From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #71 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Wednesday, June 4 2003 Volume 02 : Number 071 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 02:17:37 EDT From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] (S.L. Trib) Mormon TV Writer Dies It was sad to read that Ernie Wallengren had died. I met him a couple of years after moving to Los Angeles. He was in my ward in Encino. I quickly sought him out. He was a successful t.v. writer; I was an aspiring film writer. He even attended a script reading of "Girl Crazy" several weeks before we started filming. He had some good notes, and he was encouraging. A genuinely good man. I'm sad that he's gone. Richard - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 08:28:28 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Tom Rogers Reply >-----Original Message----- >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. The sources are in the end notes. I asked Tom if the conversation he is said to have had with a superior at BYU (according to the book) was true and he said it was. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 08:33:22 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Tom Rogers Reply > >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"? Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list No, Tom was never threatened with excommunication. The play was allowed to continue its run. But he did have a discussion with certain General Authorities who feared that efforts to establish a temple in Germany would be harmed by his play. It's all in _BYU Household of Faith_, by Bergera. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 08:45:50 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Nauvoo Theatrical Society NTS is moving but I can't say where yet, as we haven't signed the contract. The move will be very helpful for us. Our rent will be half of what it was in the old location. We will have our second season up and running in September. There is another group taking over the space of where the Center Street Theatre was and will operate under another name. They will be doing original LDS plays, as I understand, but -- how shall I say this? -- geared toward a less sophisticated audience than the NTS tries to hit. The contract with our new landlord will be inked this next week, when we'll make it public. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 08:49:43 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Award-Winning LDS Actors/Singers (was BYU Actors) This is exciting news. I always watch the Tonys and will look forward to this year's broadcast for yet another reason. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 12:17:19 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature D. Michael Martindale wrote: > You extoll the virtues of the first approach. No I don't. I accept the challenge--and opportunity--that the "Hayes" approach presents and recognize that there's no such thing as a truly free market or a truly unfettered institution. Given the fact of limits in the marketplace, I choose to look for ways around the barrier (or to make it an exceptionally fine and esthetically pleasing barrier) rather than flinging myself against it and weeping bitterly at the injustice of it all. One note--I'm talking about a general approach to writing that takes into account the fact of market limitations, not defending the specific actions of the Hayes Commission. I do not defend the Hayes Commission as either a good idea or the incarnation of some high moral principle, and never have. > 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. Except that Lucifer didn't give a shake about anyone but himself, which is why he was able to even conceive of such a plan. He just didn't accept that anyone else's ideas mattered, or that anyone else had innate worth or value. This is hardly a position monopolized by the alleged do-gooders in this discussion. What Lucifer didn't trust was our ability to work out *his* salvation; he didn't give a fig about ours. I don't think it's as simple as no choice versus unlimited choice. Choice exists in a context and carries consequences. The way I see it Lucifer argued that we eliminate the consequence by eliminating the choice; Christ argued that we defer the consequences and create a buffer so that people can eventually discover and commit to a choice and decide who and what they really want to be--able to choose wrongly without being immediately destroyed, and allowing for a reversal of most choices before the bill comes due. The choices still Choice only exists in the presense of opposition, else it's merely arbitrary selection and hardly rises to the level of art (imo). I may not like the opposition, but I require it in order to have an ability to choose otherwise. If there is no barrier, what is there to break down? If there is no opposition, what do we argue against (or for)? I'm not saying we need to go set up arbitrary oppositions--they happen all by themselves, and we have to deal with them whether we want to or not. Even then, most choices end up being between functional equals, not polar opposites in my view. I would never have appointed Hayes in the first place, but somehow he got appointed. Now all that's left is how we're going to deal with the modern incarnation. > 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?) You keep talking about arrogance as though it were a sin of only one end of the spectrum. My point is that arrogance exists all up and down the continuum, and--like the limits imposed by the Hayes Commission--it's merely a fact that needs to be dealt with. The fact of someone's arrogance proves nothing to me except that they are certain they've found a better answer and want others to see the value of it. Which makes every single artist arrogant by definition. As for Hayes himself, I have no idea what his opinions were and I don't really care. The fact is that he had the power (if not the moral authority) to dictate policy and see that policy enforced. What good does it do to rage, to point out again and again that there is in fact a limiting policy in place? It's there. Change it if you can, but deal with it in any case. And understand that while others may deal with it differently, they're not necessarily morally inferior for their different approach. > 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. No arguments there. That's why I cheerlead for everyone to tell their own story their own way, and the critics be damned. > 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. There's a broader philosophical question here that I've written (and discarded) about twenty pages of material on because it doesn't really deal with issues of Mormon literature. I don't think the question is anywhere near as clear or the answer anywhere near as simple as you've presented it here. It seems to me that the question of ultimate justice and the responsibilities we each have to each other requires that we look out for each other to the best of our abilities--as the very definition of God's plan, not the negation of it. If we overstep perfect order in our efforts to look out for the well-being of others, then our sin is one of excessive zeal rather than corrupt intent. Fortunately, the technology has not yet been developed that can actually force me to think in any particular way, or that can keep me from having my own opinions. But that's a completely different discussion. > 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? But God doesn't refuse. He has established judges in Israel tasked to adjudicate the moral decisions of their congregations. An imperfect system at times, but one that has been consistently re-established in each dispensation. God tells us what to do and how to behave all the time. The plan of salvation defers the ultimate consequences of our moral decisions until a later day after we've had every chance to change our minds, but a judgment of the moral decisions of each and every person *will* happen, and those people will not be able to deny the righteousness of that judgment. In the specific case of Hayes, whether he had the moral right or not he had the technical authority. Someone bestowed that authority on him, and the industry either had to adapt or die. It chose to adapt. On the general question, there's no such thing as pure freedom--certainly not in the publishing industry. The only guaranteed freedom any of us has is the freedom to starve. In the mean time, we're commanded to create the world we want to live in, which includes defining rules, guidelines, and laws. That different people have different visions is hardly a surprise. >>> 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? No, therefore some artists are lazy and don't push themselves beyond easy choices. It's a completely separate question from the Hayes discussion. I have never--not even once--suggested that anyone force any choice on anyone else in terms of how they tell their stories or what stories they choose to tell. I have suggested that some stories have limited audiences, and some approaches are inherently limiting given the conditions of the modern market. I believe publishers have the right to reject any book, regardless of the personal integrity--or even artistic quality--of the author. But that's not even close to advocating forced limitations on an artist's expression, and I frankly resent the suggestion when I have been a consistent advocate for a more expansive literature. > 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'm talking about the fact that market limitations exist. Period. Whether they're created by the Hayes Commission, Deseret Book, the alleged New York "I Hate Anything Religious and Especially Mormon" cartel, or the Christian Right, the market is full of arbitrary limits that make it easier to sell some kinds of work and harder to sell others. Now the question is how we're going to deal with those limits. I don't advocate the creation or enforcement of any arbitrary limitations, but I accept that they happen--whatever the sources may be. Given those limits, the artist can either give up in despair, rage against the machine, or find a way to produce (and sell) true and worthwhile art despite those limits. If that requires a particular genious, fine. But just because an artist takes a pragmatic approach and chooses to work within the limits rather than straining against them doesn't make that artist inartistic--it only makes them pragmatic and causes certain kinds of genious to emerge. Could other genious emerge if those limits didn't exist? Certainly. But what might have been is an impossible game to play. IMO. > ...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. I have to quibble with this. Lucifer's plan would have created one and only one god--himself. We could not have progressed under his plan, and would have ended up having lost our chance at godhood. > 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 just don't get this. Who's forcing anyone to bend to anything? If you want to publish in a certain market you have to play the game they establish. That's true at DB, Random House, Harper, Morrow, or any other publisher. If you don't want to play the game they require, you have to go elsewhere or establish a new game. Is it fair? No, but what's fair got to do with anything? Fair has never been a core operating principle in the publishing world, and it seems even less established in Hollywood. You've got to play the game as it is and beat the market by its own rules before you can gain the power to change the rules. That may mean dealing with a smaller publisher with less PR or marketing budget and experience. That may mean pounding the pavement to push your own book even after everyone else has walked away from you. I just don't see this world of perfect opportunity you seem to be looking for. It doesn't exist, as far as I can tell. At least not in this dark and dreary world. All that's left is the question of pragmatic artistry and whether your individual genious is marketable under current conditions--or whether you can make yourself marketable. So far I've had limited success with my own work, but I have published and continue to publish so I'm not completely hopeless by market standards. Though I'm certainly in the low income/low prestige segment. Which is okay with me...for now. > 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. So tell them. But telling the story you want to tell does not guarantee an audience, wide distribution, or a decent royalty check. The cost of freedom is that not everything gets published, and much of what's published does not reach a wide readership. > ...and ignore the > hypocritical outcry of those Deseret Book customers who will condemn > (not criticize) someone for doing it. So what if they condemn? If they're not your audience, then forget them. Why waste your time and energy raging at a bunch of alleged hypocrites who won't be swayed by your accusation? Beside, from my perspective the charge of hypocrisy is usually unfair. Most people don't have sufficient knowledge or haven't formalized their beliefs enough to be true hypocrites; most are just reacting to an only vaguely realized fear. Lazy, perhaps; hyprocrites--not usually. > 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? Apparently not. Or at least not by your definitions. Every publisher I know of has requirements and limitations--limits of budget, reach, know-how, energy, size, distribution, legitimacy, and vision. It's not as easy as hanging out your shingle and declaring yourself to be a revolution--every publisher has to discover, cultivate, and earn an audience. Most publishers languish or fail. Many can only afford to do one or two books a year. I think the vision you're talking about exists, but I'm not sure the audience is as primed as you think they are. Publishers are unbelievably pragmatic beasts and will go where the market (aka, the audience) tells them. So far, at least, there just hasn't been the massive outcry. Even if Paris hand presses his books, the target audience numbers in the dozens or low hundreds--not enough cash flow to appeal to a large, established publisher with the ability to reach large numbers of readers. I'm close to being as dissatisfied with the current Mormon publ;ishing marketplace as you are. I think there's a readership, but they don't think of themselves are readers of Mormon literature--they're interested in good work, and have come to believe that such work is not produced by and for Mormons, so they look elsewhere. Not because they hate the idea of Mormon stories, but because they don't believe there's a consistent high-quality source. I think the readers exist but have never see a reason to think of themselves as an audience. Someone needs to take the time and the energy (and the money) to develop that market. I'm slowly trying to create an alternative press of my own, but am running up against my own limitations as a human being and an entrepeneur. And I already know that however expansive I think my vision is, any number of critics will decry me as just another inadequate response, another pale shadow because I have no intention of publishing every book I receive. I will select based on my own ideas of what's good and worthwhile, and since it's my money and time that will back it up, I claim the right to make those judgments by my own standard and to reject perfectly good books that fall below my priority line. That's the way the game is played. If some people think my books come too close to the edge, I expect to hear from them. And because they're not my audience, I will note their comments and mine them for what good I can, then ignore them as irrelevant to my effort. The same goes for those who charge that I stop short of true realism. I can't serve all audiences and I have no intention of trying. It may not be hard to corner a particular market. The question is whether there's enough cash potential to make that market worth cornering. If not, the wait may be infinitely long and the acclaim equally small. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 15:04:14 -0400 From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Rex, I have a question about this theory and its practical application. And since I know very little about it, I'm directing that questino to you. It seems that based on your last post (which is below) the theory postulates that SSA or gay men are not part of a masculine world and are therefore attracted to men who are a part of that world. If this is true, that would imply that gay men are not attracted to other gay men but rather to men who are firmly entrenched in a world of masculinity. This seems wrong to me, partly based on just common sense and partly based on my friendships with several gay men. Attraction does not draw boundaries at sexual orientation. i've been attracted to both straight and gay men. I can't imagine that a gay man doesn't experience the same thing. The theory, as you have summarized it (again I acknowledge my lack of a complete understanding) seems to suggest that SSA or homosexuality is about some kind of socio-psychological geography. It's not about anything truly essential or interior but rather about an individual's relationship to his world. I'm not denying this as a possibility. However, I do find it a bit strange that the help for this "problem" (the quotation marks because I don't see it as a problem but I won't go into that here) is to shore up the ideas of a masculine world and a feminine world and to help people find where they should be in those worlds. It almost seems insulting to me to imply that attraction revolves around desiring the other. In ways, it does. but in many many ways it does not. Anyway, I'm just wondering how Byrd and Nicolosi address this problem (the idea that gay men are not attracted to each other; only, rather, to "masculine" (and by implication straight) men). amelia - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 08:51:51 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Sweat. Thom >-----Original Message----- >Bonus points for anyone who knows (no peeking in >French-English dictionaries, now, and all you who went on >Francophone missions give the other kids a chance) what >'sueur' means in French. Hint: It's pronounced almost exactly >like the English word 'sewer' (where your effluent goes, not >'one who sews'), but with the accent on the second syllable. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 14:37:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Smithsonian Exhibit Includes "Funeral Potatoes" Salt Lake Tribune Article: 'Funeral Potatoes' a Utah Tradition by Kathy Stephenson Centuries from now, anthropologists will be stumped. Instead of grains, fishbones and animal carcasses to help them understand the eating habits of Utahns, there will be petrified pans of "Funeral Potatoes." Also called "Yummy Potatoes", "Heavenly Potatoes", and "Disappearing Potatoes", this baked casserole is the mainstay at post-funeral dinners for many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The creamy concoction is one of the offerings representing Utah in "Key Ingredients: America by Food" a new Smithsonian Institute traveling exhibit... Full story: http://www.sltrib.com/2003/may/05312003/utah/61867.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: Sat, 31 May 2003 15:08:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Griffin, "Theocracy U.S.A." A bit of nasty Mormon-bashing from "Crisis", the conservative Catholic magazine: http://www.crisismagazine.com/may2003/Griffin.htm ===== 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: Sat, 31 May 2003 19:35:39 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror > Hmm. I think your definition is a tad restrictive. I know. And as a result I think we've been talking at slightly cross purposes. A bit of explanation on where I'm coming from... I write (among other things) science fiction, fantasy, and light horror. As it turns out, I'm none too clear on the distinctions among those categories. It seems to me that one of the foundational elements of each of these kinds of stories is the mystery--who did it; what is it; how to I escape/solve the problem/end the threat? Similarly, each of these three story types often explores the non-human or semi-human as both metaphorical human, and as true alien. I can also argue that each form deals with the horrors of the exagerrated behaviors and/or attributes of human, semi-human, and alien. So from where I sit, it looks like sf, fantasy, and horror use essentially the same elements and are differentiated mainly by the source of the problem. As a result Smallville, Buffy, Highlander, Alien, MutantX, Touched By an Angel, The Matrix, The Green Mile, Dracula, The Twilight Zone, Spawn, The Princess Bride, and Tales from the Crypt are all pretty much the same for me. The only difference is the rational basis for the horror/threat elements. Science fiction claims an evolutionary or genetically manipulated source for the horror--aka, completely rational and founded in knowable sciences (or at least straight-line speculation on knowable science), even when the horror itself seems unknowable. CHUD is clearly a horror. But it's not supernatural; it's science. Same with the Alien franchise. True aliens can be as horrific as we can justify within the bounds of genetics, evolution, and environmental stress. That they're alien and incomprehensible only adds to the conflict and heightens the tension. Their powers are such as can be defined and understood within a purely rational framework once we've discovered and understood the key element at the core of that behavior. Fantasy (generally) claims either a natural or technological source for the horror. Creatures are naturally occurring beings from an unseen world that coexists with ours. Faeries, trolls, gnomes, viles, demons, giants, elves and the like may be more ancient of origin than the rest of us, but they're natural elements of the landscape. They have power, but that power is directly accessible to the rest of us--in fact, it seems a basic element of most magic is access to the common power available to all creatures. Again, ordinary humanity can both rationally understand, and gain access to the powers of, fantastic creatures. It seems to me that Horror claims an extra-natural or super-natural source for its horrors. In other words, power from a world that intersects with ours but that operates by a different set of rules that may be understood (though it seems rarely are), but cannot be subjugated or controlled. Creatures are what they are, but their being bears no specific reference to the natural world. In many ways they are the ultimate aliens. Power is something that can only be bestowed, not learned--in other words, power to act against the horror comes from outside the knowable world, not as a result of manipulating or controlling it as in fantasy and science fiction. I know, it's an artificial separation, but it's the best way I know how to articulate the fuzzy distinction in my mind. It also illustrates why a lot of traditional horror stories have be dubbed "dark fantasy" over the past few years--it reflects the distinction between natural (if horrible) and supernatural (completely outside our control). "The Picture of Dorian Gray" is horror, because though the interaction between Gray and the portrait is consistent and knowable, the power that drives it is extranatural and immutable. Here's where my particular heresy kicks in. Traditional stories of the power of God (and devils) fall into the horror category for me. The power of God is supernatural and beyond both our control and our access. Divine justice may occur, but does so on its own timetable and by its own methods, with our individual faith playing an immediate role in the caging of the horror, but the ultimate destruction of that horror being left in other hands. Except that Mormons believe that the power of God is not only controllable (within limits) but is actually accessible--and even attainable--by ordinary humans. In other words, Mormon theological constructs actually fall under my arbitrary definition of Fantasy (or even science fiction, though that's a stretch) rather than Horror because we see God's power as ultranatural and a reflection of an accessible unseen world rather than supernatural and a reflection of an inaccessible unseen world. Thus, my question about Mormon horror. It seems that our oddities are actually hypernatural rather supernatural. We may not know the rules, but believe they are knowable and that we can interact as participants in the events of the unseen world rather than as pure victims as traditional horror seems to suggest. >Would werewolves and vampires be monsters according to your definition? Yes. They're supernatural and non-rational. Their source is completely unknown, unless they're considered demons or devils. Traditional lore has it that one is not a vampire or werewolf by nature; it's either a choice or an accident (usually an accident) with the power to become a vampire or werewolf coming as a bestowal of transforming power from an external source, not some innate or natural transformation brought on by the psyche. (And yes, there's a discussion to be had about those who choose to become werewolves or vampires and how that effort reflects the true state of their soul, but the fact is that one doesn't become one of these critters by an act of will--it's always an external bestowal. The modern retellings--like the recent Dracula film--actually attempt to change the story from horror to dark fantasy by creating a rational basis for the original creation of the vampire; though in this case I still think the traditional Christian motif held and Dracula's change was seen as the result of a curse from god rather than a predictable outcome of a set of rational procedures--aka, it stayed horror despite the attempt to recast it as dark fantasy.) It's an arbitrary distinction for me. But it's the model I work from. > It seems that > the Cain tales have far more in common with those than with a "human > monster." After all we have a character who becomes hair, who is > cursed to wander the earth, who is evil, and who *can't die*. That > last element is what puts it into the horror when combined with evil. And for most of Christianity, that would qualify as horror--the unknowable, alien power of God working according to an inaccessible set of rules and beholden to no human (or even semi-divine) intervention creates a montrous creature that has no natural explanation. But because Mormons see the power of God as not only understandable but directly accessible and manipulable, because Mormons accept the idea that each and every human can and will become immortal (unkillable), and because Cain himself is seen not as a victim of capricious fate but a direct result of his own choice and a predictable outcome of his actions (he knew and understood the power he was messing with), his transformation into a grotesquery is more about technology than about supernatural phenomenon. For Mormons. In my opinion. > The problem is that many monsters are very human. Consider the story > of Beowulf. This was retold in an existential fashion by John Gardner > as _Grendel_. In it one of the classic monster stories is retold in a > very human fashion. The grendel character becomes fairly sympathetic. > Indeed when I first read that story I immediately thought of our LDS > legends of Cain. The apparent humanity of monsters doesn't change the supernatural manner of their creation. Which is why I think that Satan stories would actually qualify wholesale as Mormon horror. He is the one character who is a nearly perfect agent unto himself and who has the power of himself to act (at least for a time). More importantly, because he works according to an alien conceptual framework, he becomes at least anti-natural, and possibly supernatural. His works and power become unknowable and incomprehensible. > | There are lots of other stories, such as the lamanite angels > | guarding the temple from sons of perdition. (I forget which > | temple: either the SLC or Logan) There is the story of the > | angel of light on the river in the D&C. > | > ___ Scott ___ > | Again, I don't recall either of these stories. They don't seem > | like generally accepted supernatural/horrific lore to me. I don't > | recall hearing a lot of talk or speculation on these stories, > | and so I tend to see them as having little traction or resonance > | in the culture at large. > ___ > > The latter is quite well known. It is referenced in 2 Cor 11:14 and 2 > Ne 9:9 among other places. But Joseph encountered him on the banks of > the Susquehanna. It's discussed in D&C 128. Surely you've read *that* > portion of Mormon history. (Just joking, but I find it funny > that a noted encounter between Joseph Smith and the devil is said to > not be "generally accepted supernatural/horrific lore.") At the risk of being humorless, I never argued the general concept of Satan as deceiver or his reasonably well documented efforts to appear as an angel of light (or even how to detect him in that guise as documented in D&C 129). I argued the general awareness and common retelling of the specifically named stories--"I don't recall hearing a lot of talk or speculation on these stories, and so I tend to see them as having little traction or resonance in the culture at large." The story in D&C 128 is a single reference to Michael detecting the fact of Satan trying to pretend to be an angel of light. D&C 128 itself offers precious few details (none that I could find), and the detailed version of that story seems far from a tale told over the fire every night, in my experience. Even the relatively detailed excuse offered by Korihor in Alma 30:58 stops short of being a complete and richly described story, and draws few (none that I could find) details about either the commonality of such appearances or the generally understood details of such encounters (Korihor himself was easily fooled; the story must not have been all that common even in his own day). Admitting that I haven't read Joseph Smith's own history of those events, I still see the distance between the fact that Satan attempted to deceive Joseph on the Susquehanna (and was immediately debunked by a legitimate angel), and the idea that a detailed story based around that fact is common lore and generally spoken of in the Church, to be at least a small leap. The Book of Enoch dropped out of the standard canon more than a few years ago, was never part of the standard works of the Mormon church, is generally viewed as folklore by the rank and file that are aware of it (how many ordinary Mormons have actually read some or all of the pseudepigrapha or apocrypha?), and is still fairly regularly debated (at least in terms of perfect authenticity) even among scholars. I'm aware of derivative works taken from that source (that you have documented nicely), but I would argue that most people are aware of those derivations (aka made up stories) than they are about the primary source. And none of those references give me details on Lamanite angels guarding either the Salt Lake or Logan temple from sons of perdition. An extremely informal and unscientific survey of immediate family members and friendly neighbors has turned up no additional detail for me. I remain unaware of that as a commonly told story, funny as my ignorance may be to you. And I didn't easily find it while googling--at least not in the brief (about 20 minute) expedition I went on. I don't dispute its existence, only how commonly it's known and told within the general culture. > Ever see the film _Angel Heart_? Probably a movie I wished I *hadn't* > seen. Robert DeNiro is the devil. Very horrific. Yet the devil is > much more subdued and more akin to what you present. Very disturbing > movie. Yes. Wonderful film. Not one I've watched again, though. Too much of the pop-mystical-voodoo thing for me to take as serious speculative theology. Too creepy to watch just for fun. > Sounds to me like you just disbelieve a lot of the horrific elements in > our history. (Which is fine, I think a lot of "encounters with > the devil" probably have a better naturalistic explanation) Yup. Actually, that's not quite right. I believe that a great many things have happened that I find difficult to accept. Not impossible, just difficult. And because extended musing on whether or not someone really saw a Lamanite angel kicking the stuffings out of a Son of Perdition in the Logan temple don't really strike me as useful (if they did or didn't, that doesn't change my beliefs in the basics of the gospel as it's been taught to me so far). So I don't spend a lot of time on it; I have other sets of speculations that interest me more. I have an admittedly limited and warped view of what constitutes horror. The fact of a monster isn't horror for me. The fact of a curse or the possibility of an unseen world don't fall outside the realm of rational explanation for me. Whether that's because of my Mormonness or because I'm just a gullible guy trying to hide behind the facade of rationality, I don't know. But funny or not, I don't hear a lot of uniquely Mormon horror stories being told at the gatherings of Mormons that I attend, and the horrific stories that are told strike me as extremely rational in light of some of the basic assumptions of Mormon theology. I think Mormons tell horror stories as often as anyone else (I've told and sold quite a few light horror stories and recently finished a story about a sort of were-creature). But I think most of those are just stories, not reflections of deep cultural lore and closely held belief in commonality of mystical experience. And I admit freely that I may well be wrong. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #71 *****************************