in return. Except that would probably = be a poor return on his investment. (No, I'm not saying any more. Ask Jacob if you're so interested.) Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:17:27 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Film-Adapted Mormon Authors At 01:06 PM 12/5/02 -0700, you wrote: >he >was told that Ender would of course have to be played by a teenager, >because that's who goes to movies, and they don't want to watch some >little kid. Harry Potter seems to have done okay. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:24:00 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Thomas Murphy Case [MOD: For what it's worth, I debated whether to forward the original announcement to the list. Eventually decided in favor, mostly because of the culturally related issues that this person seems to have been involved in researching. Since Chris forwarded this post, I also thought it might be worth discussing in itself as a cultural phenomenon. I *DON'T* want to get into a debate over Church policies, or into Church-bashing; but I think it is *possible* that this announcement could lead to some interesting discussion on elements related to Mormon culture that are on-topic for AML-List. If not, then so be it.] Um. Why am I getting anti-Mormon propaganda over AML-list? Further, anti-Mormon propaganda that is at least two days over-ripe? I'm not a big fan of one-sided announcements even when I agree with them; you can imagine how unwelcome one is that essentially calls on my church to repent and organizes public displays to apply pressure on church leaders. You want to discuss the implications? Fine, I'll engage. You want to argue for or against? Okay, I'm willing to hear one side of an event or argument--direct from an engaged person expressing their heart-felt ideas in earnest and with specific forum-targeted focus. But I'm tired of the arrogant posturing of self-righteous crusaders and blind reprints of their declamations. It's times like this I'm just as happy we suck at public relations. I'm just as happy for our policy of silence in the face of antagonism and quiet industry in our defense... Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:46:35 -0800 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Thomas Murphy Case Does all the fuss about Thomas Murphy surprise anyone else as much as it does me? Hugh Nibley, among others, has stated in print since the late 1960's that the Book of Mormon only tells of a small genetic infusion into the mix that was present in the Americas. In fact, here's a conference report from 1929 saying the same thing: "We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent" (Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1929, 15. Emphasis added). So, is it just me, or does this guy Murphy seem like a spinmeister of the first order? I'm not convinced that he's being threatened with excommunication over an honest scholarly difference of opinion or for anything he wrote. There's an attitude problem here, IMHO. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:20:21 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Titanic Elizabeth Walters wrote: > > While it wasn't the best movie > (what James Cameron movie is?) The Abyss. - -- 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: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:37:38 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Adultery and Consequences Gae Lyn Henderson wrote: > Does evil always get punished in the real world? Does God come down and > immediately give a consequence? No--it many times does not happen! > Sometimes justice doesn't take place until the next life. Yesterday I listened to the original recording of _Jesus Christ Superstar_ once more. Every so often I feel a compulsive urge to listen to that thing and come away feeling dirty. I feel dirty because I enjoy the music, but cringe at the message. The message is blatantly antichrist, belittling what Jesus did and stood for, even if one does not accept him as the Son of God. After listening to it this time around, it occurred to me that Andew Lloyd Webber made his career on that work. It's what made him famous--it's what made _Evita_ and _Cats_ and _Phantom_ possible. And it's what makes _Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat_ known enough to play ad nauseum somewhere in Utah at any moment. That evil, blasphemous work of art made Webber rich and famous. He's reaping very pleasant rewards for creating that thing to this day, and as far as I know, has suffered no consequences for it. But if his story were written as LDS fiction, it would be banned by Deseret Book. Evil was rewarded. I think I finally figured out what Deseret Book is all about. It's trying to be a fantasy bookstore. You sure won't find a lot of reality on its shelves. - -- 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, 11 Dec 2002 03:06:35 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Filling Our Minds - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Annette Lyon" > I for one am getting tired of hearing the justification for writing certain > things based on the argument that they're in the scriptures that way. I'm > sorry, but who among us is going to pick up a novel and read it in the same > mind set and with the same purpose that they would the scriptures? Anyone who considers the written word a window to the sould of the writer. Didn't > think so. > > Until that happens, you can't make the comparison between Lot's daughters, > David, or any other scripture story and what fiction writers can "safely" > use in their writing. I wish I had the source at hand, but I seem to recall no less a Mormon personality than Elder Holland suggesting just such an approach when asked how a believing Mormon writer should approach sex and violence in a story. He said something to the effect, "Do it the same way the Bible does, and you should be all right." >Ad let's hope that *doesn't* happen. I wouldn't want > someone reading my work and considering it scripture. Well, I don't consider all of scripture as scripture, and Joseph Smith didn't, either (remember his take on the Book of Solomon?) And tell me to what purpose are the endless genealogies in the Book of Numbers? > The only One who wants > or deserves that kind of resonsibility IS the author of the scriptures. And he allowed the erotic poetry of Solomon to be published in his Bible, the craven blood atrocities of the Lamanties to be printed in the Book of Mormon. If sex and violence is good enough for God, it's good enough for me. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:37:36 EST From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Filling Our Minds Amen to these comments of Amelia Parkin about looking with less condemning judgment on our world and the art that others produce. It is, indeed, high to be a judge. I was listening to a song on a seminary sound track while walking on my tread mill the other day and was struck again with the discription of Christ, who is our example in how to judge, as meek and humble. I have seen little of this humility in judging attitude on this site but lots of lofty looking down and critical evaluations of others works. Little of gratitude and finding of the good in the efforts of others to communicate what they feel and know, but lots of self appointed judges of other men's and woman's work. But I am grateful for the work of those who write and run this site and who have taken the time to put their words into print. It is always a dangerous thing to do and does take some courage to do so. Each person has to decide what is worth their time. I've decided that for me time is best spent in strengthening others in all my conversation, living and seeing with an attitude of gratitude, and less time standing alone at the top of my personal rameumptom. I've always seen more positive contribution come by those who stand for something that those who stand against something, although the latter seems far easier to do. It truly doesn't take much true intelligence to be a critique. Glen Sudbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:40:07 -0800 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Titanic I have no desire to see Titanic, and I doubt I ever will. For various reasons--mostly these three: I don't like the actors in it, I don't want to see a scene of a bunch of people (including babies) drowning, and it cost so much to make, I'd probably spend the entire what, three hours? --another reason right there-- thinking, "*how* much money did they spend on this?" I've enjoyed reading everyone's comments on it, though. And I wish you'd all pick apart some other movies as well--like, maybe The Spitfire Grill, or the Journey of August King. Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:46:43 -0700 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Filling Our Minds Annette Lyon wrote: "The only One who wants or deserves that kind of responsibility IS the author of the scriptures." I'm not intending to be argumentative here, but technically God isn't the AUTHOR of the scriptures, more like the production manager. These are definitely the important stories, histories, allegories, parables, insigh= ts He wants us to study and use to expand our minds and fill them with truth= . I have a personal testimony that they contain true and sacred things. But often, in personal study, I ask myself why He wanted me to know about certain things, what I am supposed to be learning from them. And they are generally those parts of the scriptures that are glossed over or ignored = in Sunday School class. I understand why--some accounts are challenging and difficult, and different people are probably supposed to be learning different things from them. I love the way God teaches us in layers of meaning. The Originator of Poetry. I often have the same reaction to a beautifully written work of fiction. For instance, I was reading a passage from Judges 19 yesterday that I fou= nd fascinating and totally confusing as to what I'm supposed to learn. Is it there to justify why the tribes of all Israel united together in war agai= nst the tribe of Benjamin at Gibeah? The details of the story are atrocious. = The summary in the chapter heading says "A Levite concubine plays the harlot = and returns to her father=97Her husband takes her back, and they lodge overni= ght in Gibeah=97The men of Gibeah abuse his concubine and she dies=97The Levi= te cuts her into twelve pieces and sends them to the tribes of Israel." A little more detail--The woman leaves her husband and returns to her father. The author of the scriptures calls this "playing the harlot". Apparently she decides she doesn't want to be married any more, or has an affair, or sleeps around...whatever the details, it's obvious that she's = not true to her marriage vows. (But I find it interesting that she's referred= to as his concubine and not his wife. Not a real upper status in a polygamou= s household.) After four months her husband feels kindly towards her--misse= s her? loves her?--we are told he intends to speak "friendly" to her. He travels to her father's house to take her back. So eventually, after tarrying with her father for awhile, because the father keeps pressuring = him to stay (Dad missed his daughter? wants the company?) this un-named Levit= e takes his concubine back (which shows a forgiving and loving nature on hi= s part I think, because by law he could have her put to death couldn't he? = He must really care for her.) They head home with a bit of a retinue, servan= ts, asses and all. We get a couple of verses that show us his moral nature, passing up convenient lodgings with "strangers" (people not of the childr= en of Israel) to press on a bit further seeking shelter with his own people.= (I found it interesting that the place he wouldn't stop was called "Jebus, which is Jerusalem", home to Jebusites.) They stop in a place called Gibe= ah, which belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. But no one there will provide him lodging, so he settles into the street = for the night. Along comes another un-named "old man", returning from his fie= lds who comes upon the Levite and asks him why he's hanging out in the street= s. The Levite tells him that despite the appearances of plenty of food for b= oth the animals, his servants, his concubine and himself, no one will take th= em in. The old man generously tells him to "let all thy want lie upon me" an= d begs him not to stay in the streets. Does this old men sense danger to th= e party? Why wouldn't anyone take them in? What about the ancient customs o= f hospitality and sanctuary these people believed in so strongly? The old m= an takes them to his home, gives food to everyone. Soon there is a pounding at the door. The "men of the city, certain sons = of Belial" (uh-oh, signs that these Israelites are into worshipping false go= ds) "beset" the house and demanded the old man send the Levite out to them th= at they may "know" him and that says everything it needs to in the Biblical sense. But the old man begs them to leave him alone, and to appease the m= en who were busy "making merry" (getting drunk? partying and carousing?) he offers them his daughter, a "maiden" (read virgin), and the Levites concubine (wife). He tells the men to "humble them" (referring to the wom= en, and to "do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not= so vile a thing." (Now this is really interesting and confusing. It's worse = for a man to be raped by other men than for women to be raped? The men I know would stand up and give their lives to protect their daughters and wives, but these men were offering to send the women out to be abused by vile me= n?) Then we are told: "But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took = his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, th= ey let her go." At least the maiden daughter was spared the same fate. The woman comes crawling home at sunrise, and dies on the front steps to the house. "Her hands were on the threshold". Is that poignant or what? What = an image, of this woman reaching towards safety and not having the strength left to pull herself inside. When she is discovered there by her husband,= he tells her to get up and let's be on our way. This is told simply and beautifully in the scriptures: "27. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the hou= se, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fall= en down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. 28 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto hi= s place. 29 And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve piec= es, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel. 30 And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done = nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds." The un-named Levite must have been versed in history, because his actions here echo those of Saul when he hewed an oxen into 12 pieces and sent it = to all the tribes of Israel to threaten them if they didn't come to his aid = and support and go up to battle against the Ammonites to save the Israelites = in Jabesh-Gilead. The Ammonites had conquered that place and the Elders of Jabesh were trying to work out a peace treaty. They offered to make a covenant with the Ammonites. The Ammonites replied that the covenant woul= d include putting out the right eye out of every person as a "reproach" on Israel. They begged for seven days time to send messengers to the rest of Israel, and if no one showed up to save them, then they would submit to their right eyes being put out. I guess the reproach was for Israel not being committed enough to stand up for this part of her children under attack. Saul lived in Gibeah (hmmm, now there's a cool twist, these peopl= e who once were champions of Israel, sunk to disgusting sexual sins during = the 'un-named Levite's' time) When the messenger from Jabesh arrived in Gibea= h, the people wept to hear of the threats against their brethren. The "spiri= t of the Lord" came upon Saul we are told, upon hearing the people weeping, and he slew the oxen and sent it out to the tribes telling them "Whosoeve= r cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto hi= s oxen." Short story--300,000 Israelites showed up, Saul led them into battle agai= nst the Ammonites, and they completely destroyed the Ammonites. The people of Jabesh are saved by their fellow countrymen. Saul is made King in Gilgal, under Samuel the King. [MOD: Apologies for butting in, but... My reading of OT chronology is that the event with the Levite's concubine would predate Saul's action, not follow it. Which of course would make the historical echoes run the other way. Can someone else verify or authoritatively contradict this?] So what does all of that have to do with what Annette pointed out in her letter--the scriptures should not be used for justification for writing about certain topics? I say the scriptures should always be our guide, no= t just in topics, but in form and function. They have beauty of language, there are layers of meaning that sometimes need to be mined. People's behavior can be traced to other events of history and it's linked togethe= r to present a whole picture of cause and effect. Yet sometimes, as a reader, I long to have such a story as is outlined in Judges 19, enlarged upon. The scriptures have shown me that the un-named Levite had a kindly, forgiving, loving nature. He sought to set things ri= ght with his wife. His behavior in Gibeah isn't shown. Was he frantic to save his wife? Was he in bed, asleep, being protected by his host and knew nothing until morning? Was his host a frightened man, seeking to appease = the wicked and dangerous men in a community where he would continue to live after the Levite left? The depth of the Levite's grief over his wife's de= ath is left under simple wraps. Or is it? He told her to get up. She didn't. = Yet he took her body to his own home...it wasn't a callous covering up or getting rid of action. All the way there, traveling in desert heat on a donkey, how was his wife transport? Carried? Strapped to the back of an a= ss like luggage? His mind must have been churning in anger, angst, pain. The culmination of his ruminations was to hew her into 12 pieces, as Saul had done. It wasn't sickness, but a huge, passionate statement to the rest of the nation, calling for vengeance. It's an action so foreign to my own peaceful upbringing and daily living, that it horrifies me. It would be easy to dismiss it as barbaric, atrocio= us. I can see why these particular stories are skipped in Sunday School. Mayb= e it isn't as important a lesson to learn as the basics of God exists, He loves me, His son atoned for me. And yet, there is something there that i= s important enough that God wanted it in the scriptures, after I'm sure of = the basics. I'm still trying to figure it out. Maybe it's all about scope. Bu= t the beautiful scriptural words hang in my mind: "consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds." "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Selah. [Kim Madsen] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #921 ******************************