From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #76 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, June 6 2003 Volume 02 : Number 076 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:16:11 EDT From: Derek1966@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit In a message dated 6/4/03 08:12:50 PM, rexgoode@msn.com writes: << Imagine a story about a future Mormon couple who go to the obstetrician and are told that their baby will be born gay and are offered an abortion. [MOD: Wow! Now *that's* a speculative fiction idea!] >> Though not involving a Mormon couple, this idea was the basis for a movie made by ShowTime (I think) around 1997 (I think) called "Twilight of the Golds." I takes places a few years in the future. The main character, played by Brendan Fraser, is gay. His sister is expecting a baby, and his brother-in-law works for some sort of genetics firm that has developed a test for homosexuality, and without telling his wife he runs the test, only to find out their son will be homosexual. Eventually he tells the family, and the big debate is whether to abort the fetus and the ensuing frustration of Brendan as he realizes that if HIS parents had had that option, he wouldn't be alive. Interesting movie. John Perry Provo - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:38:09 -0500 From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone At 11:19 PM 6/2/03 -0500, lajackson@juno.com wrote: >Barbara Hume: >[on riding in cars with the opposite sex} > >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. > >_______________ > >I figure there's no sense finding out if you're right or not. >[grin] > >Actually, aside from some temptation to which more are >susceptible than they think, I believe it has to do with >perceptions. Brother Smith and Sister Jones (not their >real names, of course) drove up to Church one Sunday. >Her husband was out of town and his wife was ill. > >I shook her hand and said, "Good morning, Sister Smith." >She never rode alone with him again. Was that by accident (you had never met the real Sister Smith before that)= =20 or on purpose? (Forgive me if this sounds like a stupid question, but there are some=20 people who might have done it on purpose as a joke=B9 . . . and others =97= not=20 saying you are one =97 who may consider themselves the moral conscience of= =20 the ward, enforcing the "no riding in cars with members of the opposite sex= =20 other than your spouse" rule . . . ) _____ =B9No comments from the people who know me in RL. - -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam=85 God bless America! My home, sweet home. - -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:16:22 -0500 From: "Lisa Tait" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone And something related that drives me crazy is the men, even when we are quite friendly with each other, that always insist on calling me "Sister Tait." I know it's supposedly "proper" but I experience it as a distancing mechanism. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:25:33 -0600 From: "Ben Christensen" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Rex Goode wrote: > > In many ways, it confounds me that the gay community doesn't latch onto an > environmental cause as its preferred explanation. There is still room in such an > explanation to hang upon it calls for tolerance, respect, and equal rights. > There is still room to say they don't know what causes it but that people should > respect their right to choose how they will deal with it. > Some say that gender affirmative therapy is dangerous and harmful. This baffles me as well. I'm not sure if it's been brought up on this list before, but there was a situation that had to do with this controversy here in Provo a few months ago. BYUTV (or KBYU, I don't remember which) was going to air some talks that had recently been given at some conference on campus. The talks were about overcoming homosexuality. Members of the gay and lesbian community in Utah Valley and Salt Lake called in to protest, using the "gender affirmative therapy is dangerous and harmful" argument, and BYU chose to pull the talks from their schedule, rather than risk offending members of the gay and lesbian community. I understand that BYU is not out to offend anyone, but I find it curious that they chose to cater to the audience who is opposed to the Church's official position, rather than the potential viewers who support the Church's position and might have benefited from these talks. The argument for the gay and lesbian stance on this issue that I've heard is something like, "well, no one would dare broadcast a talk on overcoming blackness or womanhood, so why should they broadcast a talk about overcoming homosexuality?" The problem with this argument is that being gay is not the same as being a woman or being black. Yes, it is true that no one chooses who they are naturally attracted to, just as it is true that no one chooses their race or gender. So as far as that goes, yes the situations are parallel. However, there is a big gap between being attracted to someone and having sex with that person--sexuality, ultimately, is more precisely defined by who you have sex with than by who you're attracted to. And yes, that is a choice. Wasn't the whole point of the civil rights movement that no one should have to behave according to society's prescribed conceptions just because they are born a certain race or gender? That a woman has the right to take on what had traditionally been a man's role, and a black man has the right to do what had traditionally been reserved for white men? And yet, here we are in the twenty-first century with people telling us that if you're born with (or otherwise acquire) an attraction to members of the same sex, you don't have the right to choose whether you want to take on the role traditionally prescribed to homosexuals or the role traditionally prescribed to heterosexuals. You'd think that people who have fought so long and so hard for acceptance and understanding would be more accepting and understanding of people who come from similar circumstances but have made different choices. The truth is, a philosophy that says you can choose whether you want to adopt a gay lifestyle or not would not be threatening to gay individuals who are conscious that they have made a choice and are comfortable with it. I, for one, prefer to live in a world where I make the decisions, rather than hide behind the pretext that nature is making those decisions for me. [Ben Christensen] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:19:36 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] MOD Message: Signing Posts Folks, Just a reminder to everyone to sign your posts. When you don't, I have to copy and paste from the "From" line. If the name isn't evident there, I have to send a query before posting the message. A small matter, but one that can help keep things moving more smoothly... Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:44:25 -0600 From: "Ben Christensen" 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_. I'm going to have to challenge you on this one, Margaret (and anyone else). You've listed three--a collection of essays, a novel, and a play. I've already mentioned John Bennion's short story, "The Interview," and there's also Erin Eldridge's Deseret Book-published _Born That Way_ (which I understand is more about her overcoming alcoholism than lesbianism). That's a total of five. If you were referring to self-help/doctrinal books such as Dean Byrd's book, then I could probably come up with a five or six more. Considering that some statistics suggest that homosexuals make up as much as ten percent of the population (I think that's a stretch, but I would say it's at least five percent), and there's no reason to think Mormons are any exception to this, we really don't have a lot of literature about SSA in Mormondom. I'd love for anyone to prove me wrong on this, if you have more examples that haven't been mentioned. [Ben Christensen] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:00:35 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Susan Malmrose wrote: > All of my husband's LDS family members believe it, I'm pretty sure. Although I can > remember his grandmother telling me Christ couldn't have been married to Mary > Magdalene because she had been a prostitute. It had to have been Mary and Martha. > > I always figured a former prostitute is just who Christ would have married. Although > of course it's not necessarily true that she was one. Not only unnecessarily true, it's a real stretch from the facts in the scriptures. It's an assumption that's made based on--I have no idea. A prostitute figures in the tale of Christ at one point, and Mary Magdelene had seven devils cast out of her. Therefore, Mary was a prostitute. Yeah, makes sense to me. - -- 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: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:22:15 -0600 From: robertslaven@shaw.ca Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit From: "Rex Goode" >Jonathan asked me to enumerate some of the different theories about the origins >of same-sex attraction. > >Well, of course there's the old born-that-way theory which has two variations. Whether it's genetic or prenatal, I suspect there is almost certainly some physiological and/or biochemical basis to a predilection for same-sex attraction, much as there is growing evidence for similar predilections to addictions, for example. However, I'm firmly convinced that it's only a predilection, *not* a cast-in-stone component of our lives. (Much as with addictions; if you have a tendency towards addiction, but grow up as a Nice Mormon Boy/Girl and never even try booze/smokes/drugs/porn/whatever, maybe you just won't get addicted....) >Though it may be slow in reaching Utah, the idea of a gay gene is rapidly losing >support in the gay community. They're not saying there isn't a gay gene and >they're not saying there is. They aren't pushing it anymore as an explanation of >how people become sexually attracted to their own gender. Why? Well, the Human >Genome Project. If someone ever identifies a gay gene and invents a way to erase >it _in vitro_, parents will be able to prevent homosexual children. Wouldn't >that be an interesting Future-Shock novel? > >This fear was brought home to me by a lesbian guest speaker in a class about >cultural diversity. She is considered a leader in this area. She said that >finding a gay gene could very easily bring about the end of queer culture and >she was not in favor of holding to the argument that people are born homosexual. >Interestingly, she still believes that her homosexuality is inevitable enough to >have divorced her husband the moment she realized she was a lesbian. She saw no >other way. > >If they don't want to hold out hope for the discovery of a gay gene, then there >must be something that happens to a fetus that causes it. Believing that allows >you to keep a born-that-way stance, but it also opens up another potential >threat to queer culture. If someone finds out what trauma might cause it in the >womb and women are guaranteed the right to an abortion, parents may opt to abort >gay fetuses. Imagine a story about a future Mormon couple who go to the >obstetrician and are told that their baby will be born gay and are offered an >abortion. > >[MOD: Wow! Now *that's* a speculative fiction idea!] ObLit: So as not to queer [yeah, bad pun] its chances of publication, I will refrain from broadcasting my short story 'Preggos' to all and sundry on the list. However, those of you who like this idea are welcome to email me privately and ask to review it, as that wouldn't count as publication. (It's out at my fourth try with an SF magazine right now.) It's not exactly in line with Rex's ideas, but it's within spitting distance. >In many ways, it confounds me that the gay community doesn't latch onto an >environmental cause as its preferred explanation. There is still room in such an >explanation to hang upon it calls for tolerance, respect, and equal rights. >There is still room to say they don't know what causes it but that people should >respect their right to choose how they will deal with it. Given all the evidence of estrogen-like compounds messing up sexual issues with us and other animals -- Finnish studies on sperm counts and motility come to mind -- I wouldn't be at all surprised if we found that SSA is more common now than, say, a century ago, thanks to pollution. (I'm remembering one of my favourite quotes, from a researcher who had discovered a troubling problem with a popular herbicide. It appears that he wanted to avoid being the kind of scientist who makes dramatic and unsupported statements, but that he also wanted to get across the danger posed. Hence the immortal quote: "I'm not saying it's safe for humans. I'm not saying its unsafe for humans. All I'm saying is it that it makes hermaphrodites of frogs." -- Tyrone B. Hayes of UC Berkeley commenting on atrazine, a common weed killer that causes frogs to develop multiple sex organs.) >From a political perspective, I agree to a large extent with Rex's comments on tolerance, respect, and equal rights. On the one hand, I have a really hard time with extending the definition of marriage, and with same-sex couples adopting unrelated children. (One SS parent adopting the biological child of their partner is less of an issue with me.) On the other hand, we opened Pandora's box w.r.t. marriage when we (as a society) started including 'common-law relationships' -- having done that, how can we fairly close the door on legal recognition of any other form of conjugal relationship? -- and I think I'd rather a child was adopted into a loving SS home than a series of foster homes and/or an abusive heterosexual household. Still, though, it's a shame that the point of view espoused by the gospel is almost completely ignored out there in the rest of the world. I can't think of a non-member who could read, say, Elder Oaks' Ensign article of a few years back and not come away ranting about it from one point of view or the other. Robert - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:09:01 EDT From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] (S.L. Trib) NELSON, LEE, _Huck Finn_ In a message dated 6/4/2003 4:52:03 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Chris.Bigelow@UnicityNetwork.com writes: > Nelson Massacres the Book Twain Tried to Destroy > I have not read Lee Nelson's novel, but I would like to steer everyone toward Greg Matthew's excellent novel, THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN. It is a sequel published in 1983 by Crown. A fantastic novel which is very true to Huck's voice. Honestly, I enjoyed it more than Twain's novel. In fact, several times when reading it, I laughed so hard I started to choke. When I heard of Nelson's novel, I thought it strange that he would attempt to do something that Greg Matthews had succeeded at doing 20 years ago. Anyway, if you like books that make you laugh out loud, I highly highly recommend it. Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:20:19 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Rex Goode >First, the theory doesn't say that SSA men are not part of the >masculine world. It says they don't feel part of the masculine >world. It's one word, but it changes the meaning a great deal. >This kind of SSA man, according to the theory, is the one who >was always picked last for sports, couldn't ever get good at >basketball, liked doing the things that society tells him is >not masculine. He doesn't feel connected. Other males seem >like a mystery to him. Does the theory account for males like me who, despite having lived through all the above, and who still find other males a mystery, are still hopelessly heterosexual? Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 12:09:50 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ At 02:09 PM 6/2/03 -0700, you wrote: >Although I can >remember his grandmother telling me Christ couldn't have been married to Mary >Magdalene because she had been a prostitute. It had to have been Mary and >Martha. Does the Bible ever say Mary Magdalene was a prostitute? Or is it one of those notions that spring up, such as that the sin in the Garden of Eden was a sexual sin? And why would Jesus leave two women to be widows, knowing he was going to be murdered and had no wordly goods to leave them? Say, could that be a reason to bring back to life the brother they lived with, and who most likely provided for them? Actually, why leave one widow? Why marry more that one woman anyway? Polygamy was not customary at that time among the Jews, was it? When I was a Protestant, I was taught that the Catholics edited out of the Bible anything that conflicted with their teachings, such as any references to Mary's other children by Joseph. Imagine my shock to discover that the Mormons had a version of the New Testament partially edited by Joseph Smith! It does seem to me that a marriage, even in that misogynistic culture, would be important enough to mention in Jesus' life story. Wouldn't Luke's determined research have turned up such a fact? Could this whole notion of Jesus marrying more than one woman spring up to support the polygamous practices of the Mormon Church? I'm asking these questions sincerely, not having researched these areas. barbara hume. a long-time Mormon now but still with Protestant training - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:25:13 -0600 From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] BYU Books for Young Readers Symposium BYU Books for Young Readers Symposium -- July 18-19, 2003 Guests include Bethanne Anderson, Franny Billingsley, Susan Fletcher, Russell Freedman, David Small, Laurence Yep. For more information, go to http://www.ce.byu.eu/cw/childlit. Marny Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:08:11 GMT From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Re: Restrictions on Being Alone Ronn! Blankenship: Larry Jackson wrote: >She never rode alone with him again. Was that by accident . . . or on purpose? (Forgive me if this sounds like a stupid question, but there are some people who might have done it on purpose as a joke . . . and others . . . who may consider themselves the moral conscience of the ward, enforcing the "no riding in cars with members of the opposite sex other than your spouse" rule . . . ) _______________ It was on purpose, and I was sending a message. Which brings up some questions to be answered in the next great literary LDS novel on friendship, relationship, love, and marriage: Was it appropriate or was it improper? Was this meddling into business that was none of mine? Was I being a "moral conscience" enforcer or a friend? Does it make a difference whether it was done loudly and in public or quietly so no one else could hear? Does who they were or who I was make any difference? Are there other circumstances in the lives of those involved that would make such a comment either proper or improper? Besides telling more of the story, how should I handle this scene when I write my book? Larry Jackson lajackson@juno.com ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:48:27 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit [MOD: This post by Jongiorgi does not go over the lines--in my view--but I sense that potential for the discussion to go in several directions that would be off-topic for AML-List. Let me outline some of these off-topic directions: * Arguing either for or against the Church's position on SSA * Arguing either for or against the Church's political involvement in the SSA issue Please note that sharing stories and experiences, as Jongiorgi has done, is appropriate. Sharing thoughts and perspectives that may relate to the Church's views on SSA is also appropriate, so long as it doesn't become a debate (open or concealed) about what the Church's position is or should be. And keep in mind that the discussion as a whole is appropriate not because SSA is on-topic for AML-List, but rather because of the literary dimensions of treating SSA in Mormon literature. So far, it's been a good discussion and everyone's been pretty good at keeping to the rules and the Mormon lit connection. I just want to act proactively now to remind us all of what the rules are, so that the discussion can continue in a (relatively) easy-to-moderate sort of way...] >From Robert Slaven: > From a political perspective, I agree to a large extent with Rex's comments on tolerance, respect, and equal >rights. On the one hand, I have a really hard time with extending the definition of marriage, and with same-sex >couples adopting unrelated children. (One SS parent adopting the biological child of their partner is less of >an issue with me.) On the other hand, we opened Pandora's box w.r.t. marriage when we (as a society) >started including 'common-law relationships' -- having done that, how can we fairly close the door on legal >recognition of any other form of conjugal relationship? -- and I think I'd rather a child was adopted into a loving >SS home than a series of foster homes and/or an abusive heterosexual household. Its all a tough, complex issue. I came head to head with it a few years back when California became the pilot state for a referendum on so-called Gay Marriage. Due to my close relationships with many in the gay community, and the long history of friends in and out of the Church suffering with (or in some cases quite comfortable with) their SSA, and the pretty much across the board don't-ask-don't-tell-we're-more-terrified-of-this-topic-than-we-are-of-polyg amy feeling we get about it so often in the church, I basically keep my trap shut on this topic (although I have benefited greatly, and greatly enjoyed, the SSA thread as it has developed here recently, in my current state of quasi-lurkerhood as I attempt to meet some deadlines). Anyway, since the entire nation was looking to CA to see whether the bill was passed or not (the thinking was that if CA passed it, many other states would follow; but if CA didn't pass it, it would be effectively tabled for a while, politically), the local Area Authorities asked the GA's if they could use Church resources for an active campaign to try and thwart the measure. The GA's said yes, apparently, but didn't make any general policy statement, and let the Area Authorities handle it. For a period of several months leading up to the election, we had a situation that I had never seen before, and which was to me, quite shocking. Over the pulpit, in Sacrament Meeting, local leadership read letters espousing a particular political stance and STRONGLY encouraged, not only members to vote a certain way, but asked us to get very involved civically, putting signs up in our yards and performing volunteer hours telephoning people prior to the election, all of this conducted AT CHURCH. I'd never seen anything like it. For a policy that usually keeps the Church totally out of such things (we state our belief structure, religiously, over the pulpit and then tell you to go out and make whatever informed decision you want to make, politically), suddenly I was in a Church that was actively (even aggressively) pushing my public vote in a certain direction. It was a pretty uncomfortable situation for me. I don't care what the specific topic of discussion, aggressive political preaching over the pulpit radically offensive to me. Even if I politically agree with the point in question, I just felt a line had been crossed when it followed me into Church. I don't think political side debates are appropriate in Sunday School meetings; I sure don't think their right in SACRAMENT MEETING. It is an interesting question. Take a speculative fiction stance with it. Create a story in the near future, say. Pretend that certain political persecutions has started against the Church again. Politics would certainly come up over the pulpit, I suspect. As an author, I'd have to tackle that, tackle people's reactions, etc. Would I, in that situation, think it "appropriate"? I guess that's what good speculative fiction does. It asks very hard "what if's", dumps realistic characters into them, and then watches them squirm. Anyway, in the real life scenario, I balked. I refused to take up the banner in any way, and simply declined to participate in the fray. Active though I am, and considered a leader in our small, struggling ward, I just said no thank you, and refuses to participate in any way with the temporary spirit of activism that had invaded my place of worship. Ultimately (ironically, and not that it matters), I voted against the resolution (just like the Area Authorities wanted me to, not BECAUSE they wanted me to, but because I feel like Robert Slaven says he does about the subject in his post which inspired this response); but I did not want my voice sequestered in a loud, public and often disproportionately balanced way. Furthermore, I could not be a hypocrite in the eyes of my gay friends. (But then, WAS I a hypocrite because of my secret vote?) Just months before the initiative, I had actually been part of a court case in Utah where two gay friends were trying to legally adopt the biological son of one of the couple. Its a long story; suffice it to say that in this particular case, I felt it was the only sane thing to do, the best and only thing for the child, and I argued on behalf of the gay couple (in an affidavit) in court. The Utah judge sneered and threw it out... well, denied it. (So they moved to California and did whatever they wanted anyway. But that's not my point.) A few months after that, on behalf of this very same child, Santia and I stood in a Unitarian chapel and, participating in a religious service of that denomination, voluntarily became the formal Godparents of the child, witnessing legally, and before God and witnesses in a religious setting, that if anything happened to the two dads, Santia and I would raise the boy. At one point in our moving towards the final decision to take on such a commitment, one of the fathers asked me, "So now, if we both die, you're going to raise [the kid] as a Mormon, aren't you." I looked him square in the eye and said, "Of course." He paused for a long moment, and then said, "Okay." Where is the literary tie-in? I don't know. Other than that's a story. It's a story that happened, but it is also a story to tell. My own personal journey in this particular subject matter is convoluted: I'm a straight man, a practicing Mormon, a believer in the Proclamation on the Family; but also a man with gay men in my "family"; Godparent to a boy being raised by two dads; friend to many SSA Mormon men (some who've stayed in the Church, some who've left); a youth advisor who just had one of his young men come out, decide not to serve a mission, and finally leave the Church (but when he's in town, he comes to Church, comes to my priesthood lessons, and participates); a man who's wife suffered abuse from hetero men but was saved and protected by SSA men, etc., etc., I live in a world of complex contrasts and conflicting emotions on this subject. Now THERE are some "narrative choices" for you! That's a soup of conflict to have a character swim in. As an actor, I feel (depending on the material) that I could play an SSA man. As an author, I'm less certain about my abilities to pull it off, depending on how pivotal the character was, I guess. But as an author attempting to write something I know, I guess I'm left with that. A non-SSA character plunged into a world of contact with issues that LDS-SSA brings up, and that's not an easy place. I've just never felt up to the task. At least not so far. Maybe a short story is in order just to wet my feet. At any rate, right now, I've nothing to add or contribute to this thread. But I want to thank all of you who've contributed and very much helped me, informed and enlightened me on the various angles of this topic. I agree that this is a largely ignored subject matter in LDS lit. I think that is partly because of fear, partly because of pain, partly because of ignorance. Just like "Mormon horror" question, I don't think this is a topic that, as a sub-genre, will ever be widely read. Maybe that's pessimistic. But I think the average rank-and-file DB buyer is just too put off by SSA themes to ever widely read it in Mormon lit. Of course, if issues were as well presented as they have been by Rex and Ben and Robert, and several others here, but in a fictional setting, I would think we would all benefit. And Robert's quote from Tyrone B. Hayes about hermaphroditic frogs was just about the best short quote I've read on any topic in a year! Thanks again. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #76 *****************************