From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #958 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, January 29 2003 Volume 01 : Number 958 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:59:16 -0700 From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Black History Fireside Last night (I'm writing this Monday morning), I did a fireside with the brilliant Fiona Smith. I spoke a little about Green Flake, who was a slave of James and Agnes Flake. After the fireside, amidst the group of people wanting to talk, was a middle-aged man (white) who refused to shake my hand. He announced that he was a descendant of James and Agnes and that Green was not a slave, but had been given his freedom. Then he added, "And the rest of those niggers went back to Mississippi." He punched the most offensive word in that sentence so I wouldn't mishear. Interestingly, in the days before this fireside, I had been dealing head-on with racist epithets. I had helped a black friend of mine move from her workplace after she quit her job because of some racist comments. I had worked with my foster son's therapist on anger management in the face of the "N" word. (How do you respond appropriately, dear young man, to a person who calls you or your nine-year-old sister "a stupid nigger"?) After the fireside, I told Fiona and my husband about the incident and said I felt bad about my diplomacy. I did not call this man on his racism. We were in a chapel and he spoke the word that ignites my fuse. I chose not to make a scene, and hid my inner response pretty well, but was fuming long after the fireside. My husband urged me to let it go. Good advice, but hard to follow. I found myself waking up from a dream last night. It involved that racist man, but I don't remember any details. By the way, he cornered me for quite awhile, while others were waiting, and tried to tell me the true version of the Green Flake story--in which James and Agnes are heroic pioneers who freed all their slaves except those who insisted on staying with them. He told me that if Green was a slave, it was because he wanted to be. (Right.) I didn't tell him that I knew very well where he had gotten that version, and knew why it wasn't quite true. And then I felt so guilty that I hadn't been bold. Actually, the Flakes were indeed great pioneers--and they were also slave owners who were sometimes abusive to their slaves. They would not have seen themselves as abusive, because their behavior was an accepted norm of the day. And much of the information I have on Green and others of the Flake slaves is from members of the white Flake family--who have been enormously supportive and helpful. As I was trying to go to sleep last night, I tried to imagine how a better person would have handled the situation. Do we just let such things go so we don't create a scene? Do we calmly say, "I'm sorry, but that word offends me in ways you probably don't understand, so I really cannot continue this conversation." I honestly asked myself what the Savior would do and I honestly didn't know. I still don't. It angers me that my whiteness seemed to empower that guy to say that word. I doubt he would have said it to Darius Gray. And I wonder what Darius would've done if he had. (I'm copying this to him, so Darius, feel free to respond.) Darius can be a great diplomat, but he stands up for what he believes. I've seen him bear his testimony strongly to a group of disaffected Mormons, and I know he has spoken strongly to believing Mormons about the hard issues of racism. I would love feedback on this. I've received racist mail, and I've been confronted by ex-Mormons who fear _Standing on the Promises_ is mollifying Mormons. (Of course, they haven't read the books, but they're just real concerned anyway.) I am able to look friendly and accommodating when I'd really like to punch someone. I don't believe in punching, but I don't believe in accommodating either. I love Spenser's words:" Be bold, be bold, be not too bold." I fear I was not bold enough last night. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:11:16 -0700 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Richard Dutcher: > ><< 7. Did Dutcher, after seeing SW, really want to hang himself? >> > >I guess only I can answer this one. > >It's true. I have witnesses: my able former assistant, Emily, and my talented >storyboard artist, Brian. They experienced the movie with me. > >These kind souls were with me in my hour of distress. They restrained me, and >prevented me from doing harm to myself. > >I will be eternally grateful. God bless their beautiful souls. What *I* heard was that Richard was so embarrassed by the film that he asked that his part be removed from the video/DVD release. Is this true? And did they do it? (I haven't watched it on DVD, of course, so I don't know.) Eric D. Snider - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:52:35 -0700 From: "Mary Jane Jones" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward >>A few questions for the List: I can only respond to one... >>1. Isn't Singles Ward (SW) the most watched LDS movie to date? Singles Ward has grossed just under $1.3 million, I believe. God's Army = grossed nearly $2.7 million. Brigham City grossed around $1 million. The = Other Side of Heaven grossed over $4.7 million. Both the God's Army and = Brigham City videos have sold briskly, I understand. I don't know how the = Singles Ward video has sold, but I imagine it has done comparably well. = =20 That puts Singles Ward clearly behind God's Army and The Other Side of = Heaven, and slightly ahead of Brigham City in terms of box office (which = translates into eyeballs watching screens at movie theaters).=20 So, no, I don't think Singles Ward is the most watched LDS movie to date. Mary Jane (Jones) Ungrangsee - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 23:56:33 -0500 From: Justin Halverson Subject: RE: [AML] Why Not PG? Matthew Lee wrote: >I've been exposed to enough darkness in the world, >enough uncomfortable-ness that I don't feel a need to >supplement my media diet with more. It's unavoidable >that I will see more in my life without having to seek >it out. But there is a difference, I would argue, between what Elder Christensen and Presidents Hinckley and Benson (from the quotes in your most recent post) call "mud," "sleazy stuff," "degrading," "filth," etc, and that which, though it makes me uncomfortable, has--to use your words--"moral and artistic merit." I can't say exactly where the line lays, because I suspect that it is different for each person. And I suspect that it is very possible that the very same film (or book, or sculpture, or whatever) may be worthless "mud" to one and a powerful spiritual experience for another. (And even if you can't make the case for artistic merit, certainly if something has moral merit, it's worth watching, right? President Benson, for example, cautions against "immoral" art). There is an important difference, too, I believe, between the darkness we experience as human beings and the darkness that is part of *all* good art. That's one reason we had to come live on earth, why Heavenly Father couldn't just show us a film or have us read a book--and he'd certainly be the one to direct or write it. Vicarious experience gained through good art can help us understand one another, can challenge the different prejudices and weaknesses we all hold. It can help prepare us for the real darkness--because it contains *vicarious* darkness. But just as viewing good art cannot save us in and of itself, it cannot damn us in and of itself, either. The way we act when we leave the movie theater or turn off the TV or close a book--the way we respond to real darkness, which you are correct in stating is unavoidable--determines that. I wonder if Jesus might have been talking about this in some sense when he reminded listeners that "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man" (Matthew 15:11(11-20)). We can't blame R-rated films--or anything or anyone else--for our sins, just as we can't say we're good people for just seeing "Legacy" or simply reading the Book of Mormon (though these are not, of course, analogous actions). Of course, I'm not suggesting that we take *everything* into our mental and spiritual mouths. We're still under the injunction of the 13th article of faith to seek out good things, and given the guideline from prophets living and dead--as you pointed out with the quotes you included at the end of your last post--to be very careful, and to evaluate/judge everything we see in terms of whether it entices us to do good or evil. Also, I think that we're blessed with different strengths and weaknesses, different gifts of the spirit. I wonder if, for some, the ability (and desire) to maintain the critical distance needed to productively view a difficult film is such a gift. And just as Paul says, this gift *in and of itself* doesn't mean its bearer is smarter or better or more spiritual or worthy than the bearer of another gift. It just means we're different, that we like different things and are moved by different things, that we learn in different ways and speak different languages (literally and metaphorically). Just because I feel a deep need--a call?--to see as many good stories as I can doesn't mean anyone will or should. And just because someone else doesn't feel that need, doesn't mean that mine is felt any less, or is any less valid. Bottom line, I know when something uplifts *me* and when something doesn't. I'm sure that you know the same things about yourself, too. I try to stay away from the latter and get as much as I can of the former, as I'm sure you do, too. Justin Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:16:58 -0500 From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward In a message dated 1/24/2003 5:56:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, ersamuel@byugate.byu.edu writes: > 10. Was it proper for Dutcher to label the girl as "the otherwise flat > >female lead?" (Of course, I noticed that right off but it is polite not to > >mention such things.) > > Actually, I thought she was quite an attractive young > woman. Just couldn't act. Although I did not enjoy her performance in "Singles Ward," I must stand up for this actress. I called her in for an audition recently. She gave a very fine reading. She has talent, and I honestly have no doubt that she can and will give solid performances in the future (if she gets the chance). This begs the question: So why did she deliver a poor performance in the movie? Maybe for the same reason that most of the rest of the cast delivered poor performances. They were either poorly directed or poorly cast. Or both. I've seen many of the "Singles Ward" actors in auditions and in plays. I can vouch for their talent. None of the blame should fall on them, although it inevitably does because they are visible and the director isn't. Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 22:39:18 -0700 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Note: Question #9 refers to the actual quality of the actual film "The R.M.," which some of us have seen. Otherwise, this e-mail is just me rambling some more. >Alan Mitchell asked: > > >1. Isn't Singles Ward (SW) the most watched LDS movie to date? Not in terms of box office dollars. It is third, with $1.2 million, behind "The Other Side of Heaven" ($4.7 million) and "God's Army" ($2.2 million). "Brigham City" ($900,000) comes after it, but I suspect more DIFFERENT people saw that movie than "Singles Ward." "Singles Ward" had a lot of the same people seeing it again and again and again, whereas "Brigham City" is not the type of film (i.e., comedy or action flick) to inspire that sort of repeat business. > >2. Did SW succeed because of the characters, story line, warm >fuzzy >feeling, > >or technical merit? It succeeded because a lot of young Mormons don't get out enough to know what real comedy is, to know that a reference is not the same thing as a joke, to know that just because they recognize something doesn't mean they're being entertained by it. Technically, the film had a lot of problems. > >3. Did it sell so many tickets because Mormon singles in Happy Valley love > >to laugh at themselves? > Eh, maybe. I think it's true Mormons have a good sense of humor in the sense that they can take a joke aimed at them, if it's done in good fun and doesn't come from an outsider. > >4. Was it "officially approved" by all the cameos and therefore liked ? > No. > >5. If Eric Samuelson, Richard Dutcher, and Eric Snider actually liked SW, > >what would that say about the state of Mormon arts? > If we all liked "Singles Ward," it would mean "Singles Ward" was a good movie. :-) As it is, it's strange enough that the three of us actually agreed on something. It surely will not happen again. > >>6. Is it true that cattle will eat anything that is put in their stalls? No, but people at Chuck-A-Rama will. > >7. Did Dutcher, after seeing SW, really want to hang himself? > If not, I'm sure he did after seeing the box office receipts for "Singles Ward." > > >8. Why can't we all just get along? > Because too many people are idiots. But I kid. The thing a lot of us have a hard time with is separating professional criticism from personal criticism. It's natural, I guess, to take criticism against our work -- which we invest so much time, energy and passion in -- as criticism against us. I suppose it's also natural to take disagreements with our opinions personally. But we need to put off the natural man. > >9. Can't we hardly we wait until the sequel "The RM" comes out so we >can > >hate it too? > I saw this movie today. It's not a sequel, actually. It has a lot of the same actors, and one of them who played a guy going on his mission in "Singles Ward" plays a guy coming home from his mission in "R.M." But it's a different guy. Anyway, the film is surprisingly not bad. The humor focuses more on characters and situations and less on observations like "Mormons eat Jell-O." It is not a great movie, but an OK one, and I laughed quite a few times during it. > >10. Was it proper for Dutcher to label the girl as "the otherwise flat >>female lead?" (Of course, I noticed that right off but it is polite not to > >mention such things.) Anything Dutcher does is OK by me. Seeing movies like "The Singles Ward" and "Handcart" has only made his films seem that much better by comparison. > >12. Wasn't the moral of the play to commit genocide against all >comedians? > That was the one thing I agreed with the movie about. Eric D. Snider - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 23:44:39 -0600 From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Disappointing People (was: Singles Ward) Thom Duncan: ... I've learned something early on that has helped me over the years. You can't please everybody. Pure and simple. _______________ This is an important lesson to learn. It believe it applies not only to producers, but to actors, writers, co-workers, politicians, prophets, parents, teachers, bishops, Relief Society presidents, ... [smile] Larry Jackson lajackson@juno.com ________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 07:54:29 -0700 From: "Elizabeth Walters" Subject: RE: [AML] Singles Ward "I wonder what Scorcese would say about Spieberg's 1942." Probably something similar to what Spielberg would say about Scorcese's "Cape Fear" or "Last Temptation of Christ." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:37:17 -0700 From: workshop@burgoyne.com Subject: [AML] Re: Writing Contest at LTU&E Quoting Marny Parkin : > I'm forwarding the rules to the DragonComet Writing contest, in > conjunction with the science fiction sympoisum at BYU (Feb. 13-15) > for those who are interested. [snip] Three questions: Is the contest open to everyone, or only to those who have not been published? Who is going to be doing the judging? (Professional author(s), BYU English professor(s), professional editor(s), LEADING EDGE staff, anyone who wants to, or who?) Are there prizes for the winners, and if so, what are they? Thanks, Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury workshop@burgoyne.com - --------------------------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through Burgoyne Webmail - http://popmail.burgoyne.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:57:05 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Center Street Theatre Promotion? Center Street Theatre dudes, I would love to see you start doing more promo, such as having a website and using e-mail and snail mail to drive people there, maybe start selling season and/or individual tickets online. I'm a prime candidate for attending your theater, but I don't feel I've been romanced or informed enough (I'm not saying that's stopping me from attending, just making an observation). I do not have a CST schedule on my fridge. I don't think I've ever been enticed with a promo, such as two-for-one tickets or other benefits. The only publicity I'm aware of for your theatre is some newspaper reviews and features, which are good as far as they go but probably not enough. Have I missed or forgotten some efforts, or are you guys still getting ramped up on those? E-mail in particular could be a fairly cheap, effective way to get more momentum going. It's possible to start building a mailing list quite small by asking for referrals, and eventually it gets bigger and more effective. All I know is that people need to get regular information and reminders and offers from you, not necessarily four-color slick stuff but at least the occasional flyer and e-mail. I could possibly offer some assistance with some occasional targeted mailings (snail and e-mail), if you want and you have a little budget to cover expenses. And you need a webmaster, if you don't already have one. Maybe other AML-Listers have expertise they would volunteer. You need to capture people's e-mails who visit your site and then keep in regular touch with them. You need to not be afraid to even do a little targeted spamming, which unfortunately does get some results, so it's worth doing. Or maybe you already have all these things in play and I just haven't personally seen the results yet. Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:15:51 -0800 From: Kathy and Jerry Tyner Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward You know, I've not proffered an opinion on all of this since I haven't seen the movie. So, for obvious reasons I have only to note that my fourteen year daughter loves it and so do her friends and maybe that's the level of audience this film was shooting for. But I must say that anyone, I mean anyone who would not accept and use Richard's most generous offer of help and also other's suggestions suffers in my opinion from a staggering case of hubris. I can think of a few other choice descriptions, but I'll keep those to myself. Why would anyone pass on a offer to make a better movie? I'm just stunned by this revelation. They deserve the harsh criticism they've received. And I even felt a little sorry for them before hearing this. It would be like passing up using the Urim and Thummim to translate something. I would take an offer of help from Richard Dutcher any day, even if was only how to do a better home video of my mom's birthday party. What do I know that they didn't grasp? Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:18:55 -0700 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Singles Ward Richard Dutcher wrote: "But, as all of you know, the dam burst recently and out came that AML review....I have asked myself several times over the past week or so whether I should have written it, and whether I need to repent of this impulsive act. I'm still not sure." Richard, I for one am glad that there are people who are willing to honestly express their opinions. Your experience, education and talent make your opinion worth considering. It educates me. I also get a good laugh or at least a smirk or two out of your clear-voiced and fresh turns of phrase. So please don't repent, because repenting means not ever doing it again, and I need the input. As one of the "uneducated" movie consuming masses, I have to admit I own copies of both your movies and SINGLES WARD. I've watched your movies several times each. I've watched SINGLES WARD once since I got it. Every time I think about seeing it again I think, "nah, don't feel like seeing a roadshow tonight". But I've loaned it out a lot. The 14 - 17 years olds I know really love SINGLES WARD. I think for them it's like belonging to a club. They get the in-humor and it's definitely on their level. So I may have to sit through it again this Wednesday when the Beehives and MIA Maids come to my house to work on leper bandages and watch a movie for a YW activity. I buy these LDS movies because I feel like I'm preserving a little bit of history for the future--in 20 years we'll pull them out and laugh and gack at some of them, I'm sure. Those of you who are more visionary have the "gack" response now. Ahead of your time. Anyone ever seen LEFT BEHIND and some of those "born again" type Christian movies? I think history will lump LEFT BEHIND, CHARLY, OUT OF STEP, THE SINGLES WARD, JOSHUA (a born again one) and others of that ilk together in a "home literature"-ish category. It'll bring a whole new meaning to the phrase "home movies". Then there are films that tell the story of a culture in a way that's universal in theme--those kinds of stories that say "hey, they're not so different from us, and look what they had to go through" (FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, SCHINDLER'S LIST, BRIGHAM CITY--will Dutcher's film about THE PROPHET fall here?). Those are stories that give insight into a culture or people as opposed to exploiting it's idiosyncrasies for low humor (SINGLES WARD, ANIMAL HOUSE, ENCINO MAN, WAYNE'S WORLD, etc. etc. etc.) Hey, epiphany! That's what bugs me about SINGLES WARD--it's a cleaned up version of teen humor. No sex jokes, no potty jokes, no crass bodily functions...but a gentler form of that with Jell-O molds, slapschtick cops, weird camera angles to tell us THESE PEOPLE ARE GEEKS just isn't funny enough to sustain a full length movie. Maybe they could refine some of those bits into 60 second commercials for gelatin, the Welcome Wagon, airlines, bungee-jumping theme parks--the humor would sustain a 60 second commercial. Kim Madsen AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 18:29:37 EST From: Kimheuston@aol.com Subject: [AML] S. Michael WILCOX, _The Way, the Truth, and the Life_ (Review) Title: The Way, the Truth, and the Life: Images of the New Testament Author: S. Michael Wilcox. Photos by Floyd Holdman and Don O. Thorpe Publisher: Covenant Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 102 Binding: Hardback=20 ISBN: 1-59156-109-4 Price: $29.95 Reviewed by Kimberley Heuston _The Way, the Truth, and the Life_ is the second coffee-table book about the= =20 Holy Land by S. Michael Wilcox, a popular instructor at the University of=20 Utah Institute and prolific LDS writer. The first, _On Holy Ground: Images= =20 of Old Testament Lands_, published by Covenant in 2001, is in some ways the= =20 superior book. Not only did it include John Telford's beautiful photographs= =20 (apparently recycled from Susan Easton Black's 1999 contribution to the same= =20 genre, _In the Footsteps of Jesus: Images of the Holy Land_, also published= =20 by Covenant), but as the first in the series, it was more careful to define= =20 its authorial voice, which is important given that this is a book that=20 positions itself outside familiar genres. It's not really a coffee-table=20 book; although Holdman and Thorpe are apparently widely-published=20 photographers, the photos chosen for this particular project are of mixed=20 quality and alternate with nineteenth-century maps and illustrations more=20 probably chosen for the virtue of their lapsed copyrights than for their=20 dubious esthetic qualities. Neither is it a commentary on the historical or= =20 archaeological context for the pictured sites, like Jefferson White's=20 _Evidence of Paul's Journeys_ or John Crossan and Jonathan Reed's= _Excavating=20 Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts_. =20 In fact, a first reading left me scratching my head. The "author's preface"= =20 is simply the JST of John 1: 1-5. Chapter 1, "Even Unto Bethlehem," began= =20 starkly and a little clumsily:=20 "Bethlehem has always been one of my favorite sites. I look forward to it= =20 with the same anticipatory emotion that I looked forward to Christmas= morning=20 as a child. There is a joy and a delight that still rings in Bethlehem. We= =20 start in the shepherd's fields by reading the simple, beautiful words of= Luke=20 annually repeated in homes all over the world at the Christmas season." Who are you? I wonder (a little disingenuously, since we lived in the same= =20 ward for a few months.) And who are "we"? Do you mean every Christian? =20 Every reader of this book? Several paragraphs later "the sisters of our=20 group" sing, and I wonder if he is describing a trip he took with his=20 extended family. It is only as the book wears on that the reader gathers=20 that this book is essentially a well-illustrated collection of lecture notes= =20 from the LDS student trips Wilcox regularly leads to Palestine. =20 Despite its bumpy beginning, the narrative taken on its own terms is=20 compelling. It is clear that Wilcox is writing about experiences and= musings=20 that matter deeply to him, and if they are not as fully explained or=20 historically situated as I would like, they are as nourishing and homey as a= =20 slice of hot wheat bread spread with butter and honey and washed down with a= =20 glass of cold milk. Each chapter provides that mixture of information and= =20 applied gospel "life lesson" familiar to all who have been lucky enough to= =20 witness an earnest parent giving a Family Home Evening lesson to cherished= =20 children. As that pillar of American cultural studies, TV Guide, warns in= =20 its blurb about the 1950s movie _Tammy_, this book will be most meaningful= =20 "For the pure in heart." Bottom line: a more polished and sophisticated version of the journal every= =20 traveler to the Holy Land wishes they had kept, but offers little new=20 insight. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:20:00 -0700 From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: RE: [AML] Singles Ward 1. Isn't Singles Ward (SW) the most watched LDS movie to date? No. Among the 6 films that have been released to date, the most watched (at least as reflected in box office gross) would be "The Other Side of Heaven" which grossed $4,720,112 at the box office. Next would come "God's Army", which grossed $2,628,829. "The Singles Ward" would be third at $1,250,798. Of course, these numbers do not reflect video or DVD sales and rentals. Since "The Other Side of Heaven" will not be released on video and DVD until April, it loses some ground there. (Numbers from LDSfilm.com) Thomas - ---------------------------- "Of course, there should be a structure, an architecture to any score. It's not a piece here and a piece there. It has to be thought out. You can't approach each cue as a separate piece of music." - Jerry Goldsmith, composer Contact info: Thomas C. Baggaley Composer 9446 Fox Hunt Drive Sandy, Utah 84092 Tel: (801) 942-3580 E-mail: thomas@baggaleymusic.com Web page: http://www.baggaleymusic.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #958 ******************************