From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #114 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, August 6 2003 Volume 02 : Number 114 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:08:00 -0800 From: "John W. Redelfs" Subject: Re: [AML] Review of Krakauer and Others in _Salon_ Thom Duncan, replying from the Web wrote: >Well, Mormons who believe that the man is the absolute ruler of the family >and that the prophet is like the pope are more likely to go around killing >people than Mormons who believe that marriage is a partnership and the >prophet is an inspired but nevertheless human male. Ironically, depending >on which set of GA's writing and scriptures you wish to search, you can >find more than enough "official" support for either of those positions. I don't think you will find anything recent about man as "absolute ruler" of the family. To cite General Authorities in support of such a view one would have to go back over a hundred years, and in those days Mormons weren't the only ones with such patriarchal views. --JWR - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:38:01 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Passing of Cherilyn Hopkins Richard, please accept my deepest sympathy. I am so sorry. The first little while will not be as hard as later on. I hope your skill as a novelist will help to fill some of the void you will feel. All of us want to wish you the best. Sincerely, Marilyn Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:59:49 -0700 From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: [AML] BARNEY, _Cremaster 3_ (Review) >[MOD: Apologies for the delay in posting this review. Got misplaced in the >vacation and moderator switching cracks...] Must have been SOME vacation! >[NOTE: This review may contain objectionable material.] Yeah, next time maybe you could post the warning BEFORE the objectionable material! - --lmg - --------- OUR NEWEST WRITING PROJECT: Homeschooling Step by Step, Prima Publishing, Spring 2002. Everything you need to know about how to homeschool legally and effectively! How does your state rank? What's your child's learning style? What about college? Find teaching tips, teaching strategies, and more than 100 solutions to homeschooling's toughest problems! - --------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Web site: E-mail reply: - --------- . - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:50:20 -0700 From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] John Krakauer on NPR To listen to radio journalist Terry Gross' Wednesday interview with author John Krakauer, about his new book _Under the Banner of Heaven: a Story of Violent Faith_, click on this link to download the 24-minute audio stream. It's well worth it. I was satisfied that both Gross and Krakaeur were pretty careful about clarifying differences between Mormonism and Mormon fundamentalism. http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?todayDate=07/30/2003 Travis Manning - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:56:18 -0700 From: "John Dewey Remy" Subject: [AML] Religion and Violence (was: Krakauer) While I do not agree entirely with Krakauer's careless use of the Lafferty case to prove a point (although if he's just trying to generate controversy to sell books, he's doing an expert job of it), it bothers me that many LDS are writing off Krakauer's tying of violence to religion. Religion is multi-faceted. Religion inspires people to pacifism as well as to violence. In the Book of Mormon we have the examples of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis refusing to take up arms in self-defense as well as of Nephi's inspired killing of the comatose Laban. For the purposes of this message, I would like to take a look at those aspects of Mormonism which may encourage some to commit violence. Like it or not, divinely-directed violence is a part of Mormonism. God has occasionally commanded his followers to kill in the scriptures. There is at least one example in the Old Testament where God commands his followers to wipe out an entire people in the Old Testament. In fact, in 1 Samuel 15, Saul is chastized by God for not being completely thorough in his massacre of the Amalikites. The oft-quoted seminary scripture: "to obey is better than sacrifice" is pulled from this genocidal context. Of course, there is also the example of Nephi being "constrained by the Spirit that [he] should kill Laban" (1Nephi 4:10). Perhaps this is completely hypothetical (maybe not--I know that there are those who were asked by Joseph Smith to participate in polygamous marriages who struggled, and I struggle with my certain aspects of my own calling with the scouts), but what happens when we are commanded, either through one of the Lord's annointed or through our own direct communication through the Spirit, to commit an act that is against our conscience? Mormons are a covenant-making people that has sworn obedience to God. What are the limits of this level of obedience? I agree with most of the Krakauer critics (and with Krakauer himself, in his interviews) that Mormons are, for the most part, good people. The Lafferty brothers were extreme cases. At the same time, however, I think that we should be careful of drawing a line and saying that those who stand on one side of it are wacko fundamentalists, and those on the other side are merely strict in their devotion and conservative in their religious, social and moral views. It would be worth examining tendencies which are in common to the more conservative segments of many religious groups, including: unquestioning obedience, strong reaction against modern secular society, and a strong sense of separation from the world (us v. them). These are problematic traits which in many instances are wellsprings for bigotry and willful ignorance, as well as violence. While we should be critical of anyone who wants to paint an unflattering picture of Mormonism with a broad brush (or of any religious, philosophical or cultural system, for that matter), we should be ready as a people to turn a critical eye inwards and see if there aren't parts of our own religious culture which generate more harm than goodness. John Remy UC Irvine - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 09:18:47 -0600 From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Review of Krakauer and Others in _Salon_ > These fundamentalists are NOT Mormons, although they read our same > Scriptures. I wish people didn't connect the words fundamentalists and > Mormons in their minds. Though, I assume that, according to the currently promoted usage of "Mormon," if a "fundamentalist" wished to claim membership in the "Mormon Church," we should have no objection. What outsider would not be confused by such hair-splitting? At any rate, I think we should hesitate from demanding that others make distinctions that we do not make ourselves. We blandly refer to "Islam," for example, without bothering to draw lines between Sunni and Shia and Wahhabi and Sufi--lines that members of those sects draw as definitely as we do between Catholic and Protestant. After all, for simple reasons of taxonomy, "Fundamentalist Mormons" must be to some degree Mormon; they certainly are not Baptist or Lutheran or Anglican. Nor is it by sheer chance that they happen to be practicing their particular brand of religion in Utah, and not in the hills of Appalachia. Eugene Woodbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:37:37 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi's e-mail" Subject: [AML] Val Kilmer and Joseph Smith Hey all you Listers! I've been out of the loop for several weeks, what with summer travel, a family reunion, location scouting, a film shoot, a children's writing conference, a film fundraising conference, picking my nose a lot from the dry desert air, and now the start-up of a very exciting new organization (which Richard Dutcher and I will announce to y'all officially in the very near future, and which I think many of you may enjoy), all of which has kept me from reading my AML mail (sorely missed by me) and from submitting any of my bandwidth-hogging tomes (surely not sorely missed by you). Anyway, in brief snatches here and there I've tried to quickly scan the backlog of e-mail and file things away for responses later. Having 12 and a half minutes to kill today, and scanning the latest mail, I saw Chris' funny little quip, below, and it reminded me that some time ago somebody dismissed Val Kilmer's interest in the role of Joseph as a "rumor" ( I'm not sure who it was, but it wasn't Chris, I don't think). Anyway, as we are a small and like-minded community here on the List, and as various of us are "in the know" about various projects and this is a fun place to share "insider information" (as long as it's appropriate to do so), I thought I should go on the record in this instance and set things straight. For those who may yet be in doubt, please note that I have seen with my own little eyes and held with my hot little hands Val Kilmer's personally signed Letter of Intent (sometimes agents sign them on behalf of clients, but not in this case) to play the role of Joseph. So it is not a rumor. Richard actually went to Val's ranch in New Mexico and they had a very nice visit about the role. I actually have VK's ranch address and phone number right here on the Rollodex, but that would NOT be a good to share on-line (although I know one or two people of the female persuation who would like it if I did!). So, it is no rumor. Mr. K is into it. Now, that does NOT mean that he will actually be offered the role once Richard finally raises the money, or that if he were made an offer he could actually do it due to schedualing conflicts. So, will he actually play the role? Probably not. Is he actually interested in the role. Very much. "Intent" is a tenuous thing. But, it can also be quite real. By the by, F. Murray Abraham is also offically attached, and his agent sent a Letter of Intent, which I have read. Several other big names expressed "availability" tot he project but did not complete intention deals (so will remain nameless)... that's about when the money ran out. Oh well. The thing you have to know about casting (and all you actors will concure), is that actors want to act. I don't care who or how big they are, they are always hungry for the next juicy role. As a producer, all you have to do is have a juicy role and enough cash to pay them something even remotely respectable, and you get your cast. Cast is no big deal... it is absolutely essential (creatively and financially), but it is not hard to get (with a budget). Everybody always thinks, oh they loved the role so much they agreed to do it, but you know, quite frankly, give me a million bucks and a couple of days to polish or tailor a script to a specific person, and I could cast just about anybody on the planet. Seriously. And yes, I'm also talking about LDS film. Unless an actor has some unmitigated hate towards Mormons, there's not a working actor out there who won't play a role we (meaning Mormon authors) write for them... if the price and the schedule can be worked out. Same if you write Jewish or Catholic parts, or a Baptist preacher role. Nothing to get too rumbled over. Oh, so as long as I'm incohearently rambling, what is the deal with "Baptists at my Barbeque" changing its title to this "Eating, Drinking" thing or whatever? The new title (whatever it is) is not nearly as good as the original, and it kills the obvious marketing tie-in from all the people who loved the original novel. Bad move, IMHO. What, were you afraid the firs t title would offend Baptists? Friends, wake up: You're Mormon; you can't NOT offend Baptists. Ciao for now. Jongiorgi Enos - ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] FWD: Auditions for Joseph Smith > Someone ought to forward this to Val Kilmer . . . - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 07:54:22 -0700 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: [AML] Thank You I want to thank all of you for your thoughts, prayers, and kind words of condolence and sympathy over the passing of my wife, Cherilyn. I know she's up there having a ball right now, and that has comforted me--though it hasn't done much for the loneliness. But that will pass as I get used to my new situation. Again, thank you for your kind regards. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:31:25 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Val Kilmer and Joseph Smith I, for one, would be pleased to see Val Kilmer play Joseph Smith. He's going to have to smile a lot more than most of the other roles he's had. Perhaps he'll reach back to an early movie where he played a goofy college genius who liked wearing bunny slippers, could be serious when he had to and liked going against the status quo. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #114 ******************************