From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #57 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 Monday, May 19 2003 Volume 02 : Number 057 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:39:16 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] Signing Off for a While I'm really sorry to see Andrew leave, for now. His posts are always terrific and insightful. I could maybe pick up the slack with the newspapers, unless you have something else in mind. [MOD: I? Nothing else in mind so far. Please feel free to step up to the plate, R.W.] ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:20:35 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror At 11:44 AM 5/9/03 -0600, you wrote: >Nibley also has >his famous story of sleeping in a haunted battlefield during WWII to try >and meet a ghost. (It was haunted from some ancient Greek battle - I >forget which one) I saw a program on the History Channel about ghosts of Civil War soldiers haunting some buildings near Gettysburg. For example, a couple of women took the elevator to the basement, and when the door opened they saw a battlefield surgery going on, with horribly wounded soldiers undergoing amputation and other icks. The women pounded on the "close" button until the door closed and went back up. After that, only a boring business basement was there. I should think that if you die in battle, the one benefit would be that you would then go someplace nicer, leaving your shattered body behind. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:11:50 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: RE: [AML] Biblical Language > This is true in German. In German, Du is informal and Sie formal. You = > use > Du with family, friends, fellow-students, royalty, children, and God. I > suspect it was similar with English and thee. > Oh, I should also indicate that personally, I am very informal with God > because I got used to it in Germany and frankly, I prefer to keep that > relationship an informal one. So far, He hasn't objected in any way I = > have > been able to determine... > > Jacob Proffitt Maybe this is a cultural thing. In Lotion and Thai, being informal with God is horrid. There are actually several levels of pronouns in these languages. There is a very informal one (gutter language, I won't even try to transliterate it) an informal one ("chaw" for you, "khoy" for me/I) a slightly more formal one (where you refer to other people according to where they would be if they were related to you, if the man is old enough to be my father, I call him "paw" or if the lady is old enough to be my older sister, I call her "euay" - I refer to myself as "khanoy" which basically means "little me/I"), and more formal one (for kings, gov't officials and such) and a highly formal one for gods and diety (crosses over a bit with the one for kings - linguists would likely say they are the same level, "phaong"). Anyway, despite the fact that in the Greek there is no difference in the pronouns used to address men and gods, the NT in Lao must use the different pronouns because if we used the anything less than the high pronoun with God and Jesus, Laotions would never read it, because to them it would be rude and innappropriate. Ane Laos has no Puritanical background to its culture, so stop using the Puritans as straw man scapegoat. - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 19:34:26 -0500 From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report May 2 03 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of May 2, 2003 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days - --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 28 Piglet's Big Movie 269,900 463 45 Ken Sansom (3rd-billed actor) 22,413,215 33 The Core 161,889 589 38 Aaron Eckhart (lead actor) 30,486,630 59 Final Destination 2 33,766 56 94 A.J. Cook (2nd-billed actor) 46,809,423 81 Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure 14,327 10 815 Scott Swofford (producer) 14,545,767 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) Sam Cardon (composer) Stephen L. Johnson (editor) 85 The R.M. 12,363 17 94 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 930,425 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Kirby Heyborne, Will Swenson, Britani Bateman, Tracy Ann Evans Merrill Dodge, Michael Birkeland, Maren Ord, Leroy Te'o, Curt Dousett Wally Joyner, etc. 96 The Cremaster Cycle 8,133 1 10 Mathew Barney 26,054 (writer/producer/director/actor) 111 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 4,444 3 1095 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 15,186,747 129 China: The Panda Adventure 1,677 3 647 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,041,389 131 Galapagos 1,446 4 1284 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 14,007,719 150 Jack Weyland's Charly 446 1 220 Adam Anderegg (director) 813,685 Jack Weyland (book author) Janine Gilbert (screenwriter) Lance Williams (producer) Micah Merrill (producer, film editor) Tip Boxell (co-producer) Bengt Jan Jonsson (cinematographer) Aaron Merrill (composer) Actors: Heather Beers, Jeremy Elliott, Adam Johnson, Jackie Winterrose Fullmer, Diana Dunkley, Gary Neilson, Lisa McCammon, Randy King, Bernie Diamond, etc. HENDERSHOT'S NEXT FILM - Prolific Latter-day Saint feature film director Eric Hendershot has announced his next film. Although Hendershot has directed 10 feature-length films already, this will be his first theatrical release. The title is "Pinewood Derby." 4 dads cross over from friendly competition to maniacal obsession as they prepare their sons wooden cars to race in a Cub Scout Pinewood Derby. The film will be produced through Hendershot's production company Pure Entertainment. Funding is already in place and production is moving forward. "Pinewood Derby" is a registered trademark of the Boy Scouts of America. The production has written permission from BSA to use the trademark names and concept. Hendershot's previous films include: Clubhouse Detectives in: Big Trouble; Clubhouse Detectives in: Search of a Lost Princess; Clubhouse Detectives in: Scavenger Hunt; Horse Crazy; Baby Bedlam; Message in a Cell Phone; A Kid Called Danger; Angels in the Attic; The Robin Hood Gang; Clubhouse Detectives. CHARLY DVD RELEASED TODAY - As a part of the festivities of the DVD/video release of "Charly", the following signing events are planned: Tuesday, May 6, 2003 ZCMI Deseret Book, Downtown Salt Lake - Noon - 2pm With Heather Beers ("Charly") Friday, May 9, 2003 Jordan Commons, Sandy (Doug Wright Movie Show) - 10am - 11am With Heather Beers Fort Union Media Play - Noon - 1pm With Heather Beers Cottonwood Deseret Book - 7pm - 8pm With Heather Beers Orem Media Play - 6pm - 8pm With Adam Anderegg (Director) and Aaron Merrill (Composer/Producer of Soundtrack) Riverdale Media Play - Noon - 2pm with Bernie Diamond ("Mr. Rafferty") HANDCART ON DVD AND VHS JUNE 3RD - From a press release: Handcart's theatrical run has ended and we are quickly getting ready for the release of the video. We have the "Handcart: Special Edition" DVD and VHS. The VHS will have the special edition cut of the film. The DVD will be a two disc set that includes the New Cut on disc one, and disc two will include an extended documentary on the making of the film, from raising money to the production, from post production to the "garage" distribution that put the film into 50 theaters nationwide. Also available will be the soundtrack by Eric Hansen on CD. All products will be distributed by Thompson Productions and available at LDS bookstores and other locations. MORE HANDCART - Another press release: Handcart will be available on June 3. It will be available on VHS and DVD. Both will have the new cut of the film. We have counted about 75 changes to the film, thus we are calling it "The Special Edition". It is made up of changes that was too late to make for the theatrical release, plus changes made from comments made from the good honest members of the church who loved the film, but wished for more. We actually went back out and filmed a few more scenes, filmed cutaways to existing scenes, and did a few digital effects. We also recut the story structure of the film to flow better. The DVD Special Edition is a 2 disk set, disc 1 is the film and commentary and disc 2 are special features, including an hour long documentary on the making of the film called "Pushing Handcart". It is mostly about how we pushed the film out of the door with little money to our name, as well as how I distributed the film by myself out of my garage. Kind of fun. Also includes deleted scenes and outtakes, as well as 5 evolving previews made in raising money for the film. We will also be releasing the Motion Picture Sountrack on CD. All products are available from Thompson Productions. Deseret Book is one of the first to pick it up. HANDCART PRESALES BEGIN - LDS Video Store (http://www.ldsvideostore.com) appears to be one of the first places taking pre-orders for the DVD/video release of Kels Goodman's theatrically distributed feature film "Handcart." Deseret Book has also committed to carrying the product. The official release date is June 3, 2003. WORK AND THE STORY SITE UPDATED - According to the trailer newly posted on "The Work and the Story" website over the weekend, the movie will be in theaters in August 2003. A new slogan appears at the end of the trailer: "The Work and the Story: Keeping the SIN out of MORMON CINEMA" Also, note that the a scene with Richard Moll is featured in the trailer. Moll is best known for playing "Bull," the large, bald, somewhat dim-headed bailiff on the popular sitcom "Night Court." Note that Kirby Heyborne is featured much more prominently on the website and in the trailer than before. Heyborne and Moll now both receive poster billing, which they did not before. "THE R.M." DVD RELEASE SCHEDULED - According to the trailer on the new "Charly" DVD, "The R.M." will be released on video and DVD in September 2003. CAST AND CREW SOUGHT FOR ECTO - Forwarding from Action! Acting: The independent feature "Ecto: Home Grown Nuclear Acceleration" is seeking key crew. Looking for DP, Gaffer, Best Boy, Production Sound, Post Production Sound, Sketch Artist, and Key Grip. Production format is Mini-DV with an end title running time of about 60 minutes. Final mix and distribution format will be DVD with 5.1 audio. If you want to work on an extremely unique local independent production that will truly flex your technical skill and ability in a creative and fun way, please send information to Director/Producer Jared Buttars at ectomail@buttars.com. You may visit the movie site at www.ectofilm.com to learn more. Internship credit may be available to you if you are currently attending school. Check with your counselor. This is a non-paid position, but one that will assist in the gaining of experience, exposure, and flat out be a blast to work on. NEW DOLLAR THEATER IN PROVO - See http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/43717 for article. "TIMELINE" DELAYED - Science Fiction News is reporting that "Timeline," the blockbuster time-travel film starring Latter-day Saint actor Paul Walker in the lead role, has been delayed and will probably be released in November. A summer release had been planned. The schedule has been pushed back after difficulty scheduling re-shoots with the 8 key actors, all of whom have been busily employed on other projects. Also, The Music From the Movies Web site reported that producers have dumped Jerry Goldsmith's score for Richard Donner's Timeline movie and have turned to composer Brian Tyler (Frank Herbert's Children of Dune). KNIGHT RIDER MOVIE AND SERIES - Current news about new incarnations of two TV series created by legendary Latter-day Saint TV producer Glen A. Larson: See http://www.scifi.com/sfw/current/news.html GALACTICA GAME DEVELOPING - Warthog is developing a prequel video game based on the Battlestar Galactica TV series for the PlayStation 2 and Xbox. The Battlestar Galactica game will join the DVD and home-video release of the original TV series, as well as the SCI FI Channel's upcoming miniseries, to celebrate the franchise's 25th anniversary. The game, to be released by Vivendi Universal Interactive, puts players in the role of Ensign Adama, 40 years before the events of the original television show. Players will get to pilot retro versions of the famous Colonial Viper attack fighters, as well as an all-new Colonial heavy bomber and the familiar Cylon Raider. Vivendi Universal Interactive is owned by Vivendi Universal, which also owns SCIFI.COM. SHAPE OF THINGS REVIEWS - Neil LaBute's "The Shape of Things" opens this Friday in limited release, mainly L.A. and New York, before expanding elsewhere. With 10 reviews counted, the RottenTomatoes.com score is currently 70% favorable reviews, with 10 reviews counted. Here are early reviews, many from the Sundance Film Festival premiere of the movie: Slant Magazine (1.5 stars out of 4) - http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=3D665 Steve Rhodes (3 stars out of 4) - http://us.imdb.com/Reviews/347/34749 Filmcritic.com (4.5 stars out of 5) CriminyPete.com (4.1 out of 5) - http://www.criminypete.com/theshapeofthings.html Hollywood Reporter - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hollywoodreporter/reviews/article_display.j sp?vnu_content_id=3D1805678 Boxoffice.com (4.5 stars out of 5) - http://www.boxoffice.com/scripts/fiw.dll?GetReview?&where=ID&terms=7356 Killer Movie Reviews (4 out of 5) - http://www.killermoviereviews.com/main.php?nextlink=display&dId=246 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 08:06:51 -0400 From: lwilkins@fas.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [AML] _Run Lola Run_ (was: In Defense of Obscurity) D. Michael, I have to respond to this because Run Lola Run is a film I really like, too. You have to admit that the story line is 'very simple, straightforward stuff.' Characters are shallow, remain virtually undeveloped. Do you see this film, then, as being more about film technology, medium, than about anything that you can call a narrative? I've actually thought a lot about this film, and I think there's a lot more going on than meets the eye, in terms of plot. Most good stories with simple, unadorned storytelling techniques are incredibly profound. But... I'm curious what you think about this in the Lola film? Wish I could have been at the film lab--post-histoire is always a fun topic to banter about. Laraine Wilkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 15:55:24 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] In Defense of the Church/Art Paradox, Part 1 So, a friend of mine e-mails me this clip. The clip is from that often = caustic show "South Park". You know, it's that show with the two squat = little cartoon kids who curse. Anyway, this clip is really funny. I'll = try and describe the scene. Scene opens: you're in Hell. A huge crowd of people are milling around, = confused, wondering where they are. Steam rises from blackened, = cone-shaped vents in the floor of a massive cavern. An entire mountain = range of volcanoes erupts in the far background. Suddenly, a speaker squawks with feedback and all heads turn to face a = podium where some guy who looks like he knows what he's doing is = preparing to speak. The guy talks with a bored, disinterested, = done-this-a-million-times kind of tone. Everybody listens. "People, people. Excuse me. Can I have everybody's attention here? We've = got a lot to cover today, so let's just get right started with the = orientation. Uh, for those of you who haven't figured it out yet, yes, = this is Hell. You know: 'Abandon all hope, ye who enter here, blah, = blah, blah.' Okay, the first item of business on the agenda today -" Someone interrupts him from the crowd: "Hey! Wait a minute! This is-there's been some kind of mistake! I don't = belong here!" The guy talking is wearing a suit and tie. Looks very clean cut. He = keeps protesting: "I was a very devout Protestant my whole life. This is nuts. I don't = belong in Hell!" Others in the crowd take up the outcry. One voice calls out of the = cacophony: "Yeah! And I was a devoted Jehovah's Witness. What am I doing here?!" The Orientation Director taps for order and replies: "Uh, well sir, you have the same problem as this other gentleman. You = were both in the wrong religion." There is a gasp and a wave of mutters = through the crowd. Several voices ask: "What was the right religion?!" The moderator is glad to answer (after all, it's so obvious): "Uh, well, that would be Mormon. The correct answer is Mormon." At this revelation, there is a sudden reaction from the crowd: a kind of = collective Homer Simpson "DOU!"; a gasp with the communicative = inflection: "Damn! I KNEW it!" It's a pretty funny clip. That last sound effect of the collective = I-knew-it gasp is particularly hilarious. Now obviously, the "South Park" creators (both of whom spent some time = growing up in Utah, I think, which is why they occasionally rib the = Church in their show) are fiddling in this scene with high satire. They = don't believe the punch-line of their joke is true for one second. In = fact, what they are doing is the very opposite: making fun of the fact = that they think WE believe the punch-line of their joke is true. "Look = folks," they seem to be saying, "These guys actually believe they are = the one true religion and all the rest of us are going to hell. Isn't = that worthy of a chuckle?" There are many jokes with the same bent. One I recall has someone = arriving in Heaven, being taken on a tour of the place, and after a = while he realizes that 1) he and his tour guide have been whispering, = and 2) a large portion of Heaven has been walled off from the rest. When = he asks his guide about these two observations, the guide explains that = the walled-off section of Heaven is the neighborhood reserved for = Mormons. The reason the other residents of Heaven whisper when they are = near to the wall, is so as not to disillusion their Mormon confreres. As = the guide explains it, in a whisper: "They think they're the only one's = here." Such jokes and scenes attempt to extract humor out of differences = between groups. The classic "Us vs. Them" scenario. When I was a kid, I = wrote a poem of word-plays about this condition called "Folk of Us." It = went something like this: Me, Myself, and the Both of Us, Besat themselves to tea; Seeing they were the three of Us, The odd man out was Me. Sitting down beside Myself, With Both upon Me's knee, Two chairs made sufficient shelf For seating sippers, three. Lifting up a china'd lid, Myself exclaimed with glee, "There's just enough here sugar hid To sweeten mine and Me's!" Then Both cried out in load protest, "The sugar's in short supply, Because you two did eat the rest With You, Yourself, and I!" But Me could drink no bitter sip, Myself could sop no black; But Both would hear none of their lip, And gulped his with a smack! Myself smacked Both aside his head, And Both, he threw his cup; Then Me took over, while Myself bled, And promptly beat Both up! The three tea drinkers kicked and scratched And fought from tea till two, Till dashed and bruised, all collapsed, A'swollen black and blue. At last, Me shook his battered head, All dripping blood and phlegm, Said, "Look here: We don't want Us folks dead, So let's beat up on Them!"... In my opinion, LDS artists today face two great "Us vs. Them" scenarios = which affect our work, our outlooks, even our personalities. The first = scenario is the most obvious, and while I will touch on it herein, I'm = less interested in that aspect for now. The second scenario is more = subtle, and the primary topic for this essay. The first "Us vs. Them" scenario, as I see it, has to do with the = classic battle-cry: "Mormon Artists Against the World." Historically = misunderstood, the very concept of a "Home Literature" suggests an = insular exclusivity. We must write our own literature because 1) the = world will not provide for us and 2) the world will most likely reject = what we provide for them. So we write for ourselves. Fine and good. This isolated creativity, of course, is at odds with reality, because = unlike our more monastic brethren of Catholic or Buddhist history, or = the practical day-to-day isolation of groups such as the Amish, we = believe, at least in our more modern incarnation, in being "In the = World, but not of it." Not OF it, perhaps; but IN it, we are. Being in the world, we partake of it, probably more now, as a culture, = than ever before. Debate as we might about R-rated films or explicit = novels, we like a lot of what we find. When we set goals for ourselves = about what kind of artists we would like to be, we use examples from the = world. "Where are our Meltons, our Shakespeares, our Beethovens?" We = think they are better than us, and we feel a mild sense of inferiority = which sometimes saddles us with defensiveness. And so to overcome our inferiority complex (if it exists) I often find = LDS artists trying to be as worldly as they think they can get away = with. I do it, too. And the result is an inner conflict. Another aspect of this first "Us vs. Them" scenario has been debated = wonderfully by various members of the Association for Mormon Letters = through the internet forum, under the title "Artistic Relativism," = coined by Jonathan Langford from Jacob Proffitt's question, "What role, = if any, does objective reality play in our art and what role do = universal truths play in our philosophy?" This is the third in a trilogy of essays all titled with the unwieldy = prefix "In Defense Of." Some of the topics I meandered around in the = first and second installments, "In Defense of Obscurity" and "In Defense = of Moderate Judgment, Parts 1 & 2" come to a head in this essay, which, = for sake of length, will be broken up into three parts itself. But my = conclusions are still in flux, and the various implications and = iterations of the concepts I'm attempting to explore plague me with = indecisiveness still, even after the exercise of so many words. In a corollary discussion to the "artistic relativism" spin of = Proffitt's important question, several of us considered how we (LDS = artists) interact with the world around us. I proposed a philosophy of = "moderate judgment," which for some was just vague enough to be = infuriating. But in this particular "Us vs. Them" the ax cuts both ways, = and we often find ourselves at philosophical odds with others, and in = difficulty as to how to interact with one another, particularly with = respect to the presentation of our various writings, both fiction and = non. Travis Manning found himself in a frustrating position of being excluded = from a Presbyterian writer's group because they felt that his creative = non-fiction would too often bring up Mormon issue which would be at odds = with their own belief system. Or that was perhaps the reason. Stephen Carter mentions a class wherein students read various = religiously-oriented texts. He notes and laments: "I can see why my = classmates (and, frankly, so did I) liked the contemporary writers = better. They give you the feeling that you'll be listened to. But at the = same time, there is this tic in me that says, 'But gosh darn-it, there = is something true, and to stand for it is the greatest act a human can = perform.' Reconciling these two impulses is difficult, and I think = sloughing off either of them is a step in the wrong direction. The = Presbyterians Travis is wrestling with are falling off one side of the = horse, while the contemporary writers I read are falling off the other = side. How to stay on the horse?" An excellent question. One of my concerns in attempting to formulate my = "moderate judgment" essay was with Carter's idea of "being listened to." = How can we expect others to listen to Us if we don't at least in some = way respect and listen to Them? But at what point does that openness and = (to use an expression I don't like because it is indefinable and = misleading) "non-judgmentalism" become merely passivity and lack of = moral conviction? Jacob Proffitt strongly stated the following, with respect to = considering other people's philosophies: "I don't believe that other = philosophies are wrong. I do, however, believe them to be inferior. If I = didn't, I would be an adherent of those philosophies. I think that = should be a given. There's a certain dishonesty in trying to maintain = that you don't consider philosophies different from your own inferior. = Is it arrogant to believe other philosophies inferior? Well, to me, it = is only arrogance if it leads to being unteachable. In thinking it over, = I'd have to say that an additional quality is required for it to be = arrogant: the belief that your philosophy is complete and without flaw. = I don't believe that. I find other philosophies fascinating and enjoy = learning about/from them. Frankly, many of them have some great things = to teach us. If I find something better, I'm more than willing to add it = to my own philosophy. It's a very free-market, capitalist, American way = of looking at philosophy (and one way where at least my brand of = Mormonism really does qualify as Bloom's "American Religion"). It is the = essence of the 13th Article of Faith. So while Judaism is inferior to = Mormonism, that doesn't mean that Gitai's work doesn't contain valuable = insights that we might do well to explore. It doesn't mean that I'm = prepared to dismiss Jewish thought or Jewish artists, though I'll = probably discard some parts of their art. But then, I discard parts of = *every* art. And while I recoil at Jacob's physically voicing such an overtly = offensive sentence clause as: "Judaism is inferior to Mormonism," how = can I respond to the obvious retort which is begged by my revulsion: "If = you disagree, why are you a Mormon and not a converted Jew?"! Eugene Woodbury dealt with this at length in an excellent essay talking = about offending others with our belief in our (and therefore mutually = exclusive) truth. He says that we say, in effect, we are true and you = are not and then, to quote: "...We say, Hey, don't take it so personally. Well, if you take your = non-Mormon Christian faith seriously, how do you not? Here's this = upstart religion, and to concede the legitimacy of its claims means to = discredit your own. (I think that is also the essence of general Protestant antagonism towards the Catholic church.)=20 "The great irony in all this is that the Mormon view of salvation is = ultimately the most liberal of all the Christian faiths. So liberal that = you might be prompted to ask, why the need to evangelize? But as long as = we lay claim to JSH 1:19, 20, should we not then admit that there can be = no true fraternity with the non-Mormon believer? "Because an implicit attitude of condescension will be communicated in = the dialog: the unspoken 'Yes, but ... we're right and you're not' that = follows any deferential statement--that you (the 'gentile') are never = going to know everything unless you're first one of us (unless, in order = to find out, you talk to anti-Mormons who are rude enough to publish the = details of things like the temple; unfortunately, information from such = sources often comes with large helpings of bitterness and = vituperation)." End of quote.=20 Of course, to digress onto a topic I don't really want to talk about, = but it is interesting, we are kidding ourselves if we think we have a = lock on the "we-are-right-you-are-wrong" stance. As Eugene points out = about Protestant and Catholic conflicts, what religion DOESN'T to some = extent express an "Us vs. Them" outlook? I could spend a whole paper = detailing a broad swath of comparative religious studies showing that, = Unitarians perhaps excepted, everyone feels that way who feels strongly = about their religion. To cite just one example, what about Islam? With over 1 billion = adherents, and currently the fastest growing religion in the world, = Islam (which means "surrender" or "submission" to god) openly = acknowledges its belief that non-members are tough-out-of-luck in = Allah's eternal scheme of things. They, like us, also believe the Bible = to be true, in part, but not the whole truth, which resides in the = Qur'an (only in it's Arabic original, that is). Muslims believe that = Jews and Christians started out on the right path, but both groups = distorted the true religion of Islam and are now living in apostasy. The = believe we have much truth and goodness, but have lost the fullness of = the gospel of Islam, especially the specific ordinances and practices of = the Five Pillars which are essential to ultimate salvation by the grace = of Allah. I'm oversimplifying and generalizing, of course. But does any = of this sound familiar?=20 And while most Muslims are kind and generous to all those outside their = religion (in fact, on my mission, Muslims were infinitely more = hospitable to us than Christians, and I taught MANY more cold call, = tracting discussions to Muslims than any other demographic group), = certain radical denominations therein take their exclusionary beliefs to = the ultimate extreme, saying that all infidels are worthy of death! I = would be guessing, but I would bet dollars-to-doughnuts that the total = number of people on the earth who believe that little gem of thought far = outweigh the total number of active, practicing Mormons on the planet. = So we are far from exclusive in our bizarre paradox of having to love = our neighbors and yet, in Proffitt's turn of phrase, recognize their = beliefs as "inferior". Going back to Woodbury, his commentary goes on to make some other = interesting points: "Additionally," he says, "I think there is the = general perception that Mormons are constantly changing the rules while = the game is being played. We're the One True Religion, but what do we = (now) believe about polygamy? (I do wonder, having polygamists in the = family tree.) About King Follett? (A work of 19th-century Socratic and = Transcendentalist literature that belongs alongside Emerson and = Thoreau.) Faith vs. Works? (2 Nephi 25:23 gets it right, but does that = mean we're saved by grace, or no?) Infallibility? (If we believe that = the Bible is only as true as it was translated correctly, why do we = cling so tenaciously to the King James?) "Or is this all simply the current 'face' we're putting on our doctrine? = Are we saying, Well, we won't talk about such things if it offends you, = but we'll still assert them behind your back? "At the root of the problem I see a profound confusion. When Mormons = articulate a belief-set in a work of art--novel, play, film, etc.-are we = representing only ourselves? The community? The church? Are we governed = how we will be interpreted--whether 51 percent of the churchgoing public = says yea or nay? When I write for a public forum, I am representing what = the church believes, or asserting a personal interpretation of what I = believe the gospel is? And can it be held against me if it doesn't = conform closely enough to "doctrine"? Does JSH 1:19, 20 remain a = necessary and fundamental part of our catechism? "I don't think a "Mormon art" (not to be confused with art that comes = from artists who happen to be Mormons) can fully develop until such = questions are resolved. That is, until freely answering the question = doesn't subject you to the "Do you bet your life?" fine print that again = forces you to qualify, qualify, qualify, not only what we say to our own = community, but what we say to those outside it." End of Eugene Woodbury = quotes. These are questions for another time. Woodbury's comments, however, = segue me into the second of the two "Us vs. Them" scenarios which = concern me. It is this second scenario which I have clumsily titled the = "Church/Art Paradox" of this essay. And that is the seeming division of = camps which I have encountered in my entire life among LDS artists, = wherein I notice that LDS artists consider themselves one camp, and the = institutional Church (the leaders, and even the "run-of-the-mill" = members within the perceived generalization of 'Mormon culture') as the = other camp.=20 This "Us vs. Them" scenario is more subtle and, in a way, more = troubling. For ultimately, as suggested repeatedly by the arc of events = in the Book of Mormon and even, more humbly, in my little poem above, it = is internal division and strife which will ultimately destroy us, more = than our conflicts with outside forces. So while, in sister essays to this one, I argued for caution in both = forming and expressing our bias of "rightness" when regarding and = communicating with others (i.e., the "Us and Them" of "the World"), it = is perhaps infinitely more important that we apply such cautions within = our own community (i.e., creating a sense of "Us and Them" between LDS = artists and general LDS audiences and between artists and the hierarchy = of the institutional Church). But seeing as this introduction has gobbled up seven pages already, part = 1 of this essay must end here, and will be picked up in parts 2 and 3 at = a later date. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 15:56:33 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] In Defense of the Church/Art Paradox, Part 2 Several times in my life, I have had close friends and even family = members, struggle deeply with their faith in the Church. Some have = struggled simply to live certain commandments, never doubting their = faith in the existence of a god, or in the veracity of the Church Of = Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints. Others have deeply doubted the = veracity of the Church itself, but not the existence of a god. Still = others, have wondered sincerely if any supreme being or organizing force = exists in the universe at all. But for each, their struggle was sincere, = and potentially life-changing, and therefore, as an artist, I think = deeply informing and important. For each of these individuals, friends and loved ones, such questions = were and are intensely personal. And in each case, I have found myself = suffering with them, but helpless to do anything except provide a = listening ear and whatever words of comfort or counsel happened to come = into my mind at the time. As observers of the world, as artists, = teachers, readers and human beings, experiencing such struggles = vicariously with our friends can be as educational as they are painful = and difficult. One of these experiences came over a year ago with a friend I'll call = simply, "J.C." J.C. had a lot of problems, the Church only comprising = one small segment of his greater life struggle. A bitter divorce and = many sour experiences had brought him to a juncture where he sought to = change every aspect of his life, cutting ties and reshaping his entire = existence. We spent many long hours in deep conversation over the course = of this transition. I was his friend, and his Elder's Quorum President, = both. Managing the tenuous balance between those two roles in our = discussions was difficult, and ultimately abandoned. In the end, I could = only be his friend. Finally, he asked me to help him draft a formal letter to our bishop = requesting that his name be removed from the records of the Church. = Along with his excommunication, came a loss of Melchizedek priesthood, = the breaking of a temple sealing to wife and two children, the severing = of all ties with Church membership (except for a few of his closest = friends), and a complete reevaluation of his fundamental beliefs in god. = As a friend, I helped him write that letter. There are times when it is = not pleasant to have a reputation among friends and relatives as being = the resident writer. Among J.C.'s many complaints about the church, were several that have = come up in discussions among AML members, and about which I think each = of us struggle-the faithful and the doubting alike. One of J.C.'s lines = of complaint could be summarized simply as the following question:=20 "If the Church is true, why are there so many bozos in it?"=20 Or: "If the church is so true, why is there so much mediocrity in = members of the church." Oversimplified, certainly, but basically, that was his question. And by = its implication, the question forms his charge: "People should be better = in the One True Church than they are." Other friends of mine have asked and implied, effectively, the same = thing. And I find this attitude, or variations thereof, very much alive = within the smaller circle of LDS artists. Art has often created for itself an elitist mirage. I think one of the = reasons for this is that same insecurity which often plagues the Church, = culturally, as a whole. Artists are an often misunderstood and sometimes = maligned group. They struggle with deep emotions and difficult issues, = and sometimes the audience doesn't want to hear, or doesn't understand. = Out of defensiveness, many artists create an "Us vs. Them" scenario in = their mind that pits them against the very audience they are trying to = attract. This is sometimes true among Mormon artists as well. In the AML discussions-in-print, we have frequently bemoaned the more = frustrating aspects of our LDS "culture," disparaging with several = aspects of it. These frustrating cultural manifestations impact our = work, both practically and artistically.=20 Practically, we wonder, from a business standpoint, what we will be = "allowed" to publish; is there censorship in Deseret Book's recent = policy announcements?; is our readership too close-minded to read = certain things, even if they are published?; where are the outlets for = our more fringe-dwelling, but active and sincere voices?; are certain = discussions suppressed in the culture of the Church?; should those = discussion be suppressed if they are?; does the concept of "sacred" mean = for the artist that he must be "silent" (a conclusion argued against = vehemently by D. Michael Martindale); etcetera, etcetera.=20 Artistically, we wonder how to address certain elements of conflict, the = portrayal of evil, the consequences of sin, the portrayal of miracles. = We self-censor, in attempting to achieve a balance between what we want = to say, and what we think we CAN say. We either juggle these market = forces, or find ourselves ostracized. From time to time (I think it = rare, but perhaps not as rare as I naively think), an artist is directly = censored by an immediate Church leader creating long-lasting feelings of = hurt and confusion. Etcetera, etcetera. The result is that we become, as artists, critical of our own community = in deep-seated ways. We see an overall gauze of mediocrity, flashes of = outright stupidity, bold hypocrisy, or just plain ignorance, in our own = culture, both generally and in direct response to our own work. We see = the commercially successful work of others and judge it to be inferior, = and then, by extension, judge the culture that could produce and = financially support such work as inferior as well. So if it's inferior (like the Jews, the Muslims and everybody else) what = does that leave us with? Especially since the Jews, for example, who we = by default must consider theologically inferior to Mormons, are really = who Mormon artists most aspire to be like!: bold, funny, = self-deprecating, moving, overcoming in the face of persecution, = culturally intimate and obscure in the presentational style of their = work, and yet, after all, globally recognized as excellent. A paradox. Again. In struggling with complaints about the inferiority of own culture = recently, Clark Goble said, among other things: "The search for some = 'ideal gospel culture' that is somehow independent from all the cultures = around us is a futile one. The issue isn't the culture but what we do = within that culture. Just as when communicating ideas, the issue isn't = what language we use, but what we speak in that language. Consider = culture like a language and then the above seems far less insidious... = There is a danger when we criticize based upon culture just as much as = when we blindly accept based upon culture."=20 True, but I'll ask J.C.' question again: "If the Church is true, why are = they're so many bozos in it?" I see around me, in the LDS artistic community at least, lingering and = seemingly perpetual agonizing over these dilemmas. This comes across, = sometimes, as a desire to try to "make" or "force" our culture into = being more open and receptive; into training up a better artistic = community; into being less mediocre in most of our artistic = manifestations; into achieving a level of excellence which we have = achieved in certain areas but not in others, particularly in the = dangerous and complex field of the professional arts; and often, and = most emotionally, trying to force our leaders in the "institutional = Church" to understand us, accept us, quit censoring and judging us. These are issues which I've struggled with personally since I was 12, = and which I have witnessed my community struggle with, sometimes = violently, ever since.=20 R. W. Rasband comments about this personal struggle, citing a metaphor = from Philip Roth (a Jew, by the way, ) imagining a man being shot = out of a cannon at a "cultural wall," a metaphorical construct created = by the culture we are raised in that separates us from other = perspectives (and, if I may be so bold as to appropriate it, refers back = to the wall in Heaven in the joke I told in part 1 of this essay!). Such = a man (and in this case, Roth is referring to his characters which he = creates fictionally, shoots at their own cultural walls, and then = watches the results through the medium of his novels) might find himself = smashed against the wall and destroyed; others plunge half-way thorough = and lie bleeding in the hole; some pierce the wall and fly into "the = great unknown space beyond." Rasband then says: "In my own case the wall is cultural Mormonism. Hugh = Nibley once said, 'There are things about the church that appall me, but = I know that the gospel is true.' ... I too have a spiritual witness of = the gospel but have come to really dislike what some people's popular = ideas about the gospel are, and I really struggle with the implications. = So I guess I lay torn and bleeding in the hole in the wall." This struggle is not to be belittled. And yet, in our own inner turmoil, = have we forgotten some of the defendable aspects of "moderate judgment" = which I espoused earlier we should apply to others, but which I now must = point out that we might gain from if we applied them to ourselves? I'll explore this more in part three of this essay in a section dealing = with an exchange D. Michael Martindale and I back in March. But first, = I'd like to address the idea of all the "bozos" in the Church; the idea = of the "common" or "mediocre" in our culture. Martindale talks about the "Least Common Denominator" in a culture. This = mathematical idea of the LCD is a negative concept, when applied to a = culture and its various artistic expressions, suggesting mediocrity. I = do not deny that the LCD exists. I would like to propose a different = spin on it, however. Or, I do not mean a different spin to negate the = concept of LCD. But I believe there are different levels of LCD which = should be split out and identified. The bottom-most level of Least Common Denominator is, I believe, willful = mediocrity. The acceptance of mendacity out of sheer laziness or fear. = This is a deplorable condition, and I am certain that D. Michael and I = feel the same way about it. But not all LCD conditions are of this kind. In another, unrelated essay, I bemoaned the "blank stares" I sometimes = get when I make a particularly involved comment in Sunday School. I got = back several responses, some of which suggested that I should celebrate = certain aspects of the "blank stare" school, or at least recognize = different reasons for it. In the first of this trilogy of essays (I suppose "sextet of essays" is = really more accurate) I described a fictional scenario about a dog and = his master. I suggested that the dog, only being evolved to a certain = degree, could not be asked by his master to do certain things outside of = his ability, and then expected to have his existence hinge on his = ability to perform such unattainable tasks. This formed the basis for a = theory of obscurity in scripture as a protective device, because I = maintain that God wants us to evolve at our own rates, and is interested = in saving us, not in damning us before our ability to comprehend engages = our free agency. Thus that aspect of obscurity which I defended = presupposes the concept that each of us evolves at different rates and = that God has structured his Plan of Salvation to encompass all of these = individuals. My second essay (or second and third, depending on how you count), took = that one step further and suggested that if we are all at different = levels of development, and if God has worked out individual plans, or = rather, timetables, for each of us, then, in some literal sense, truth = is relative, conditional upon an individual's state of readiness, which = God knows, but which we are not capable of judging. That syllogism forms = the basis for my argument in defense of moderate judgment. If such a = situation is acceptable for "the world" (the "Them" outside of our = cultural Mormonism), why is it not applicable to the "Us"? Some "blank stare" people stare blankly because they are not ready, yet, = to "hear" what is being said. The "hearing" would engage them in some = responsibility for the knowledge on their part, something they are not = ready for. This is a second, and higher, level on the LCD ladder. I = choose to call this the "Least of these my brethren" or "As fast as the = slowest man" conditions of the gospel. When I was in Boy Scouts, we were taught how fast we had to hike. There = was a rule. You had to hike so fast. You know what the speed was? As = fast as the slowest man. The as-fast-as-the-slowest-man-rule is not very fun. It means that those = who want to plow on ahead cannot do so. It means that we have to keep = hanging back, in boredom, in frustration, in order to assist, help, keep = company with, get to know, mourn with, those who may be running at = different speeds. This is the ultimate Christian imagery of hiking. If a = man constrain you to walk a mile, go with him twain.=20 If you have agreed to be a part of this group (this culture, this = Church), Christ is saying, I have two programs for you. One is that you = perfect yourself. This you will accomplish as fast and go as far as you = can. There is a second program. That of helping to warn, perfect and = serving your neighbor. This program will require you to hike as fast as = the slowest man. I never said it would be liberating, but then again, it = is. Once you loose yourself in the service of another, you find yourself = flying free. There are a myriad of scriptural examples of this concept. We are told = that the gospel is adapted "for the weakest of these thy brethren." We = know that things come to us "line upon line." And therein lies the explanation for some of the most frustrating = cultural aspects of our religious institution. And therein also lies = more argument of moderate judgment. If this gospel is "adapted", = "modified", "watered down", changes through time, adds or takes away = certain requirements or elements based on history, time and place, the = needs of society, God's goals and overall timetable, then we cannot = assume our knowledge, ordinances, regulations, perceptions or truth are = in any way, yet, complete. This tempers our approach to the faith and = capacities of others, both within and without the cultural bounds of = Church membership. The word "average" has a very real meaning. And, quite frankly folks, = most people are average. That's what the word means. It's not a = flattering thought, to be average. So we try to use other, politically = correct variations of the term. We spin ourselves into believing that = most of us are above average and that average really means sub-par. But = average does not mean sub-par. Sub-par means sub-par, average means = average and above average means what it means. Most people are average. Everyone is average at something. I am average = at many things. I have only average to below average manual dexterity. = My typing is above average, my ability to play sports, average. I am an = above average reader, but not an exceptional one. I am an above average = cook. I am a below average mathematician. I am an above average teacher. = I am an average singer. I am an average driver. I am an average lover. I = truly excel in only a few categories. All told, I am a pretty average = person. Average is okay. But it ISN'T exceptional. Exceptional people are exceptional. There are not that many of them. The gospel is adapted for the weakest. There are a lot of average people = in the church. Average people are not exception. They are just average. = And most of us qualify. Hence, an overview of the culture will reveal, = as expected, a lot of mediocrity, a lot of slow hikers, a lot of = averages in every category. The problem is that the pursuit of art is considered, culturally, = exceptional. But it may not be. It may not be any more than any other = profession or trade. I love the Zen ideal of mastery in a chosen = pursuit. This philosophy-turned-religion has made arts out of the most = ordinary things by pushing them to their extraordinary limits. I like = the idea of seeking to obtain such limits in every aspect of life, but I = recognize that I will be unable to master, at best, more than one or two = things in my lifetime. We are forced, by circumstance, to specialize. In = one or two ways, each of us may be exceptional. In all the rest, we are = average. Artists crave for an elite society while God wants a complete society. God's culture is one where the weak are free to grow, for eons, if = necessary, into exceptional beings, and not find themselves rejected = because they have not yet evolved as fast or as far as some of their = brothers and sisters think they should.=20 We must allow our culture to be filled with "blank stare people"! That = must be okay with us or we have missed the whole point of the exercise. Some of my artist friends will argue that the problem is that so many = of these "less-evolved" people are in leadership positions. That there = are so many "average leaders". And that these average folk (or, to use = Michael's LCD terminology) these LCD people are the ones in authority, = passing judgment (immoderate at best) over us artists.=20 Some will say that it is the average that reject the outstanding; it is = the masses of the common who reject the exceptional performers who are = forced, by the mendacity of the mass, to exist at the culture's fringe. = And this may be true. So what? Can't take the heat? Hard to be humble? Hard to be patient? = Sure it is. Recent comments by Elder Holland and President Hinckley in the April = 2003 Conference about pitching our tents on the outskirts, conformity to = certain ideals not being evil, and the forum or room for dissenting = views within our culture were illuminating and exceptionally important = for us to consider. Especially among us as LDS artists. I often ask myself why many members of the Church do not try harder. = Perhaps the reason is that they don't really have to. Gospel basics WILL = get you through this life. Obviously Joseph Smith taught that whatever = degree of greater light and intelligence you can get will go with you = and serve you well. But that additional knowledge (just like the dog = learning he has to wash the car) is dangerous. And so many average = members of the Church balance their awareness that improving themselves = will avail them versus the safety and complacency of staying within = their status quo. The Brother of Jared was chastised for being complacent for four years = and not seeking for further light and knowledge from God, and = ultimately, so will we all. But each evolves at their own pace, and = railing and spewing and crying about the slowness of the slowest hiker = avails us little. And if it weakens our testimony about the verity of = the Church, then it is worse than of no avail, it is intensely = dangerous. My conclusion in this second half of this third essay is that we must = allow the LCD element of our culture to exist, not allow it to drive us = to apostasy or emotional suicide, and while doing our best to work at = gently, coaxingly, massaging it forward, seek satisfaction in personal = evolution and stop railing counterproductively at the lack of evolution = of others. In the final installment of this series, as I did in part two with a = discussion Jacob Proffitt and I had been having, I will respond more = directly D. Michael Martindale's remarks from this past March under the = heading "The Role of LDS Writers". I will also try to explain what I = mean by the "Church/Art Paradox" and why I think we can live in harmony = with the seeming cultural discord created thereby. And I will attempt to = tie these thoughts into how they may affect our literary work. Between the "Us-es" and the "Thems," there are, in the end, only Us-es. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #57 *****************************