From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #926 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 18 2002 Volume 01 : Number 926 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:39:05 -0800 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Thomas Murphy Case Thom Duncan wrote: > What you call anti-Mormon, I call it news. It's very appropriate for > this list as it has to do with academic literature coming into conflict > with ecclesiastical authority. I agree that it is appropriate for this list, but I don't think it is the "academic literature" that is in conflict with ecclesiastical authority. I think it is the reaction of Murphy toward a conflict that exists between the opinions expressed by a few ecclesiastical authorities and what scholars are now discovering that is at issue. Academic truths are not at issue here. What is at issue is the belief of some individuals that everything a General Authority writes is "Mormon doctrine," and hence, if it later appears that their opinion needs to be amended slightly, they think Mormon doctrine is in error and attack the Church in general. That's what gets people excommunicated, not honest academic differences of opinion. I know many scholars in the Church who are quite critical of mistaken opinions that have been expressed by General Authorities. They have never been in the slightest danger of excommunication for their opinions because they do not generalize their view to the Church as a whole. They understand that men can make mistakes, that even General Authorities are not omniscient, and that they often express their opinions, not Church doctrine. Do you realize that the Bible refers to the "four corners of the earth," as though it were, in fact, flat, as science supposed back in those times? Does that mean the Bible is false? Of course not. It means that the Bible had a literary setting that was unrelated to the message being transmitted. Same with these misunderstandings about Lehi and his descendants. There is no conflict with history. The only conflict is with our mistaken notions about that history. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:03:23 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies Oh boy, I really don't want to get sucked into this debate again. It's one of those same old arguments I used to have great enthusiasm for, but now just fill me with weariness. I think I exhausted it and myself during The Great AML-List "Titanic" Debate of 1998. But here's my bottom line: The MPAA rating system is fundamentally flawed because it is capriciocommercialary, and intensely subject to commerical pressure. I refuse to use it, and I think it's a shame that it has become the default standard freceiveany LDS people. The wise counsel we recieve from General Authorities, is just that, counsel. To be applied to individual circumstances using our free agency and all the discernment we can muster. (And the General Authorities are far from unanimous about not seeing "R-rated movies", either. I think there can be things of great worth in "R-rated movies." And I will continue to see whatever movies I think fit to see, using my agency and discernment, until the day (if it ever comes, which I doubt) when my bishop and stake president ask me point blank if I watch "R-rated movies" during my temple recommend interview. ===== 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: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 20:08:20 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Adultery and Consequences Well, yes and no, if you don't mind my reply instead of Eric or Gaelyn. It is true that in relationships one person has great power to inflict their partner with either good or ill. As you yourself said, you did not have the power to leave the situation, at least by your representation below, until someone you cared about, perhaps more than yourself, was threatened. You felt demoralized. You believed the things your abusive husband said. Perhaps you felt powerless. I believe that is how an abused person feels. They don't believe in themselves. It may take someone else coming a long whispering tender things before they can realize that they, too, can stand and say "No, I am not that! I am NOT THAT!" It is probably true that many abused people go from abuser to abuser. Some how they found the abuser in the first place. And maybe nothing significant has changed for them, so they find the same type of person again. However, I believe......no, in fact I know, that for others someone believing in them can help them have the strength to either get out of an abusive relationship, or make changes in a painful one. I don't think it even has to be a member of the opposite sex, although maybe that is more powerful. And if it is a member of the opposite sex that is that catalyst for the change, that doesn't mean a new intimate relationship has to be formed with them. I guess, all that adds up to saying that there is probably more than one way to write the story, so to speak. Tracie Laulusa - ----- Original Message ----- > Actually, I never mind when Eric disagrees with me. We have a history of friendly disagreements and we both respect each other's perspectives. I think you say some valuable things in your post, Eric, as Gae Lyn did in hers. But surely I'm not the only one on the list that thinks it's a real tragedy--and a sad commentary on our society and culture--that so many women lack the inner strength to get out of abusive marriages UNLESS there's the promise of someone BETTER who will lure them into his arms and whisper tender things to her. (And we know that abused women tend to find abusive partners--one after another--and often tend to come from homes where abuse was the norm.) [snip] > [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 01:18:10 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies Rebecca Talley wrote: >I'm just curious . . . I've seen several R-Rated >movies and other media recommended. How does viewing >this type of entertainment or reading this type of >book, fit in with the Prophet's counsel, or the Lord's >commandment issued through His mouthpiece, to not view >R-Rated films (or other such media)? I first heard that President Kimball had said that Church members should not see R-rated movies back in 1977, shorlty AFTER I was baptized and had seen more than a few R-rated films. But I don't recall this ever being revealed a commandment. If it is truly a COMMANDMENT, then shouldn't the Church teach this in the missionary discussions regarding keeping the commandments--right along with chastity outside of marriage, the Word of Wisdom, tithing, the Ten Commandments, etc. (Although I suppose "Thou Shalt not attend R-rated movies" might qualify as an 11th commandment.) Is it really breaking a COMMANDMENT to see an R-rated film? If so, are we being dishonest or sneaky in baptizing people without telling them this before hand? Should Church action be taken against a member who see an R-rated film? Should people be denied baptism until they are able to swear off R-rated movies, as with alcohol, tea, coffee and tobacco, and sex outside of marriage? What about a Saint who writes, directs or acts in an R-rated movie--such as Senator Orrin Hatch, who appeared in the R-rated film TRAFFIC--a violence, sex-filled study of drug world? Should Brother Hatch apologize/repent for appearing in an R-rated film? Should the Brethren call Brother Hatch to task on it? If supporting R-rated films actually BREAKS A COMMANDMENT, the answer to these questions would be "yes." The fact that nearly two years has passed with no apology/repenting from Brother Hatch and no statement from the Brethren indiactes to me that the entire R-rated film issue is not really an issue at all--certainly not an issue of breaking a commandment. But for arguement's sake, let's continues as if this was an issue of keeping/breaking a commandment: the issue beomes complicated when one learns that no writer, director or actors knows how the motion picture rating board will rate a film until AFTER it's completed. And what about those Church members who sit in the motion picture rating board? Are they breaking a commandment if this is their job? I have a good friend, a BYU graduate and faithful LDS wife and mother, who for several years while living in southern California sat on the rating board. For several years she watched nearly every R-rated film that was produced in the United States. Was she breaking a commandment? (Granted the films were not rated R when she saw them, but the films did not change once she gave them an R-rating.) Many assume that a film gets an R-rating because of obscene language, graphic violence and sex--but this is not the case. The board can give an R- rating to any film that they believe parents would not want their under-aged children to see without them being present. (This is what the R-rating actually stands for: children under 17 must be accompanied by their parents. An R-rating is not an X-rating or an NC-17 rating.) Therefore any film that the board thinks most parents would not want their children to see ALONE could receive an R-rating. For instance, in the late 70's and early 80's, there were films dealing with homosexuality that contained no violence, so sex or nudity, and no more cursing than in an average PG film. But because a sympathetic portrait of a homosexual character or relationship was something that most parents at the time did not want their children to see without their being present, such films were given an R-rating. (The 1982 film FALLING IN LOVE comes to mind.) Consider this: most Americans believe polygamy is immoral. If one produced a biography of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young that sympathetically portrayed their polygamous marriages, such a film--though it may contain no sex, violence or obscenity--could possibly receive an R-rating because most Americans would not want their underage children to see a film that depicts polygamy as a moral and respectable alternative life-style. Does this mean that no Latter-day Saint should see such a film? Question: Since the Church isn't rating the films, aren't we putting our faith in Hollywood to tell us what is moral and immoral? In the end, this simply is not an issue for me. I couldn't tell you off-hand the rating of most films I see. I can tell you, however, that I read articles and reviews of every film before I decide to see it. I hold a particular moral philosophy because of the Gospel and a particular view of human nature and potential. I make all my decisions based on that philosophy--decisions on what I want to see and decisions on whether the films I have seen were good or bad. That being said, I have been morally offended by many of the PG films I have seen--and even a few G films. For instance, I find Cecil B. DeMille's orginal silent version of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS simplistic and racist. And I think his later 1950's version (which premeired in Salt Lake City) a soap opera-styled mockery of the scriptural story. (Talk about cheap, trashy Harlequinn romances--forget TITANIC and take a look at sultury, bossom-heaving, cleavage-showing, heavy-breathing Anne Baxter draping herself all over butched-up, scantily clad Charlton Heston, all the while wrapping her arms around his neck and moaning, "Moses! Moses! Moses!" This so-called "religious classic" is my pick for one of the most ridiculous films ever made! On the one hand, I LOVE watching it because I love a good laugh. On the hand, every time I read the Book of Exodus, I "moan within myself" because I know that this cheap melodrama--which most people now days also consider laughable---is the only exposure most Americans have to Moses. Evangelicals, Born-Again Christians and some Latter-day Saints are the only people I've ever known who defend it as a serious,GREAT film.) I am a free agent. I study the scriptures, ponder the council and words of the living prophets, then act on my own best judgement. I question everything. I do nothing on blind faith; to some degree I must KNOW something before I act on it. And should Heavenly Father appear to me and command me to do such and such, if the commandment seemed unjust or ill-advised, I would--like Abraham of old--debate and barter with Him. I would not feel the least bit guilty in doing this as He is my literal father and, being wiser than me, would certainly be able to handle me just fine. Whenever I've taken any action based completely on blind faith, evil has always been the result. Does this mean that I have never been mistaken in my judgements? Of course not. Does this mean that I never sin? Of course not. But my sins, like my virtues are my own, and I lay them at the feet of no one other than myself. The Lord is my judge, and many times in the past I have been a harhser judge of myself than He. When I have teen-aged children, I certainly want them to see ORDINARY PEOPLE, SCHEINDLER'S LIST, TERMS OF ENDEARMENT and BRAVEHEART. This are all strong MORAL films and I testufy that I am a better person, with a sharper view of right and wrong, for having seen them. So if seeing an R-rated film is breaking a commandment, the Lord HImself will have to deal with me. I know that His judgements are always just, therefore I am unafraid. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail 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: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 23:53:38 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Debra L Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN Mormon News Resumes This Weekend =0D This is great news!=0D Debbie Brown=0D From: letters.to.editor@MormonsToday.com=0D Date: Friday, December 13, 2002 11:00:00 AM=0D To: Mormon News=0D Subject: MN Mormon News Resumes This Weekend=0D =0D =46rom Mormon-News: See footer for instructions on joining and leaving th= is list.=0D =0D I'm pleased to announce that Mormon News, the on-line news service and =0D e-mail list resumes this weekend. You have recieved this message because = you =0D subscribed to the e-mail list. The service stopped producing news stories= =0D last March due to time pressures. But in the mean time, we have made some= =0D improvements, and expect to come back better than ever.=0D =0D Still, producing a service like Mormon News is time consuming, and we are= =0D looking for volunteers to help produce the news. If you can help, please = =0D reply to this message, or send a note to volunteer@MormonNews.com. We nee= d =0D writers, editors and even someone who can program in php for the web.=0D =0D Despite the break in service, Mormon News has a four-year history of =0D providing the most comprehensive and objective news about Mormons, Mormon= ism =0D and the LDS Church. The service exists both as a website =0D (http://www.mormonnews.com) and as an e-mail list =0D (mormonnews@mormonnews.com), and runs entirely on volunteer efforts. The = =0D service produces 25 to 50 news stories each week, or 5 to 12 each day.=0D =0D Service was suspended this past March because I was no longer able to dev= ote =0D 2-6 hours each day to producing Mormon News. Since then I have purchased = a =0D company (see http://www.lusobraz.com) and published a book of Mormon essa= ys =0D by New Yorkers (see http://www.silentnotestaken.com). But despite these =0D activities, I am committed to returning Mormon News to its subscribers.=0D =0D Actually, I believe that the changes will actually help Mormon News. We n= ow =0D have a permanent address (P. O. Box 709, New York, NY 10033) a dedicated = =0D phone line (212-568-6285) and fax line (212-568-0147). This way I believe= we =0D can be more responsive to the news, and provide better service to subscribers.=0D =0D Still, despite these changes, we will continue to need the help of =0D subscribers and volunteers. Our biggest need is for writers -- people who= =0D can write up the news stories we find. We need people who can write a new= s =0D story in 24 to 48 hours, based on stories that have been published elsewh= ere =0D and Mormon News' knowledge database. We need people who can regularly sea= rch =0D news sources for Mormon-related news items, and provide them to the write= rs. =0D If things go well, I hope to be able to pay writers a small fee for their= =0D work after several months.=0D =0D We also need a php programmer who can put together an interface to a mysq= l =0D database that contains our knowledge database. I believe this is a =0D relatively simple job for an experience programmer, as it mainly involves= =0D calls to the database and controls over who has access to data and who ca= n =0D add data and how data is added to the database. Remuneration is possible,= if =0D necessary.=0D =0D Please feel free to contact me about any of the above items. I hope that = you =0D are interested in remaining a Mormon News subscriber, and will continue t= o =0D support the service.=0D =0D Thank you,=0D =0D =0D =0D Kent Larsen=0D Publisher, Mormon News=0D - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:26:52 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies Oh, boy. I'm really not sure we want to do this, but I'll bite. =20 I am a BYU professor. I teach playwriting and screenwriting and theatre = history and dramatic literature, and I teach film. My salary is drawn = from tithing dollars, in part. It is true that some years ago, President = Benson said we were to stay away from R-rated movies, and that that = counsel has been reiterated over the years. =20 I watch R-rated movies, or, more accurately, the MPAA rating system is not = a factor in my decision-making process. I do not know, or care, what the = rating is for any film I see. In my professional opinion, the rating = system is irrelevant to the potential spiritual power or moral implications= for any film I see. I'll state it more strongly; I loathe the rating = system. I wish it didn't exist, and personally, I pretend that it doesn't = exist. I think it does incalculable damage to the film industry, and to = the spiritual values films have the ability to convey. I also very carefully screen any movies seen by my children. We, my wife = and I, very seldom allow our children to see movies on their own, we go to = movies all the time as a family, or rent them at watch them at home, and = we're very careful about the choices we make, and we spend a great deal of = time after seeing a film talking about it, teaching our children about = film and narrative and the values of the texts we share with them. The = rating system provides us with no valuable information whatsoever in = making these decisions, but we read a minimum of five reviews for each = film we see, and if we think a film is questionable, I see it before we go = together to see it. We have, as a family, seen R-rated movies, I guess; I = mean, I don't really know, but I'm pretty sure the language in Memento was = harsh enough it was probably R. Great movie, but not appropriate for our = nine year old, and she didn't go with us. What has any of this to do with the prophet's counsel? How do I justify = the decision we have made to ignore the rating system as a factor in = making our entertainment decisions? 1) I think we're obeying the spirit of the prophet's counsel. We're = making careful, informed choices about the films we see. We're talking = about the films we see with our children. We think we promote spiritual = and moral values, both in the films we view and in those discussions = afterwards. =20 2) I don't personally think the letter of the law, in this regard, makes = any sense. I think the prophet used 'R-rated movies' as a kind of = shorthand, meaning, 'be careful what you do go see.' The rating system is = based on an aesthetic which I do not respect. So I'm gonna follow my own = heart and my own discernment in this regard. =20 3) Professionally, I have to see the most important films by the most = important directors working today. I have to know what my students are = talking about, for one thing. But more to the point, I do think that my = life would be impoverished if I had missed out on a number of important = films which happened to be R-rated (assuming they were, which, of course, = I never know.) Some folks on this list have said "I don't think I'm = missing out on much if I avoid R-rated films." I'm not disagreeing with = you making that choice. But, for me, I don't agree. I think I would be = missing out on important, valuable, spiritual, life-changing artistic = experiences if I avoided all R-rated movies. =20 I personally loathe an aesthetic that looks non-contextually at the = presentation of evil. I think the central aesthetic of narrative is the = artistic depiction of evil and the consequences of evil. And harsh = language doesn't bother me. Nor does the artistic depiction of nudity, = which can be moral, in context. =20 So, there it is, opening salvo. =20 Eric Samuelsen =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:57:02 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Titanic - ---Original Message From: D. Michael Martindale > > > And frankly, my imagination is good enough that I doubt watching > > Titanic is going to provide something I can't get any other way > > (particularly considering it is merely the work of anothers' > > imagination and not some newly discovered documentary)... > > But that's what all literature is about. One person imagining > what something is like, and sharing that so others can > experience it as well. I have a pretty good imagination too, > yet I find other people imagining things I would never have > thought of. To be restricted to only what my imagination can > provide would result in a pretty sterile life. Exactly. And since the imagining of others is so readily available, I'm going to pick the stuff I think is worth my time. And I'm going to have to do some triage based on the opinions of others. And that means that I'm going with my gut on this one because I am as yet unconvinced that seeing Titanic has anything I want to experience. > Sure, you could get anything you can get from _Titanic_ in > other ways, if you search around or imagine long enough. But > why? It's there in _Titanic_, and well done. If you found useful experiences there, then good for you. I'm not willing to put up with a heavily Marxist tautology coupled (heh) with a trivialization of sexuality and morality in order to watch a bunch of people die horrorifically in a boating accident. > Film, literature, personal imagination--it's all wonderful > stuff, and in combination synergistically invigorates our > lives tremendously. Why not experience it all? Why not experience it all? Because it is fundamentally impossible to experience it all. Life is made up of trade-offs. I have, as yet, not run out of things I'd rather not trade-off for Titanic. > I didn't watch > _Titanic_ for historical information about the event--I > watched the Discovery Channel documentary for that. But the > documentary didn't make FEEL what it was like to be there. > James Cameron did that. I highly doubt that. For one, the actual sinking took a couple of hours all by itself. Imagine having a couple of hours of wet darkness surrounded by the cries of the bereaved and frantic calls for help. All of that is necessarily compressed in any movie format. This editing means that it'd take a great deal of extra-Cameron imagination in order to come *close* to the feel of that horrorific experience. He may have enhanced the picture or drawn details you might have missed on your own, but that doesn't mean he's actually given the feeling of being there. I sometimes worry that we assign too much validity to our vicarious experiences. I'm not one to go in for the whole existentialist dogma and say that we can't communicate with each other at all, but I wonder if we aren't sometimes too facile in our belief in our own understanding. Is seeing the Titanic enough to claim we know just what it's like to have been there? Is seeing NYPD Blue enough to claim we know just what it is like to be a cop in New York? Is watching Notting Hill enough to claim we know what it is like to date a movie star? Is watching the West Wing enough to claim we know what it is like to be the President of the United States when terrorists take down the Twin Towers in New York? Maybe. I'd approach such claims with some care, though. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #926 ******************************