From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #68 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 Friday, May 30 2003 Volume 02 : Number 068 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 12:05:33 -0600 From: Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] 20th Century Mormon Women: An Inquiry Lisa Tait wrote: >I am coming to Utah next week for a quick research trip. I'll be staying in >American Fork. Where are the best places to look for old RS Magazines etc? >Besides DI--and which DI? How about very old Mormon books? I want to find a >copy of Representative Women of Deseret and of Susa Young Gates's biography >of Brigham Young. Look up the books you want in the BYU Lee Library catalog before you come. I bet most of what you want are there. And if you have the call numbers looked up, you won't have to waste as much time while you're here. >Can anyone suggest further reading about farming and farm culture in Utah? Try Allan Kent Powell, ed., _Utah History Encyclopedia_ or Arrington, _Great Basin Kingdom_. >Danish/Scandinavian immigrants? There are a couple articles in BYU Studies about Scandinavian converts/immigrants: Bjarnason, Loftur, "The Land of Song and Saga" (1969), 9:2:209. Woods, Fred E., "Fire on Ice: The Conversion and Life of Gutmundur Gutmundsson" (2000), 39:2:56. Woods, Fred E., and Nicholas J. Evans, "Latter-day Saint Scandinavian Migration through Hull, England, 1852-1894" (2002), 41:4:75. Other sources: Andrew Jenson, _History of the Scandinavian Mission_ (Salt Lake: Deseret News, 1927). William Mulder, _Homeward to Zion: The Mormon Migration from Scandinavia_ (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1975; reprint, Provo, Utah: BYU Press, 2000). Marny Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 10:54:47 -0600 From: Gideon Burton Subject: [AML] R.S. Magazine (was: 20th Century Mormon Women) The Relief Society Magazine is awesome! What a treasure trove of LDS history, folklore, literature, etc. I'm glad Jacob mentioned it, and everyone should know about a new online resource that has indexed most = of the R.S Magazine, including all of the birthdays and recipes (the latter sorted by category, even). This has been put together by Connie Lamb, = one of the BYU librarians on the Mormon Literature Database committee. The URL = is http://web.lib.byu.edu/rsmag/index.php. Soon we will be entering the = many plays, poems, and literary lessons from the R.S. Magazine into the = Mormon Literature Database. Gideon O. Burton 3113 JKHB Department of English Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801) 422-3525 Visit Silva Rhetoricae: The Forest of Rhetoric http://rhetoric.byu.edu The Mormon Literature Database http://MormonLit.lib.byu.edu =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 15:42:39 -0400 From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] 20th Century Mormon Women: An Inquiry >On a related note: Over the weekend it occurred to me to wonder whether >there is a particularly Mormon way of observing Memorial Day. For us it was >always a day to pile in the car and drive down to Carbon and Emery counties >to 'decorate' the graves of our ancestors, always with flowers from our own >yard of course. I was at least 25 years old before it dawned on me that >Memorial Day was supposed to be a patriotic holiday. For me, it was a day of >remembering and honoring our ancestors. Is this a Mormon thing? Or a >generational thing? Anybody know anything about how Memorial Day has been >perceived and observed over the years? > >Lisa Tait I live just five miles from little Boalsburg, PA, which has a statue and a plaque declaring it the "birthplace" of Memorial Day. I'll see what I can find out. Justin Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 13:48:49 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Tom Rogers Reply I'd love to see a summary of that article about _Huebener_, Thom--that's in Bergera's book, right? Since I was very much there, I want to see how someone who wasn't there portrayed the experience. Obviously, I don't know about any personal conversations Tom Rogers had with Church authorities, but I do know who attended the play and what their response was. And since Tom's next project was a play about John D. Lee, it doesn't appear that anything was said to dissuade him from writing about potentially controversial subjects! ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 - -----Original Message----- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Thom Duncan Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 1:20 PM To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: RE: [AML] Tom Rogers Reply He was never called or questioned about "Heubner" in relation to the Freedman case but he was called on the carpet after the play was performed at BYU. Read all about it in _BYU, Household of Faith_. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 13:50:00 -0600 From: "gtaggart" Subject: RE: [AML] Tom Rogers Reply [MOD: I have to chime in regarding what I think is a miscommunication here. So far as I can tell, no one is saying that Tom Rogers got into trouble for writing the play. However, I do know that for a number of years after it was initially performed, it was "not available for performance," and this, as I understand, is because of a request Tom had received from an authority who (I think) felt that performance of the subject matter would be somehow divisive, possibly (this is my own speculation) because of lingering bad feelings among Church members who were living at the time the events of the play took place. I hasten to add that this is only my impression; Tom is a good friend of mine, but I've never asked him about this particular incident. I offer this explanation as illustrating how what Thom (Duncan) says and what Tom (Rogers) says can both be true.] Thom wrote, "He was never called or questioned about "Heubner" in relation to the Freedman case but he was called on the carpet after the play was performed at BYU. Read all about it in _BYU, Household of Faith_." So, you're saying Rogers is lying when he writes, "I was never threatened with excommunication or reprimanded for the play in any way. The play was in fact allowed to continue its long extended run in 1976 and was presented again, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, on the BYU main stage"? Greg Taggart - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 13:53:25 -0600 From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Neil LaBute's Work Carrie Pruett wrote: >there's been some recent discussion about whether Neil LaBute >is compromising his art for the sake of church approval. i've never >seen any of LaBute's plays or films because I've been turned off >of them by some very negative reviews. =20 I saw The Shape of Things in London with a group of BYU students. I was = a bit disappointed by the play, frankly. The reviews in London papers = were either rave or pan, nothing in-between, with the rave saying stuff = like 'if you only go see one play this year, this is the one must see = play in London.' I thought the play did not hold up well under scrutiny, = and really needed to be seen more as a kind of morality play, an = extended metaphor about art and the artist's responsibility, than as = anything that as a realistic portrayal of any actual university = situation. (SPOILER ALERT: Specifically, I can't imagine a grad student = in art having a committee that would let her get away with doing what = Eve does). =20 (Parenthetic digression: TSOT's view of art itself I found rather = strangely old fashioned. It reminded me of this unaccountable London = hit, this unfunny piece of dreck, billed a comedy, titled Art. The joke = in this play is that a guy has purchased, at a greatly inflated price, a = painting that is nothing but a canvas painted all white. This is meant = to be shocking and avant-garde and but what a doofus he is for being = taken in by it. An all-white canvas avant-garde? When, in 1958?) =20 But my students loved it. I mean, LOVED it. The Shape of Things, I = mean; it was far and away the most talked about, argued over play we = saw. I had an assignment where they had to do a close reading and = analysis of one play they'd seen, and Shape of Things was the = overwhelming choice. Neil, like most naturalists--Zola, Strindberg, David Mamet--is also a = moralist. He depicts extreme situations, and asks us to compare our own = moral behavior and attitudes to that of the characters. At his best, = his plays are brilliant in achieving that rather limited goal. When I = saw In The Company of Men at BYU in '92, I was deeply moved and = disturbed and distressed by it. I knew that I had never treated another = human being as wretchedly as those two male characters treated the one = female character. But had I ever come close? Had I ever partaken of = those attitudes, at all, for even one minute? I felt it led me to soul = searching and repentance and humility. I thought it was brilliant. =20 I've seen all of the films and seen or read most of his plays. I think = he's the best writer in the world in exploring one little niche of = contemptible human behavior. I think he dissects that niche with great = skill and insight. I don't think he's trying to shock or offend people = unnecessarily. I think he's trying to ask audiences to perform a kind = of moral gut check. Since that's his goal, I do think it implies a very = different view of 'audience' than he's generally presumed to have. I = think he anticipates his plays will be seen by an audience capable of = and interested in that sort of profound moral self-examination. =20 Personally, I have never found any of Neil's plays shocking. What do I = find shocking? Well, for example, the Lars von Trier film Breaking the = Waves, that's shocking. That film shocked me and disturbed me so = seriously that I couldn't sleep for days. Any of you know that film? = Dude, that film still haunts me.=20 That same Salon review that Carrie cited, which is very negative, also = makes a point of pointing out that Neil is a serious artist, and one who = deserves to be taken seriously. That, I think, is an important point to = make. Like him or not, he's doing something very few other artists are = even trying. I think he's an important artist, and I plan to see all = his work I can get to. He's worth it. If in fact Neil was disfellowshipped for writing Bash (and I fully admit = that I do not and will never know the specifics of that Church action), = but if that was what it was for, well that seems to me a perfect example = of ecclesiastical abuse. I'm not accusing Neil's bishop of = ecclesiastical abuse, mind you. I don't know enough, and will never know = enough, to make such a judgment. I will only say this, ecclesiastical = abuse happens. D&C 121 tells us, in fact, that we should anticipate it = happening with some regularity. But if Neil was disfellowshipped without = cause, well, that's distasteful and unpleasant, but it's also not valid. = God will sort it out in the end.=20 Bash is a disturbing play, I suppose. That's a good thing. He shows = people talking about doing awful things. It's okay for an artist to do = that. The 'it makes the Church look bad' argument just doesn't cut it. = Portraying Mormons as people capable of doing awful things does not make = the Church look bad. It makes it look like a Church whose members are = capable of doing dreadful things. So what? =20 If you're going to see Neil's work, I suggest you start with In the = Company of Men. Then make a decision about the rest of it. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:18:54 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Actually, a lot has been published on SSA in Mormondom--including Marybeth Raynes (Sp?) book, which title eludes me at the moment--something with "peculiar" in it. Obviously, Robert Hodson Van Wagoner's _Dancing Naked_. The already mentioned _Angels in America_. ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:25:35 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Buffy and God? At 02:50 PM 5/27/03 -0600, you wrote: >Romance novels, for example, constitute something like 40 or 50 >percent of the trade paperback market. Instead of dismissing the genre >as "escapism" (as J.R.R. Tolkien reportedly remarked to C.S. Lewis on >the subject: "The people who hate escapism most are jailers"), I'd >prefer non-condescending explanations of what makes it so popular, >what readers are looking for when they read. I wrote an essay on this subject for the next issue of Irreantum. If Chris Bigelow likes it well enough to run it, you'll have your explanation! And if that essay doesn't do it for you, I can give you more detail. I recommend a book called Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women, edited by Jayne Ann Krentz, in which several romance writers explain the appeal of romance fiction. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:32:46 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit At 10:30 AM 5/28/03 -0500, you wrote: >(This, of course, is also an issue with the restrictions we place on >male-female interactions in the Church. I sometimes wonder whether the >positive value of guidelines such as "never give a ride to someone of the >opposite sex if you're married to someone else" isn't ultimately negated by >their potential to make us that much more aware of the sexual potential of >such situations. Which isn't to say that such rules don't have their >place...but I worry that applying them in an across-the-board manner may >have downsides that we don't often acknowledge. Reducing opportunity while >sexualizing context seems like a short-term strategy to me.) I think this guideline is insulting to men. It implies that they are all closet rapists and must never be given an opportunity to take advantage of a woman. It is so Victorian. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:55:55 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ The belief that Mary M. was Jesus' wife is certainly not unique to Mormonism. It is a pretty solid suggestion, believed by many in the Christian world, recognizing that it would have been VERY unusual for a man Jesus' age to NOT be married. In fact, it would've been regarded an affront to the culture. The wedding feast wherein Jesus turned water to wine is commonly regarded (not just within Mormonism) as Jesus' own wedding. And didn't Scorsese include something about Jesus' married (or at least non-celibate) life in _The Life of Christ_? I haven't seen the film. It's my brother-in-law's all-time favorite. ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:57:59 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] 20th Century Mormon Women: An Inquiry - ---Original Message From: Lisa Tait > What makes me really sick is that my grandma had a huge stash > of old RS Magazines at one time. She threw them out not more > than ten years ago, which was about three years before I > realized what a treasure they would have been. Ouch! My condolences. My grandmother sold all of my grandfather's Louis L'Amours before I got around to letting her know I wanted them. > I am coming to Utah next week for a quick research trip. I'll > be staying in American Fork. Where are the best places to > look for old RS Magazines etc? Besides DI--and which DI? DI's are the best place I've found to look, but that isn't saying much. I don't normally find them there and I search the two or three closest on a relatively regular basis. Maybe that's why... I should go to Toole or something... Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 16:23:02 -0500 From: "Rose Green" Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ >Isn't it a very common Mormon belief that indeed M. Magdalene was the >Savior's earthly wife--in fact, one of several? Not one I've ever heard! The closest thing to that that I've ever come across is the supposition that as your "average" (as was supposed) Jewish man, Jesus would have probably been married. (Not to mention the highest-level-celestial kingdom-marriage-godhood thing.) However, I've never come across any statement saying who he may have been married to, and the idea of having children seems to have some strange practicall implications. I'd be interested to see documentation of this sort of thing. On the other hand, it makes for interesting speculative fiction. Rose Green _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 15:31:27 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Buffy and God? - ---Original Message From: Carrie Pruett > That's interesting, since Buffy's creator and exec producer=20 > is an avowed atheist, and the show seems notably lacking in=20 > any central source of divine power. This isn't any kind of=20 > value judgment on the show, which I like a lot, more of a=20 > comment on the tendency to find our own meanings in various=20 > "mythic" entertainments. Could you look at Lord of the Rings=20 > and tell it was created by a devout Christian, Star Wars by a=20 > Jewish man, or Buffy by an atheist? And what they have in common is the battle between Good vs. Evil and how = the fight affects both sides. The beauty of Buffy (beyond being played by = Sarah Michelle Gellar :) is that the heroes fight against stacked odds and = they take damage and have to pick themselves up and decide whether or not = they're going to do it again. Kind of like Lord of the Rings. And to some = extent Star Wars. The reason those stories resonate so well with me, at any = rate, is this universal theme of fighting the "good" fight. Any time you have = the fight of Good vs. Evil you open up universals that can resonate with = your audience and draw them in. Particularly when the author is honest = enough to confront the reality of the struggle. The good guys get hurt. They struggle. They make mistakes. They hurt innocents sometimes. But they = try very hard anyway. They bleed. They pay the price. And they continue = on anyway, knowing that they'll get hurt again, that they'll make more mistakes, but that they're still going to *try* because the alternative = is to give up and let evil win. And *that*'s where you pull in all the Mormons. And Joss Whedon is brave. He doesn't flinch from the consequences of = his characters' actions--which sets him apart from all the crappy teen = angsty stuff out there these days. Messing with magic you don't understand = turns a classmate into a rodent? Well, that rodent is still there the day they graduate two years later because they still haven't figured out how to = undo the rash experiment. And what other series has the heroine trying to = cope with paying the bills and having to find unskilled work that can fit a = hefty demon-slaying hobby? And what if magically returning a loved one from = an early grave means pulling them out of heavenly bliss just so they can protect you once more? Think you deserve thanks for it, even if they = really love you and you were in real need? And Joss also tries to connect with universal themes. I mean, he = created Buffy with the question, "What if the lone blonde in the dark turns out = to be the hunter?" But he made his most significant artistic leap when he connected to everyday teen angst (and by extension, everyday everyone angst). I mean, most teenagers feel like the world will end if they = don't get their way. They feel misunderstood and like they face overwhelming = odds in a society that doesn't see and feel the things that they see and = feel. Well, Buffy takes those typical teen angsty things and blows them up. = The world *will* end unless she can get to the dance club by midnight. Her = mom really won't understand the explanation of just where the hell has she = been, anyway (usually, that's a more apt question than mom knows). It's a = really honest look at alienation, acceptance, and the struggle to understand = and love one another. Jacob Proffitt (Buffy? What's Buffy?) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 15:59:55 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature Scott Parkin wrote: > Would it be better if there were no social or cultural limitations on how and > what we express? I don't think so. It would be a calamity of inopportunity for > the would-be artist. If there's no convention of limitation to expression, then > there's no need for meta-expression. The only differentiation between the artist > and the rest of the world becomes technique, and presentation goes from being a > question of art to a question of engineering. This illustrates a deep difference of approach. On the one side is the "Hayes" approach: I will externally force limitations on you because I don't trust you to be wise in your own decisions. The other side is to allow the individual to decide for himself where limitations should be. You extoll the virtues of the first approach. I find that approach reprehensible. That approach is fundamentally flawed on several levels. First of all, it is merely a rehash of the scheme of the original do-gooder, Lucifer. We couldn't be trusted to work out our own salvation, so Lucifer had to come in and see to it for us. Second of all, it is pure arrogance. One individual sets himself up as the definer of where the limitations should be. (What was so transcendent about Hayes' morality that he should be the one drawing the line?) Thirdly, the value judgment on where to draw the line is so interwoven with individual perception and experience that it is impossible to come up with a workable universal definition. All efforts of one individual to police another all boil down to one fact: the one individual does not trust the judgment of the other and somehow thinks he has the moral obligation to micromanage the value decisions of the other. This is so counter to the plan of God that I can't understand why we even need to argue the issue. God himself is willing to leave moral decisions to the individual. Why do we think we have the right to do that which even God refuses to do? > As to why artists can't be more ingeneous in their presentation...I don't know. > Maybe most working artists just aren't that talented and can't apply that kind > of extraordinary inventiveness to their works. My personal observance is that > artists can be every bit as lazy as anyone else and often settle for the > convenient way of communicating an idea rather than the most effective one. And therefore we should force limitations on all artists because some, many, or even most take the lazy approach? > But good art is work and involves more than just doing what comes natural. It > involves mastery of craft and creative redefinition of the standard rules. It > involves finding ways to innovatively stretch the boundaries, not just ignore > them then call everyone else banal for still caring about ancient strictures > dusty old conventions. > So yes, you can ignore all social or artistic convention and do your thing--the > modern market enables that more than any prior market in history. But I think > you'll find that you're not nearly as popular as the guy who effectively > combines innovation with convention, who expands the rules while still playing > within them. But what are we talking about here? I'm all for an artist being intelligent in his creativity, using and playing off of conventions and expectations to achieve a new thing. But that's not what I thought we were talking about. I thought we were talking about an external force demanding that the artist work within certain limitations, so if he wants to express things outside the limitations, he has to do so sneakily, which we then label creative genius. I'd rather see a Hayes-free film industry where most of the films are crap, but a few genius filmmakers stand out by choosing of their own accord to work within limitations, rather than a one-size-fits-all set of rules that everyone has to work under. It's the same force-free strategy God uses to groom more gods: a few geniuses choose to stand out while the rest of us are funneled away to lesser kingdoms; as opposed to Lucifer's one-size-fits-all plan of gathering us all back together into the society of gods, whether we belong there or not. > Absolutely! And well you should be. But remember that the freedom to condemn one > artist for his choices also enables the condemnation of another artist for his > choices. Rage against that guy's banal mundanity--and accept that others will > rage against your callous disregard of social convention and the rules of polite > society. Draw conclusions about that guy's fitness to speak or his moral > authority or right to his choices, and you demand that people apply a similar > standard back to your own work. I accept it and they are welcome to it. The one thing I will not put up with is graduating from criticism to attempting to use force to bend me to their aesthetic or moral will. > I wish Gerald Lund would be less right-wing conservative in his political works. > I wish he would be more creative in imagining alternate futures where the > current Constitution wasn't ratified. But in the end I can't condemn him as > inadequate for his choices, I can only wonder why so few other visions have been > published (and start working on my own near-future sf Mormon utopia novel). Gerals Lund didn't create the environment where so few other visions are published. Those who like Gerald Lund and have elevated their tastes to moral certitude, thereby justifying criticism on moral grounds of those who don't write like Gerald Lund, are the ones who created that environment. When have I ever balked at someone artistically criticizing me? It's only when they arrogantly equate their tastes with morality and judge my spiritual worthiness by that standard that I cry foul. > Wanting a more > expansive apocalyptic vision doesn't require me to condemn Linda's choices or to > condemn her work. Condemn, no. Criticize, yes. Criticism implies artistic judgment. Condemnation implies moral judgment. > I just don't see "bowing to convention" as a universal artistic evil. If it results in boring cliches, I do. If it's fresh in its conventionality, then it's not really quite conventional, is it? > Where you and I appear to to most disagree is that I think you can take your > shot in small chunks spread over many works that evolve the market over time, > whereas you appear to want radical revolution overnight. Same goal, different > methodologies. And both are part of a whole and healthy artistic/critical > community. I don't _want_ radical revolution overnight. I want to tell the stories I want to tell. I want people to buy them and read them. If the current market doesn't allow that, then I may need radical overnight revolution to have it. In fact, I have no interest in revolutionizing the Deseret Book customer at all. Let him buy the books he likes. Let Deseret Book keep providing those books. I want to find and develop an audience that I believe is out there, distinct from the Deseret Book customer. I don't believe incrementally pushing the envelope of the Deseret Book customer's sensibilities is the way to reach that audience. That audience doesn't have the Deseret Book customer's sensibilities and won't even notice such envelope pushing. I believe the only effective way to reach that audience is to aim directly and loudly at it, and ignore the hypocritical outcry of those Deseret Book customers who will condemn (not criticize) someone for doing it. My frustration and my desire for revolution does not revolve around the readers, but around the publishers. Is there no visionary publisher who sees an opportunity to reach out and corner a market waiting to be served? - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 15:14:41 -0600 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] Nauvoo Theatrical Society I'm hearing all sorts of rumblings about the Nauvoo Theatrical Society and the Center Street Theater. Is it true that the NTS is moving to a different venue? I've heard that another party with an interest in "LDS theater" is taking over the Center Street Theater. Thom, could you update us? I attended (and thoroughly enjoyed) both "My Turn on Earth" and "Joyful Noise" and I would hate to see this good thing come to an end. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 17:43:12 -0600 From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ ___ Christopher ___ | Isn't it a very common Mormon belief that indeed M. Magdalene | was the Savior's earthly wife--in fact, one of several? ___ Yes. It was taught fairly frequently early in the church. There are two reasons for this. One is the idea that marriage was essential for all and has to be done prior to the resurrection. Thus Jesus must have been married. That combined with Jesus first visiting Mary after his resurrection led many to see them as married. There were a few other scriptures tied to the endowment that led to this as well, but it would probably be inappropriate to discuss those here. The other reason was the general "Masonic culture" that Joseph and the early leaders were part of. (Using that term fairly loosely) The idea of the secret lineage of Christ was part and parcel of that tradition. A lot of masonic inspired "research" goes through this. (I put research in quotes, since it is more a creative history than real scholarship) Examples of this are _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_, _The Hyrum Prophecy_, _The Templar Revelation_ and so forth. Not really worth reading (and I've only glanced through them) The idea that Mary was Jesus' wife is actually very, very early. I believe that various gnostic groups took up this tradition. Unfortunately it has been a while since I last studied gnosticism in depth, so I can't quote off any texts off the top of my head. I suspect that the Gospel of Philip, which discusses marriage in a mirrored room off from the Holy of Holies mentions it. But I'd have to check to be sure. Anyway, not only did the early brethren think Jesus had children but they felt that the patriarchal order and being an "heir according to the flesh" entailed that lineage. Thus we have comments like the following from George Q. Canon. "there are those in this audience who are descendants of the old 12 Apostles and, shall I say it, yes, descendants of the Savior himself. His seed is represented in this body of men." (_The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson_, pg. 70) This appears to be a combination of certain masonic beliefs combined with scripture. Not technically doctrine of course. And I suspect few today would accept it. But if you reread scriptures like D&C 86:8-10 or D&C 124:91 it puts an interesting twist on it. That this reading of D&C 86 entailed these traditions can be seen in some of Orson Hyde's discourses. . . .it may excite still more when they are told that if none of the natural blood of Christ flows in their veins, they are not the chosen or elect of God. Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ, but remember that in the last days, secret and hidden things must come to light, and that your life also (which is the blood) is hid with Christ in God. (Orson Hyde, JD, 4:260) The history is rather interesting, if not always consistent. Trying to speculate about connections to the early 19th century cultural views are also somewhat interesting. As I mentioned, it is hardly a church doctrine. And some might find it an offensive notion. So some care should be taken in discussing this history. (Hopefully the above didn't offend any here) Clark Goble - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:32:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] LABUTE, _The Shape of Things_ Great review of LaBute's new movie "The Shape of Things" at "National Review" which confirms something I've long suspected: he is definitely *not* a liberal: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hudgins052803.asp ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 18:48:14 -0700 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: [AML] Award-Winning LDS Actors/Singers (was BYU Actors) > Thom asked: > >So how many awards did the BYU students win for their shining acting > ability? I don't know about BYU students, but my niece, Lisa Hopkins, a Yale acting student, is receiving a Tony Award on June 8. She is one of the Mimis in Baz Luhrman's "La Boheme" on Broadway, and all ten principal singers in the cast are receiving special Tony's (already announced). She is also a good Mormon girl and a return missionary. So there are some award-winning LDS actors/singers out there. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 18:36:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] re: Buffy and God? Oh, boy. Buffy and God. Where to start? For one thing, I am very aware that "Buffy" is "just a TV show." But such is its power that its admirers talk about it as if it were metaphysically real. Which I suppose in some ways, it is :-) A good place to begin is by trying this link: http://thedoormagazine.com/archives/buffy.html There's the time at the beginning of last year's final season when Spike self-mortifyingly burned himself on the giant cross. Buffy has (twice) willingly given her life to save the world. Alternatively, substitute for the title "Slayer" the title "Prophet" and you can see Buffy's trials and tribulations in a whole new light. There's a good collection of essays, "Fighting the Forces: What's at Stake in Buffy the Vampire Slayer" edited by Rhonda V. Wilcox and David Lavery. In it, you will find an interesting piece titled "Sometimes You Need A Story: American Christianity, Vampires, and Buffy" by Gregory Erickson. He leans heavily on Harold Bloom's "The American Religion" and includes this provocative statement: "The unique American God is 'an experiential God, radical within our own being' (Bloom 45). This God stems from an American originality that can produce a Sunnydale or a Book of Mormon." (pp. 117) ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 20:56:38 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Re: Cain myth. Yes! Fun indeed! Back when I was with Pacific Island Films, Santia and I pitched a concept for a horror-action screenplay we called "Master Mahan." It was ostensibly a Bigfoot thriller wherein it is revealed that Cain himself is the old footprint-leaver... and he's scary as hell. People looked at us like we'd gone completely insane. They liked the shock scenes, but ultimately passed on the concept as a whole. I can imagine how fun he would be to write though, and maybe someday I'll take a crack at him. Go, Thom! (grin!) Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 21:59:22 -0700 From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] re: _The Eleventh Hour_ Press Release Something tells me Margaret Young will also be in the credits somewhere, doing something, acting in it herself, if she thought she could get away with it. Just a hunch. Travis Manning - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #68 *****************************