From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ (Daily Herald) Date: 30 Apr 2002 03:20:01 +0000 'Brigham City' video release offers new view The Daily Herald Friday, April 26 By ERIC D. SNIDER "Brigham City" tells us, among other things, that we all make mistakes. What matters is how we deal with them. Taking this lesson to heart, I want to use this week's video and DVD release of "Brigham City" as an occasion to say that I erred in my original assessment of the film -- or, rather, in the way I presented that assessment. I said it was a great spiritual drama surrounded by a bad murder mystery. Having watched the film a second time, I still feel that way. However, the second viewing drove home a point I had not considered, which is that the quality of the murder mystery is almost irrelevant. It is not the point of the movie. Let me compare it to another movie I admire very much, the Italian film "Life Is Beautiful." In it, a Jewish man interred with his little boy in a Nazi concentration camp goes to extreme lengths to keep the lad from knowing what's really going on. He pretends it's an elaborate game, thus shielding his son from the horror. When "Life Is Beautiful" was released in the United States in 1998, some critics attacked it for making light of the Holocaust. It was unconscionable, they said, to use a concentration camp as a setting for light-heartedness. How could the film take place during World War II and not graphically depict what went on? These critics missed the point. You can't criticize a movie for not accomplishing what it wasn't trying to do in the first place, and "Life Is Beautiful" wasn't trying to be a faithful depiction of the horrors of the Holocaust. It was a fable about a man's love for his family. It wanted to show that love and humor can triumph even under the most dire circumstances; it used a concentration camp as the backdrop because that was the most dire circumstance imaginable. It is no more "about" the Holocaust than a joke beginning "A man walks into a bar" is necessarily "about" bars. It is merely the setting. "Brigham City" uses a murder mystery as the setting for a story about faith, redemption and loss of innocence. It follows a man in a small Utah town who is the sheriff and also a local LDS bishop, who must contend with a serial killer. There are surprises I don't want to spoil, but suffice it to say the sheriff (played by writer/director Richard Dutcher) feels he could have done a better job of protecting the people in his town and in his ward. The thriller angle of the film, I maintain, is not very well done. As a thriller alone, it would never stand up against other films of that genre that are more suspenseful, more surprising and more logical. But my point is, that's not the point. "Brigham City," more than any movie I have ever seen, offers penetrating insight into the nature of repentance and redemption. It speaks directly to people of faith and offers hope in a very personal, spiritual, Christian way. Its framing story could have been better told, but its core message is beautiful and sublime. Now that it's readily available, I recommend this film to all people with even the slightest belief in God. The final scene alone, set in an LDS sacrament meeting, is more gently instructive than a thousand sermons. Hopefully, one forgives the movie's lesser mistakes in exchange for its masterful successes. Copyright 2002 by HarkTheHerald.com _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 30 Apr 2002 01:18:29 -0600 Scott Parkin wrote: > At the risk of speculating on doctrine, I wonder sometimes if this is not an > opportunity for us to exercise the same kind of trust and faith with our tax > dollars that we should be exercising with our tithing dollars. I'm not sure > it's possible for one person to know how every tax dollar is spent and > whether it was for a purely worthy cause. But aren't we blessed for learning > to trust others--whether that trust ends up being earned or not? This may well qualify for the most frightening statement of the month award. Have the same faith in government as we pay taxes that we have in God as we pay tithing? This is tantamount to saying have the same faith in the arm of flesh as in God. I pay my taxes for one reason and one reason only: if I don't, I'll go to jail. I know, I know, as a good Mormon I'm supposed to be happy to pay taxes for the services our "inspired" government provides yada yada. If that's all taxes were used for, I might feel the same way. But the majority of my thousands of tax dollars go to things I don't believe in, things that have nothing to do with the basic, necessary services a government exists to provide. Art isn't one of those things. And with the insane tax burden we have these days at every level of government, I consider it absolutely immoral for our government representatives to spend tax dollars on anything except the essentials until we can get this burden under control. Then come and talk to me about spending a few tax dollars on supporting the arts. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Disney Morals? Date: 30 Apr 2002 14:04:10 -0500 >It's a movie about how sexual attraction can get someone interested in >stuff like dog sledding. It's a movie in which sex drives all the most >important major decisions made by all the major characters. It's a movie >about, in other word, sex. >Sex drives the plots of nearly all Disney children's films. Even good >ones, like Beauty and the Beast; >Don't even get me started on Hunchback of Notre Dame--a nice kiddie flick >about perverted sexual obsession. Or Pocahontas, with Indian Barbie >winning John Smith essentially via a wet tee shirt contest. [post snipped >for brevity] Eric Samuelsen Eric, I haven't seen Snow Dogs yet, so I can't argue those particular points as accurate or not. But I can say that romantic attraction can and does interest people in each other's hobbies or activities. It happens all the time. I doubt I would ever have played golf in my life, if I hadn't married a golfer. I completely agree with you on Hunchback and Pocahontas: I've allowed my children to see them ONCE (only because they begged) and I will never own them. (I'll never buy Little Mermaid, either, but for different reasons.) Those two, in particular, are far too overtly sexual for small children. Don't get ME started on them either. However, with the other issues you cite, you boil down romantic love, attraction, and romance to its basic component: the hope for eventual sex. Isn't this true of not just Disney, but life in general? Biologists agree that a main function of instinct and survival is to propagate the species--some say sex is THE main function of life, period. I, however, disagree with Tina Turner that love is "a secondhand emotion," and think that just because Disney includes falling-in-love and romantic relationships in the storylines--many borrowed from the original romantic fairy tales--does not mean they are instructing children on matters of mature sexual relationships, or in my opinion, are "about sex." When you put it that way, even our Church-approved Stake Dances are "about sex." Why else have functions where young men and women may dance together and enjoy each other's company, with the potential to find a future romantic attraction? Why else is dating even allowed, if it's not going to lead eventually to (we hope) a temple sealing and fulfilling marriage and family life? Granted, the Lord requires us to keep His commandments and wait until marriage for consummation of these desires, but it's still, by your broad definition, "about sex," isn't it? Again, even five-year olds fall in love; they are very romantic about it; but rarely do they think of anything beyond kissing. Rarely do they imagine there *is* anything else, unless exposed to it prematurely. Physical relations beyond kissing--with the EXCEPTION of Hunchback and Pocahontas--are not even hinted at in the other Disney fairy tales. (Which is why I take such exception to those two in particular.) I'll agree with you on many points where it comes to Disney currently deficient in quality and other areas, including ethics or morality, and I imagine Walt is rolling over in his grave when it comes to some things they're doing just to make a buck these days (the straight-to-video "sequel" to Cinderella comes to mind). But as you broadly define this issue, I think you need to complain about life being about sex (which you could argue that it is), not just Disney films. Yet knowing you like I do from this list, I'm guessing you threw that comment out in the first place so somebody WOULD argue with you. :-) Oh well--I'll bite anyway. Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] JOHANSON, _What Is Mormonism All About?_ (Review) Date: 30 Apr 2002 10:06:48 -0600 As usual, an intelligent, balanced, well written review by Jeff Needle. = One very brief response: >Consider his take >on Mormon families: > For those who know a lot of Mormons, or live in communities > where there are large Mormon populations, they realize that > Mormons lead a very "Leave-It-To-Beaver, Father-Knows-Best, > Ozzie-And Harriet" kind of existence. And for those who > feel that no one actually lived like the families in those > TV sitcoms, they must not know many Mormons, because that's > the norm among most Mormon families. (p. 42) >Is this really true?=20 Jeff is far too polite, judicious and kind to say what needs to be said in = response to this particular bit of idiocy. I'm sorry, I'm in a bad mood, = and my back hurts, so here goes.=20 Is it true? Not hardly, and I find it tremendously insulting. My wife = does not wear high heels and pearls when she cooks dinner; in fact, mostly = I cook dinner, while she takes it easy after a very hard day at a very = demanding job. Father, in our family, most certainly does not know best; = in fact, Father, in our family, feels very much, as a parent, like he's in = over his head. My kids deal with actual real problems, and we don't = always counsel them wisely, and they don't always make great choices, and = problems are not always solved neatly. And we more than occasionally = interact with people from other ethnic backgrounds than the uniformly WASP = populations depicted in '50's sitcoms. No one actually did live like that = back then, and nobody today does either, thank heavens. What's really = frightening is the idea that there was once a time where the lily-white, = trivial, brainless, sexist, racist, oppressive world of the fifties sitcom = was seen, not as a reality, because nobody then thought that, but as a = kind of utopian ideal. That's what's really scary. =20 Please, let's all fervently, with all our hearts, pray to a merciful = heaven that this moronic book sells poorly.=20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Disney Morals? Date: 30 Apr 2002 14:18:07 -0600 Look, I tossed in a little throwaway line, dissing the Diz, and then, = stuck with it, looked at a few films. Of course there's a difference = between sex and romance. Of course, sex is a motivator; certainly is for = moi. Of course, there's nothing wrong with a nice romantic subplot. My = point is that Disney drags these dreary romantic subplots in, kicking and = screaming, when there's no reason for them, no justification for them, and = when they get in the way of the story. We're talking kids' films here; = movies where we have a chance to help kids learn something about the = world. The romantic subplots are, with few exceptions, tedious, predictabl= e, boring, unnecessary and extraneous. =20 Snow Dogs: You could make a terrific movie about dog mushing, even about a = Florida dentist who gets interested in dog mushing, and not have the = entire film revolve around a romantic subplot. The dentist goes to = Alaska, meets his mother's dog team, is taken with the beautiful scenery = and the glorious intelligence and tenacity of those dogs, and decides he's = going to put in the many hours hard work it's going to take to learn how = to excel at this particular difficult and rewarding sport. There's a = great movie there, which could teach children about forming a relationship = with nature, about hard work and steep learning curves, about the = excitement of competition. And you could even add a romantic subplot that = would make sense, in which two people put in the hard work to get to know = each other. Instead, the dentist falls in love with the beautiful = bartender, without the two of them ever having had a single meaningful = conversation, or worked together on a single project of mutual interest. = =20 Princess Diaries: The romantic subplot involving the chauffeur was = completely unnecessary, and the way it was presented made kind of a cute = little film quite sordid. Watch the film carefully; there's a wink and a = nod understanding between Julie Andrews and the Prime Minister guy; a = worldly undercurrent that's quite inmistakable. My fourteen year old got = it, and pointed it out to me. =20 Again, don't get me started on Pocahontas. To Disneyfy that particular = unbearably tragic story is beyond despicable. =20 I'm not opposed to romantic comedy; in fact I've written them. I'm = opposed to romanticizing things that can't be romanticized, to romance = stories without the slightest foundation in character, to romance used as = a short cut. Because that's when movies ostensibly about something else = turn into movies about sex. And that's not a compliment. Eric Samuelsen =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Utah Arts Grants Date: 30 Apr 2002 14:54:50 -0600 What Thom didn't point out is that the Utah Arts council didn't fund the AML publication Irreantum last yeard because it was Mormon. That's what you get around here. Plus most of the money for literary endeavors went to U of U projects. We don't see much of that money for things down at SUU. -- Todd -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art Date: 30 Apr 2002 15:08:00 -0600 ___ Paris ___ | What bothers me about us arguing about government funding of | the arts is that no one is arguing about govenemnt funding | of the military or the space program. No one questions the | morality of the M1-A1 Abrams. ___ Actually the morality of particular weapons systems are questioned all the time. Look at the huge debates about the Osprey, the B1 Bomber, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, etc. So the parallel to what goes on in the NEA is actually rather pronounced. Also, much as with the NEA, events get politicized a great deal. Further even people who are for the military in general (or art in general) can be against the choices of those handing out grants, research dollars, or general spending. I think we should keep in mind a distinction between spending for the arts and then specific ways spending for the arts is allocated. I should also point out that those of a more libertarian streak tend to see the role of the federal government as being necessarily limited. Defense is justifiable as that (to them) is one of the proper functions of government. Spending on making beautiful things is inappropriate as that is a function that should be reserved for the individual and self-organized collections of individuals. So even someone who is very pre-arts spending might feel it inappropriate for the federal (or perhaps even state) government to spend money on the arts. ___ Paris ___ | We have no more right to scrutinize the NEA than we have | to scrutize NASA. So what if they fund a few embarassing | projects. Do they do any good? ___ Actually I think we have not only a right but a duty to scrutinize all government spending. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism Date: 30 Apr 2002 15:11:19 -0600 Corportations aren't secrect combinations? Never killed for gain. Hmm. This is what prompted my question in the first place. LDS people are really so fond of the corporate system that they can't see its faults. Standard Oil Every coal mining company ever Phillip Morris Ford All of these corporations have killed people based on cost-benefit analyses, so I don't know what Jacob's talking about. And by the way, not all consumer transactions are entered into by free choice: going to the hospital is one example. I know that one could say they could choose not to go, but that's a cruel and absurd thing to say, finally. Buying food is another (especially if you live in the inner city). It's rare for people to be able to grow all they need anymore. There are, you will notice, grocery stores in agricultural communities. Nevertheless, Monsanto and ADM are starving and killing people right now. That's evil in my book, and the scriptures do talk about that, even though most Mormons don't, at least through their religion. Maybe it feels too Unitarian. I don't know. But the scriptures do talk about corruption in high places. Paul talks about that. I haven't looked closely enough at latter-day scriuptures in this regard but we are told in D and C 59 that we're to use the creation without extortion and not to excess, which seems to be something corporations are fond of. Not writing of the basic problems of human systems is something that is going to keep LDS writers from being great. I often wonder what an LDS Steinbeck or or George Orwell or Nadine Gordimer or Chinua Achebe or Simon Ortiz might be like--social writers who write wonderful stories but also illuminate the human condition in response to extreme economic and social forces. It seems like LDS people just want to write about their religion in a way that won't offend other LDS people. Perhaps this doesn't happen because we like the status quo as a people. We want the money and so we're not really willing to take up with the man, even on God's behalf. -- Todd Robert Petersen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 30 Apr 2002 16:34:36 -0500 Paris Anderson wrote: > What bothers me about us arguing about government funding of the arts is that > no one is arguing about govenemnt funding of the military or the space > program. No one questions the morality of the M1-A1 Abrams. I think it is a > very elitest tank--as it destroys only that which it targets. We have no more > right to scrutinize the NEA than we have to scrutize NASA. So what if they > fund a few embarassing projects. Do they do any good? Actually, NASA and the DoD _do_ have to pass public scrutiny, as does the NEA. When enough people strongly dislike what any government agency is doing, they make a fuss, and Congress responds. I don't think anyone is arguing that the NEA should be directly controlled by the voters. That would clearly be as silly as letting the voters decide (by referendum, I suppose?) specific items in this year's defense appropriations bill. No, when I say I want the NEA to be responsible to the public, I want it the same as I want it for any other government agency. And that's the way we get it, and I don't think that will change. The NEA (like NASA) will always have to defend its budget, it will always get extra scrutiny when it funds something the public finds absurd or outrageous, and it will respond to defuse criticism and avoid budget cuts. That's as it should be in a republic. Now if you want a situation where the public has no say, take LDS church art. Please. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] JOHANSON, _What Is Mormonism All About?_ (Review) Date: 30 Apr 2002 18:13:06 -0400 In his review of the book WHAT IS MORMONISM ALL ABOUT?, Jeff Needle wrote: > >But as to his (the author's)understanding of Mormonism, he seems to have a >fair >grasp of his subject matter. His bio states that he is >"president of the National Institute for Organizational Research, >an expert in higher-education marketing, and an accomplished >marketing strategist, writer, and public speaker." (back cover) >It should not be surprising that the book should have a marketing >bent to it, putting forward the best possible face. I read this book when it came out at the beginning of the year (clearly in preparation for the Winter Games) and was horrified not only at the author's poor grasp of Christian history, but also at his ignorance of Mormon doctrine. In a book that is designed to explain the religious differences between Mormons and others, he ignores theology and concentrates on such things as attending R-rate movies! Excuse me, but prior to my baptism I was never asked if I rejected certain types of popular entertainment; nor is the subject brought up at Temple recommend interviews. What about the Mormon conception of God? The Gospel presents a unique concept of Divinity that is positive, humanistic and rational. Any religion is centered upon the worship of a god. Yet the Mormon docirtine of God--that which truly sets us apart from all other religions and which is, I think, the most attractive aspect of our faith--is not explored in the book. If the Gospel and Church had been presented to me as the bland, dull, socially-retro "product" described in this book, I would never have given the Restoration a second thought. The point of the book seems to "Sell" the reader the idea that Mormons are nice people just like you (maybe even nicer), that you have nothing to fear from them, that they're not weird or strange, and that deep down they believe the same things you do. As a devout Latter-day Saint, I would never give this book to any non-member I truly respected. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 30 Apr 2002 18:22:41 -0400 Paris wrote: > >What bothers me about us arguing about government funding of the arts is >that no one is arguing about government funding of the military or the >space >program. I question the morality of the space program--even though I completely support the concept of space exploration and consider man's achievements in this arena to be among his greatest. But frankly speaking, I would say that, like the NEA, it is immoral and contrary to the philosophy upon which the Constitution rests to tax people to fund this program. As for the military, I think it is COMPLETELY MORAL to task citizen to fund their own defense. Our military is currently composed of volunteers--men and woman who, for a variety of reasons, have agreed to put their lives on the line to protect the Constitution. It is both good, moral and rational that we--the benefactors of any sacrifices they may make--should be taxed to pay them and supply them. If I don't want to be protected, then I am free to immigrate to a country that has no military. I think I'm being completely consistent in my reasoning regarding these things and government funding of the arts--although I open to any insights into how my reasoning may be faulty. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Disney Morals? Date: 30 Apr 2002 16:29:32 -0600 ---Original Message From: Marvin Payne > > Eric writes: > > << Sex drives the plots of nearly all Disney children's films. >> > > And all the Covenant Communications fiction. So I raise my > hand to object, > and then remember that, oh yeah, sex pretty much drives life. > I think we're > stuck with the driver. I think we need, as consumers and > creators, to pay > close attention to where it drives. > > Everybody watch for Steve Perry's and my choral celebration > of the Family > Proclamation, all about (you guessed it) sex. I'm with Eric on this one. I enjoy Disney films well enough, as I think does Eric. But can't they find other motivators, sometimes? Pixar does an excellent job of giving us children's movies where sex isn't the motivating factor driving the plot. Toy Story is a stellar example. Someone else mentioned that there was a romantic sub-plot in Monsters, Inc. but I think that's Eric's *point*. It was a *sub*-plot. Disney seems incapable of telling a story that isn't motivated from start to finish by infatuation with an attractive form. And I don't buy the love connection brought up, either. Disney characters are motivated by their hormones. They don't *know* each other well enough to be motivated by love. The hero/ine sees an attractive member of the opposite sex and decides they want them. The rest of the plot falls in line from there. I've been disgusting people for years whenever I watch Aladdin by singing along with "I Can Show You the World" with just a *slight* change in emphasis that draws out the sexual conquest/seduction underlying those lyrics. There. I've ruined that experience forever for you now. I'm not sorry at all... :) Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] Re: Mormon Environmentalism Date: 30 Apr 2002 16:48:46 -0600 > From: "Jacob Proffitt" > Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism > - ---Original Message From: Jana Pawlowski > > I keep thinking of the comment reported by the AML-lister of > > the LDS person who didn't believe in environmentalism because > > the scriptures say there is "enough and to spare". I think > > the scriptures also speak of the abuse of the corporate > > conglommerates, etc. in the last days (maybe?), > > They do? Where? I don't think I've ever seen the phrase corporate > conglomerates in the scriptures. Are you saying that corporate > conglomerates are equal to secret combinations? Gee, Jacob, I was sort of kidding about the scriptural reference (as in, you can make any case for anything in the scriptures if you try hard enough, forgive the subtle humor). I can't think of any tie in to Mormon Letters, other than it can help form the content of what we write about.....For or against it. We should be more politically active, like the prophet says (Mormon) and social concerns could be a major focus of what we are inspired to write about (Letters) since it is so pertinent to our local environment. Specific to this issue, I would just say, look it up in the Tribune. There are many allegations of misuse of power. PFS struck a deal with a Goshute Indian that wasn't authorized to make a deal, etc. and now the recognized leader and his followers do not WANT the nuclear waste. I hear a lot of your arguments from my husband, who is a scientist, so it HAS to be okay to disagree with you as well. However, a BYU professor, a geo-physicist? also gave a good argument for not storing the waste here on Friday night. Becoming educated in the pros and cons, as I said, is part of becoming politcally active. Writing about our findings is a whole genre of mormon literature waiting to happen. Jana Pawlowski -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art Date: 30 Apr 2002 16:42:04 -0600 ---Original Message From: Paris Anderson > > What bothers me about us arguing about government funding of > the arts is that no one is arguing about govenemnt funding of > the military or the space > program. No one questions the morality of the M1-A1 Abrams. > I think it is > a very elitest tank--as it destroys only that which it > targets. We have no more right to scrutinize the NEA than we > have to scrutize NASA. So what if they fund a few > embarassing projects. Do they do any good? Maybe you are pointing this out obliquely, but I want to make this explicit: we *do* scrutinize NASA *and* military spending. Great, raging public debates are held in the media all the time about military and NASA spending--or am I the only one who notices that every time a missile is shown blowing something up, or a new NASA mission is announced, that the *cost* of said missile/mission is given--usually with a sub-vocal "tsk tsk" underlying it. It's only when we criticize the NEA that we're told to sit down, shut up, and just pay your taxes. I mean, there *is* a certain amount of that in all government spending--a certain amount of "let the experts see to it, they are so much wiser than *you*", but that doesn't mean we put up with that kind of attitude. If we feel we can stick our noses into, say, the Office of Homeland Security and bemoan the lack of public disclosure of the decision-making process and budget spending of our secret security forces, how on Earth do we justify the smoke-screen thrown up around the NEA? Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art Date: 30 Apr 2002 15:03:10 -0800 Actually there is a small connection between Andres Serrano (the photographer of famous "urine soaked cross" that everyone has been talking about) and government funded arts in Utah. About two years ago the Visiting Writers grant sponsored a visit by Bruce Beasley, a poet who is very rooted in evangelical Christianity. Beasley interprets Serrano's work in a proufoundly religious way. From the back of Beasley's book _Signs and Abominations_: "All of the books' figures ... [including] Andres Serrano submergig a crucifix in his own urine, set out on a deformed search for signs of the divine among the abominations of the profane. These poems are brilliance cast back at the hypocritical religiosity of those who refuse to admit that the spiritual and the profane inextricably encompass each other, and that art and religion have more in common than not." The cover of the book has Serrano's Pieta II which is the Pieta submerged in urine and blood. It's a very challenging book. Good poetry too. I would highly recommend it. Many people on this list would probably find the book fascinating. Maybe I'll write a review for it over the summer. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 30 Apr 2002 20:44:34 -0600 "To carry on with Eric's dragging of this discussion back to Mormon Arts and Letters... I feel constrained to point out that Sunstone, Irreantum, the Sugarbeet... (not funded or legitimized by the Church) produce/publish good edgy mormon art." And how many of the artists involved in those ventures get paid for their efforts? Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kelly Thompson" Subject: Re: [AML] Sorensen, _The Evening and the Morning_ Date: 30 Apr 2002 16:46:58 -0600 I love Virginia Sorensen's writing. While this book deals with illicit l= ove and may be challenging on that level, it is an incredible book. I thi= nk that the more you know about Sorensen, the more you love her as a pers= on and as a writer and the more you love her writing. I presented on this= very book at the AML Annual Conference in 2001. I said that Sorensen's T= he Evening and The Morning read in light of her short story titled "The A= postate" is a personal examination of her life in terms of the heritage s= he'd acquired from her ancestors, particularly her grandmother and her co= nnection to the Mormon faith. She's examining her own life and experience= as she writes. (She's in an unhappy marriage and involved in extramarita= l affairs). I think that there is a tone of condescension towards full be= lievers in the gospel because she lived in a day (the 30s and 40s) when a= lot of intellectuals thought Utah and Mormonism too provincial. She also= struggled in the faith herself. Her grandmother left the faith (based on= The Evening and The Morning and "The Apostate," one can assume that she = had an affair and was excommunicated) and that affected Sorensen's mother= and, of course, Sorensen herself. She loved this grandmother and struggl= ed to assimilate her love of the Mormon faith and her love of this creati= ve, fascinating grandmother. Sorensen once said in a letter that she lon= g desired to be the one to write the story of her ancestors who left Denm= ark for the Mormon faith but she said that she seemed always on the outsi= de looking in on the faith. She had faith in God and, in much lesser degr= ees, in the teachings of the LDS Church but it seemed to be always underm= ined. In her writing, she is indeed critical but she is examining how she= got to the place where she is. =20 Kelly Thompson =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 30 Apr 2002 20:49:14 -0600 > Robert Starling wrote: > > > Perhaps it should be noted that Orem DOES have a good theater company, = > > -The Hale Center Theater- which operates quite well _without_ any = > > subsidy, as do all the several Hale theaters. > > > > I say let the people vote with their feet and dollars about the art they = > > want to see. > > Just a thought. Perhaps if government-subsidized theater didn't exist, > the private theaters wouldn't have such a thinned-out audience to fight > for and could attract a larger crowd. > The Hales don't do art. They do entertainment. If "true" art is, as it should be, ahead of the societal train, it stands to reason that its messages won't be embraced by the majority of folks who should hear it. People being people, most of them don't like anything new, or, for that matter, things that might make them think, to re-assess their values, etc. Art is kinda like religion. Most people who need either one will ignore them. So, for the good of mankind, both need to be subsidized. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] [AML-Mag] JOHANSON, _What Is Mormonism All About?_ (Review) Date: 30 Apr 2002 20:23:25 -0700 Thanks for this nice note. And of course, you're right, he was saying things that many Church members might well believe. For the record, non-Mormons have equally distorted views of Mormonism. Some of their anti-Mormon polemic is really awful. I've had the pleasure to read the works of some fine LDS scholars who truly understand other religions. My main point was one of credibility, since this book was not written for Mormons, but specifically for people outside the Church, who might be wondering about it due to the publicity surrounding the Olympics, people who may very well spot the distortions as we would. I appreciate your comment. [Jeff Needle] ----- Original Message ----- > Needle's review of "What Is Mormonism All About?" is excellent. [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon-News Query Date: 30 Apr 2002 23:22:16 -0400 I send them to the list as I get them, and I haven't gotten any for awhile. I just checked out the website and its dating back to Jan, so its not up to date. Debbie Brown > Does anyone know if Kent Larsen's Mormon-News is still up and running? I haven't received any news updates from them since April 4th. Thanks, Frank Maxwell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "kumiko" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report April 26 Date: 30 Apr 2002 22:15:59 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of April 26, 2002 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 4 Murder by Numbers 6,362,457 2,663 10 Ryan Gosling (actor) 18,362,833 27 The Other Side of Heaven 252,202 197 136 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,000,579 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 59 Ocean's Eleven 39,212 45 143 LDS characters: Malloy twins 183,405,771 64 The Singles Ward 33,849 14 80 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 537,598 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Will Swenson, Connie Young, Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne, Michael Birkeland, Robert Swenson, Lincoln Hoppe, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, etc. 73 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 15,055 4 724 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,232,617 75 Galapagos 12,425 6 913 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 12,633,529 95 China: The Panda Adventure 5,232 4 276 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,251,061 101 Mark Twain's America 3D 4,228 1 1396 Alan Williams (composer) 2,203,394 102 Mulholland Drive 3,575 5 203 Joyce Eliason (producer/writer) 7,217,058 KIETH MERRILL SPEAKS: Academy Award-winning filmmaker Kieth Merrill delivered the keynote address at the annual LDS Artists Retreat (sponsored by the Mormon Arts Foundation), held in California on 12 April 2002. The text of his address was published by MERIDIAN MAGAZINE at: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/020423vision.html During his address, Kieth Merrill mentioned sculptor Bertel Thorvoldsen, Michelangelo, actor Leonardo DiCaprio, filmmaker Richard Dutcher, writer/director Mitch Davis, producer John Garbett, LDSFilm.com, composer Thomas C. Baggaley, the Nauvoo Temple, Joseph Smith, producer Saul Zaentz, director Milos Foreman, composer Antonio Salieri, actor F. Murray Abraham, Mozart, Beethoven, Tom Clancy, Harold Prince, John Williams, Thomas Kinkade, Steven Spielberg, painter James Christensen, sculptor Dennis Smith, Deseret Book C.E.O. Sheri Dew, songwriter Michael McLean, actor Jimmy Stewart, producer/director Gary Cook, cinematographer Scott Swofford, cinematographer T.C. Christensen, composer Merrill Jensen, composer Sam Cardon, film editor Jerry Stayner, President Hinckley, President Faust, and Martin Harris. He mentioned a number of films by name: Amazon; Titanic; God's Army; The Other Side of Heaven; The Singles Ward; The Blair Witch Project; Amadeus; Mr. Krueger's Christmas; The Testaments Of One Fold And One Shepherd; Gladiator. He also quotes filmmakers Frank Capra, Orson Welles, John Lyde and Jerry Molen, as well as poet Robert Frost, apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Elder Holland, Aristotle, President Spencer W. Kimball, President Brigham Young, Ruskin and Elder Neal A. Maxwell. DUTCHER'S 'PROPHET' CAST: The lead roles for Richard Dutcher's "The Prophet" have been cast. Of course, it was reported a few weeks ago that Latter-day Saint actress and BYU student Erin Chambers (the star of Disney's "Don't Look Under the Bed") will be playing the part of "Emily", a friend of Emma Smith. Canadian actor Duff MacDonald will play Robert Foster, a radical apostate from the Church. The part of Joseph Smith has already been cast. Do we know who it is? Yes, we do. But our lips are sealed. You'll have to wait for Dutcher to release the information officially. Hints? Well... Let's just say that he has played a similar role before. L.A. TIMES AND MITCH: The Los Angeles Times ran an excellent, in depth article about recent and upcoming Christian-themed feature films. The article includes extensive quotes from Mitch Davis about his movie "The Other Side of Heaven", and about Christian filmmaking in general. The article also discusses the recently released "Joshua" (produced by a Presbyterian, based on a book by a Catholic). Richard Dutcher's "God's Army" and "Brigham City" are also mentioned, as are Warner Bros.' $40-million-grossing "A Walk to Remember", and critical flops by Evangelical filmmakers, such as "Omega Code", "Left Behind", "Carman: The Champion" and "Extreme Days." The article can be found at: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/printedition/suncalendar/la-000030007ap r28.story WHERE DOES 'THE OTHER SIDE OF HEAVEN' NOW STAND IN MOVIE HISTORY? With its nationwide opening a few weeks ago "The Other Side of Heaven" surpassed "God's Army" as the box office leader among "LDS Cinema" films -- movies made by and about Latter-day Saints. But where does it stand among ALL movies about Latter-day Saint main characters, including movies made by non-LDS filmmakers? According to our data, "The Other Side of Heaven" is the 2nd highest grossing movie in which one of the lead characters is openly a Latter-day Saint. It trails only behind the musical "Paint Your Wagon", which was released in 1969 and earned $14.5 million (made with a $20 million budget). That movie took a light-hearted look at Mormon settlements in the West and polygamy. The female lead (played by Jean Seberg) was a long-time Latter-day Saint, and (if I recall correctly) the male leads (Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood) join the Church at the end of the movie. Unfortunately, I don't know the box office gross "Melvin and Howard" (1980), but it may have been more than $4 million. Mary Steenburgen won an Academy Award for playing Mormon housewife Lynda Dummar in that movie, and Paul Le Mat played the titular Melvin Dummar, also a Mormon. The real life Dummars were Latter-day Saints, but I don't know if the movie addresses that fact or not. There are a number of other movies which have made more than "The Other Side of Heaven" and featured Latter-day Saints characters, but the characters were not explicitly identified as Latter-day Saints in the movie, or they weren't the lead characters: Steven Soderbergh's "Ocean's Eleven" had a U.S. gross of $183 million, but its two Mormon characters were only two of Ocean's crew of eleven, and were not as prominent as George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts. Barry Levinson's "Rain Man" (U.S. gross $173 million) features a title character BASED ON a real-life Latter-day Saint, but the story itself is fictional, and the onscreen character is not apparently LDS. (Interestingly enough, the movie was produced by a Latter-day Saint--Jerry Molen, who also has an important role onscreen as an actor -- playing the psychiatrist.) In "Deep Impact" (U.S. gross $140 million) the Latter-day Saint astronaut from Utah ("Dr. Oren Monash") is only maybe the 7th most important character -- and is not explicitly identified onscreen as a Latter-day Saint character. "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (U.S. gross $102 million) is, of course, about a real-life Mormon, but the movie portrays Butch Cassidy (played by Paul Newman) only after he was no longer active in the Church, and his Church affiliation is never mentioned in the movie. Likewise, Mario Van Peebles's biopic "Panther", about Eldridge Cleaver, does not address the famous Black Panther's later membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Mormon characters in "Donnie Brasco" and "One Night at McCool's" were major characters, but not lead characters. So while there have been a number of movies with Mormon characters which have earned more than "The Other Side of Heaven," it appears that only one movie that is really, explicitly about Mormons has out-earned it. And that movie -- "Paint Your Wagon" -- used Latter-day Saints largely for comic effect and as a plot device. NELEH WATCH: The Salt Lake Tribune ran a fascinating article about Neleh Dennis, the Latter-day Saint competitor on "Survivor: Marquesas." By a wide margin, Neleh is the most popular competitor on the show, according to the show's official web polls, and based on the flurry of online activity supporting her. In the latest episode, Neleh continued her stay on the island, emerging as one of the key power players among the island's remaining contestants (although doing so in a very quiet, behind the scenes, and completely nice way). Tammy the Crime Reporter (from Mesa, AZ -- but not LDS), was clearly marked for banishment this week, because after last week's ouster of John, she was the most aggressive and duplicitous player left. But she won immunity for a second week in a row, and Zoe the sea captain from Maine got the boot. Now there are only seven castaways left, and Neleh is still sitting pretty. Unless allegiances shift radically (and there is no sign that they will), Tammy and Robert ("the General") will be the next to go, leaving Neleh one of five left (out of the original 16), along with Paschal, Sean, Vecipia and Kathy. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 30 Apr 2002 21:29:46 -0600 robert lauer wonders: > But is anyone addressing the MORALITY of forcing people (all law--including > tax law--is the use of force or the threat thereof) to support IDEAS? Always a fun discussion when politics, religion, and personal ethics collide... I'm not sure that anyone is forced to support any particular idea when tax dollars are used to fund the expression of that idea--any more than my consumer dollar spent on Kraft macaroni and cheese is an explicit endorsement and establishment of Phillip Morris Company's alcohol or tobacco products. I pay for mac and cheese; I support mac and cheese. If part of my mac and cheese money helps make a cigarette, I can only assume that part of their Pall Mall dollar is funding my cheesy mealtime delight. I suppose the dollar funds the whole company and the production of products I have no interest in. It also funds the production of the product I do have interest in--just as the NEA or any other tax-funded organzation supports the expression of both ideas I agree with and ones I don't. I see a tremendous amount of morality in supporting the expression of ideas with common money. It's how we ensure that the free exchange of ideas continue--by supporting the expression of even distasteful or disagreeable ideas. If anything, I almost see it as a moral imperative to specifically fund the expression of unpopular ideas to ensure that we are always given choices and hear arguments for other ways of thinking. I see it as my moral imperative to ensure that the majority is not given the power to quash the ideas of minorities--like Mormons or women or blacks. And so the use of my tax dollar to support a wide variety of expression seems very much to be not only a good thing to do, but becomes very nearly necessary if we are to ensure free expression of any idea--be it religious, pragmatic, or philosophical. Of course the extension of withdrawing funding to support the expression or study of ideas is that we eliminate public funding of education as well, since very specific ideas and morals are taught in schools--especially at the university level. To make it worse, those darned universities then turn around and tell me I can't attend them because I don't meet some arbitrary entrance requirement--even though my tax dollars established them and continue to fund them. It just seems more morally correct to support all expression of ideas than to support none. One creates choice, where it seems to me that the other creates nothing and enables the majority to exercise tyrrany of control over the minority. Since no one--political, religious, or business leader--can force me to believe anything, I see support of expression not as a suppression of my right to ignore silly things, but as a support of the right of others to say silly things. Which is the cost of my right to believe what I want. > philosophy upon which the Constitution rests (that of the NATURAL RIGHTS of > the INDIVIDUAL) prohibits the use of law --meaning Government use of force > or the threat thereof--from supporting ANY particular religion. The prohibition is against the establishment of religion as the foundation of law, not the support of free expression of ideas. The right to express unpopular ideas is precisely what allowed a group of colonists to declare themselves independent of the rightful and established authority that had funded their colony. The Constitution itself arose not out of some grand sweeping unanimity of opinion, but out of the difficult collision of sometimes completely opposite ideas. The protection of smaller, less populous states against the will of the larger states was a foundational argument. So the explicit governmental (aka, lawful) protection of unpopular ideas against the oppression of a popular majority *is* the basis of the U.S. Constitution, in my eyes. It's not all about majority rule--the majority is every bit as much the tyrant as a single powerful ruler. To my mind it's at least partly about explicit minority protection. There's a difficult line here between religion and philosophy and ideas. When is an idea religious, and when is it merely an idea? Is personal honesty the philosophical concept of "the fear of getting caught" or is it the religious idea of "a sin against God?" Or is it simple pragmatism--loss of trust means loss of income? Since most religions teach honesty, is the idea tainted and can no longer be supported by the law designed to protect us all from the manipulations of the dishonest? Are truth in advertising laws really the establishment of religion--or are they the protection of people regardless of (or perhaps even despite) religion? I'm not real keen on what I see as the overzealousness of organizations that try so desperately to ensure that government agencies express *no* religious ideas or symbols--it seems to forcibly prevent the expression of certain kinds of ideas while explicitly supporting other kinds of ideas. But I do support the careful watchdogging of the use of governmental authority to validate one philosophy over another. Directly and explicitly supporting the expression of ideas just doesn't seem like the same thing as establishing a particular religion as the foundation of law and authority to me. Try as I might, I just can't see the NEA as a state religion. > Where is the MORAL JUSTIFICATION for taking one penny from me and giving it > to another artist whose work, ideas and philosophy may be completely > opposite to my own? In this case, I think the justification comes from the very idea that the government and its agencies support a broad range of ideas precisely to combat the moral absolutism of a small ruling class. By supporting the expression of a wide variety of ideas you (theoretically) ensure that unpopular ideas (such as Mormonism) are given equal protection and support. >From a particularly Mormon standpoint, it's the opposing force that gives us the freedom to choose. Without a choice there is no righteousness. The cost of that freedom to choose is that some will choose poorly. But the choice is critical, and explicit support of the expression of ideas is a foundation of that choice. In my opinion. > None of > the arguments made for the violation of the rights of Mormons were > consistent with the philosophy upon which the Constitution rests. It is the > rejection of this philosophy and an acceptance of the same arguments used by > 18th century anti-Mormons that serves as the conceptual foundation > supporting the notion of Government supported arts. On this we just disagree. As you point out, the use of government power to try to stamp out Mormon religion was a wholesale violation of the concepts on which the Constitution was founded. Some would argue (and I tend to agree) that the reason Mormons were so successfully persecuted was precisely because of the partial establishment of religion as the basis for governmental policy. What the government did was illegal by their own rules; they justified that corruption on the basis of a religious idea of moral correctness--the same kind of religious fervor that led to Prohibition and a great many other Bad Ideas. What I don't see is how the NEA or any other tax-funded organization is crushing or destroying the free practice of religion or the free expression of ideas. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the NEA supports a great many arts projects that I find of immense value--that I agree with both philosophically and religiously. I don't see the NEA establishing religion, or forcing anyone to accept a single philosophical framework by force of law. Unlike what was done to the Mormons in the two prior centuries. Yes, the threat of violence causes people to pay their taxes. Those tax dollars are then used to fund a great many things that I don't really like, including certain wars, the expression of certain ideas, and the aggrandizement and debauchery of a great many alleged civil servants. Ideally, people would pay their taxes because it's right, and would support the expression of opposing ideas for the same reason. Since human nature is not always to do the right thing, we create and establish law to ensure at least minimal protection of the minority or unpopular viewpoint. The law is not perfect, but to me the issue is administration not moral correctness. On this one it looks like we'll each have to take advantage of our tax-supported (and policed) right to disagree and to express that disagreement publicly. Where's the Mormon literary connection? In this case it's a very weak one, and in my mind is related to the idea that a pure free-market economy will tend to produce only that which reinforces a majority opinion. Which seems like the big knock against Mormon literature. Maybe what Mo-Lit needs is a little governmental sponsorship to support that alternate voice. I know I got the government to help fund a science fiction magazine at BYU; maybe I can get some help funding an alternative Mormon press in central Utah. Hmmm.... Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: HOJONEWS@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Utah Arts Grants Date: 30 Apr 2002 23:57:10 EDT In a message dated 4/30/02 12:30:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ThomDuncan@prodigy.net writes: > Maybe we should stop and consider, and then > consider again, whether to condemn a sculpture or a painting, or a film > where our first instinct is to condemn Dear Thom and All: Amen to this. That could be extended to many other aspects of life with the Bible's "first stone" metaphor as well as the freedom of speech and right to privacy clauses in our government documents in mind. Carolyn Howard-Johnson, Author of This is the Place, an award-winning story about a young journalist who writes her way through repression into redemption For a FREE First Chapter Click Here or send to: carolynhowardjohnson@sendfree.com FREE Cooking by the Book at http://www.tlt.com/authors/carolynhowardjohnson.htm -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism (was: LDS Activism) Date: 30 Apr 2002 22:12:57 -0600 Jim said that you can't believe in Gaia and God. Well, if you believe in the book of Moses, I'd suppose you'd have to, unless Enoch really didn't hear the earth groan and ask for a season of rest. Or maybe that wasn't literal? I happen to think it was. Jim also said that nobody in the world is anti-environment. I'm not so sure that's true. If you have ever stood in a clearcut, you'd know that those places have a feeling of violence in them. To say that no one is against forests after witnessing that kind of incursion is like saying that people who kill aren't anti-people. They may not be, but they sure act like it. To extort materials from the creation for the mere pupose of making money, which is different from taking things to sustain our lives, but to extract these things (which our doctrine teaches us are intelligences unto themselves, not inert) in a violent way, without prayer and acknowledgment of them as gifts from God (which demand a certain degree of honor whatever they are), that is anti-environment to me. To not aknowledge God in the minerals and meat and timber and air and water is a kind of blasphemy regardless of the ELF or Greenpeace and others who probably don't help curb the polarization. To me the most Mormon thing in the world would be to say: hey, we've got to share this place that our Heavenly Father and Christ made for us. I've got no more claim on it than anyone else. Living here in peace is my birthright. It is everyone's birthright; this earth is not just for those who need to mine or log or fish or ranch in large scale corporate projects. The Berkley pit outside Butte, MT is un-Christian. I'd like to hear more Mormon people talking and writing about that. Don't I hear people say that we must love our neighbors, and doesn't that also extend to loving them by sharing and by allowing them to live in health and by letting them have equal access to the blessings the Lord has given us through the creation? Maybe I've been listening to a little too much Woody Guthrie. But we all learn that song in school. It just doesn't mean all that much, I guess. LDS people are all about personal property, but we know that there really isn't such a thing as personal property. We have checked it all out from the great PE cage in the sky, and we'll have to turn it all back in when our turn is over. -- Todd Robert Petersen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Brett Helquist Query Date: 30 Apr 2002 22:16:54 -0600 Yes, Brett is LDS. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art Date: 01 May 2002 00:56:52 -0600 ---Original Message From: harlowclark@juno.com > So, a question for those who object to forced support for the > arts through our taxes, do you also object to public > participation, through direct funding or SID bonds or tax > deferrals or RDAs or other means? Why or why not? > > And for those who support public funding for the arts, do you > also support public funding in its various forms for stadiums > or buildings for other kinds of private enterprises. Why or why not? I hope I've made it clear that I am *much* friendlier to public spending on the arts than public spending on private enterprises. I'm not fond of anyone who wants to suck at the public teat. However, there *are* important things that require concerted (and even coerced) effort. Art is partially in that category (with caveats), but I firmly believe that profitable businesses are *not*. The key determining factor is (for me) if it is worth the cost of government intervention and won't be met any other way. Profitable businesses are automatically (IMO) excluded by the last criteria... Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Revitalizing Concerts (was: Money and Art) Date: 01 May 2002 02:07:23 -0600 Mary Jane Jones wrote: > As an art form, movies certainly haven't had any trouble finding financial support. That's because the medium is relevant to the culture. Let's face it--in America we have a culture that needs visual stimluation. (That's another part of why I think symphonies are suffering--they don't play up the visual aspect of the experience nearly enough--but that's another discussion.) > > My husband and I talk about this last issue a lot. His symphony has seen financial trouble, and every season we watch the numbers dwindle as the audience for symphonic music dies off--literally. He struggles to find ways of making the music that he loves so much relevant to everyday American life in order to attract new audiences. How about multimedia concerts? It's been done. Our family attended a Mannheim Steamroller Christmas concert a while back. For a good portion of the second half of the show, they had a see-through screen in front of the group and, as they played, they showed a film on the screen of a medieval recreation of a Christmas celebration. It was quite fascinating. They also showed a number of other shorts on a normal screen behind them as they performed in the first half. I'm sure the purists would howl at this, but maybe, just maybe the orchestra will be laughing all the way to the bank. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 01 May 2002 02:13:01 -0600 Paris Anderson wrote: > > What bothers me about us arguing about government funding of the arts is > that no one is arguing about govenemnt funding of the military or the space > program. No one questions the morality of the M1-A1 Abrams. I think it is > a very elitest tank--as it destroys only that which it targets. We have no > more right to scrutinize the NEA than we have to scrutize NASA. So what if > they fund a few embarassing projects. Do they do any good? The military is a Constitutionally assigned responsibility of the Federal government. That makes a big difference. As for NASA, I recently heard an interesting idea about funding it that might be a blueprint for funding other things in a more acceptable way. To fund space exploration, a tax is placed on all science fiction. This may very well be the only tax I've ever heard of that I would actually like to pay. I wouldn't be surprised if most SF enthusiasts feel similarly. Is there a comparable way to fund the arts? -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art Date: 01 May 2002 09:38:14 -0600 <<< To carry on with Eric's dragging of this discussion back to Mormon Arts and Letters... I feel constrained to point out that Sunstone, Irreantum, the Sugarbeet... (not funded or legitimized by the Church) produce/publish good edgy mormon art. Who funds them? I haven't done the research to be able to say firmly that they are funded only by private patrons and donations and sales etc..., but I'm fairly confident that they are. (I do know that the funds for the fiction contest Sunstone runs annually are provided by a private patron of some sort) Can anyone correct me? >>> Irreantum is 100% supported by the AML, which is 100% supported by member dues, subscriptions, event fees, and the occasional donation. Sugar Beet is supported by the three editors taking turns paying the $25 monthly web hosting fee. I don't know about Sunstone, but I know they've had a goal of finding 100 people who will each donate $1,000 per year, and I think they rely on book and art sales too. The AML does sometimes apply for Utah Arts Council and NEA money for Irreantum, but we've been turned down in the past. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Utah Arts Grants Date: 01 May 2002 10:54:23 -0600 I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. Is there something here I don't know? Did _Irreantum_ apply for grant money and not get it on the grounds that it was Mormon? Since I've gotten grant money myself for a decidedly Mormon project, and since I teach at BYU, I know that the money doesn't go just to U of U. Lance Larsen has also gotten grant money, though I don't know what his particular project was other than poetry. I wonder if there's a difference when individual artists apply for grant money and when a group such as the AML applies. When the word "Mormon" appears as part of the name of the petitioner, I wonder if there's a concern about using state money for religious ends. Every year, the UAC sponsors a free seminar in grant proposals. It'd be interesting for an AML member to go to one of those and just ask straight out if a Mormon entity (not an individual, because we already know that individual Mormon artists can get grant help) will likely be denied a grant because it is a religious organization. [Margaret Young] Todd Petersen wrote: > What Thom didn't point out is that the Utah Arts council didn't fund the > AML publication Irreantum last yeard because it was Mormon. That's what > you get around here. Plus most of the money for literary endeavors went > to U of U projects. We don't see much of that money for things down at > SUU. > -- > Todd -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 01 May 2002 09:52:59 -0600 >Just a thought. Perhaps if government-subsidized theater didn't exist, >the private theaters wouldn't have such a thinned-out audience to fight >for and could attract a larger crowd. Sure doesn't look like it in the UK, where private theatres thrive and = proliferate like, I don't know, some appropriate image suggesting = fecundity. =20 What the National and RSC do, in England, is create an appetite for the = art form. People in the United States aren't in the habit of going to the = theatre. When most folks think of theatre, they think of "that awful = musical I had to go to in high school," or "$150 tickets for Les Mis." = They don't think of "something enjoyable to take the family to a couple = times a month." =20 That's what the National and RSC do. They make it possible for people to = see the best theatre in the world at affordable prices, so that folks get = in the habit of theatre attendance on a regular basis. A rising tide, in = this case, really does lift all the ships. In this country, there's very much a Catch-22 regarding the arts. The = arts are seen as elitist and expensive and probably sort of untrustworthy. = So people don't support even reasonable amounts of government funding for = the arts. And so, the arts become, well, pretty elitist and they stay = pretty expensive. And so on. =20 I know this is a hard sell, especially within free market loving Mormons. = Believe me, I'm politically left, but I love the free market. I sing the = song of America, in all its polyester glory. I love used car salesmen (is = there an activity in the world more flat out enjoyable than buying a used = car?), telemarketers, personal injury attorneys, time share condo = salesmen. As I've said before, I love the name of our country. United = States (a state is, by definition, sovereign), of America (supersalesman = Amerigo Vespucci, con man and self promoter; I love invoking him). I'm = not kidding, I really like all this stuff. I love street vendors. I = adore tacky promotions. I think it's all good. Public funding for art is = not incompatible with democratic and market oriented ideals. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 30 Apr 2002 01:27:18 -0600 bob/bernice hughes wrote: > A lot of the money in both > the NEA and NEH (Humanities) is given out in block grants to local > communities or organizations to decide what to do with the funds. For > example, the NEA gives a large block grant to the Utah Arts Council to > decide what to do with the funds. Why do we have to funnel the money through Washington, then have it block-granted back to us? I can't help but wonder how big the bite in overhead is that we lose with every dollar that way. There's really only one reason: local government doesn't want to have to tax for such things. So they let the Feds do the dirty work, then beg the Feds for the money. Politically easier, but cowardly and stupid. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tyler Moulton" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 01 May 2002 10:27:43 -0600 Mary Jane Jones said, >>>I think that a bigger part of the reason why the arts flourish more in = small western European towns has . . . more to do with the overall = attitudes of the general population towards art. . . . <<< Just a funny anecdote: Several years ago my family was visiting Insbruck. We were strolling down = the sidewalk enjoying the sunshine and the architecture when we began to = sense the vibrations of a pounding bass coming from the internal speakers = of an approaching car. The intrusion of what I took to be rap music on = that setting was startling. But as the car got closer and we could pick = out the higher notes, we realized that this teenager was doing permanent = damage to his ears with polka music. We haven't stopped laughing. Tyler [whose wife, Heather, just had a beautiful and healthy baby girl, = whom we will name Elizabeth Hope.] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] JOHANSON, _What Is Mormonism All About?_ (Review) Date: 01 May 2002 10:47:21 -0700 Robert, thanks for these good comments. Yes, you're quite right in that this book does nothing to advance the deep understandings of God as taught in Mormonism. But then again, having read the introduction and the approving note by Orrin Hatch, I really didn't expect this. I had the following expectation: that Johanson would produce what is essentially a PR job, presenting Mormonism as just another Christian religion (so to speak), and not raise many difficult issues. My statement that he has a fair grasp of Mormonism is intended to mean that he understands what the Church wants to project as its public image. I think he has this down pat. Some may argue that the deeper things of the gospel are not appropriate for a book such as this. I have a skewed view of all this, and a general dislike for such watered-down attempts to introduce Mormonism. But that's just me. Thanks for the nice note. [Jeff Needle] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism Date: 01 May 2002 11:46:55 -0600 Todd Petersen said: "It seems like LDS people just want to write about their religion in a way that won't offend other LDS people." I must take issue with this statement. I know many LDS people that not only want to but _do_ write about their religion in a way that will and does offend other LDS people. These works, however, are not widely known, not because they are not excellent, lots are, but because LDS publishers do not want to publish books that will offend LDS people and National publishers are not interested in publishing LDS works at all. So, if the LDS publishers are correct in their marketing strategies, LDS people don't want to be offended by the books they read; and to put a cynical spin on it, neither do LDS people wish to be presented with thinking that is outside their comfort zone.=20 -Ethan Skarstedt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 01 May 2002 12:20:25 -0600 I stand corrected. I guess I still have problems adjusting the this strange American way of thinking--it's only been 27 years since I left Argentina. There are little details about life in Argentina that pop up every now and then, and I ended up getting a civics lesson. The last one happen in my son's second grade class. The father of one of the other kids showed up in fatigues. You could tell from his patches he was regular Army. He wasn't armed, but I freaked. Later I found out he was there to pick up his son--not to purge society. One of the great big possitives I noticed about American culture when I returned to the United States was the complete lack of involvement of the military in domestic politics and in domestic society. I think that's in the constitution. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 01 May 2002 12:22:27 -0600 Thom asked about how people (at the Beet) get paid. We "pay" them in exposure to 40,000 readers and publicity in the SL TRib and newspapers all over the country. That's better than a few bucks, don't you think? I guess we pay people in fame. It was lucky fame, but fame of a kind nonetheless. -- Todd Robert Petersen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Disney Morals? Date: 01 May 2002 12:22:11 -0600 ___ Linda ___ | However, with the other issues you cite, you boil down romantic | love, attraction, and romance to its basic component: the hope | for eventual sex. Isn't this true of not just Disney, but life | in general? ___ Allow me to make a similar point, but with a difference focus. The distinction we make between "romance" and "sex" is really a false one. The drives which lead us to romance are sexual. The reason we distinguish between sex and romance is because we have a sphere of proscribed behavior. Our discussion of "sex" arises because of that prohibition. Yet the same *drives* occur in both. Humans are very complicated beings. We can talk about "players" who go from relationship to relationship on a superficial level only caring about "sex." Yet there are also people who go from relationship to relationship looking for meaning. The sex is empty because it lacks the true romance. But by calling the sex empty we recognize that sex as sex has *more* than this simple sexuality of the world. Empty sex recognizes a part of sex that is missing in these kinds of relationships. Thus the recognition of empty sex is the recognition that sex and romance are intertwined. And the same sort of investigation can go the other way. Romance without sexuality is nothing more than friendship. Something is missing. I have many women I am friends with. Yet without that certain inexpressible drive behind the friendship, something is missing. Further that drive comes from someplace else and is a passion that keeps a relationship lasting much longer than a friendly relationship. In the church we are right to focus on the boundary that inscribes a limit on sexuality. Further I think that such a notion is part and parcel of how we both read and write literature. (As this thread shows) Yet at the same time I think that saying that this line is the line between sex and romance is incorrect. Indeed it is somewhat worse than incorrect if it causes our basic drive and passion to be hidden. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Disney Morals? Date: 01 May 2002 12:25:20 -0600 ___ Jacob ___ | Toy Story is a stellar example. Someone else mentioned that | there was a romantic sub-plot in Monsters, Inc. but I think | that's Eric's *point*. It was a *sub*-plot. Disney | seems incapable of telling a story that isn't motivated from | start to finish by infatuation with an attractive form. ___ That was me. But I also pointed out that Pixar's other film, _A Bug's Life_ had a strong romantic plot. Disney's problem is that it has a "formula" and that formula is in part the romantic formula of the classic fairy tale. In the classic fairy tale the romance is pretty prominent. It is, unfortunately often a tad sexist. The woman is the boon for the hero. (A pattern that goes back to ancient myths) At least Disney has tried to update that view with stronger female leads. However by and large it stick with what worked earlier. This entails that when they tell other stories, they tell them in the context of that basic pattern. That means, for instance, that most of the films will have a few songs, a couple of "humorous" side-kicks, and so forth. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report April 26--Correction Date: 01 May 2002 13:56:20 -0500 Corrections In the Weekly Box Office Report sent out yesterday, the figures shown for "The Singles Ward" are actually that film's figures from the previous week. The latest "Singles Ward" box office figures (for the weekend of April 26) are not yet available. Also, in the Box Office Report sent out one week ago, it was stated that Crusader Entertainment, the production company that made the new feature film "Joshua" is predominantly Catholic. This is incorrect. The author of the original book is Catholic, as are many of the characters in the book/film, and some central events take place at the Vatican. But the producer who bought the film rights and made the film is a Presbyterian minister. It could also be pointed out that the book and film are certainly pro-Christianity, but they are not slanted toward any specific denomination, including the Catholic Church. The book, in fact, "rants against the Catholic bureaucracy and calls for reform" (says the Los Angeles Times) -- something that has largely been dropped from the movie. -- LDSFilm.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Talent Search: Actor for Joseph Smith Date: 01 May 2002 13:58:58 -0500 [This press release indicates that the Church is in the process of creating a major film featuring Joseph Smith -- a projec distinct from Dutcher's independent "The Prophet".] Talent Search for Principle Actor to portray the Prophet Joseph Smith Audiovisual Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints PURPOSE We are conducting a nation-wide search for an actor to portray the Prophet Joseph Smith in an upcoming feature film produced for specialized theatres throughout the world. WHEN & WHERE Please send appropriate r=e9sum=e9s and headshots, postmarked no later than April 26, 2002, to: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Attn: Alisa Anglesey Audiovisual Casting =97 21st Floor 50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, UT 84150 AUDITIONS will be scheduled through your agency based upon careful consideration of each actor's r=e9sum=e9. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR: PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Height: at least 6'1" or taller Build: Muscular Complexion: Fair Facial shape: Oblong w/a prominent nose CHARACTER & PERSONALITY Charismatic, Positive, Intelligent, Approachable, Cheerful, Loves Children, Loves People; Others also love being around him. The actor chosen to portray this role must be of high moral character in his personal life as well as on screen. Preference will be given to members of the LDS faith, although membership is not a prerequisite for the role. Actors auditioning for this role should be affable toward the Church and not opposed to portraying this highly revered historical character with honor and dignity. Thank you for your assistance! Please contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Alisa Anglesey E-mail: angleseyaf@ldschurch.org -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 01 May 2002 12:31:48 -0700 [MOD: On the political aspects of this posts, see my forthcoming moderator message.] This has been a great thread and I appreciate Jonathan's patience in letting it go on as the tie to Mormon letters is somewhat tenuous, but one that needs to be discussed. I have learned a lot. The reason many people have gripes about the NEA in particular is because not too many years ago they were not sending much in the way of funding to children's programs and art that would be considered "traditional". There were activists who didn't like this and they took to the airwaves and other grassroots acitivist activities and made people aware of this. And people spoke up and let their representatives know how they felt about it. Something that should take place in a representative republic. However, the press and other entities did not try and remain neutral or express admiration for the awakening of such activism, no the people expressing their displeasure with such happenings were labeled as religious zealots trying to force their beliefs on others and censor art and speech! Or maybe just ignorant, unwashed, uncultured peasants who just didn't understand what art, especially the avant garde, was all about. Because you see, all activism is supposedly equal, but some is more equal than others. So if people raising their voice has changed things with the NEA, that's all for the better IMHO, it's is not the government's money, it is the people's and they have every right, nay obligation to have a say so in how it's spent. Especially since it's taken from them at the point of a gun, because you don't mess with the IRS. It's also disguised in such forms as fees and charges that are deliberately made confusing so most people won't know what's going on. There is no provision in the constitution for such expenditures, it ain't there. And don't tell me that our constitution is a living, breathing document-it's boundaries are set and there is a set of guidelines for changing things in it. It is supposed to take place by the legislative process and not by judicial fiat or executive branch decision. National security is a set provision in the constitution one that benefits even pacifists and allows them the safety of their pacifism in a free country. All that being said, do I object to some funding of the arts? My libertarian side is bothered, but I believe it can be to the public good and the genie was let out of the bottle a long time ago. I would like it if we could somewhat wean ourselves from such dependence and find better ways of doing the funding , especially privately. I would rather such funding largely take place on the state and local levels where there can be more control and say so by the public and where they would see and experience the benefits of the arts their largess has helped to fund and witness the growth of local artists they have helped. I don't think most people have a problem with encouraging the arts, I think the problem that arises is one of attitude. People object to hubris and arrogant attitudes. The attitude of " I am an artist and I deserve your money, and if I turn around and call you verbally or through my art an imperialist pig or express a belief that all religious people, especially conservatives are dangerous, evil freaks then who are you to object, how dare you!" It smacks of a teenager telling you how much us adults have done to destroy the planet and by the way, can I have the car? Artists would go a long way further in help from the public if they actually were grateful for the help they receive and publicly, loudly expressed it. Is it possible to be an artist of any sort and have humility? Hmmm, good question. As far as Harlow's question about the public funding of stadiums, I am strongly against such funding, I think it's a complete rip-off. Team owners can figure out a way to raise money themselves and not have the public pay for luxury boxes they will never get to enjoy themselves. I am not against tax breaks to encourage businesses and teams locating to a certain locale, the idea being by bringing in the business the revenue generated will bring in that money another way into goverment coffers, but it sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I do not mind bonds because I get to exercise my franchise and vote on them and choose whether I will help add to the debt load of the public purse. I usually will vote yes on library bonds and pick and choose on the necessity of other kinds. But, I am convined that there is an incredible amount of waste and fraud that goes on in many government entities, and that if we can get those rascals to let citizen's panels in to crack open the accounting books and go after some of the ridiculous things the money gets spent on with our red pencils, we'd probably find more money that we could believe. As far as a connection to Mormon letters I think these issues could be addressed with the personal essay. I believe Eugene England strongly encouraged LDS writers to express themselves in this genre. Much of the LDS writing in the political/social arena tends to have viewpoints strongly to the right or the left and as we've seen from the posts on this thread there are strong feelings, but a lot of room for different ideas. Now is a good time to start thinking about turning out pieces in this area, what are we waiting for? Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tait Family" Subject: [AML] re: Virginia SORENSON Date: 01 May 2002 15:11:21 -0700 With your indulgence, I'd like to share a couple of stories that relate to the discussion on Virginia Sorenson. My grandmother, Wanda Snow Petersen, became good friends with Virginia when they were both students at BYU and they kept in touch over the years. Grandma was something of a writer herself--active in the League of Utah Writers and Penwomen (president of one or both at times, I believe). She has written several books about our family history, including a wonderful autobiography entitled "My Second Estate" (which I'm sure many other Mormons have used for their memoirs). When that book was finished in about 1980, she sent a copy to Virginia, and she received a letter in return saying something to the effect of "I wish I had had what you have [i.e. a testimony of the gospel] in my life." I apologize that I can't remember more details of what Grandma has told me so many times, but I have not heard the story in a few years. She knew Virginia and her first husband, Fred Sorenson, both when they were married and after. Her opinion is that Virginia was never truly "converted" to the gospel. She has also said that she felt Virginia's success as a writer was a factor in her divorce from Fred because he felt inferior in comparison. I don't know for sure if these things are true, but I repeat them because they are part of how Grandma always portrayed this woman she considered a dear friend, speaking of her as a kind, wonderful person who had some difficult experiences in life. Another story she tells is of taking Virginia home with her one spring on a break from BYU (I believe Virginia had likewise invited Grandma to her family's home, which at that time was in Springville). The Snows owned a general store in the little, backward town of Wellington (near Price in Carbon County), and she and her parents lived in rooms above the store. (Grandma was the youngest of 10 and all the others were married by this time.) She said that she could tell that Virginia was quite taken aback by the simple, modest home (in comparison to her family's relatively more affluent position) but was gracious and careful not to mention it. It was the first time, Grandma says, that she thought of herself as coming from a poor background, but she appreciated her friend's effort not to notice and to get acquainted with her parents. I hope that Grandma has kept all her letters from Virginia, however many there may be. I intend to find out when we go home for a visit this summer, and if necessary I will take steps to preserve them. I have heard that someone is writing a biography of Virginia Sorenson. Does anyone know who? Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Box Office Report April 26 Date: 01 May 2002 16:47:01 EDT I'd like to extend a special thanks to Preston for keeping us all updated on Mormons in film. Just a little correction, though, on casting for "The Prophet." Canadian actor Duff MacDonald is not playing Robert Foster. He has been cast, but he's playing a different role. Beware of any casting "news" until you hear it from me. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] Utah Arts Grants Date: 01 May 2002 15:39:28 -0600 We have long felt that these grants are heavily weighted toward Salt Lake writers and artists. I know we (meaning my husband and I) have applied off and on for years for various things and never gotten anything. You might conclude that we are submitting proposals for worthless projects :), but just in case they were worth something, we might also conclude that we in the netherlands don't get that much attention. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Must-Read Lists Date: 01 May 2002 18:22:54 -0400 ROY SCHMIDT wrote: > Re: Russian novels. I really enjoy the writings of Stuart Kamanski. > Does anyone else on the list read him? I've been sitting on this post since long after the thread has died out, but if Roy is still out there, I must chip in with a big yes, I enjoy Kaminsky a great deal, though he's only Russian by descent. He lives in Sarasota, FL and is purely American. SK has several series going in the detective/mystery genre. His most successful are the Toby Peters series. Peters is a private eye out in Hollywood in the 30's and 40's and his clients are the stars of the times like Fred Astaire or Clark Goble. Their problems that Peters helps to solves incorporate their screen persona--like Astaire has some murder mystery that revolves around a gangster's wife who wants dance lessons. Kaminsky's Russian detective (I think it's Rostnikov) has a more somber life, in Moscow dealing with politburo forces. These novels are more thoughtful, the prose is spare and sometimes even lyrical. But there's another mystery writer that I'd like to recommend, Martha Grimes. I've only read her novel, Paradise Inn and its sequel, Cold Flat Junction, but both are moving and simply wonderfully written. I have to plow through a lot of terrible writing as I grade papers and plow through scholarly journals, so it's a relief when I come across a writer with something worthwhile to say and has a gift for language. I've come to the point when I don't finish books that don't have some indication of maturity, solid craftsmanship, and something of substance in the brain that writes them. I've become quite snobbish and selective as to what novels I read. For instance, the several and respected list members who recommended The Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. I found it to be smarmy and entirely too amused by its own cleverness. The little pun games were obvious and childish. I put it down after 2-3 hours. I think a great deal of this has to do with being LDS. We know more about what is important than most others. Even the most shallow, cultural Mormon has an understanding of humanity's purpose and The Grand Scheme Of Things that far exceeds them others. And that's a big hurdle. Why should I devote time and energy to someone who has very little to offer me in the way of insight? Anyway, when I was reading Martha Grimes, I kept thinking how much Barbara Hume would enjoy her books. [Tony Markham] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kellene Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Utah Arts Grants Date: 01 May 2002 17:36:07 +0000 Since I've gotten grant money myself for a decidedly > Mormon project, and since I teach at BYU, I know that the money doesn't go > just to U of U. Lance Larsen has also gotten grant money, though I don't > know what his particular project was other than poetry. I wonder if there's > a difference when individual artists apply for grant money and when a group > such as the AML applies. > [Margaret Young] Is there somewhere that individual artists can go to find out what grant monies are available? I've got a few projects I've been working on that I've wondered about grant money before, but I've never even known where to begin to look to see what was even out there. Kellene Ricks Adams > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Utah Arts Grants Date: 01 May 2002 16:03:56 -0600 Either the Utah Arts Council or the Utah Humanities Council (can't remember which one--probably UAC) told me point blank on the phone that the AML didn't get funding for Irreantum because of concerns about separation between church and state, since it's government money. That was 2-3 years ago. I called back the UAC this year and asked point blank if we should bother applying again this year, and the grant coordinator said the panels change every year and it wouldn't hurt to try again. So I did, and I played us up as a cultural group with nonmembers and excommunicants on the board as well as practicing Mormons (now, with Neila Seshachari's passing, we can no longer make the nonmember claim--but Lavina Fielding Anderson is still our AML Annual editor). They are deciding on May 28. The panel members making the grant decisions this year include the following. I've made a few annotations--anyone know anything more? Barry Scholl, 2615 Rowland Dr, Salt Lake City, UT 84124-2921 [Wasn't he editor of Salt Lake magazine or some other local periodical?] William Strong, 947 Sumac Dr, Logan, UT 84321 Ellen Meloy, PO Box 311, Bluff, UT 84512 Andrea Malouf, 2323 E Bryan Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 [Another Salt Lake magazine person, I'm pretty sure.] Janet Lowe, PO Box 47, Moab, UT 84532 Danielle Dubrasky, 225 S 100 W, Cedar City, UT 84720 Lance Larsen, 3077 JKHB, BYU, Provo, UT 84602 [An LDS poet] Greta deJong, 362 E Broadway, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Fay Cope, PO Box 215, Springdale, UT 84767 Kenneth W Brewer, 651 Canyon Rd, Logan, UT 84321 Lisa Bickmore, 3303 W 7675 S, West Jordan, UT 84084-3660 Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 01 May 2002 18:55:12 -0400 [MOD: See my forthcoming moderator note on this thread.] Scott Parkin responded to my (Rob Lauer's) earlier post on government support of arts. Below are some of his points and my replies.(I am in a big rush and don't have time to re-read, so please forgive the typos.) SCOTT PARKIN: >I'm not sure that anyone is forced to support any particular idea when tax >dollars are used to fund the expression of that idea--any more than my >consumer dollar spent on Kraft macaroni and cheese is an explicit >endorsement and establishment of Phillip Morris Company's alcohol or >tobacco >products. I pay for mac and cheese; I support mac and cheese. If part of my >mac and cheese money helps make a cigarette, I can only assume that part of >their Pall Mall dollar is funding my cheesy mealtime delight. ROB. LAUER: But there is a BIG difference. "Tax dollars" and "Consumer dollars" are two different things. "Consumer dollars" are given VOLUNTARILY by the consumer in exchange for a product; "Tax dollars" are taken by the government under the threat of physical force (arrest, jail, etc.). You have a correct idea how business works: if you buy mac and cheese from a company that you know makes cigarettes,you are in essence saying that you value the mac and cheese enough to overlook the cigarette. The tax payer is given no such choice. His only option is either to move to another conutry or not pay the tax and go to jail. SCOTT: >I suppose the dollar funds the whole company and the production of products >I have no interest in. It also funds the production of the product I do >have >interest in--just as the NEA or any other tax-funded organzation supports >the expression of both ideas I agree with and ones I don't. ROB.: But no where does the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) give the Government the right to fund ANY IDEAS whatsoever except the concept of indivdual rights which are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. SCOTT: >I see a tremendous amount of morality in supporting the expression of ideas >with common money. It's how we ensure that the free exchange of ideas >continue--by supporting the expression of even distasteful or disagreeable >ideas. If anything, I almost see it as a moral imperative to specifically >fund the expression of unpopular ideas to ensure that we are always given >choices and hear arguments for other ways of thinking. ROB.: I have to disagree with every single point you made. "Common money" is tax money--money taken by force from the "common people." The Constitution's morality asserts that there must be freedom of expression and that the Government cannot establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. If government sponsored art endorses a religious idea or condemns a religious idea, then the Constitution is being violated. If someone, due to their religion, is opposed to art (and many religions have been opposed to such things as grahpic representations, fiction and drama) then the Government in funding the arts is forcing a person to violate their religious convictions through taxes. It is not the Government's job to see that ANY ideas are expressed--popular or not; the Government has the moral authroity only to allow the CITIZENS to voice their ideas. To say that the Government has a moral imperative to fund unpopular ideas, then, on this same principle, one must say that the Government has a moral imperative to fund unpopular religions and political parties. And if there is a moral imperatve to fund UNPOPULAR IDEAS, then what about a moral imperative to fund POPULAR indeas. Can you have one without the other? What is the principle upon which such an case can be made? In fact, when the Government funds ANY ideas, it is, by the very act, censoring other ideas; for it is deciding which ideas have merit and which do not. Government funding of the arts is, in effect, a censoring of art (the art that the government has rejected for funding.) The Consitution, in protecting individual freedom, sets up a situation in which an individual is free to become an artist or not; create artistis works, or not; speak out on art, or not; purchase art, or not. SCOTT: I see it as my moral imperative to ensure that the majority is not given the >power to quash the ideas of minorities--like Mormons or women or blacks. ROB.: But the INDIVIDUALS in the majority (whatever their racial, religious or gender makeup)have the right to ignore these ideas, reject these ideas, etc. There is no moral justification for FORCING them (through taxation) to support ideas with which they disagree. As long as individuals in minorities have the right to speak or pursue a certain career, then all is well; but no person or entity has the moral authority to ENSURE that the ideas or pursuits of these individuals WILL SUCCEED. Success in any endeavour could only be ensured by denying the rights of other individuals. SCOTT: >so the use of my tax dollar to support a wide variety of expression seems >very much to be not only a good thing to do, but becomes very nearly >necessary if we are to ensure free expression of any idea--be it religious, >pragmatic, or philosophical. ROB.: I couldn't disagree more. Freedom of expression is guaranteed ONLY by having the Government GET OUT OF THE WAY OF ALL SPEECH AND EXPRESSION. In the market place of ideas, there will always be ideas that are rejected and ideas that will be bought. Sometimes (maybe often times) the better ideas will be rejected; but the inborn freedom of the individual (inborn because the mind of man is by nature free and can NEVER function under ANY form of compulsion) must be protected at all cost-- for ALL MORALITY is based upon the free exercise of agency. (As a Latter-day Saint, this is Gospel doctrine for me.) Also, there has always been and always will be opposition in ALL things (including the realm of ideas) regardless of the government's actions. Intellectual diversity is inherent in human nature; human misery is the result of those who would use FORCE to promote and persecute ideas. SCOTT: >Of course the extension of withdrawing funding to support the expression or >study of ideas is that we eliminate public funding of education as well, >since very specific ideas and morals are taught in schools--especially at >the university level. To make it worse, those darned universities then turn >around and tell me I can't attend them because I don't meet some arbitrary >entrance requirement--even though my tax dollars established them and >continue to fund them. ROB: Your last statement makes my point. SCOTT: >It just seems more morally correct to support all expression of ideas than >to support none. ROB: The individual has the moral right to support all the expression he choses to support. SCOTT: One creates choice, where it seems to me that the other >creates nothing and enables the majority to exercise tyrrany of control >over >the minority. ROB: As I stated above, diversity of ideas is inherent in humanity, and the Government has no power whatsoever to "create choice." As for the "tyranny of control over the minority," can you define your terms. WHO is the tyrant? What is the NATURE of their power? How is such power exercised? Can they FORCE someone to stop speaking? (Not giving someone a pulpit or microphone is NOT the same thing as denying them the right to speak; also, there is no right to be heard, for the very fact that people must be free NOT to listen if they so chose.) Unless this "tyranny of control over the minority consists of brute force and physical violence, then there is no real tyranny, and the word can only be understood as an inappropriate metaphor. Government funding of art is, in fact, the REAL tyranny: if I refuse to pay my nickel to fund the arts, I can be arrested. If I resist arrest, or if I attempt to escape jail when found guilty of tax evasion, I could be shot. Who then is the true tyrant. SCOTT: Since no one--political, religious, or business leader--can >force me to believe anything, I see support of expression not as a >suppression of my right to ignore silly things, but as a support of the >right of others to say silly things. Which is the cost of my right to >believe what I want. ROB: Financial compensation by the Government to an artist using tax money does not support the right of others to say silly things; it COMPENSATES others for saying silly things; it attributes a value to the silliness. The person saying the silly thing was born with the right to do so; it is part of his/her nature. The Government does not GRANT rights; HUMAN NATURE does. THERE IS NO COST FOR YOUR RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT. A right purchased is, by very definition, NO RIGHT AT ALL. > SCOTT: >The prohibition is against the establishment of religion as the foundation >of law, not the support of free expression of ideas. ROB.: >From everything I've read of Jefferson, Paine and others, it most certainly is. These men knew that it was contrary to human nature for one to be compelled to think a certain way--to believe in a certain way. Both freedom of religion and freedom of speech are included in the First Ammendment because they are two aspects of the same philosophic principle. SCOTT: The right to express >unpopular ideas is precisely what allowed a group of colonists to declare >themselves independent of the rightful and established authority that had >funded their colony. The Constitution itself arose not out of some grand >sweeping unanimity of opinion, but out of the difficult collision of >sometimes completely opposite ideas. > >The protection of smaller, less populous states against the will of the >larger states was a foundational argument. ROB: You're comparing apples and oranges here. Speaking of the "will of the states" is a reference to law (the use of physical force). The arts and religion deal with ideas and speech which in and of themselves have no power other than the power of rational (or irrational) persuasion. SCOTT: So the explicit governmental >(aka, lawful) protection of unpopular ideas against the oppression of a >popular majority *is* the basis of the U.S. Constitution, in my eyes. ROB: There is a moral basis for PROTECTION of the expression by individuals of unpopular ideas; there is no moral basis for the Government's PROMOTION of these ideas or for the Government's compensation for those who voice these ideas. There is only moral justification for a FREE MARKET OF IDEAS. Should the Government get involved regulating this markert, then they have overstepped the moral authority granted by the philosophy of the First Ammendment. SCOTT: It's >not all about majority rule--the majority is every bit as much the tyrant >as >a single powerful ruler. To my mind it's at least partly about explicit >minority protection. ROB: I agree completely.The smallest minority is the individual; and this is a minority of which every human being is a member. As a member of this smallest (and greatest) minority, no one has the moral authority to FORCE me to pay to PROMOTE an idea with which I disagree. SCOTT: >There's a difficult line here between religion and philosophy and ideas. >When is an idea religious, and when is it merely an idea? Is personal >honesty the philosophical concept of "the fear of getting caught" or is it >the religious idea of "a sin against God?" Or is it simple pragmatism--loss >of trust means loss of income? ROB: The "difficult line between religion and philosophy and ideas" is difficult to define because it simply does not exist: all three are the pursuit of the human mind; all are in the realm of the conceptual and the abstract. Thus they have no power in the world other than the power of rational or irrational persuasion. SCOTT: Since most religions teach honesty, is the >idea tainted and can no longer be supported by the law designed to protect >us all from the manipulations of the dishonest? Are truth in advertising >laws really the establishment of religion--or are they the protection of >people regardless of (or perhaps even despite) religion? ROB: Honestly in the market place is NOT primarily a religious idea; it was a secular idea first. (Though in ancient times there was no distinction between the secular and the religious.) There is a completely rational basis for honesty in advertising and marketing--with no need for a belief in any god, creed or religion. Morality can be based on reason alone (thus God can fairly judge even an athiest for immoral actions and bless him for moral actions.) [Rob Lauer] _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 01 May 2002 20:50:28 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- "What bothers me about us arguing about government funding of the arts is that no one is arguing about govenemnt funding of the military or the space program" I agree with Paris. I have received many an honorarium of $100 or $150 for doing readings or leading literary discussions funded by the Utah Arts Council or Utah Endowment for the Humanities. As for the Constitution, it is not simply the brief original document as some maintain. It is also the vast network of laws that devolve from that document and the court decisions which interpret them. If legislatures pass laws subsidizing the arts and if the courts find those laws constitutional, then they are consitutional. Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 02 May 2002 02:02:36 -0600 Thom Duncan wrote: > > "To carry on with Eric's dragging of this discussion back to Mormon Arts > and Letters... I feel constrained to point out that Sunstone, Irreantum, > the Sugarbeet... (not funded or legitimized by the Church) > produce/publish good edgy mormon art." > > And how many of the artists involved in those ventures get paid for their > efforts? Precisely the point--good art can still happen even without funding. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Mod on Money and Art Date: 02 May 2002 12:31:07 -0500 Folks, This is an important topic for AML-List, having to do (as it does) with how art should be paid for (including private/corporate sponsorship, governmental funding, and marketplace dynamics). But I think much of the discussion has become a rather stale rehashing of fundamentally political and ideological opinions. Several basic viewpoints have been expressed, so that now I believe that we understand where each other's views are coming from. However, I see no value to debating those political viewpoints further in this forum. At this point, I want to redefine the focus of the discussion as follows: * No more posts on political theory, unless you are expressing a *different* viewpoint than what has appeared in the discussion so far. Such posts must include a clear, strong focus on the specific question of government sponsorship of the arts. * Further posts on how the arts should be sponsored are welcome, but should focus on reasons and factors specific to the arts, as opposed to general political/ethical principles. Thanks again for the conversation so far. Apologies to anyone who may be disappointed by this turn of things; however, I think this will turn us back closer to the central purposes of the List... Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 02 May 2002 02:33:37 -0600 [MOD: I would point out--in relating this post to my just-sent moderator edict--that most of this post fits the new guidelines, focusing as it does on questions specific to funding's effects on the arts. The only part that goes outside is the short response on protection of the minority.] Scott Parkin wrote: > I see it as my moral imperative to ensure that the majority is not given the > power to quash the ideas of minorities--like Mormons or women or blacks. And > so the use of my tax dollar to support a wide variety of expression seems > very much to be not only a good thing to do, but becomes very nearly > necessary if we are to ensure free expression of any idea--be it religious, > pragmatic, or philosophical. Ooh, ooh! You are really pressing my buttons lately, Scott. I pull my hair out and gnash my teeth when I hear things like this, that if the government doesn't fund something, it won't happen. This, in my opinion, is an insult to the creativity of the human spirit. Rather than enabling the existence of something that otherwise wouldn't exist, the real effect of government funding is to suppress creative solutions that would work much better, because everyone becomes lulled into believing that it can't be done if government doesn't do it. Of course, the experiment can't be done because too many citizens would object to implementing it, but I would bet you dollars to (Krispy Kreme) doughnuts that if we could wipe out all government funding of the arts, eventually alternate ways would be developed to fund them, and they'd go right on existing. Because it always happens in human endeavors. Even though in the minority, there are still enough lovers of the arts around that they'd figure out a way, once the blinding veil of "it can't be done" is removed from their belief system. Government funding of the arts also causes complacency. The government is already funding it, so I don't have to. Does everyone recall the fear that arose when threats of killing the NEA were in the air? Does everyone recall how those organizations receiving funding from the NEA were scrambling to figure out ways to replace the funding? Of course, once the threat of killing the NEA went away, so did the creative scrambling, and it was back to business as usual. Much of this debate over government funding of the arts presupposes that without goverment funding, art won't happen. But that's a false presupposition. AML, Irreantum, and Sugar Beet are all proof of this. Government doesn't like funding Mormon things (as Irreantum found out), so we figure out other ways to do Mormon art, because we haven't the luxury of going hat-in-hand to the government. > Of course the extension of withdrawing funding to support the expression or > study of ideas is that we eliminate public funding of education as well, > since very specific ideas and morals are taught in schools--especially at > the university level. I'm all for revamping public education to bypass this problem. > The right to express > unpopular ideas is precisely what allowed a group of colonists to declare > themselves independent of the rightful and established authority that had > funded their colony. The Constitution itself arose not out of some grand > sweeping unanimity of opinion, but out of the difficult collision of > sometimes completely opposite ideas. > the explicit governmental > (aka, lawful) protection of unpopular ideas against the oppression of a > popular majority *is* the basis of the U.S. Constitution, in my eyes. It's > not all about majority rule--the majority is every bit as much the tyrant as > a single powerful ruler. To my mind it's at least partly about explicit > minority protection. But protection of the minority doesn't mean funding the minority. The right to free expression of ideas does not translate into the right to receive funding for my ideas. It just means government will hold back those who try to suppress the expression of my ideas. It's a 20th century "Great Society" myth that rights involve the government funding thereof. I have the right to speak out. I don't have the right to demand that my neighbors pay for it. > Where's the Mormon literary connection? In this case it's a very weak one, > and in my mind is related to the idea that a pure free-market economy will > tend to produce only that which reinforces a majority opinion. Which seems > like the big knock against Mormon literature. Maybe what Mo-Lit needs is a > little governmental sponsorship to support that alternate voice. Does the unpopular NEA-funded art get much play in society? Unpopular Mormon art already exists without government support--an audience for it won't suddenly spring up just because the NEA starts funding it. So what have we won with government funding? Just some artists who get a paycheck without ever bothering to figure out how to make their art more relevant to people. Government sponsorship of Mo-lit will stymy the efforts people are now making to figure out how to nurture a genuine Mo-lit audience. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Issues of Trust (was: Money and Art) Date: 01 May 2002 17:59:00 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Scott Parkin wrote: > > > At the risk of speculating on doctrine, I wonder sometimes if this is not an > > opportunity for us to exercise the same kind of trust and faith with our tax > > dollars that we should be exercising with our tithing dollars. I'm not sure > > it's possible for one person to know how every tax dollar is spent and > > whether it was for a purely worthy cause. But aren't we blessed for learning > > to trust others--whether that trust ends up being earned or not? > > This may well qualify for the most frightening statement of the month > award. Have the same faith in government as we pay taxes that we have in > God as we pay tithing? This is tantamount to saying have the same faith > in the arm of flesh as in God. Apparently I missed my calling; I should have been a horror writer. Then again, apparently I already am one... I tend to think of it as tantamount to rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and getting on with my life, because if I spend a lot of time stewing and getting angry about how irresponsibly my tax dollars are being used--and I have no intention of getting involved in government in order to change how they're used--then I close doors against the world and fundamentally limit my ability to function as I rail against the cosmic injustices of the universe (or at least the United States). I have other things to deal with that I still have a hope of changing--like the state of my own soul. To clarify a bit--we pay tithing to earthly servants called to administer the organization of the Church, just as we pay taxes to earthly servants employed to administer the organization of the government. It's people on both sides of the equation, with God offering inspiration to both sets of people through the standard channels established for that sort of thing. In that sense, the two transactions are nearly identical--giving money over to people with the hope that it will be used to benefit all. It's a metaphor of giving of yourself to others without counting the cost. To me the core issue is trust. We are commanded to love those that despitefully use us--whether they have proven their trustworthiness or not, and perhaps more specifically when they haven't. Whether they are in the Church or the government or the sports arenas. If we can't learn to put trust in people over money, then how are we ever going to put trust in God over our eternal salvation--a god precious few of us have direct communion with, and over whom we have absolutely no administrative authority? So yes, I see learning to trust people as a gospel principal that directly impacts our ability to trust in God. And paying taxes is just one of many areas where we exercise that trust (or lack). To me that's the single greatest challenge in the Church today--learning to trust others. We don't trust that a person telling their story of sudden enlightenment during morning scripture study is being honest--they're really just out to place themselves on a pedestal, so all their words must be doubted and their intent judged as suspect. We don't trust that books published by someone other than DB are spiritually worthwhile. We don't trust that despite their often substantial errors, the leaders of the Church really are trying to create an environment that can help people reach their own direct communion with God. We often don't trust ourselves to be capable of change. Where there is no trust, there must be condemnation. Which seems to me to be what the atonement was designed to rescue us from. That's where I come from when I suggest having a little faith in the law of taxation. Learning to trust is to my ultimate spiritual benefit. In my opinion. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 01 May 2002 16:53:42 -0600 ---Original Message From: Todd Petersen > To extort materials from the creation for the mere pupose of > making money, which is different from taking things to > sustain our lives, but to extract these things (which our > doctrine teaches us are intelligences unto themselves, not > inert) in a violent way, without prayer and acknowledgment of > them as gifts from God (which demand a certain degree of > honor whatever they are), that is anti-environment to me. Um. To not pray before cutting down a tree (which can *only* be done violently) is anti-environment? I find that an interesting rhetorical point, but not one I feel I can entertain with any seriousness. Respect, honor, understand, and care are one thing (um, some things?). I don't like the short-term rapacious utility that motivates certain forest management policies. I don't like wonton clear-cutting that takes no thought for the impact of the cutting. But I'm not going to elevate trees to the status of humans and I'm not going to put the lives of trees above the need and use of man. And what is so bad about cutting down trees to make money? Money is how we identify wants and needs. Money is what tells a gas station attendant that he can serve his fellow-man better by chopping down trees than by pumping gas. Trees are cut down because people want wood. Want it badly enough to part with their hard-earned cash for it. There is only one way to obtain wood--by chopping down trees. Why are you aiming your barbs at the lumberjacks who are only in the service of their fellow-man? I can see opposing the uncaring, wanton destruction. I can see decrying the lack of care and respect. But I don't understand at all the attack against people making money by providing a needed service. > To not aknowledge God in the minerals and meat and timber and > air and water is a kind of blasphemy regardless of the ELF or > Greenpeace and others who probably don't help curb the polarization. You might as well decry President Clinton for not acknowledging God for his incredible intellect. Or Bill Gates for not acknowledging God providing such wonderful tracts of sand from which we extract the silicon we use to build little tiny transistors. Most people in our society don't acknowledge the hand of God and that goes as much for Greenpeace and ELF as for lumberjacks and miners. That doesn't make them anti-environment under any definition I can support. > To me the most Mormon thing in the world would be to say: > hey, we've got to share this place that our Heavenly Father > and Christ made for us. > I've got no more claim on it than anyone else. Living here in > peace is my birthright. It is everyone's birthright; this > earth is not just for those who need to mine or log or fish > or ranch in large scale corporate projects. Just because you don't have a need for wood or gold or silver or meat, doesn't mean you get to dictate that others don't have legitimate needs for those materials. I think you are seriously over-extending your stewardship responsibilities if you are going to claim part-ownership of everything on the planet. It isn't that you have no more claim on our forests and minerals than anyone else, it's that you have (and so do I) a much *lower* claim on land and land use in matters for which you have no responsibility. You have no right to dictate to anybody what they do with the stewardships they enjoy. I don't mind it if you want to influence people with regards to their actions that impact things you have responsibility for. I don't mind if you want people to clean up air and water that you require to live, for example. It is perfectly reasonable to object to active poisoning of water supplies. But to dictate that people cannot cut down trees without a prayer ceremony is inappropriate and has nothing to do with your responsibilities. People sin. I certainly don't agree with corporate clear-cutting and the lack of respect for nature. But you have no right to revoke someone's moral agency just because you dislike their actions and activities. Plead with them, don't buy their product, refuse to have them over for dinner if you wish. You choose what you are going to do with your stewardships and how and who you will associate with. But you have no right to take away someone else's land or dictate what they can and cannot do with it. > The Berkley pit outside Butte, MT is un-Christian. > > I'd like to hear more Mormon people talking and writing about > that. Don't I hear people say that we must love our > neighbors, and doesn't that also extend to loving them by > sharing and by allowing them to live in health and by letting > them have equal access to the blessings the Lord has given us > through the creation? We will never have equal access to anything in this world. It is not possible and it is not desirable. There will always, even in the millennium (IMO) be unequal distributions because there is always unequal need, desire, circumstance, and ability. God doesn't create us equal. We have differing skills, intellects, abilities, and responsibilities. All men are equal before God, not because of what they can do, or even because of what they are. All men are equal before God because He loves us and cares for us and will judge us all by our own capabilities, actions, and desires to serve Him. That doesn't mean at all that we deserve an equal share of this world *or* the one to follow. We have stewardships and responsibilities and the opportunity to love and respect one another. That doesn't mean we have any right to determine the paths that others take until they undertake actions that affect the stewardships *we* have. > Maybe I've been listening to a little too much Woody Guthrie. > But we all learn that song in school. It just doesn't mean > all that much, I guess. I have no idea what song you mean. > LDS people are all about personal property, but we know that > there really isn't such a thing as personal property. We have > checked it all out from the great PE cage in the sky, and > we'll have to turn it all back in when our turn is over. Are you truly suggesting that we abolish private property? In favor of what? As long as there are competing uses for land, there has to exist a way to determine the use land will be put to. That determination will *always* be made by men (and we've been given that responsibility by God). The only thing we can even attempt to decide is what men we will allow to direct the use of scarce resources. We can establish a committee to decide. We can allow the strongest man to decide. We can squabble and fight over it until the decision becomes moot. The fact is, however, that the best way ever found to date is by private and individual determination based on personal stewardship and responsibility. Those who exhibit a talent for accurately determining the needs and wants of their fellow men and supplying those wants and needs often expand their stewardships. That is natural and healthy. What is unhealthy, is when people who aren't willing to serve others are allowed to dictate the stewardships of others. The only alternative would be to change the wants and needs of others. Tell me I don't want wood cabinets in my kitchen. Good luck. Determining the wants and needs of others is a luxury we don't have because it cannot be done. We don't even have the luxury of telling others that they are wrong to have wants and needs different from our own because God has denied us that luxury specifically. We can protest and work out situations where our own wants, needs, and stewardships are violated, but we should be very careful that we do not become surrogates for Lucifer in demanding that others choose the right always--let alone demanding that others choose as we think we would in their place. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism Date: 01 May 2002 18:03:41 -0500 Todd Petersen asks, "Corportations aren't secrect combinations?" An interesting question. Exxon is a corporation, and so are my sister-in-law (well, more precisely, the business she runs out of a small home in Austin is a corporation, and she's the sole owner) and the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Corporations are secret combinations like men are rapists and women are child abusers, but not like men and women are mammals. Not secret in the sense that no one knows about them, of course, or knows who runs them - that information is public record, but some corporations probably behave a bit like gangs. That said, it's as silly to label corporations "secret combinations" as it is to claim that all men are rapists. There are some odd varieties of feminist who claim that sex between men and women is always about dominance and power and who equate sex in marriage with rape, but that's a political approach that's just plain weird (I won't even qualify that with an "in my opinion" - I state it as a matter of fact). If they gained the ascendency in public discourse, those feminists would make "rape" a meaningless term. People are too free and easy with words like 'rape,' 'genocide,' 'holocaust,' and 'secret combination.' They deprive those words of their power to shock and horrify (or, as when every comedian with a sitcom is called a 'comic genius,' to impress). Corporations sometimes behave like secret combinations, but corporations are _not_ secret combinations. > This is what prompted my question in the first place. LDS people are > really so fond of the corporate system that they can't see its faults. And what, pray tell, is "the corporate system?" As an economist, I'd tend to see the term as meaning a system that limits owner liability at the cost of double taxation of profits (first the legal entity, then the physical entity). Some people think it's synonymous with 'capitalism,' thus displaying abbysmal ignorance of both capitalism and tax law. A reasonable definition in this context might be, "a system in which people tend to form bureaucratic, hierarchical groups to achieve common goals." I do believe there's a tendency by people in the industrialized world (not just LDS) to behave corporately, and I do believe that it's a dangerous element of human psychology, but you seem to be talking about legal corporations, not simple groupthink. > All of these corporations have killed people based on cost-benefit > analyses... No, no corporation has ever done anything evil. Every act of evil is an individual act. A corporation is a group of people, and to blame things on a corporation is to indulge in collective blame which leaves everyone guilty and no one guilty. The Holocaust wasn't perpetrated by a corporation (the Nazis) on a corporation (the Jews). It was perpetrated on individual people who had names by individual people who had names. The Jewish People wasn't the victim; Jewish people were the victims. The German People wasn't the criminal; German people were. This tendency to see corporations as real, moral entities made the de-Nazification after WWII more difficult. If the German people were collectively guilty, then individual Nazis were no more guilty than anyone else, and it was relatively easy for people who'd been collectively labled 'guilty' to tolerate roles for people who'd been actively involved in the Holocaust in law, industry, and government. Collective guilt and innocence, the belief that corporations are real, is a means of erasing individual responsibility. All morality is individual, though. It's the decisions we make and the way we make them, not as groups, but as individuals. The people who join a Book of Mormon style secret combination covenant with one another to do evil. The people in the combination are themselves evil; they can't say "it was the Secret Combination that did it, not me." Most of the people who have ever worked for Exxon, Monsanto, and the other corporations Todd named have gone about normal work providing regular people with products and services that are perfectly reasonable - gasoline, post-it notes, aspirin and Wheaties. There may be secret combinations within the corporation (sort of like the evil CIA within the CIA that so many television screenwriters are fond of), but the corporation itself is nothing of the sort. > And by the way, not all consumer transactions are entered into by free > choice: going to the hospital is one example. I know that one could say > they could choose not to go, but that's a cruel and absurd thing to say, > finally. No, it's not. At least no more than saying you can buy food or not buy food, buy shelter or not buy shelter, buy gasoline or not buy gasoline. To the extent that they're necessities, it may be correct to say the transaction isn't by choice, but that only says that you have to transact with someone, not with whom or on which terms. My need for food can be met at Burger King, a supermarket, or a three-star restaurant. I may not have much choice if I'm carted away unconscious in an ambulance, but very rarely is even my consumption of medical care undertaken unconscious and without choice. But now we wander into an economics lesson that has no connection to the issue at hand, so I'll drop it. > Nevertheless, Monsanto and ADM are starving and killing people right now. Point to Monsanto and I'll throw a pie in its face to show my disapprobation. Oh, wait, there's no such physical entity as Monsanto, so you must mean someone at Monsanto is starving people. "That's evil in my book..." Evil is a moral term, morality depends on decisions, and only people have the power to decide. You need to find a moral agent if you want to lay blame, and you need to be clear on the crime. > Maybe it feels too Unitarian. I don't know. I know a Unitarian economist, and he'd be as baffled by that assertion as I am. > But the scriptures do talk about corruption in high places. People in high places are corrupt. They are today, they were a thousand years ago, and they'll be that way as long as there are favors to be granted through the power of position. Of course, that's much more the case in political organizations than in business organizations, because that's what political position is all about. There will always be people out there who want something from city hall, and they'll always be ready to bribe people in city hall because those people are so often ready to accept a bribe. It's much harder to bribe upper management at IBM. > ... we are told in D and C 59 that we're to use the creation without > extortion and not to excess, which seems to be something corporations are > fond of. I've never seen a corporation living extravegantly, but I know lots of regular people who are thousands of dollars in credit-card debt, and I think most fancy houses have people living in them, not corporations. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: [AML] ARTE Audition Notice Date: 01 May 2002 18:05:04 -0600 This year Actors' Repertory Theatre Ensemble (ARTE) of Provo, UT will be doing two Shakepeare plays at their annual Castle Theatre Festival: Tempest and Measure for Measure. Tempest will be directed by ARTE's founding artistic director, Kathy Biesinger Measure for Measure will be directed by ARTE's current artistic director, Loraine Edwards. Auditions will take place in room B-201 of the Harris Fine Arts Center (HFAC) at BYU May 4th from 11am-1pm. Callbacks for Tempest will occur the same day from 2-4 pm. A time for Measure for Measure callbacks is yet to be determined. All are welcome to attend. Please feel free to forward this post to any interested parties. J. Scott Bronson ARTE board member -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism Date: 01 May 2002 20:25:45 -0600 ---Original Message From: Todd Petersen > Corportations aren't secrect combinations? Never killed for > gain. Hmm. This is what prompted my question in the first > place. LDS people are really so fond of the corporate system > that they can't see its faults. I didn't say they *couldn't*. I said they aren't the same thing. A corporation is *not* the same thing as a secret combination. If a company kills to get gain, then those who killed are evil. They aren't evil just for being a big corporation. > Standard Oil > Every coal mining company ever > Phillip Morris > Ford > > All of these corporations have killed people based on > cost-benefit analyses, so I don't know what Jacob's talking > about. Ford didn't kill people. Phillip Morris, as much as I find them morally reprehensible, doesn't kill people. I've never heard of a case claiming that Standard Oil killed people. Profit from activities that *can* kill people isn't at all the same as profit from killing people. Otherwise, morticians would be the greatest secret combination of all time. I'm not saying that Ford's famous case where the company cold-heartedly calculated that it'd be cheaper to pay wrongful death damages than to make a recall is right. But it hardly qualifies as a secret combination that kills to get what it wants. Ford didn't cut the brake lines on vehicles. They didn't send assassins out to kill customers. They didn't build bombs into their cars that would explode periodically to take out complainers. As far as it goes, we *all* make cost-benefit analyses about killing people. Every time you get in a car and drive over 5 miles per hour, you are engaging in an activity that periodically kills people. As soon as your speedometer reaches 10 mph, you've just decided that it is worth your convenience to risk killing somebody. We all take risks whether as coal miners, police officers, or computer programmers. Coal mining companies are no more guilty of murder than General Electric is. Coal mining is more risky, I grant you, but the people engaging in the activity are as aware of the risk as the company paying them--or at least, they have access to the same data as the company does. Most coal mining companies don't shackle their workers together and stuff them down the shaft at gun point. They want coal because other people want coal and the miners want the money they make going to get it. It isn't a pretty industry and I doubt there is enough money in the world to convince me to go down a dark shaft to haul coal out of it, but I'm not everybody and my aesthetics don't inform morality. Everybody does cost-benefit analysis. Even with their own lives and the lives of others. It becomes immoral in cases like Ford's when people hide information they have that would help inform the risk decisions of others. But that doesn't come even close to the standard set forth in the Book of Mormon for the people who would pillage and murder to get power and money. Comparing Phillip Morris to Gadianton's Robbers is emotionally satisfying, maybe, but it is inaccurate unless you can show how Phillip Morris has hired a killing. > And by the way, not all consumer transactions are > entered into by free choice: going to the hospital is one > example. I know that one could say they could choose not to > go, but that's a cruel and absurd thing to say, finally. > Buying food is another (especially if you live in the inner > city). It's rare for people to be able to grow all they need > anymore. There are, you will notice, grocery stores in > agricultural communities. All consumer transactions are voluntary. At least in the United States. If you want to grow all your own food, then you can't live in the inner city. You accept that trade-off when you live where you can't grow your own food. If you get into an accident, then you should be dang grateful that you have a hospital to go to. Investors don't *have* to build hospitals, they could as easily have built apartments or office space. You don't *have* to go to the hospital when you've had an accident. You could let yourself die. Just because you face a horrible choice doesn't mean that you don't have the choice. The situation sucks, sure, but the choice is still yours. I gripe about living in Utah all the time. I don't like deserts, I find the altitude a burden, and I didn't appreciate months of Olympic hype. But I am not forced to be here. I made the choice to move here and I have since made the continuing decision to stay. I don't have the money to move. I don't have a job anywhere else. I am constrained by my circumstances. But that doesn't mean I am forced to live here. It just means that I choose the consequences of staying over the consequences of leaving. We have the freedom to choose our actions--not to choose the consequences. > Nevertheless, Monsanto and ADM are starving and killing > people right now. > > That's evil in my book, and the scriptures do talk about > that, even though most Mormons don't, at least through their > religion. Maybe it feels too Unitarian. I don't know. I have no idea what Monsanto and ADM are. > But the scriptures do talk about corruption in high places. > Paul talks about that. I haven't looked closely enough at > latter-day scriuptures in this regard but we are told in D > and C 59 that we're to use the creation without extortion and > not to excess, which seems to be something corporations are fond of. Right. Made to be *used*. With Judgement. I don't like extortion and I don't like excess. But you seem to have a different scale than I do. You equate Ford to secret combinations whereas I just think they sinned (in an admittedly important way). You seem to think that all corporations are excessive or extortionist, but I don't see that at all. The vast majority of companies don't have the luxury of extorting or exploitation. The public outcry is extreme and relatively immediate. Even Enron couldn't hold its house of cards together longer than five years or so. Toyota caved with the mere *threat* of an outcry when accused of exploiting black employees. Some companies may *want* to exploit people or exploit their resources, but we don't let them. It's obvious to me that we have different definitions for 'excess', 'extortion', and the activities of companies. It seems to me that for you, companies can do no good. They're evil and that is simply that. I don't believe the opposite--I don't think that companies are good and can do no wrong. But I think that companies, like most institutions of men, are flawed institutions full of people generally struggling to serve the needs of others and sometimes failing, occasionally failing spectacularly--and sometimes, very rarely, actively harm others for gain. In general, we're pretty quick to take on those who actively harm others for gain--we don't tolerate it for long, certainly not once the harm is identified. Are companies altruistic? Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't matter. The action of a free market is such that we don't have to rely on their altruism. It doesn't matter to me if a company sells me food, clothes, transportation, or entertainment out of the goodness of their heart, or out of greed for my money. It only matters that I can labor for the good of others and my labor results in me being able to receive the service and products I want. Now, if you'd like to discuss specific instances, that's fine. But in general companies *aren't* evil, and even when they are greedy, they are still forced to serve me or do without my money. And when it comes right down to it, you don't know any better than I do if somebody acts out of greed for money, or desire to serve. Motives are invisible and care should be taken in any judgement that attempts to ascertain (let alone ascribe) motivation. > It seems like LDS people just want to write about their > religion in a way that won't offend other LDS people. > > Perhaps this doesn't happen because we like the status quo as > a people. We want the money and so we're not really willing > to take up with the man, even on God's behalf. What do you mean "take up with the man?" Do you mean make accusations? Declaim unrighteousness? What is it that we're supposed to take up? I've already told you why I disagree with the call-to-arms of most environmentalists. For the most part, environmentalists aren't saying anything supportable. I applaud the majority of LDS writers who refuse to take up a popular band-wagon for its own sake. I applaud any effort to honestly convey a valuable message. If an author wants to make environmental statements, I hope that they'll do their best to examine things, come to their own conclusions, and write according to their convictions. I won't necessarily support them if I think they're wrong, though, no matter how sincere. If it's interesting, though, I'm happy to at least listen. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] So. Cal. AML Brunch? Date: 01 May 2002 21:55:36 -0600 Hey, I'll be in Anaheim on Sunday, May 12, with some time to kill. Anyone handy to meet for a little AML brunch mid-morning? I think I'll have a car; otherwise, I'll be staying at the Anaheim Hilton. Contact me at chris.bigelow@unicitynetwork.com. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism Date: 01 May 2002 21:07:15 -0600 ---Original Message From: Jana Pawlowski > Gee, Jacob, I was sort of kidding about the scriptural > reference (as in, you can make any case for anything in the > scriptures if you try hard enough, forgive the subtle humor). Sorry. Subtlety doesn't carry well through email, and I'm not as perceptive as I think I am. My apologies for missing it. > I can't think of any tie in to Mormon Letters, other than it > can help form the content of what we write about.....For or > against it. We should be more politically active, like the > prophet says (Mormon) and social concerns could be a major > focus of what we are inspired to write about (Letters) since > it is so pertinent to our local environment. Specific to > this issue, I would just say, look it up in the Tribune. > There are many allegations of misuse of power. PFS struck a > deal with a Goshute Indian that wasn't authorized to > make a deal, etc. and now the recognized leader and his > followers do not > WANT the nuclear waste. > > I hear a lot of your arguments from my husband, who is a > scientist, so it > HAS to be okay to disagree with you as well. However, a BYU > professor, a > geo-physicist? also gave a good argument for not storing the > waste here on > Friday night. Becoming educated in the pros and cons, as I > said, is part > of becoming politcally active. Writing about our findings is > a whole genre of mormon literature waiting to happen. Good points all. I have nothing against informed political activity, even when I disagree with it. If someone is willing to educate me on why they hold the positions they have, then I'm grateful for their care. I think discussions of all kinds are useful and valuable, but I am very impatient with debate. I'm kind of sick of people taking emotional positions that they cannot change, particularly when they refuse to allow discussion of things they disagree with. And maybe that's the part that ties it back to Mormon letters. I dislike positional discourse. I don't enjoy hearing from poles in a debate. I'm interested in finding out what the right course is, even if it is complicated. That is, I believe, a uniquely LDS point of view. I think that Mormons can accept nuance and shading better than most religiously convicted people. Witness Orrin Hatch ending up in support of stem cell research and the general lack of outcry from the LDS populace here in Utah. That's why I have a hard time with some reviews and literary discourse--if it starts with a position and then only considers those things that support that position, then I'm not going to buy it, even if it sounds good. I don't want advocacy, I want exploration in the search for truth--anything less is just a game to play when you're bored of everything else. I think it stems from believing that we are the one true church, that each member should be convinced for themselves of the truthfulness of the church, and yet, even though we are the one true church, we don't have all the answers to every question--just the ones that matter. That's an uncomfortable set of beliefs. It makes for people who (in general) have confidence in their judgement and yet aren't convinced that they have all the answers. They are on a continual search for truth and aren't very interested in advocacy games, however interesting. Which is a tough audience to write for, when you think about it. The LDS audience isn't united behind a comprehensive orthodoxy, so you have to either keep your stories pretty broad to avoid stepping on an inconvenient bunion, or be thorough in your discourse with the recognition that you have narrowed your audience somewhat in doing so. So, to bring it back to the original topic, you can't get away with the bromides typical of so much Environmentalism. It just won't do. If you are going to be Environmental, you are going to be forced to articulate your assumptions, and then justify them. Environmentalism isn't a factor in most LDS writing because the environment is extremely complex and the LDS people, as a rule, aren't going to take you at your word for things. They'll challenge and question and not let up if they suspect you are wrong. You have to convince us not only that the issue is important, but that you are right and have considered all of the angles and met every objection. We make lousy advocates because we're too interested in finding the truth--and we're not too shy to admit when we don't have it, yet. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 02 May 2002 09:23:55 -0500 Todd wrote: >If you have ever stood in a clearcut, you'd know that >those places have a feeling of violence in them. To say that no one is >against forests after witnessing that kind of incursion is like saying >that people who kill aren't anti-people. They may not be, but they sure >act like it. I find the example of clear-cutting particularly interesting, since it illustrates how quickly the emotional side of environmentalism and the scientific side can diverge. Growing up in western Oregon, I remember attending a discussion of clear-cutting, which was a hot topic back then. Many people were against it, for the same sorts of reasons that Todd mentions: in part, the outstanding ugliness of a clear-cut hillside. And yet... The scientists present at the meeting--including scientific environmentalists, not only timber industry specialists--explained that if you were going to log Douglas fir forests at all, the *best* way to do it was to clear-cut, because it was only by clear-cutting that you could create a situation where Douglas fir could be replanted. Young Douglas fir need full sunlight. If you did spot-logging, you would get a temporarily nicer effect, but there would be no potential for replanting. And so the argument between informed environmentalist scientists and the timber industry was not whether or not to clear-cut, but on where the clear-cutting was to take place and how big the clear-cut patches were to be. It may be that the scientific perspective related to clear-cutting and Douglas fir has changed in the more than 25 years since I attended that meeting, though I keep reading similar things about clear-cutting and many types of conifer forests in general. My point, though, is that there's a difference between environmental motivations and environmental science. I should add that I'm far more environmentalist in my leanings than this exchange probably makes it sound like. (I'd also point out that there are many environmentalist organizations that don't take a public-policy approach to issues; some, like the Nature Conservancy, use donations to buy up land, and work with existing landowners to try to preserve specific areas and habitats.) The problem, as I see it, is that what appeals to people on an emotional level is often not well thought through on a scientific or rational level. This, I think (to return us to nature writing), is a potential problem with nature writing as a genre: that to the degree it is designed to appeal to people on an emotional level, it may distort the scientific realities (to the degree that we understand them). Personally, when I want to think about the environment, I prefer to read scientific studies and their results rather than nature writing. I want to read something by someone who I'm pretty sure knows something. Perhaps it's the technical writer in me... I know there are some nature writers out there who have a good reputation for knowing their science *and* being able to write effectively (a tradition that includes, for example, Rachel Carson). I have the strong suspicion (admittedly without having looked into it in any detail) that there are others who substitute emotion for logic, and I have really no interest in reading authors who fall into that category. "Nature writing" per se is a very narrow literary vein. I'm not surprised that we haven't seen much of it in Mormon letters. I don't see much of it in the western literary tradition. Literature, on the whole, tends to be about humans; literature that takes nature as its major focus will always, I suspect, be a minor literary footnote at best. Still, there are a number of genres where nature shows up in an important way, and those genres have, I think, a healthy representation within the Mormon tradition: nature-oriented poetry and poetic imagery (e.g., the writing of John S. Harris, and I believe Sally Taylor too); western writing; science fiction and fantasy (e.g., Shayne Bell); and probably pioneer journals and narratives as well. I understand that part of what Todd is doing is intended to push the discussion. (There's an upcoming issue of Irreantum that focuses on the nature writing tradition in Mormon literature, of which Todd is the guest editor; a good AML-List discussion of nature writing in Mormon literature would complement that issue quite nicely.) Still, I get a sense from Todd's posts--perhaps intended, perhaps not--that unless we're doing a particular type of writing, and unless we're engaged in a particular type of activism, we don't qualify as environmentally aware. I'm active enough in the environmental community to know that there's a lot of factionalism out there, which is one reason why I object to generalizations about environmentalists: there are, as I have reason to know, many different kinds of environmentalists. Personally, I think little purpose is served by maintaining such divisions. I'd rather point out to Church members the environmental threads that run through our tradition, rather than say that the majority of Church members are anti-environment, or even anti-environmentalist; among other things, it strikes me as a more rhetorically effective approach. I'll close with the point (again) that different types of rhetorical strategies work for different types of audiences. In my case, a tirade about how ugly a clear-cut forest looks turns me off because of what I know (or think I know) about the underlying science. Similarly, Scott Parkin and I have both pointed out the strong threads related to environmental concerns that run through many of our Mormon science fiction authors, such as Shayne Bell, as others have done for other genres; but from Todd's reactions, these do not seem to count. I'm forced to conclude that what Todd is asking about is not a general concern with nature in writing, but rather a specific, rather narrow type of writing that appeals to a specific, rather narrow audience. In which case, I can only say "de gustibus non disputandum est"; but I refuse to stand convicted of lack of environmental awareness and concern simply because I don't care much about a particular type of writing. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Disney Morals? Date: 02 May 2002 11:10:55 -0600 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > Disney > seems incapable of telling a story that isn't motivated from start to > finish by infatuation with an attractive form. Like _The Lion King_ or _101 Dalmations_ or _The Straight Story._ Even _Jungle Book_ manages to wait until the very last scene, and uses human attraction as the bait to cause Mowgli to re-enter human civilization (an arguably good thing). Clark Goble argues that human attraction--and passion--is a basic human story, and I agree. The fact of romance in a story doesn't make the romance trivial, though Disney is every bit as guilty of trivializing it as anyone else. Still, the search for sex (and the stable emotional environment it used to imply before sex became the #1 spectator sport of the last century) is a basic human motivator, and is the basis behind a huge amount of the decision-making people do. That it should become a foundational plot element for any story is hardly surprising. >From my perspective _Snow Dogs_ is an abomination on a whole lot of fronts, not the least of which is a trivial view of human attraction. But it looks like a relatively benign trivialization to me. Still, I so despise the technique of animating animal mouths (or babies or soda cans) to mimic human speech that I will avoid that film as much on the basis of special effects heresy as for any other reason. FWIW. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] Disney Morals? Date: 02 May 2002 11:19:51 -0600 Clark writes: Yet at the same time I think that saying that this line is the line between sex and romance is incorrect. Indeed it is somewhat worse than incorrect if it causes our basic drive and passion to be hidden. I think Clark is right--and perhaps worse than "hidden" would be feeling that our basic feelings are wrong. There's a strong opinion throughout much of the church that these feelings are bad and wrong till we get married. I remember hearing a comment in a Young Women's Conference that we should avoid romantic relationships till we're marriageable. But as someone has already said, we often fall in love with we're first graders! None of this romance and sexuality means that we break our commitment to chastity. But I think that the generalized feeling of wrongness about our romantic and sexual human nature leads to problems. _Dancing Naked_, for example, deals extensively with how our lives get messed up and crazy when we're conflicted about this aspect of our normal and good and wonderful human nature. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Must-Read Lists Date: 02 May 2002 11:36:55 -0600 At 04:22 PM 5/1/02, you wrote: >Anyway, when I was reading Martha Grimes, I kept thinking how much >Barbara Hume would enjoy her books. Thanks for thinking of me, Tony! I'll check on these books. (Which means I'll first be sure they have satisfying endings, because in general I don't trust mystery writers for that.) A writer named M. C. Beaton has a couple of mystery series out that have been highly successful -- the Hamish Macbeth series and the Agatha Raisin series. They are pretty depressing because she never lets her protagonists be happy. She wrote romances for years and years under the name of Marion Chesney, but usually felt as though the writer disliked having to provide a happy ending -- she didn't like her characters, and I always sensed that she would rather have left them out in the cold and the rain than give them even the desultory sexual fulfillment she half-heartedly provided in the final paragraph. She liked the intellectual twists of plot, IMO. She must be much happier now, since hr plots are quite interesting, but she usually leaves her hero standing alone in the rain as yet another female rejects him and walks away. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Chris BOWMAN, _The Wrong Brother_ (Review) Date: 02 May 2002 12:57:42 -0500 "The Wrong Brother" (2001) Directed by Chris Bowman Produced by Ryan Little, Carter Durham, Chris Bowman Director of Photography: Doug Chamberlain Starring Bryan Summers, Chris Kendrick and Joel Wallin Reviewed by Preston Hunter As far as I can tell, the purpose of "The Wrong Brother" is simply to be fun and entertaining. This is fine, because it is very fun and entertaining. In fact, it is hilarious. I found myself frequently laughing out loud at this historically preposterous but ostensibly earnest telling of the story of "Hector Wright," the lesser known, not-at-all-famous younger brother of Orville and Wilbur Wright, the inventors of the airplane. "The Wrong Brother" is a short film written and directed by BYU film student Chris Bowman. The film's producers are Bowman, along with Ryan Little (director of the feature film "Out of Step" and the award-winning short film "The Last Good War"; director of photography for "The Singles Ward") and Carter Durham. These are some talented young filmmakers. "The Wrong Brother" looks fantastic: it appears professional throughout. It is set in Dayton, Ohio circa 1903. Inserts of actual footage of the Wright Brothers' demonstrating their flying machine and Ivan Crosland's solemn narration increase the air of mockumentary-like realism. The costuming and sets all look authentic, which make the intentional anachronisms (particularly with regards to dialogue) all the more comical. (At one point one of the successful Wright brothers addresses an attractive woman among a crowd of admirers: he pantomimes dialing an old-style telephone and mouths the words "call me.") Much of the comic relief in the film comes from Orville and Wilbur (Chris Kendrick and Joel Wallin), who occasionally exhibit some decent brotherliness, but usually mock their little brother mercilessly. They are particularly bemused by Hector's intentions to invent something himself. "He wouldn't know an invention if it was right in front of him, wearing a sign that says 'invention,'" says one. "And bit him," finishes the other. This is followed by the two brothers using their hands to mimic mouths, making biting and growling sounds. It may sound slightly mean, but it's all in fun, and the film has a great heart. Bryan Summers plays the part of Hector as, well, a bit of a loser, but a very sympathetic one. Hector is redeemed by his optimism and determination to emerge from the shadow of his older brothers. Hector eventually announces his own invention before the excited townspeople: a portable drinking fountain, consisting of at least 50 pound of equipment carried on one's back AND dragged by a harness attached to one's ankle. The invention is intended to deliver people from thirst. Of courrse, the whole thing is patently absurd. What is even more funny is the way the hecklers in the crowd are eventually drowned out by the sentiment that what really matters is whether or not it works. Alas, Hector isn't even entirely successful on that front. The hose from the back-mounted drinking fountain produces, at first, a beautifully photographed trickle of water, only to turn into a disastrous torrent that knocks hats off onlookers and leaves Hector drenched. Seemingly washed up, Hector drives home with his not-so-successful invention. But on his way home he passes a burning school building. Children are trapped inside, and nobody is around to help them. Does Hector save the day? Does his invention turn out to be useful after all? Well, I won't give away the ending, except to say the film ends on an upbeat, but hilarious note. Watching "The Wrong Brother," it is easy to see why it won first place (as well as an audience choice award) in last year's International Young LDS Film Festival (2001). The solid filmmaking, top notch comic acting, and thoroughly enjoyable story combine to make a commendable film. I normally have no interest in writing "reviews" of short films, but my thrill at seeing this compelled me to do so. "The Wrong Brother" can be puchased on video (in LDS video stores, or from www.candlelightmedia.com), or (if you've got the bandwidth) downloaded for free from: http://yfilms.byu.edu/finalcut/drinkingfountain.mov -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 02 May 2002 12:26:54 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Does the unpopular NEA-funded art get much play in society? Unpopular > Mormon art already exists without government support--an audience for it > won't suddenly spring up just because the NEA starts funding it. So what > have we won with government funding? Just some artists who get a > paycheck without ever bothering to figure out how to make their art more > relevant to people. Government sponsorship of Mo-lit will stymy the > efforts people are now making to figure out how to nurture a genuine > Mo-lit audience. To some degree my response it pragmatic. What others do or have done is irrelevant to me; what I'm looking at is how to use the system to my own advantage. If I can get funding to support what I believe is a better form of alternate Mormon literature than the vast majority of what I see from Covenant or DB, then why shouldn't I? I would far rather work through the existing free-market structure, but the simple fact is they won't buy or publish some of the excellent work that I see being produced because it doesn't fit into their idea of appropriate (or marketable) work. So I have to look for other ways to do it. I'm not sure how NEA (or Utah Arts Council or Utah Humanities Council) dollars are going to stymie my effort; but I do see how those dollars could help me start something that I believe can become self-sustaining and both literarily and socially relevant. I can't argue that a great many lazy people use the government dole to fund their own trivial vision and shock-oriented esthetic. But seeking and using money offered by the government does not automatically turn me into an artistic zombie--though coming to depend on the handout can certainly cloud one's pure vision. I don't have the knowledge or the power to change the way other people think, but I do have the ability to express (often poorly) my own hope for a better existence, and to support the publication of those people who express their own hopes better than I do. Theoretically, that's one of the purposes of Art, and even art that disgusts me moves me to refine my own vision and belief. Which I consider to be good, regardless of the intent of the artist or his/her personal morality. At the risk of offending my good friend Scott Bronson by using his words to support my social/political views, that's why his statement that his goal with art was to build the kingdom of God is so powerful to me--it seems like the best and most complete reason to create art that I can image. Art to impress a snobbish New York elite will have its limited play and will vanish when its patrons pass on (either in death or to the next fad). But art used to build a heritage of godly seeking and spiritual building strikes me as a good thing. So why shouldn't I use the tools designed to support a snobbish elite to support my own artistic vision and hope? Why shouldn't I benefit from a system that supports trivial expression, and turn it so it support a somewhat less trivial (IMO) expression? That's one of many ways that I as an individual citizen can determine what art tax dollars goes to support--but only if I seek it. And if it should turn out that funding my alternative Mormon press means that one less can of chocolate syrup comes in contact with one less broccoli clump, maybe I've done two goods in the world instead of just one. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Clash of Cultures (was: Money and Art) Date: 02 May 2002 12:07:34 -0600 First of all, I applaud Jonathan's on this thread. I'll make an effort to = follow his excellent guidelines. =20 It's been very interesting to me to see the strongly felt libertarian and = politically conservative opinions that have been expressed on the subject = of this thread. Obviously, since I'm neither libertarian nor conservative,= I do disagree pretty strenuously with some of you. I hope we're all = still friends. But what interests me is to see the clash of cultures that has emerged = within this thread. I'd like to tie this to another fascinating subject, = Jeff Needle's excellent review of the Johanson book. =20 On the AML-List, we all share an interest in Mormonism and in literature. = This automatically places us in the orbit of at least two cultures; a = culture of bibliophiles and a culture of Mormonophiles. (Coinage?) If we = assume that arts lovers are, in the broadest most general terms, more = inclined to be politically liberal than most, and that Mormons are, in the = broadest terms, more likely to be politically conservative, this issue = becomes, quite predicatably, a hotly debated one. This is especially true = since most of us would, I think, consider ourselves rather iconoclastic = members of either society, or perhaps, of both. =20 This brings me to the Johanson book. I reacted very violently indeed to = Jeff's review of it, and later found myself wondering why I so intensely = disliked a book I haven't read and probably won't read. Johanson clearly = knows nothing about other religious traditions. He also knows next to = nothing about the sociology of religion as it applies to Mormonism. What = he knows is what he and those of his ward members he hangs out with think = about things. It's a very useful window into current active American = Mormon attitudes about current active American Mormons. And I don't like = it because (based on the review alone) I don't think it describes me at = all, and yet I consider myself an active Mormon. So my feelings of = alienation from this culture are intensified. And that's not comfortable; = I lash out. Other cultural circles come into play. I think most American Mormons are = politically conservative because most Mormons live in the Western US, = where people are generally conservative politically. (Utah is a conservati= ve state, and Utah is 70% LDS. But Arizona is also conservative, and = Arizona has a much smaller LDS population). I think lots of people on = this list are Libertarian in large measure because lots of people on this = List work in the computer industry, which has a tremendously strong = libertarian bent. This is not to say that conservative or libertarian = points of view aren't carefully thought through or deeply held. I suppose = I'm liberal because I'm a theatre guy, and that culture tends to be quite = leftist. But I also think, at least, that I'm a liberal because I'm LDS, = because I think Mormonism, as I understand it, is generally more compatible= with liberalism than with conservatism. Plus, I'm a cantankerous sort; = living in Utah drives me further left each year that passes. There's another interesting factor that's emerged in this debate. D. = Michael put it this way: >The problem with the NEA is the same problem with most solutions >implemented at the Federal level of government. It's too distant, too >wieldy, too beaurocratized and politicized to work well.=20 Is it possible that this 'small is good, big is bad' philosophy, which is = very popular on the Right today, gets embraced by a lot of us because = that's how we experience the world; at the ward level? I grew up too close to Mayor Daley's Chicago to believe in anything like = it. Local government has historically been far more prone to corruption, = inefficiency and majoritarian tyranny than the Federal government has = been. Or have we forgotten Tammany Hall, Mississippi, Arkansas or Alabama = in ths '50's, or the current Utah legislature? Besides, think of the last = election. Most folks do make an effort to study the issues, and to think = long and hard about their vote for President. While the City Council vote = is mostly won by the guy who put up the most yard signs. =20 I've served on local and state arts councils. Their decisions are usually = driven by the concerns of the one loudest mouth in the room. It's not a = pleasant experience. And so, I like the NEA and want it greatly expanded, while others on the = List, of course, are against it. But part of this is the fact that I = don't trust my ward. I attend every Sunday, and I teach my Sunday School = class, and I'm friendly with most of the folks there. But I'm always = wary. I always guard my tongue. I feel like I can show them the 30% of = me that's politically correct. I probably will never make a close friend = in the ward. I feel much much closer to many of you on the List than I = feel towards anyone in my ward. And so I tend to mistrust local = decisions politically. =20 It's a very interesting question, the way in which cultures intersect. = I'm grateful for the exchange of views.=20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] Re: Talent Search: Actor for Joseph Smith Date: 02 May 2002 12:48:36 -0600 I know I've suggested this before, but can't we afford Jude Law? He's happily married with three children, believes in God (from watching his t.v. interviews). He'd be perfect for the part in all other ways. He's into Independent films, I'm quite sure. And I know that I personally and some of my stay-at-home neighbor-moms would Happily volunteer on the set to help off-set the expense of his salary. Personal Assisant, free catering, baby-sitting, free room and board, etc. At least try. Joseph Smith deserves the best rendering possible. Jana Pawlowski -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kelly Thompson" Subject: Re: [AML] Virginia SORENSON Date: 02 May 2002 13:21:29 -0600 >From what I gathered by reading through Sorensen's letters in BYU's Speci= al Collections library, Fred was quite jealous of her success. Her biogr= aphy is being written by Susan Howe and Mary Lythgoe Bradford. =20 Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn= .com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 02 May 2002 13:46:53 -0600 > Thom asked about how people (at the Beet) get paid. > > We "pay" them in exposure to 40,000 readers and publicity in the SL > TRib and newspapers all over the country. That's better than a few > bucks, don't you think? > > I guess we pay people in fame. It was lucky fame, but fame of a kind > nonetheless. > -- > Todd Robert Petersen > No, I don't. Gimme the bucks anytime. You offered the Sugarbeet as an artistic endeavor that did not receive gummit funding, as if to show that we don't need NEA money to create good art. Quite right. But the fact remains that no one in sugarbeet is likely to be able to pay their bills from the fame they will get. To do that -- to actually make a living doing something as high quality as Sugarbeet but also as necessarily focused -- will require some outside funding at some point. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Activism in Mormon Lit (was: Money and Art) Date: 02 May 2002 13:07:45 -0600 robert lauer wrote: ...an extended explanation of his views on the immorality of using tax money to fund the expression of ideas, as well as some of his thoughts on the nature and purposes of government--most of which were in direct opposition to my own views. First, thank you Robert for expressing those ideas. I think the foundation for much of our disagreement is the difference between ideal behavior and actual behavior. Since I have little or no faith in the likelihood of people to do the right thing simply because it's good I do support a certain amount of legally-enforced morality--and our right to alter or change or overthrow that legal authority when it no longer meets the needs of people. But such actions must always be taken with utmost care, lest our zeal to enable the rights of some destroy the rights of others. In any case, I love it when people feel passionately about something and work to express that passion. The instant we stop feeling passionately about an issue is the same moment that we give away our will to seek better answers--something I think we need to do a lot of (seek better answers) in regards to our government. I still disagree with some of your basis assumptions, but that's what it means to be human and individuals and I can only celebrate the extraordinary range of beliefs and the actions they encourage among people. Which ties back somewhat to what Todd Robert Peterson asked about in his post on environmentalism and why we don't seem to see more activistic literature from Mormons. While I disagree with the alleged anti-environment stance that Todd ascribes to the average Mormon, I strongly agree with his lament that we see precious little expression of social or political ideas from a Mormon standpoint. I can think of a number of reasons for that. * We don't want to draw attention-- Have we as Mormons come to conflate all authority as equal and untouchable? We can't select our church leaders but grant them power anyway; do we feel the same way about our political leaders? This could certainly lead to an unwillingness to question legal authority, either for fear of being seen as unsupporting of God-inspired authority (aka, rebelling against orthodoxy), or for fear of recrimination either from within our religious community or from without (a fear justified by some past events in both cases). So maybe we stay clear of questions or issues in our literature that could draw unwanted attention from the leadership--political or religious. * We don't want to sow contention-- As recent discussions on this list show, people have very strong feelings about social and political issues, and are often quite willing to question the moral fiber and righteousness (or at least intelligence) of other Mormons who disagree. But the spirit of contention is the spirit of the devil, so we generally steer clear of issues that people can and do contend over--like the environment, politics, feminism, war, abortion, same-sex attraction, and race. So we avoid issues that can and do divide people in the Church, because our goal is to build unanimity and community, not to fire conflict and contention. * We don't want to seem silly or be wrong-- In many ways Mormons still seem to be trying to get the acceptance of the rest of the world. As long as we deal with vague or ephemeral issues--or simple issues of morality or perception--we can be just a little odd but still claim overall normalcy. Specific issues create opportunities for specific rejection of us and individuals and our religion in general. Especially if we should later change our stance on the issue (which seems like at least a part of the whole repentence process--the constant judgment and re-creation of our moral foundations). So we avoid stories that expose too much of our own thoughts that aren't specifically addressed in official doctrines or proclamations, thus reducing the number of points on which we might be judged as wrong by authorities that we (try to) trust. * We just don't think in those terms-- Having been called out of the world and believing in an ultimate repair of all wrongs and perfection of all institutions, perhaps we just can't generate strong interests in any issue that doesn't directly impact our daily existence. Broad conceptual issues have little or nothing to do with how I'm going to obtain my daily bread, teach my family, and perfect my own soul, so why should I worry about that over which I have no control? Simple pragmatism. ===== Of course any list is, by definition, incomplete and skewed to my own perspective. But I do see a certain insular behavior by many Mormons where they don't involve themselves in issues that are not specifically addressed from the pulpit. Certainly our book publishers have had a conservative approach to activistic work; whether that conservatism is because they fear losing market share by publishing a divisive book, or because they can't publish what Mormons aren't writing is a question I can't answer. Anyway... I think we *should* be writing more and varied works that touch on any and all subjects of interest to us as individual people who are also Mormons. And if we express our beliefs in the context of that Mormonism we should both have the courage to express our beliefs and the charity to accept that good Mormons can believe differently than we do. In other words, we should have a little more trust and do a little less judging--on both sides of the literary fence. Because if we don't study everything and try to understand it in context of revealed religion, I don't think we're working hard enough to perfect ourselves and become as God, knowing good and evil in all things through direct exploration and analysis. Just a thought. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 02 May 2002 13:56:46 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 2:02 AM > Thom Duncan wrote: > > > > "To carry on with Eric's dragging of this discussion back to Mormon Arts > > and Letters... I feel constrained to point out that Sunstone, Irreantum, > > the Sugarbeet... (not funded or legitimized by the Church) > > produce/publish good edgy mormon art." > > > > And how many of the artists involved in those ventures get paid for their > > efforts? > > Precisely the point--good art can still happen even without funding. That's not the point. The point is, can an artist make a living doing such things as writing for Sugarbeet, etc? Todd Peterson makes the claim that writers are paid in fame. Well, that only goes so far. I remember the first time I was published in a High School literary publication. Got no money. It was a thrill. But the thrill dies fast. Personally, I have all the fame I ever want. What I want no is to be paid for what I write, even if only one person reads or sees my stuff. The biggest motivation for me to get this theatre group going with Scott Bronson is so I can finally make some money with all the plays I've written over the last decade or so. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: [AML] Michelle Shocked Date: 02 May 2002 14:11:07 -0600 NPR story (in RealAudio format) on singer/songwriter Michelle Shocked's new CD: http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/me/20020501.me.15.ram Mentions her LDS upbringing. MBA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Utah Arts Grants Date: 02 May 2002 16:07:01 -0400 At 05:36 PM 5/1/02 +0000, you wrote: > >Is there somewhere that individual artists can go to find out what grant >monies are available? I've got a few projects I've been working on that I've >wondered about grant money before, but I've never even known where to begin >to look to see what was even out there. > >Kellene Ricks Adams > I wanted to post this as an answer to Cathy, but I will post it now. Most Universities as well as the State Endowments for both Arts and humanities and many professional organizations for the artshave grant writing workshops. In general they are very helpful. Also, most Endowment funds keep records of successful grants on file. That will usually involve going to the funding agency and asking (Email is not very effective) for copies of successful grant proposals. For large grants, (over 10,000 dollars) I usually prepare a preliminary proposal and hand carry it to the grant agencies, making appointments ahead of time and asking for suggestions (In case of Federal Grants, your congressman or Senator or both, or any one in power who had ever spoken in support of the kind of activity you propose --or title you propose is a good person to present with your proposal with a request for suggestions.) It is important to look as successful grants to get a feel of the types of things the officers of your agency support, and to skew your request as far as possible in that direction. Personal contact is extremely valuable. It is also important that you fill out the final report data that the grant agency sends you (if there is such) because, if you don't, it is liable to be your last grant. Type "grants" or "art grants" into google and you will be shocked at the wealth of information on sources for grants, formulae for filling out and filing the paperwork etc. Richard B. Johnson, (djdick@PuppenRich.com) Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: [AML] Update on Nauvoo Theatrical Society Date: 02 May 2002 14:06:26 -0600 So maybe some of you are interested in how things are going with the Nauvoo Theatrical Society, the organization dedicated to producing Mormon theatre. Well, I've already announced that we've procured a space at 50 W. Center, Orem. Two doors west of Chuck-E Cheese. We're in the process of gutting the place so we can build our lobby, the theatre itself (recently upgraded to fit 150 seats), and a backstage area with dressing rooms and a back lobby for selling concessions. The space also has a back area large enough to rehearse plays at the same time that another play is performing in the main area. This could lead to our being able to produce more plays per year. We've already received one donation which we will put in the bank as soon as TNST is organized as a NFP corporation. The theatre itself will be called Center Street Theatre. The previous owner had an awning with his company's name on it. We hope to paint the name of the theater over that. May and June will be refurbishing time. We'll start casting and rehearsing for our first show, _My Turn on Earth_, in July. More information as it becomes available. ---- Thom Duncan The Nauvoo Theatrical Society "Mormon artists exploring Mormon life through theatre" -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kellene Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Disney Morals? Date: 02 May 2002 15:58:03 +0000 Clark Goble wrote: The > distinction we make between "romance" and "sex" is really a false one. The > drives which lead us to romance are sexual. The reason we distinguish > between sex and romance is because we have a sphere of proscribed behavior. > Without knowing that the statement came from Clark, I would have bet money that it almost certainly came from a man! :-) (how's that for a stereotypical statement.) There is absolutely a very real distinction between romance and sex. That doesn't mean that there isn't an overlap sometimes, but it does mean that there doesn't always have to be an overlap. I know one couple who have been married for more than 30 years and have never had sexual relations and they have a relationship that is much deeper and stronger than a platonic friendship. They have a marriage that has plenty of romance, and there's not an iota of sex in it. I suspect we all know couples who, for one reason or another (health, emotional problems, distance, etc.), have gone for periods without sex, yet the romance in their relationships is vivid and real. Romance (maybe more for women than men, if you believe stereotypes) can be emotional and mental. In a relationship with two people who truly care about each other and love each other, the drives that lead to romance may be the desire to show support, encouragement, love, compassion, contentment, whatever. Of course, sex can be a part of those drives, but it doesn't always have to be. I suspect sex sometimes is, as Clark notes, the single drive behind romance. I just don't believe that that is always the case. I don't dispute Clark's right to feel that there is no distinction. The fact that we all have different viewpoints on so many important (and unimportant) issues is what provides for different plots, different storylines, different points of view in the material we're all creating. And that's the spice of life--and art. But I couldn't let his post go without noting that his statement may not be accurate. (nothing personal, Clark.) Kellene Ricks Adams -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "ROY SCHMIDT" Subject: Re: [AML] Must-Read Lists Date: 02 May 2002 17:26:16 -0600 Hi Tony, I'm still here. Yes, I am aware that Kamanski is an American, and I agree with your comments about his books. I find myself laughing out loud over Peters, his landlady, his goofy dentist friend, and all the rest. The Rostnikov books are a little more difficult for me as I have trouble with Russian names. I've take to keeping a list to help me keep them all straight. The other SK character, Abe Lieberman, the aging police force detective, is to me the most interesting of all. The Jewishness of the Lieberman family is central to the those characters, but has, I believe, a universal appeal. The family have devout, skeptical, and secular members, and are presented in very believable ways. So, how about a Mormon detective? I think it would work. Roy -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Money and Art Date: 02 May 2002 22:35:25 -0500 Todd Petersen: Thom asked about how people (at the Beet) get paid. We "pay" them in exposure to 40,000 readers and publicity in the SL TRib and newspapers all over the country. That's better than a few bucks, don't you think? I guess we pay people in fame. It was lucky fame, but fame of a kind nonetheless. _______________ Ha, ha. Ho, ho. Hee, hee. Yes, I get it now. Hoo, hoo, wheee . . . And where do I put that on my little bank deposit slip so I will be able to pay the mortgage on the 1st? Ok, I'll admit that fame and publicity is better than nothing, but I just couldn't resist the urge to reinforce an earlier comment that was made on this subject. As fun as it is to write just for the fun of it, as the villain says, "You *must* pay the rent!" And it is most often a real challenge. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] Mormon History Association Conference Date: 02 May 2002 17:05:07 -0600 For anyone interested in writing (or reading) about history, the annual Mormon History Association conference is coming up May 16-19 in Arizona. Below is a preliminary schedule of events. For more information, see http://site.netopia.com/mhahome/02tucsonconference/ Marny Parkin Preliminary Program Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m. Conference Registration Thursday, May 16, 2002 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Conference Registration 7:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. "Saints & Sinners" Bus tour along the Mormon Battalion Trail, St. David and Tombstone. 3:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Bus trip and Welcome Fiesta buffet dinner at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Friday, May 17, 2002 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Conference Registration, Ballroom foyer 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast for first time attenders & new MHA members 7:00 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. Old Tucson Tour 7:00 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. Mormon Tucson Tour 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Concurrent Session I Session A: Asian Connections 1. The First Decade of Mormonism in Mongolia - Steven C. Harper, Assistant Professor of History and Religion, BYU-Hawaii 2. Discovering the Lost Tribes of Isuraeru: Latter-day Saint Missionaries Recreating Japanese History to Fit the Mormon Worldview - D. Glenn Ostlund II, Associate Instructor, Indiana University Session B: Joseph Smith in His American Setting 1. "When I Came to Myself": Joseph Smith, Sojourner Truth, and Other Americans Who Encountered the Divine" - Martha Taysom, Visiting Assistant Professor, Indiana University 2. Mormons and Monuments: The Memory of Joseph Smith in Vermont - Keith A. Erekson, MA Candidate in History, Brigham Young University Session C: Nazi Germany and World War II through the Eyes of Latter-day Saints 1. "The Work of Death": Hugh Nibley and War - Boyd Petersen, Lecturer, Honors Program, BYU 2. A Missionary Encounters the Nazis: Orson Waldo Huber's Impressions of Germany, 1932-1935 - Matthew C. Godfrey, Research Historian, Historical Research Associates, Inc. Session D: Invisible Borders 1. Marital Status as a Barrier in Nineteenth-Century Mormon Communities: A Look With the Eyes of Ned Desaules - Jeffrey O. Johnson, Director, Utah State Archives 2. Linguistic and Cultural Frontiers: A French-Speaking Mormon Family in Utah and Switzerland - Ardis E. Parshall, Orem, Utah Session E: Among the Mormons: Outside Looking In, Inside Wanting Out 1. Elizabeth Kane's "Mormon Problem": Another Perspective of Thomas L. Kane's Work for the Mormons - Darcee Barnes, Graduate Student, Brigham Young University 2. Escape from Zion: The U.S. Army Escort of Mormon Apostates in 1859 - Polly Aird, Seattle, Washington Session F: Seatrek, 2001: A Panel Discussion William G. Hartley, Associate Professor of History and Research Historian, Smith Institute, BYU; Dean May, Professor of History, University of Utah; DeAnn Sadleir, Seatrek 2001; William K. Sadleir, Seatrek 2001 11:00 to 12:15. Opening Plenary Session Speaker: Richard E. Turley, Jr., Managing Director, Family and Church History Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 12:30 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. Luncheon Speaker: TBA 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 Concurrent Session II Session A: The Mormon Battalion 1. Little-Known Statistics of the Mormon Battalion - Susan Easton Black, Professor of Church History and Doctrine, BYU 2. Tucson and the Mormon Battalion: Political Intrigue - Clark V. Johnson, Professor of Church History and Doctrine, BYU Session B: Gathering the Saints in the Twentieth Century 1. Dr. Kim Ho Jik and the Korean LDS Church - Dong Sull Choi, Professor of Church History and Doctrine, BYU 2. Gathering the Saints from Germany: A Case Study of Schneidemuehl - Donald Q. Cannon, Professor of Church History and Doctrine, BYU Session C: Mormon Colonists in Revolutionary Mexico 1. The Last Great Mormon Exodus - Mexico, 1912 - Joseph B. Romney, BYU-Idaho 2. "Our Hearts Were Touched with Fire": Bishop Joseph C. Bentley and Families in the Mexican Revolution" - Joseph C. Bentley, Professor of Management and Organizational Behavior, University of Utah Session D: Mormon Communities in Southern Arizona 1. Below the Mongollon Rim: Mormon Settlements in Southern Arizona - Dale Beecher, Recently retired historian, Salt Lake City 2. Early Mesa: "Outpost in Babylon" - Chad R. Willis, Mesa, Arizona Session E: Frontier Icon: Snowflake Stake and the LDS Academy Movement 1. Snowflake Academy's "Pocket Edition" Karl G. Maeser - Charles S. Peterson, Professor of History Emeritus, Utah State University 2. Joseph Peterson: Stillborn Anthropologist, Would-be Rancher, Master Teacher - Levi S. Peterson, Professor of English Emeritus, Weber State University Session F: Polygamy: Re-examining the Numbers 1. Joseph Smith's Wives - George D. Smith, San Francisco, California 2. Counting Polygamists: A Review of George D. Smith's Identification of the Earliest Mormon Polygamists - Gary James Bergera, Managing Director, The Smith-Pettit Foundation 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Concurrent Session III Session A: Race, Ethnicity and the Place of African-Americans along the Mormon Frontier 1. Slavery, Race, and Ethnicity along the Mormon Missouri Frontier Revisited Revisited - Newell G. Bringhurst, Instructor of History and Government, College of the Sequoias 2. The Burt Murder and Harvey Lynching: A Case of Extra-Legal Justice or Racial Violence in Nineteenth-Century Utah? - Craig L. Foster, Research Specialist, Family History Library 3. The Changing Place of African-Americans Within Mormonism: The Historical Impact of the 1978 Mormon Black Revelation - Darron T. Smith, PhD Candidate, University of Utah Session B: Kingdoms, Campaigns and Ideology: A Question of Politics 1. Zealous Nationalism as an Explanation for Political Extremism within the LDS Church - Steven Henderson, Boise, Idaho 2. "When the People Speak": Mormons and the 1954 Redistricting Campaign in Utah" - Jedediah S. Rogers, Student, Brigham Young University 3. The Texas Republic and the Mormon Kingdom of God: The Attempt to Establish a Theocratic Nation in the Texas-Mexico Borderlands in 1844 - Michael Scott Van Wagenen, University of Texas at Brownsville Session C: Women of the Restoration 1. Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington: Eliza R. Snow's Visit to Southern Utah, 1880-81 - Jill Mulvay Derr, Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, BYU 2. Marietta Walker Accomplishing the Impossible - Joni Wilson, Temple School, Independence, Missouri 3. Lucy Hannah White Flake - David Boone, Associate Professor of Church History and Doctrine, BYU Session D: Some Aspects of Current Science in Relation to LDS Theology 1. Chaos and Uncertainty: Modern Physics Concepts in Historic Gospel Context - Uwe J. Hansen, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Indiana State University 2. Astronomy and Cosmology in Mormon Scripture and Thought - B. Kent Harrison and Eric W. Hirschmann, Department of Physics and Astronomy, BYU 3. Mormon Spirit/Body Concepts and Modern Science - Duane E. Jeffrey, Professor of Zoology, BYU Session E: Mind, Memory and Identity 1. Colliding Interests: Mapping Memory in an Urban Neighborhood - Martha Bradley, University of Utah 2. Daughters of Utah Pioneer Museums - Jessie L. Embry and Mauri L. Nelson, Brigham Young University 3. Dreams and History: On the Oneiric Underground Railroad with Helen Mar Whitney - Todd M. Compton, Independent Researcher, Santa Monica, California Session F: Mormon Connections to Arizona 1. The Udalls of Arizona: The Roots of a Political Dynasty - F. Ross Peterson, Professor of History Emeritus, Utah State University 2. Crisis in Consensus: Attitudes toward the United Order in Northern Arizona - Cherry B. Silver, Instructor, Department of English, BYU 3. "Truth is yet to spring out of the earth": The Tucson Artifacts, the Kinderhook Plates, and Mormon Archaeological Zeal - J. Michael Hunter, American, British and Mormon History Librarian, BYU 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Awards Banquet Saturday, May 18, 2002 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Conference Registration, Ballroom foyer 7:00 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. Old Tucson Bus Tour 7:00 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. Mormon Tucson Bus Tour 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Concurrent Session IV Session A: Educating the Saints 1. George H. Brimhall: BYU's Mentor - Mary Jane Woodger, Assistant Professor of Church Doctrine and History, BYU 2. Learning Off the Land: The Arizona Academies - Jed Woodworth, Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, BYU Session B: The Arizona Temple 1. The Historic Arizona Temple - Richard O. Cowan, Professor of Church History and Doctrine, BYU 2. The Architecture of the Mesa Temple: Desert Imagery and Sacred Symbolism - Paul L. Anderson, Museum of Art, Brigham Young University Session C: Shifting Sands: 19th Century Borderlands and the Changing Boundaries of Nevada, Utah and Arizona 1. "By all means Give Nevada a Slice": Americanization and the Remapping of Mormons and Southern Paiutes, 1866-1873 - W. Paul Reeve, University of Utah 2. Statehood for What?: Utah's Shrinking Borders, 1850-1896 - William P. MacKinnon, Independent Historian, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan Session D: Arizona Biography 1. Charles S. Whitney's Diaries: The Arizona Years - Kenneth W. Godfrey, Retired from CES, Logan, Utah 2. Edward L. Kimball - Andrew Kimball: Link between Prophets Professor of Law (Emeritus), Brigham Young University Session E: Communities/Congregations of "Other" LDS in Arizona 1. Short Creek, "A Refuge for the Saints": The Making of the Fundamentalist Mormon Subculture - Marianne Watson, Salt Lake City, Utah 2. The Tucson Central RLDS Branch: Latter Day Saints But Not Mormons - Danny L. Jorgensen, Professor and Chair, Department of Religious Studies, University of South Florida - Lynn M. D'Antonio, Tucson Community of Christ, Historian Session F: Interracial Connections: Mormons and Native Americans 1. Navajo Religion and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Recorded by William Evans, Trader to the Navajo, Merchant, Scholar and Defender of His Faith, 1877-1954 - Susan Evans Woods, Provo, Utah 2. Interracial Relations between Mormons and American Indians, 1850-1880 - Richard D. Kitchen, PhD Candidate, Department of History, Arizona State University 11:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. Plenary Session - Obert C. And Grace A. Tanner Lecture Dr. Richard Brodhead, Dean of Yale College, Yale University 12:30 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. Luncheon, MHA Annual Business Meeting 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Concurrent Session V Session A: Mormonism in Mexico: Spanish Language Session 1. Plotino Constantino Rhodakanaty: Primer Miembro De La Iglesia Sud En Mexico - Sergio Pagaza Castillo, Director, Museum of Mormon History in Mexico, A.C. Session B: Missionary Work in the Twentieth Century 1. Twentieth-Century Missions and Mission Presidents - Kahlile B. Mehr, Senior Librarian, Family History Library 2. Pioneering in Poland: Achievement and Challenges in Establishing the Church, 1985-2001- Douglas F. Tobler, Professor of History, BYU Session C: Prophetic Legacies 1. "Line Upon Line, Precept Upon Precept": An Exploratory Study into the Beginnings of Endowments for the Dead, 1877" - Richard E. Bennett, Professor of Church History and Doctrine, BYU 2. ". . . acting for the Temporal Salvation of the Church": The 1890 Legal Pressures Which Brought About President Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto" - Ken Driggs, Attorney at Law, Atlanta, Georgia Session D: Mountain Meadows: A Broader Context 1. The Mountain Meadows Massacre and the Coming of the Civil War - Larry Coates, History Professor, Brigham Young University-Idaho 2. "Let the Book of the Past Be Closed"? Public Memory and the Mountain Meadows Massacre Monuments, 1859-1999 - Douglas Seefeldt, University of Virginia Session E: Mormon Colonization and Its Arizona Legacy 1. Mormon Colonization of Pima and Surrounding Area of Graham County, Arizona - Wayne K. Hinton, Chair, Social Science Department, Southern Utah University 2. Change in a Mormon Village, 1910-2000 - Wilfrid C. Bailey, Snowflake, Arizona Session F: Fact and Fiction: New Books on Mormon Polygamy Susan Rugh, Moderator, Associate Professor of History, BYU 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Concurrent Session VI Session A: Interracial Connections: Mormons and Native Americans 1. Using the Lamanite Past: Rethinking Worldview, Essentialism and Identity - Sterling Ray Fluharty, University of Oklahoma 2. Caught in Between: Paiute Indians Between the Mormons and the Navajos - Edward Leo Lyman, Victor Valley College Session B: Capitalist Connections: Mormon Entrepreneurship 1. B. H. Schettler: The Personification of Mormon Sainthood or Bankrupt "Buccaneer"? - Jacob Olmstead, Brigham Young University 2. John W. Young - Brent W. Brown, Associate Professor of Public Affairs, Arizona State University Session C: Familial Ties and Family History 1. Thomas Gates, Arizona Pioneer: Superintendent, Yuma Territorial Prison - Carole Gates Sorensen, Retired Administrator, Clark County School District 2. The Journey of Philemon Miller - John Stephen Rizley, Scottsdale, Arizona 3. Son of Hyrum, Friend of Josephites, "No Polygamist": The Letters of John Smith - E. Gary Smith, Attorney, Tustin, California Session D: Migration and Migrants' Perceptions 1. "I Never Saw a Grander Sight": Early Mormon Migrants and the Aesthetics of Environmental Change in Utah - Will McArthur, Arizona State University 2. Conditions in Utah Valley During the "Move South"- 1858 - Karen Ann Griggs, Cataloguer, Harold B. Lee Library, BYU 3. Writing in the Wagon: A Woman Observes the Sights along the Mormon Road from Pima, Arizona to Utah in 1895 - Audrey M. Godfrey, Historian, Logan, Utah Session E: Colonies and Revolution: Mexican History and the Mormons 1. The Colonization and Evacuation of Northern Mexico in the Context of North American Immigration History - Mark Ashurst-McGee, Graduate Student, Arizona State University 2. Relations Between Mormon Mexican Colonists and the Mexican People: From Founding Through the Exodus of 1912 - Elizabeth Mary Ann Bennion, Santa Monica, California 3. Lions, Brothers, and the Idea of an Indian Nation: The Mexican Revolution in the Minds of Anthony W. Ivins and Rey Lucero Pratt, 1910-1917 - Craig Livingston, History Instructor, Montgomery College Session F: The Mormon Battalion and Santa Fe Trail 1. The Mormon Battalion: A Unique Unit in American Military History - Lt. Col. Sherman L. Fleek (Ret), Chief, Historical Commemorations, National Guard Bureau 2. The Historic Santa Fe Trail: An Illustrated Lecture - Gregory M. Franzwa, Director, Patrice Press, Tucson 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Reception hosted by Past MHA Presidents 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Presidential Banquet Sunday, May 19, 2002 7:30 a.m. Devotional at Historic Binghampton Meeting House Speaker: Terryl Givens, Professor of English, University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia - "Fit Audience Find, Though Few": The Book of Mormon, Its Readers and Cultural Identity 9:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast at church 10:00 a.m. Buses leave for the Mexico and the Mormon Colonies -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Talent Search: Actor for Joseph Smith Date: 03 May 2002 01:12:34 -0600 Preston wrote: > Talent Search for Principle Actor to portray the Prophet > Joseph Smith > We are conducting a nation-wide search for an actor to > portray the Prophet Joseph Smith in an upcoming feature film > produced for specialized theatres throughout the world. What on earth does that mean? Is this a euphemism for LDS visitor center theaters? > WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR: > > PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION > > Height: at least 6'1" or taller > > Build: Muscular > > Complexion: Fair They left out "flashing blue eyes." > The actor chosen to portray this role must be of high moral > character in his personal life as well as on screen. "In his personal life" I understand, but "on screen" absolutely baffles me. How is the actor going to lead an immoral life on screen? At least without the director and editor being in cahoots with him. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] BYU Magazine on New Mormon Cinema and BYU Prof Studying Satire Date: 02 May 2002 16:30:28 -0700 (PDT) The Spring 2002 issue of BYU Magazine, the alumni publication, has an article on the New Mormon Cinema of Richard Dutcher et al. It's at http://magazine.byu.edu/article.tpl?num=34-spr02 There's also an interesting piece on Kerry D. Soper, a BYU professor who studies satire in American popular culture and is also a cartoonist for "The Chronicle of Higher Education." It's at http://magazine.byu.edu/article.tpl?num=20-spr02 ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing (was: Disney Morals?) Date: 03 May 2002 00:52:40 -0600 [MOD: I'm highly aware of the irony of using such a euphemistic subject heading for a topic that clearly ought to be "Sex in Mormon Writing." But I know some of you have workplace issues with that... In a way, I suppose it's simply an illustration of Michael's point. Oh, well; whatever works to keep the conversation moving forward...] Clark Goble wrote: > The distinction we make between "romance" and "sex" is really a false one. > The drives which lead us to romance are sexual. The reason we distinguish > between sex and romance is because we have a sphere of proscribed behavior. I'll never forget the sacrament meeting where a woman speaker was raised in a home with "an open attitude toward S-E-X." It's one of those times I wished chapel pews came equipped with seatbelts, because I nearly fell out of mine. She was raised with an open attitude about sex, but couldn't bring herself to utter the word in sacrament meeting. Doesn't that just sum up the suspicious attitude Mormons have toward sex? We have a double standard toward sex in the LDS culture. I don't mean the double standard that insists women remain chaste and modestly dressed, while men do what they want. I'm talking about the lip service we give to the doctrine that sex is a precious thing, a gift of God, the "very key" of the plan of salvation as Boyd K. Packer once said in a General Conference speech that was adapted to a filmstrip for seminary students. But when it comes to our actions, we show that we still buy into the old Protestant notion that sex is a dirty necessity. I think the debate over the difference between romantic love and sex comes from this suspicious attitude. Many on this list have wished, with a weariness that comes through in their words, that they could read a book or watch a movie without sex always intruding. I feel somewhat differently about this. I grow weary of the suspicion Mormons have about sex. In all the church lessons, Sunday sermons, seminary classes, and temple sessions I've experienced, never once have I heard the law of chastity defined as, "Thou shalt pretend sex does not exist." It's not a sin to acknowledge the existence of sex, to talk about sex, to discuss sex, to write about sex, or--dare I say it?--even joke about sex. So when I do any of these things, why do so many of my fellow Saints look at me like I have sinned? As with most things in life, sex can be disrespected, defiled, abused, or wielded as a weapon to harm others. But the opposite of defilement is not silence; the opposite of abuse is not ignoring the existence of something. Chastity is not born of shame and embarrassment. Romantic love is the emotion; sex is the intimate expression thereof. The two are different, but inseparably connected. The goal of all romatic love is sex. Often the relationship may not work out, and the quest for the goal shortcircuited. But the goal was there nonetheless. Sex can be indulged in when there is no romantic love to express. Sex can be exploited for financial gain. Sex can be used as a form of violence. These things cheapen it, defile it. But in no rational logic system does it therefore follow that anyone who talks about it--even frankly--is sinning. Neither does it follow that anybody who ackowledges sex _and_ the abuses of it that humans indulge in, and writes about these things, is sinning. If his writing contributes to the cheapening of sex by itself being prurient and exploitative, then we're talking oranges. But if the writing merely expresses this form of human abuse without condoning it, that would be apples and is not comparable. Sex is as legitimate a topic of discussion and literature as any other human experience. I weary of the dread Mormons have of it, and wish I could read LDS literature that celebrates its wonders as well as warns of the dangers of abusing it--anything but ignore it. Certainly there are plenty of stories that can be told without sex in them. But I think there are few that can be told without the potential for sex being there, because that's what romantic love is, that's what the human condition is all about. Certainly I never go through a single day of my life without having romantic love and the expression thereof (sex) impact me one way or another. No, I don't have sex every day (I wish). But in some way the existence of sex affects my life each and every day. Therefore I find that a body of literature which pretends sex doesn't exist is a lie, and a pathetic one at that, since no one can possibly believe it from personal experience. Where is the virtue, the inspiration, in a lie? So let Disney make their "sex-laced" movies, and when they go too far for the young audience, like with Hunchback and Pocahontas, don't support it. But let's also talk about sex more in our lives, in our sermons, our discussions, and in our literature. Let's not hide from it, leaving all references to and images of sex to the world, thereby losing by default. I say, bring on the sex! It _is_ a gift of God, after all. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] Writing for Young Readers Workshop at BYU Date: 03 May 2002 08:27:29 -0600 The BYU Writing for Young Readers Workshop is coming up July 15-18. Workshop faculty include Tim Wynne-Jones, John H. Ritter, Alane Ferguson, Lael Littke, Eve Bunting, Tony Johnston, Laura Torres, Gloria Skurzynski, editors Karen Wojtyla and Tracy Gates, and agent Kendra Marcus. Registration information can be found at http://ce.byu.edu/cw/writing/index.htm. General Information This four-day workshop is designed for people who want to write for children or teenagers. In their daily four-hour morning writing workshops, participants will focus on a single market: picture books, book-length fiction (novels), or general writing. The afternoon workshop sessions will feature a variety of topics of interest to writers for all ages. Registration Check-in Registration Check-in will be Monday morning, July 15, from 8:00 to 9:00 in the BYU Conference Center. Mornings will be devoted to writing groups of 10 to 16 directed by an award-winning author. Writing group participants will share their writing with the group and receive revision feedback and writing instruction. Afternoons Afternoons will consist of 50-minute concurrent sessions on writing for publication. Presenters will include workshop authors and editors. Evenings Evenings will be open lab time in a BYU computer lab rented exclusively for workshop participants. A banquet on Thursday evening will be provided, with a presentation by Chris Crowe. All other meals will be on your own. Location The workshop will be held at the BYU Conference Center located on the corner of 900 East and University Parkway in Provo, Utah. Marny Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Wilderness Programs Date: 03 May 2002 09:22:49 -0600 [MOD: Please send replies about specific programs directly to Margaret. If you have more general comments about these programs, how they work, and connections with Mormon culture that might be appropriate to AML-List, feel free also to send a copy to me. If I think it passes the threshold, I'll go ahead and send it out generally.] Actually, I am just trying to ask a question on the list and find some ostensible link to Mormon letters. I'm pushing a little. But how about this one: Since Mormon writers have written about the environment so frequently, and John Bennion teaches a "Writing and the Wilderness" class at BYU, we seem to recognize the healing and inviting nature of--well, nature. So, in that thread of thought...there are all sorts of wilderness retreat programs aimed at troubled children. I spoke to a counsellor for one called "Second Nature. He said that the kids involved WRITE in their journals as part of the experience--and the leaders of this particular program used to be Mormon (there's the link). He also said the price of that retreat is really high (like $15,000). I have a precious, troubled teenager and think a wilderness program would benefit him tremendously. I think I've established the AML link adequately to at least pose the question. Do any of you have experience with the Anasazi Program in Arizona, or Red Cliff in St. George, or Second Nature in Duschesne? I realize that the actual conversation I want is likely not appropriate for the list, so feel free to e-mail me personally unless you can respond with something literary. I'd like to hear from people who aren't hired to sell their program, but who can just give me information. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 03 May 2002 13:14:55 -0400 It is still a hot emotional topic (clear cutting). We are in the process of buying a property in a heavily wooded area and were in a discussion on the pros and cons of clear cutting. As with so many things, it is a topic that people seem to take sides on, then do a lot of hollering at each other without really listening to the other side. I must admit being prejudice against clear cutting. I believe the scientific evidence presented is valid, though also with its biases. One problem is this idea of clear cutting so you can replant Douglas Fir. Well, very few forests are made up of one type of tree. And from my reading, forests are healthier with a mix of trees. Another, even given the "replant with Douglas firs" is that, at least in the past, so few companies did it. They clear cut. Left the hill. It caused major problems with runoff and so forth. Even if they did replant they didn't care for the land. Those little Douglas fir seedlings wouldn't stand a chance against the seeds and starts of faster growing trees, weeds, scrub and so forth. But, as Jonathan says, so few people want to listen to a tiatribe. Especially someone who has made up their mind on one side or the other of a heated issue. I think this is one of the values of fiction. A good author can write a mystery, adventure, romance, sci-fi, or novel with a back drop of a significant issue. Ann Perry's recent novel (sorry can't remember the title) touched on two significant issues--gambling, and racial issues. In my opinion, neither of these issues came off as preachy. She was telling a story. They were issues in the back ground. When I read books like this, that have issues that catch my attention, I can then go to other sources and learn. Tracie Laulusa ----- Original Message ----- > > I find the example of clear-cutting particularly interesting, since it > illustrates how quickly the emotional side of environmentalism and the > scientific side can diverge. > > Growing up in western Oregon, I remember attending a discussion of > clear-cutting, which was a hot topic back then. Many people were against > it, for the same sorts of reasons that Todd mentions: in part, the > outstanding ugliness of a clear-cut hillside. And yet... > > The scientists present at the meeting--including scientific > environmentalists, not only timber industry specialists--explained that if > you were going to log Douglas fir forests at all, the *best* way to do it > was to clear-cut, because it was only by clear-cutting that you could > create a situation where Douglas fir could be replanted. Young Douglas fir > need full sunlight. If you did spot-logging, you would get a temporarily > nicer effect, but there would be no potential for replanting. And so the > argument between informed environmentalist scientists and the timber > industry was not whether or not to clear-cut, but on where the > clear-cutting was to take place and how big the clear-cut patches were to > be. ---snip---- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] So. Cal. AML Brunch? Date: 03 May 2002 10:21:31 -0700 I'd love to meet, but won't be available till after 12 because I've got to teach SS. :) But if you'd like, I could whip up some German pancakes for everyone at my place at, say 12:30 or 1??.... Jana Remy Irvine, CA ----- Original Message ----- > Hey, I'll be in Anaheim on Sunday, May 12, with some time to kill. Anyone > handy to meet for a little AML brunch mid-morning? I think I'll have a car; > otherwise, I'll be staying at the Anaheim Hilton. > > Contact me at chris.bigelow@unicitynetwork.com. > > Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism Date: 03 May 2002 16:48:06 -0500 As I consider the position that all the resources of the Earth are the rightful heritage of us all, I'm reminded of a story about a women who went to her dress-maker to find just the right hat for a party. He thought for a moment, then measured out a length of ribbon and began to weave it into a delicate, fanciful hat. She watched entranced as the hat took shape, and clapped in delight when he finished it off. "Oh, Andre, it's wonderful! How much do I owe you?" "$300, madame," he replied. "Three hundred dollars!" her shocked reply, "just for a length of ribbon?!" Andre took the hat and carefully undid his graceful weaving and knots. When he finished he handed her the ribbon and said, "the ribbon, madame, is free." Mormon teachings are, of course, quite clear on the fact that the Earth and all it contains was created for all of us. It _is_ our joint heritage. The sand is free, but when you buy a computer, you want more than just sand. You want the skills and genius that turn it into the wonder of a microprocessor. I once bought a very expensive belt buckle and wondered why I'd spent so much for a mass of silver and fossilized bone. Then I considered the effort I'd expend to cut and polish the bone, to design and cast the buckle, and to wed bone to metal in graceful, seamless harmony. I didn't pay hundreds for metal and bone, but for talent and practice. So far as I own anything in this world, it's myself. If I write a novel or design a memory chip, I do it because I choose to, not because I'm compelled. The idea that I owe anyone an appendectomy or a gallon of gas is akin to the idea that I should write on command. We've discussed payment for art. Implicit in the discussion has been the idea that artists are free agents, and that if we want them to produce new art, we have to persuade them with money (though some will settle for fame and glory), government or private. How is an engineer different in that regard from an artist? And how about the person whose talent is to orchestrate the skills of teams of engineers and mathematicians to build airplanes, or to turn the work of scientists into greater harvest yields? I like the things these people come up with, and unless I want to swim to Paris or build my own computer or weave my own cloth, I'm happy to pay them to get me what I want when I want it. Not only do I not think Exxon isn't evil incarnate (or at least evil incorporate), I bless the memory of old man Rockefeller for organizing an industry that lets me live 250 miles from my parents and still visit them over a long weekend. He got fabulously rich from it, but he made me richer in the process. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 03 May 2002 18:05:49 -0600 I'm not interested in making my living with the Sugar Beet, Thom. It's fun. Work sucks, the Beet is fun. If I had to worry about my success with the Beet affecting my ability to adequately provide for my family, I'd be so stinking nervous... Also, according to our consulting attorney, once we make money people will be more like to try and sue us, which means we'd be more likely to censor ourselves. This way, it's still fun. For me, at least. Can't vouch for others. Money, says song writer, David Wilcox, is the "sex drug of rock and roll." Also, even King Benjamin worked in the fields along with his people. What makes LDS writers think they don't need to do the same? -- Todd -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] New Sugar Beet Date: 03 May 2002 16:45:05 -0600 "The Sugar Beet reports it, I believe it, and that settles it." http://www.thesugarbeet.com/ Keith Richards Objects to Posthumous Baptism Members Now Responsible for Temple Divorce Ordinance Loaves and Cheddar Fish Miracle Occurs in Nursery Nevada Man Wrecks Truck Trying to Avoid the Appearance of Evil New Foundation Seeks Origins of Scripture Tote Bags BYU Chosen for Survivor 2003 Vegas Win Attributed to Obeying Law of Tithing Cody Judy Disappointed in Church of Cody Judy General Conference Turnout Green Eggs and Ham Yields Evidence of Ancient Authorship Boston Resident Finally Convinces Coworkers He Has Only One Wife Scripture-Quality Edition of Work and the Glory to Be Released Plus our usual departments ----- If you have a Sugar Beet news tip, send it to chris@thesugarbeet.com. Not all submissions will be acknowledged. If you were forwarded this message and want to join the Sugar Beet update list, send your request with ADD in the subject header to chris@thesugarbeet.com. OPT OUT: To stop receiving Sugar Beet updates, reply to this message with REMOVE in the subject header. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 06 May 2002 12:06:54 -0700 Let me assure Thom, Larry and anyone else wondering if we at The Sugarbeet are hoping we'll eventually be making a living off this enterprise-not hardly. Most of the staff have "real jobs" in the "real world" and all of us hope we will be able to publish and make some money off our other individual writing projects. In the meantime, for me at least, The Sugarbeet is a labor of love and the accumulation of writing skills. Fame ain't bad, either. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Environmental Questionnaire Date: 03 May 2002 22:36:45 -0600 > Hi Alan, > > I am hoping you will post the answers. > > John M. > > > 1. Monday is a full moon. On the following Sunday, approximately what time > will the moon arise and what will it look like? The moon comes up about 50 minutes later every day. So in six days, it will come up about 5 hours after sunset, and will be close to a half moon. > 2. You want to design a house that will use solar orientation to raise heat > in the winter but not in the summer. What direction should your picture > windows face? South. In the winter, the solar angle is lower and lets heat in your window most of the day, in the summer, if you have eaves, the higher-angled sun will be shaded by the eaves. > 3. In the Northern hemisphere, approximately what day of the year has the > most solar radiation gain? Summer Soltice. June 21. It is not usually the hottest day because there is a time lag for the earth heating. > 4. El Nino, the shift in ocean currents that is linked to weather, occurs in > what ocean? South Pacific. There are other oceans and indices, but that it the big one. > 5. How long has the earth's temperature begun to gradually rise? About 10,000 years. Since the last ice age. > 6. At what depth is the soil darkest and why? In the top six inches, due to decaying plant and animal material that becomes the dark humus or organic matter of the soil. > 7. The Biosphere II project in Arizona in the 1980's put 6 people, animals, > plants, water, etc., in a closed atmosphere system to test the ability of > current science to live in a mostly self-sustaining environment. What was > the first problem with the ecosystem that they encountered and had to > corrected externally? The soil organic matter decay was underestimated and produced too much carbon dioxide. They had to ventilate the biosphere. BTW I can make a good case that most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution has been the result of soil organic matter oxidizing. > 8. Will the pressure exerted on a 50-foot high dam be the same whether the > water is backed up 100 miles or 100 feet? Yes. The pressure of the water 50 ft under the surface is the same whether it is in an ocean, an reservior, or under a pipe line. > 9. Has coyote population decreased in the Los Angeles Basin since its growth > skyrocketed this century? No, coyotes have done quite well in the semi-urban environment, increasing their numbers. > 10. Why do some farmers add lime (CaCO3) to their fields? To raise the pH (lower the acidity). Chemical fertilizers can gradually turn a soil acidic and infertile. However, in most of the state of Utah, there are large amounts of lime already in the soil, and fewer acidic soils. 11. What types of plants have symbiotic relationships with bacteria that transform nitrogen from the air into the most need planted nutrient? Legumes (beans, peas, alfalfa, clover, etc.) 12. Because predators rely on their prey for survival, will they diminish the prey population to the point where their own population declines? Yes, they are not good at planning. There are typically cycles in preditor/prey populations, not a balance of nature. 13. What single human practice could best address the largest evolutionary need of homo sapiens (to pass on cultural training) and solve the modern epidemic of STDs? I asked this question to my biology class and only received one answer that I was looking for--marriage. Most of the class mentioned education and social programs. I think that says lots about how we are conditioning our children. 14. If you say up all night watching the Big Dipper, which direction will it rotate around the North Star, or will it rotate at all? Rotates counter clockwise, like the sun appears to rotate relative to the North Star. 15. According to the complexity of systems (the Chaos butterfly effect), how far in advance can we predict weather with any confidence? Outside limit is about 2 weeks. 16. Which crop uses the most water to produce identical amounts of dry matter-wheat, grass, alfalfa? They are statistically the same. However, alfalfa produces more dry matter per year, thus using more water per year. Alfalfa, which is much maligned for using water, would win a contest of protein per water use. 17. The US produces huge quantities of corn (maize). Where does most of it go? Hogs, cattle, chickens. 18. Other than in national parks, are there any wild bear in the continental USA? Lots of black bear in the Pacific Northwest. Also in the Sierras. I don't know about the East. 19. What single 20th century endeavor has contributed the most to the proliferation of weeds worldwide? The Highway Systems. 20. Is the grazing of domestic animals sustainable over centuries? Yes. I'll provide other answers later. I don't want to bore you. I'm curious how well you did. Send me your scores. I give credit for partial answers. In reading more AML post of environmental issues, I think I'd better write a book. I say this because I think most of 'environmentalism' is arguing about a philosophy to manage the land--with little experience to draw on. Unfortunately, we Ph.D.s are not much help--e.g., I'm sure there are experts on both sides of the Goshute Nuc. Waste Storage Debate. Alan Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 03 May 2002 20:29:21 -0600 The biggest motivation for me to > get this theatre group going with Scott Bronson is so I can finally make > some money with all the plays I've written over the last decade or so. > > Thom Duncan > And I sincerely wish you and Scott fabulous success. I'm sure my wife and I will attend your theater several times--but not for my turn on earth. (Did I ever tell you how taken I was with Places in the Heart--I think that was the name of it.) Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Environmental Questionnaire Date: 03 May 2002 22:36:45 -0600 > Hi Alan, > > I am hoping you will post the answers. > > John M. > > > 1. Monday is a full moon. On the following Sunday, approximately what time > will the moon arise and what will it look like? The moon comes up about 50 minutes later every day. So in six days, it will come up about 5 hours after sunset, and will be close to a half moon. > 2. You want to design a house that will use solar orientation to raise heat > in the winter but not in the summer. What direction should your picture > windows face? South. In the winter, the solar angle is lower and lets heat in your window most of the day, in the summer, if you have eaves, the higher-angled sun will be shaded by the eaves. > 3. In the Northern hemisphere, approximately what day of the year has the > most solar radiation gain? Summer Soltice. June 21. It is not usually the hottest day because there is a time lag for the earth heating. > 4. El Nino, the shift in ocean currents that is linked to weather, occurs in > what ocean? South Pacific. There are other oceans and indices, but that it the big one. > 5. How long has the earth's temperature begun to gradually rise? About 10,000 years. Since the last ice age. > 6. At what depth is the soil darkest and why? In the top six inches, due to decaying plant and animal material that becomes the dark humus or organic matter of the soil. > 7. The Biosphere II project in Arizona in the 1980's put 6 people, animals, > plants, water, etc., in a closed atmosphere system to test the ability of > current science to live in a mostly self-sustaining environment. What was > the first problem with the ecosystem that they encountered and had to > corrected externally? The soil organic matter decay was underestimated and produced too much carbon dioxide. They had to ventilate the biosphere. BTW I can make a good case that most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution has been the result of soil organic matter oxidizing. > 8. Will the pressure exerted on a 50-foot high dam be the same whether the > water is backed up 100 miles or 100 feet? Yes. The pressure of the water 50 ft under the surface is the same whether it is in an ocean, an reservior, or under a pipe line. > 9. Has coyote population decreased in the Los Angeles Basin since its growth > skyrocketed this century? No, coyotes have done quite well in the semi-urban environment, increasing their numbers. > 10. Why do some farmers add lime (CaCO3) to their fields? To raise the pH (lower the acidity). Chemical fertilizers can gradually turn a soil acidic and infertile. However, in most of the state of Utah, there are large amounts of lime already in the soil, and fewer acidic soils. 11. What types of plants have symbiotic relationships with bacteria that transform nitrogen from the air into the most need planted nutrient? Legumes (beans, peas, alfalfa, clover, etc.) 12. Because predators rely on their prey for survival, will they diminish the prey population to the point where their own population declines? Yes, they are not good at planning. There are typically cycles in preditor/prey populations, not a balance of nature. 13. What single human practice could best address the largest evolutionary need of homo sapiens (to pass on cultural training) and solve the modern epidemic of STDs? I asked this question to my biology class and only received one answer that I was looking for--marriage. Most of the class mentioned education and social programs. I think that says lots about how we are conditioning our children. 14. If you say up all night watching the Big Dipper, which direction will it rotate around the North Star, or will it rotate at all? Rotates counter clockwise, like the sun appears to rotate relative to the North Star. 15. According to the complexity of systems (the Chaos butterfly effect), how far in advance can we predict weather with any confidence? Outside limit is about 2 weeks. 16. Which crop uses the most water to produce identical amounts of dry matter-wheat, grass, alfalfa? They are statistically the same. However, alfalfa produces more dry matter per year, thus using more water per year. Alfalfa, which is much maligned for using water, would win a contest of protein per water use. 17. The US produces huge quantities of corn (maize). Where does most of it go? Hogs, cattle, chickens. 18. Other than in national parks, are there any wild bear in the continental USA? Lots of black bear in the Pacific Northwest. Also in the Sierras. I don't know about the East. 19. What single 20th century endeavor has contributed the most to the proliferation of weeds worldwide? The Highway Systems. 20. Is the grazing of domestic animals sustainable over centuries? Yes. I'll provide other answers later. I don't want to bore you. I'm curious how well you did. Send me your scores. I give credit for partial answers. In reading more AML post of environmental issues, I think I'd better write a book. I say this because I think most of 'environmentalism' is arguing about a philosophy to manage the land--with little experience to draw on. Unfortunately, we Ph.D.s are not much help--e.g., I'm sure there are experts on both sides of the Goshute Nuc. Waste Storage Debate. Alan Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] D. Michael QUINN, _Elder Statesman: A Biography of J. Reuben Clark_ (Review) Date: 05 May 2002 15:47:44 -0700 Review ====== Title: Elder Statesman -- A Biography of J. Reuben Clark Author: D. Michael Quinn Publisher: Signature Books Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 629, including notes and index Binding: Hardback ISBN: 1-56085-155-4 Price: $49.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle (A disclaimer first -- Quinn is a friend, and any time a reviewer covers a work of a personal friend, I think this should be disclosed. I trust this friendship has not impeded my ability to render an honest review.) Okay, true confession time. I have a love/love relationship with Quinn's books. As much as I love getting a new volume, and as much as I love getting into it, I am equally glad to finally be done with it. Which is to say that anyone familiar with Quinn and his writing will know that casual reading will not suffice. Focus, focus, focus. Happily, one can segregate the actual text from his legendary footnotes -- the present volume contains 428 pages of text. The balance is composed of notes, notes, more notes, and an index. Of course, this reflects Quinn's exhaustive research methods, the importance he sees in sourcing and attributing nearly every thought in his narrative. Some have questioned his use of sources; others are uncomfortable with what they perceive as agenda-driven history. I'm comfortable that his use of sources in this work is substantially accurate. "Elder Statesman" is the fascinating story of the enigmatic J. Reuben Clark. As one who served in both secular and sacred administrations, he had a unique opportunity to observe the workings of the U.S. government, where he clearly formed his own form of legalism, carrying it into his calling as counselor to the President of the Church. The origin of this volume is a story in itself: In July 1993 Brigham Young University Press legally assigned to me "the copyright and publication rights" of "the complete book" titled "J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years." It emphasized the activities that followed Reuben's years of service as U.S. Undersecretary of State and U.S. ambassador to Mexico. This was my first book, which BYU published ten years earlier. It has long been out of print. Before the book went to press and after Reuben's children approved a preliminary manuscript, the LDS First Presidency appointed two apostles to give final approval to a revised version before its 1983 publication. BYU administrator Robert K. Thomas relayed "suggested changes" to me in 1982 following his consultation with elders Howard W. Hunter and Thomas S. Monson. So that it could be an officially approved biography, I made numerous deletions and revisions in my first draft. (vii.) You get the idea. And Quinn's readers will understand what happened here. Having done a thorough job of investigating the life of J. Reuben Clark, he discovered some aspects of Clark's life which Elders Hunter and Monson thought were better not explored in this venue. As a biographer, I admired much of J. Reuben Clark's views as I became acquainted with them while researching his papers. I was unable to say in the draft written for official approval that I was also appalled by other ideas which he expressed frequently and emphatically. I state my dissenting biases now. As a lifelong Democrat and left-wing liberal, I disagreed with Clark's Republicanism and conservative political philosophy. As an advocate for an open marketplace of diverse and conflicting ideas (even at BYU), I disagreed with his decades of anti-intellectual emphasis. Although he and fellow travelers regarded "liberal" and "intellectual" as labels of dishonor or disrespect, I have always regarded them as worthy qualities in religious people. I was also extremely offended by his racial attitudes and anti-Semitism. (xi.) And so the scene is set -- after so many years, Quinn now has the opportunity to produce the volume he wanted to bring forth at first. And what a volume it is. Let's consider the contents: In Chapter One, "The Waste Places of Zion ... The Rivers of Babylon," Quinn hurries us through a brief survey of Clark's childhood, early education, and subsequent service to the Federal government. This period, after all, is not the focus of this book. An entire volume could be written on Clark as a national figure. And, in fact, his life training while serving his country became an important formative period for his service to the Church. Much of the bureaucratic pedantry of government life found its way into his service in the Kingdom of God. This would bring him into conflict with some of his fellow servants. Chapter Two, "Differences of Administration," surveys some of these conflicts, or better, differences in how one leads a people. It is here, as in so many places in this book, that Quinn betrays a fondness and admiration for Clark. Despite Clark's many failings -- and they are documented thoroughly in later chapters -- Quinn still writes: He lacked previous church administrative experience but often awed his associates in the presiding councils at LDS headquarters. Every church leader has his own strengths, but he brought to the First Presidency an administrative style that was the distillation of twenty-five years of association, service, and negotiation with the highest leaders of business, national government, and international diplomacy. As a shrewd judge of men, President [Heber J.] Grant was confident in April 1933 that he "will be a very great help in directing the affairs of the Church." The new counselor did not disappoint him. J. Reuben Clark had distinguished himself as a notable civil servant and he would become an extraordinary LDS leader. (p. 55) Chapters Three, Four and Five document Clark's service to three Presidents -- Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, and David O. McKay, respectively. These chapters document a fascinating and complex relationship between a man of strong personality and unshakeable beliefs, and the men he served under and with. Clark would often see trends in the Church which he thought were damaging. But in the end, he was always loyal to his President. He understood this loyalty to be a pre-eminent quality of any person in a leadership position. The transition from the Smith presidency to that of McKay is particularly poignant. Under Smith, Clark served as First Counselor, McKay as Second Counselor. While close friends, Clark and McKay frequently had differing views on matters concerning church administration. These differences created a situation where many in leadership found themselves being described as either Clark men or McKay men. Pres. Smith seemed to favor Clark's views, producing some resentment in Pres. McKay. The issue [hard feelings between McKay and Clark] might have seemed resolved when President Smith died in 1951, leaving Elder McKay as senior apostle and automatic president of the church. But President McKay brooded about the upcoming reorganization of the First Presidency and his choice of counselors. It was generally expected that he would advance his closest friend among the authorities, Stephen L. Richards, but everyone expected him to be second counselor. McKay knew that was the expectation of others, but he could not endure the thought of putting his closest friend in the same situation he himself had endured for sixteen and a half years. Richards had more than seventeen years of seniority over Clark as an apostle. Moreover, Richard shared President McKay's administrative expansiveness, optimism, and other views which were foreign to Reuben. (p. 144) In this way, Clark became Second Counselor to Pres. McKay. This was seen by many as a demotion, and created some ill-will toward McKay. Later, as Clark himself was called upon to announce the reorganization of the First Presidency, with his own demotion, he was able to do so in a controlled and dignified manner. Later he would confide to his family how difficult it was to do this without his voice breaking. (As a side note, Quinn's observations of McKay's often erratic and inconsistent administrative style add a dimension to our knowledge of this President. It's really quite remarkable.) But Clark, true to his commitment to loyalty, accepted the "demotion" with a sense of resignation and even gratitude for the opportunity to continue to serve the Church in this manner. He well knew that Richards was a McKay man, and so the appointment could not have been such a surprise. The chapter on the McKay years ends with Clark's death. Beginning with Chapter 6, "Ministering to the Saints," Quinn retraces Clark's life as a Church leader thematically, covering such issues as his commitment to the Church welfare program, his generally open-handed approach to those in need, and his appreciation, although narrow in scope, for the arts, including poetry and classical music. Chapter 7, "By Study and Also By Faith," reveals one of the many enigmatic sides to J. Reuben Clark. While appreciating learning and the pursuit of knowledge, he saw no role for education at BYU that did not advance the cause of the gospel. Throughout his life, J. Reuben Clark had ambivalent attitudes about the interplay between the life of the mind and the life of faith. He treasured the world of "facts" but recognized their insufficiency as a way of life. He was an avid reader and researcher but was convinced that a total commitment to intellectual inquiry led inevitably to atheism. He urged the primacy of faith but was uncomfortable with overly spiritual people. He expected others to consider his pleas to abandon their inadequate secular and religious positions, but he declined to read anything that was contrary to his own views. He was appalled by the confidence of the ignorant and suspicious of the smugness of the intellectual. He was a living example of higher education but preferred limited education in LDS colleges and at Brigham Young University. He defended total freedom of thought but frequently decided that censorship was necessary. He relied on the scriptures for doctrine but resisted doctrinal dogmatism. Prior to becoming a general authority, he had rejected unquestioning obedience to decisions of the LDS president. As a First Presidency counselor, he urged unquestioning obedience to the prophet, while reminding everyone that the church president could also be mistaken. As a private person and as a member of the First Presidency, he sought a conservative balance between the imperatives of reason and revelation. (p. 202) Clark understood the idea of "necessary censorship," and he assigned this role to the Presidency of the Church. Thus, when several influential volumes were published (Joseph Fielding Smith's "Man, His Origin and Destiny" and Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine") without ecclesiastical approval, Clark expressed his opposition. Quite apart from the questionable content of these volumes, they were published without the imprimatur of the Presidency (and even against their direct wishes), and this was sufficient to qualify them for censure. Clark's complex relationship with the intellectual community is exemplified in the following excerpt: ...there were limits to the pressures he [Clark] was willing to exert against Mormon intellectuals. When Apostle [Mark E.] Petersen asked for permission to excommunicate those he suspected of having disloyal and apostate attitudes, "Pres. Clark cautioned that they ought to be careful about the insubordination or disloyalty question, because they ought to be permitted to think, you can't throw a man off for thinking." (p. 210) It was, after all, the acting that put a man in danger, not the thinking. And this acting, in Clark's view, related mainly to one's willingness to place oneself under the stewardship of the leaders of the Church. Chapter 8 is titled "Mark Them Which Cause Divisions and Offenses." President Clark expressed a certain amount of toleration for LDS members who had "disloyal thoughts" and probed doctrinal mysteries he thought should be left alone. However, he was an unrelenting critic and administrative opponent of those who violated the priesthood "rule and order of the Church" or who taught things that undermined what he perceived as the simple, orthodox gospel of Christ. He did not see himself as a witch-hunter or Grand Inquisitor and publicly condemned the historical policy of Roman Catholicism to "attack and follow up all heretics." (p. 228) Clark perceived the introduction of such new disciplines as Higher Criticism of the Bible as a destabilizing influence on the Church, and thus expressed deep opposition. His own attempts at scholarly writing in this area, most notably his "Why The King James Version," reveal his own myopic view of scholarship. This book needs no attack from me -- others have treated this at length. And there was no shortage of those who "cause divisions." Quinn mentions just a few, including Mormon fundamentalism and its emphasis on Plural Marriage, creeping socialism in both governmental and Church programs (Clark was deeply opposed to Roosevelt's New Deal), and the Communist threat that swept America. But Quinn ends this chapter thusly: To that list, one must appropriately and necessarily add that J. Reuben Clark was a watchman on the tower of Zion. He raised a warning voice to the Latter-day Saints abut dangers he perceived to religious and secular spheres. In that capacity, he often found it necessary to "mark them which cause divisions and offenses." (p. 276) Once again, while clearly disapproving of Clark's agenda, Quinn admires the man's sense of duty. This trait pervades Quinn's book. Chapter 9, "They That Take Up The Sword," discusses Clark's attitude toward war and pacifism. This is a complex part of the story, as Clark wavers between complete pacifism and moderate support of America's defensive actions. What complicates his situation is his seeming admiration and support of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi program in Germany. As Hitler's armies swept Europe and headed toward Russia, Clark raised nary an objection. Much of this can be attributed to his anti-semitism, which will be documented later. His stand on war and peace often brought him into conflict with his fellow churchmen. But Clark remained steadfast in his insistence that America stay out of the European conflict. And once America was involved, he extended this to a conviction that the Church should not be perceived as being supportive of the war. He declined requests to use the Tabernacle and the Choir as backdrops for patriotic enterprises, suggesting they use the Capitol building instead. He likewise opposed American involvement in the United Nations, seeing this institution as threatening the sovereignty of the United States. Chapter 10, "All Nations, and Kindreds, and People, and Tongues," was perhaps the most difficult for me to read. Here we find what might be called the seamier side of J. Reuben Clark. I shall focus on just two groups, the Jews and the blacks. Here his views are most pointed. As a Jew, I found his views utterly contemptible: There was one group...for whom Reuben expressed lifelong dislike and distrust -- the Jewish people. In a 1942 letter to Herbert Hoover, he said the Jews "are brilliant, they are able, they are unscrupulous, and they are cruel." Part of this explanation for his anti-Semitism was personal and part political. He expressed contempt for "the foul sewage of Europe" in his 1898 valedictory, yet Mormons had traditionally gotten along very well with the small population of Jews in Utah. (p. 325) He never passed up an opportunity to express his contempt for Jews. After serving more than ten years in the First Presidency, he wrote, "I long ago ceased reading his [Walter Lippmann's] stuff, because he veers like a weather-vane, but I am sure always true when the wind blows from Jew-ward." (p. 328) In February 1941, the "New York Times" reported that Berlin's Nazi Party newspaper referred to the necessity of "eliminating all Jews." This was an echo of the LDS newspaper's headline in 1938, "Death for 700,000 Jews Threatened: Semites Must Get Out or Die, Nazis Declare." Even this stark Utah report gave less than one-tenth of Adolf Hitler's goal of killing every Jew in Europe. During the balance of 1941 and increasingly thereafter, newspapers in every major American city reported specific examples of the mass execution of Jews throughout Nazi-controlled Europe. In apparent response to such reports, LDS author N.L. Nelson wrote a book against Hitler in the early months of 1941 and referred to the Nazi "butchery" of the Jews. In his June reply to Nelson's manuscript, Reuben defended Hitler and added, "There is nothing in their history which indicates that the Jewish race have either free-agency or liberty. 'Law and order' are not facts for the Jews." (p. 335) Clark's attitudes toward blacks was equally reprehensible. Along with others of his time, he opposed intermarriage and supported the common practice of segregating blood supplies in hospitals, to ensure that no white person would be infused with blood from a black person, and thus either invalidate his priesthood or disqualify him from future priesthood. But as time progressed, so did his attitude toward blacks. As the Church extended its missionary efforts into South America, and determining blood lines became more difficult, he came to something of an accommodation in the case of some Brazilians, even wondering whether we could not work out a plan, while not conferring the Priesthood as such upon them, we could give them opportunity to participate in the work certainly of the Aaronic Priesthood grades. (p. 354) His vision of an enlarged priesthood exceeded that of Brigham Young's. He saw a time when black would hold full priesthood privileges (and not necessarily subject to Young's prediction that this would not happen until every worthy white male received priesthood). No such growth is seen in his attitude toward Jews. He remained a steadfast anti-semite until his death. And in the case of blacks and other racial minorities, Clark argued for the civil rights of such folk, without also arguing their spiritual equality. Quinn ends this chapter in much the same way he ends other chapters. But in this case, I was disturbed: J. Reuben Clark was clearly a product of the nineteenth century. He alternately accepted and resisted the twentieth century's changing views of race and ethnicity. But supreme to him were the majesty of the law, the principle of justice for all humanity, and the expansiveness of the latter-day gospel. (p. 360) Given Clark's refusal to condemn the attempted extermination of the Jews by Nazi Germany, it seems that his view of "justice for all humanity" was somewhat constricted. I would have appreciated this exception being noted in Quinn's too-broad, in my view, statement. Chapter 11, "Precious Things of Every Kind and Art," discuss Clark's restrictive view, and love, of the arts. Quinn describes is views as "common." I thought this chapter interesting but ultimately unimportant. Chapter 12, "The Welfare of This People," discusses Clark's passion for the Church Welfare system. J. Reuben Clark entered the First Presidency during the worst economic crisis in American history. He devoted a major part of his attention to the financial stability of the LDS church. These efforts are often identified with the Welfare Plan, as indicated by Harold B. Lee's eulogy, "Perhaps there was nothing closer to his heart during 28 years of his Presidency than the Welfare Program." (p. 377) Quinn offers an informative survey of the various economic programs of the Church, including the United Order and the Law of Consecration. Their failures pointed to the need for a wider understanding of finances and cooperation in the Church. But in a time of deep depression, these issues came into sharp focus. In this area he was in constant conflict with the Church itself. The 1928 "Handbook of Instructions" specified that the responsibility for aiding needy members fell first on their families, second on county relief agencies, and third, as a last resort, on the church. (p. 382) Clark's deep distrust of government welfare programs flew in the face of this order. He urged the Church to take responsibility for the welfare of the Saints ahead of any government program, local or national. But the Church did not possess sufficient resources to meet this need. His opposition to state-sponsored welfare was matched by his passion for developing Church programs that would ultimately enable the Church to meet these needs. Much opposition arose. Some thought Clark's programs were the first step toward a return to the United Order, although Clark did not see his programs in this light. Quinn ends the narrative portion of the book with some appreciative words about Clark's life and legacy. Now, I will answer a key question: did I research every note to make sure Quinn used his citations in their proper context? No. Did I even read the notes section? No. I consulted a few, but did not read every one. As with all Quinn books, I keep two bookmarks -- one marking the place where I'm currently reading, the other marking the beginning of the notes section. As I have to budget my reading time, I can only gauge my true progress in this manner. "Elder Statesman" is a massive, and impressive work. Quinn spares no effort in researching and developing his themes. Happily, he was given access to boxes of personal correspondence and unpublished writings, giving him a private insight into Clark that would not be possible through his public persona. And, as mentioned several times, there is an unmistakable admiration for the man that marks the book as a whole. I struggled with this -- how can Quinn, whose world-view is nearly diametrically opposed to Clark's, stand back and appreciate the man himself? I decided that Quinn's view was not so much pure admiration, but rather celebration -- a celebration of the life of a deeply conflicted, seriously flawed man who sidestepped his shortcomings and accomplished great things. Clark somehow found a way to accommodate his provincial, often racist, views with his wider desire for the welfare and happiness of society. Such contentious views are difficult to hold in tandem. Clark somehow found a way. I highly recommend this book to every serious scholar of Mormon history. Clark's life covers a pivotal period in the development of the Church, and Quinn's book offers a panoramic view of the world as it encircled the life of J. Reuben Clark. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com or jeffneedle@nethere.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism Date: 05 May 2002 22:46:49 -0700 > I often wonder what an LDS Steinbeck or or George Orwell or Nadine > Gordimer or Chinua Achebe or Simon Ortiz might be like--social writers > who write wonderful stories but also illuminate the human condition in > response to extreme economic and social forces. > Todd Robert Petersen I would *love* to become an LDS George Orwell. I don't have the cojones to live in the Paris slums long enough to get TB, though. I do, however, want to write about all the stuff Todd mentioned in his post. While I'm just starting with some SF, I have a novel (non-SF) in my head centred around the nasty debate around the 'treaty referendum' in British Columbia (google it), and a non-fiction book in my head about politics, globalisation, corporatisation, and how the only thing important in the world now is money, with the importance of people being relegated to even less than an afterthought. My only serious question w.r.t. this last book is, how Mormon do I make it? I could just do it all secular, or I could crib enough from the Doctrine and Covenants, with liberal quotes from Brigham Young, and make it a Mormon-rant-against-the-dollar=Mammon. The former would perhaps lead to more 'regular bookstore' sales, the latter would stir up more than enough controversy to get some interesting results from Mormondom.... Oh well, I oughtta write the blooming thing first, though, eh? And that after finishing and sending off the three SF stories I've done to see if anyone buys 'em. Robert ********************************************************************** Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too 'Man is that he might have joy--not guilt trips.' (Russell M. Nelson) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 06 May 2002 03:48:20 -0500 A question on this topic, which maybe somebody can turn into a story or essay: Many, if not most, environmentalists seem to think that the ultimate cause of all environmental problems is overpopulation. In particular, they say that there are already too many humans on Earth. How do LDS environmentalists reconcile that with the Church's emphasis on families? -- Ronald W. ("Ronn") Blankenship mailto: ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 06 May 2002 03:55:54 -0500 At 03:02 AM 5/2/02, D. Michael Martindale wrote: >Thom Duncan wrote: > > > > "To carry on with Eric's dragging of this discussion back to Mormon Arts > > and Letters... I feel constrained to point out that Sunstone, Irreantum, > > the Sugarbeet... (not funded or legitimized by the Church) > > produce/publish good edgy mormon art." > > > > And how many of the artists involved in those ventures get paid for their > > efforts? > >Precisely the point--good art can still happen even without funding. IOW, they aren't called "starving artists" for no reason . . . -- Ronald W. ("Ronn") Blankenship mailto: ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Talent Search: Actor for Joseph Smith Date: 06 May 2002 11:53:07 -0600 On Fri, 03 May 2002 01:12:34 -0600, D. Michael Martindale wrote: >> The actor chosen to portray this role must be of high moral >> character in his personal life as well as on screen. > >"In his personal life" I understand, but "on screen" absolutely baffles >me. How is the actor going to lead an immoral life on screen? At least >without the director and editor being in cahoots with him. > That sounds like a very awkward way of saying the actor shouldn't have portrayed any immoral acts or characters in his previous film work. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: [AML] Church News Articles Date: 05 May 2002 23:13:29 -0700 In the most recent issue of The Church News there were a couple of notable articles. One is particularly noteworthy around the recent thread of Sharing Experiences. It is titled "Mackenzies's dance" "A Young Woman's Battle With Eating Disorders" "Family Hopes Her Story Will Help Others" The byline is by Sarah Jane Weaver, staff writer. It is a long article taking almost three full pages with sidebars included. But what really stands out about this article is it's brutal honesty. It is not a feel good article and the pain portrayed is still fresh. The subject of the article, Mackenzie Fullmer died Feb. 11, 2002 after a three year battle with eating disorders, she was only 18. The article chronicles things her family think contributed to it, statistics, the problems with finding competent treatment programs and the batttles with insurance and what happens when it runs out and you child still needs treatment and the incredible amount of their own money her parents spent to get her help. There is an interesting quote from her mother Shari, "It just had a hold on her-she couldn't break free. We blamed ballet and still do. We blamed the insurance company and still do. We blamed the media and still do. We blamed our society and still do. We blamed ourselves and still do." They go on to talk about the intense pressure their daughter felt to excel. They even had one of the men who gave their daughter a priesthood blessing say afterwards that he did think the trial was over. No happy talk about any of this and no fudging about the spiral this young woman descended into and how helpless her family and friends felt. Considering the level of perfectionism we Latter-day Saints put on ourselves and each other and how frustrating it is having a family member with medical challenges and trying to find the right treatment, I found this to be a timely article and unusually frank for The Church News. The other article has a happier ending. It is about a Seminary teacher who donated one of his kidneys to one of his students. The challenge for this young man's family is the fact that he is adopted and unable to be matched to any of his family members. The article does well to document the decision process the donor went through with study, prayer and practical considerations, but I wished it would have also emphasized the difficulty it is to find a non-related living donor, the chances of him having been a match were low. Even between people who are related, first cousins for instance, the chances of being a compatible match are only about 10 %. The teacher even being a suitable match is a minor miracle in and of itself. It even has some added drama with the young man having an allergic reaction to the anesthesia and the kidney not functioning at first. I would highly recommend these two articles. The link is: www.ldschurchnews.com Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Disney Morals? Date: 06 May 2002 12:51:51 -0600 ___ Kellene ___ | Without knowing that the statement came from Clark, I would | have bet money that it almost certainly came from a man! :-) | (how's that for a stereotypical statement.) | | There is absolutely a very real distinction between romance | and sex. ___ Let us be clear that sex as sexuality is not the same as sex as "coitus" or related acts. Unfortunately our society tends to confuse that more than a little. Even for men sexuality is primarily a psychology. That's why you see so many sexual images in the media. That only works because of the psychological aspects of sexuality, even for men. Yet it involves nothing of what you designate as sex. While I certainly don't deny that there are important differences between male and female sexuality, the fact is that for both it is primarily psychological rather than just a certain set of physical acts. But this psychological aspect is by that fact very "literary." (That literary aspect is what allowed Freud and others to develop psychoanalytic approaches which really are nothing more than literary criticism of narratives given by patients) Further this literary aspect of sex is *always* about relationships. What does this mean? Well "romance" is simply one form of sexual relating. Further it is one that emphasizes the psychological communication over the more physical communication. Romance is a kind of story telling in which I act out a narrative to my partner which they "read" and then interpret in a fairly sexual manner. Don't agree? Ask yourself whether you'd look at romance the same way before and after puberty. Further romance is couched in very socially defined literary types, tropes and settings. While there are common features in all civilizations, the fact is that we tend to adopt our stories from other stories. Allow me a recent example. I took a date out to a rooftop overlooking the city with some romantic music and dance under the stars, I've constructed a kind of narrative. Why is that romantic? Because of my and my date's familiarity with other literature (both acted and written) that is romantic - which deals with sexual relationships. Now in that date there was nothing really that overtly sexual. Other than a bit of kissing, all the sexual elements were primarily narrative rather than relating to what we might call the base biology of sexuality. Even in the animal kingdom though you'll find this kind of narration tied to sexuality. (And thus it probably isn't purely separably from biology) When a female songbird judges a mate on the basis of their song, we are speaking of a kind of romantic relationship. Obviously it is not as complex as our own romances, but a romance nonetheless. Yet that narrative is not yet the sexual act. But it is sexual. Further what the female bird is doing is judging the male on its narrative skill. So when you later give the example of a marriage "that has plenty of romance, and there's not an iota of sex in it" you really are wrong. Not is saying that there is plenty of romance. Rather you are wrong in saying that there isn't any sex in it. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: RE: [AML] Utah Arts Grants Date: 06 May 2002 13:45:55 -0600 >>> Chris.Bigelow@UnicityNetwork.com 05/01/02 04:03PM >>> > >The panel members making the grant decisions this year include the >following. I've made a few annotations--anyone know anything more? >Lisa Bickmore, 3303 W 7675 S, West Jordan, UT 84084-3660 Lisa Orme Bickmore is a professor of English at Salt Lake Community College. She has published in scholarly and literary journals, received a Utah Arts Council award for poetry, and was an invited guest participant in the prestigeous Westminster College poetry series. She reads regularly at CityArts and elsewhere. She and her husband, John McCormick, live in Salt Lake City. (From the web page for her book, _Haste: Poems_ <>) MBA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 06 May 2002 13:58:16 -0600 > Also, even King Benjamin worked in the fields along with his people. > What makes LDS writers think they don't need to do the same? Most of us do, I suspect. But if the tax money I've paid out over the years can come back to me in some form of an arts grant, I'd be nuts not to take it. If I could make a living off my art, I'm more likely to be able to do more art. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 06 May 2002 14:01:26 -0600 > of writing skills. Fame ain't bad, either. At first, I suppose it is. Talk to me in twenty years when all you still have is fame. I suspect you will think differently. I remember the thrill I had when my first novel was published in 1990. I saw it in the bookstores. How cool. Ten years later, the book hasn't sold out its original printing. Fame? Hah! Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 06 May 2002 13:29:43 -0600 <<< We have a double standard toward sex in the LDS culture. I don't mean the double standard that insists women remain chaste and modestly dressed, while men do what they want. I'm talking about the lip service we give to the doctrine that sex is a precious thing, a gift of God, the "very key" of the plan of salvation as Boyd K. Packer once said in a General Conference speech that was adapted to a filmstrip for seminary students. But when it comes to our actions, we show that we still buy into the old Protestant notion that sex is a dirty necessity. >>> Here's my take on it, from my missionary memoir: For me, Mormonism had started clicking into place during a missionary preparation class across the street from the University of Utah. One afternoon the instructor asked us, "What is our most basic, fundamental doctrine, the concept everything else is built on?" Someone raised his hand and said, "Faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost." "Yes, those are the first principles of the gospel, but go deeper," the instructor said. A woman who was leaving the next week for Taiwan said, "Proclaim the gospel, perfect the members, and redeem the dead?" "The threefold mission of the church is central," the instructor said. "But that's not the core doctrine." I raised my hand, and the instructor nodded at me. "Jesus is our savior?" "Yes, of course he's crucial. Nothing would be possible without him. But the Savior and all these other things are the means to an end. What is that end?" "I know," said a man with several empty piercings visible in his ears. "We are the literal offspring of God." "Bingo," said the instructor. "The prophet Lorenzo Snow said it best: 'As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become.' That's the essence of Mormonism. People think it's blasphemous to say we can eventually become like Heavenly Father. But I think it's blasphemous to say Jesus suffered and died for anything less." The instructor put a cartoon on the overhead projector of a man sitting on a cloud with wings, a halo, and a harp. The caption said I wish I brought a magazine. "That says it all," the instructor said. "No one but us really understands the purpose of life and what we'll be doing in the afterlife." As I listened, I decided that despite Mormonism's bland exterior, deep down it was a cool religion. The offspring of giraffes grew up to be giraffes. The offspring of mosquitoes grew up to be mosquitoes. The offspring of God grew up to be gods. Duh. "The thing is, the Savior clearly states this so-called blasphemous doctrine right in the Bible," the instructor said. "'Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Heavenly Father is perfect.' If you look up the word perfect, it means to bring to final form, to satisfy all requirements, to faithfully reproduce the original. It also means to be sexually mature and fully differentiated, which is what Heavenly Father and Mother are on an eternal scale. Jesus is clearly telling us to become like Heavenly Father-not just telling us, commanding us. Who can remind us what it means to become like Heavenly Father?" The Taiwan woman spoke up again. "It means having trillions of spirit children and creating planets where they can be tested. But I have a question. I heard someone say the Holy Ghost is really Heavenly Mother. It makes sense she'd want to whisper to her own children and comfort them." "Oh, Pamela," the instructor said, holding up his hands as if to block her. "That is not what we believe. That is an apostate doctrine. Please don't teach it to anybody." Pamela folded her arms across her chest. Her idea sounded appealing to me. Why didn't we ever hear anything about Heavenly Mother? Surely God didn't just keep her barefoot and pregnant all the time, with no higher role. I tried to imagine what kind of human being God had been during his test on some earthlike planet, perhaps one where the sky was green and chlorophyll was blue. I pictured him as a humble farmer in a pre-industrial civilization. Soon after that class session, I stumbled across a revelatory Mark Twain passage in one of my literature classes across the street. After visiting Utah, Twain had mocked polygamy and called the Book of Mormon "chloroform in print." However, in a literature anthology with pages as thin as scripture, I found excerpts from Twain's Letters from the Earth that made me fully understand what Mormonism really meant. In a letter describing earthly human life to his heavenly friends, Twain's undercover archangel wrote: He has imagined a heaven, and has left entirely out of it the supremest of all his delights, the one ecstasy that stands first and foremost in the heart of every individual of his race-and of ours-sexual intercourse! The very thought of it excites him; opportunity sets him wild; in this state he will risk life, reputation, everything-even his queer heaven itself-to make good that opportunity and ride it to the overwhelming climax. From youth to middle age all men and women prize copulation above all other pleasures combined, yet it is actually as I have said: it is not in their heaven, prayer takes its place. The archangel added a comment about how inferior mortal sex was: At its very best and longest the act is brief beyond imagination-the imagination of an immortal, I mean. In the matter of repetition the man is limited-oh, quite beyond immortal conception. We who continue the act and its supremest ecstasies unbroken and without withdrawal for centuries, will never be able to understand or adequately pity the awful poverty of these people in that rich gift which, possessed as we possess it, makes all other possessions trivial and not worth the trouble of having. It all fell into place: Mortality gave everyone a test drive of sexual powers, but only Mormonism opened the way for sex in the afterlife. Mormonism was spiritual Darwinism, survival of the fittest on an eternal scale. Unless a person recognized that Mormonism held the keys of the expanding universe and faithfully lived its principles, he or she would not enter the eternal gene pool. Those who didn't get sealed in the temple with a spouse and fully tap into Christ's atonement would be "ministering angels," the equivalent of nannies and housekeepers for those who earned the opportunity to keep procreating. I imagined that, somewhere in the spirit world, Mark Twain had already accepted at least one of the numerous proxy baptisms probably already performed for him. As for the Australians, how could they possibly resist Mormonism's logic after hearing the real story? <<< I think the debate over the difference between romantic love and sex comes from this suspicious attitude. Many on this list have wished, with a weariness that comes through in their words, that they could read a book or watch a movie without sex always intruding. I feel somewhat differently about this. I grow weary of the suspicion Mormons have about sex. >>> One of the main reasons why John Updike is perhaps my favorite writer is that he always folds in some healthy realism about sex (it's often immoral sex, but it still reflects human reality). I was quite delighted when, in an Updike interview published in WRITER magazine last year, he referred to that very same Twain quote I included above. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] British Copyeditor Needed Date: 06 May 2002 14:16:58 -0600 A friend of mine is looking for a British copyeditor. The person does not have to live in Utah County, but she would prefer someone who is British so they definitely know all the spelling and lingo preferences. Please contact her directly at Janell Aslett [jaslett@myfamilyinc.com]. She sounded like it's fairly urgent, so don't delay. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 06 May 2002 16:00:43 -0600 ---Original Message From: D. Michael Martindale > I'll never forget the sacrament meeting where a woman speaker > was raised in a home with "an open attitude toward S-E-X." > It's one of those times I wished chapel pews came equipped > with seatbelts, because I nearly fell out of mine. She was > raised with an open attitude about sex, but couldn't bring > herself to utter the word in sacrament meeting. Couldn't? You have no evidence that she couldn't bring herself to utter the word in sacrament meeting. Being comfortable about discussing sex doesn't mean you should feel free to discuss it in any forum imaginable. Sacrament meeting is a good example of a situation where it is inappropriate to discuss sex, not because the topic is dirty or shameful, but because it is simply an inappropriate setting. I don't consider the temple endowment dirty or shameful, but I don't think sacrament meeting is an appropriate setting for discussing it, either. With sex, even uttering the word can be inappropriate depending on the circumstances because of the weight and intimacy of the topic. > Doesn't that > just sum up the suspicious attitude Mormons have toward sex? > > We have a double standard toward sex in the LDS culture. I > don't mean the double standard that insists women remain > chaste and modestly dressed, while men do what they want. I'm > talking about the lip service we give to the doctrine that > sex is a precious thing, a gift of God, the "very key" of the > plan of salvation as Boyd K. Packer once said in a General > Conference speech that was adapted to a filmstrip for > seminary students. But when it comes to our actions, we show > that we still buy into the old Protestant notion that sex is > a dirty necessity. Some people might have this suspicious attitude or Puritan notions, but I don't think that Mormons in general do. We are very sensitive of context and situations for discussion, but that is only appropriate for something we hold so sacred that is so easily, and frequently, degraded. I don't think that our reluctance is due to shame (in general). In fact, our beliefs about its sacred nature and importance and beauty are what *drive* our reluctance. We don't cast our pearls before swine, we don't discuss the temple ceremonies outside of the temple, we are *not* open about anything and everything. That is a *good* thing, not something to castigate. Sex has meaning, it is intimate, it is something we discuss only when we are in the appropriate context for the discussion. That is not at all the same thing as shame. I have the privilege of being considered a sensitive man. As such, I have been in situations where I was surrounded by women and considered part of the group--someone they could trust to be sensitive in ways they trust. I have heard the discussions they have about sex. Believe me, there is nothing shy or shameful in those discussions. If men are less likely to have such discussions, it is probably because men are so seldom so intimate or open about things in general. > In all the church lessons, Sunday sermons, seminary classes, > and temple sessions I've experienced, never once have I heard > the law of chastity defined as, "Thou shalt pretend sex does > not exist." It's not a sin to acknowledge the existence of > sex, to talk about sex, to discuss sex, to write about sex, > or--dare I say it?--even joke about sex. So when I do any of > these things, why do so many of my fellow Saints look at me > like I have sinned? I don't know if you have sinned or not, but it is just possible that you chose an inappropriate setting to bring up sex. I have heard, very rarely, a joke involving sex in Gospel Doctrine followed by a delightful chuckle and appreciative nods. But that is rare because it is so rarely appropriate--not because sex is a hidden and shameful act. Sometimes sacred really *does* mean secret--or at least restricted, private, and appropriately self-censured. > As with most things in life, sex can be disrespected, > defiled, abused, or wielded as a weapon to harm others. But > the opposite of defilement is not silence; the opposite of > abuse is not ignoring the existence of something. Chastity is > not born of shame and embarrassment. You forgot "flaunted" in your list. And that is the most common abuse. Brittney Spears can talk all she wants about how she is a virgin and how important she thinks sex is, but her actions tell an entirely different story. She exudes, flaunts, practically shouts sex in all that she does from the clothing she wears, the lyrics she sings, and the movements of her dance. I cannot see her without a frown and a little disgust that something I hold so sacred and find so much joy in is being publicly debased by a child with so very little understanding. > Sex can be indulged in when there is no romantic love to > express. Sex can be exploited for financial gain. Sex can be > used as a form of violence. These things cheapen it, defile > it. But in no rational logic system does it therefore follow > that anyone who talks about it--even frankly--is sinning. Sure, there *are* appropriate times to discuss and/or express sex. But there are also times when it is *in*appropriate. Anyone who talks about sex in certain contexts, while maybe not sinning, are at least cheapening something I hold sacred and I will not hesitate to either remove myself or express my displeasure. > So let Disney make their "sex-laced" movies, and when they go > too far for the young audience, like with Hunchback and > Pocahontas, don't support it. But let's also talk about sex > more in our lives, in our sermons, our discussions, and in > our literature. Let's not hide from it, leaving all > references to and images of sex to the world, thereby losing > by default. I say, bring on the sex! You can bring it on all you want. But, I won't be a participant. Oh, I don't want us to be so hesitant about it that it never comes up. Sex does have its place in our stories and art. It has a place in our sermons and discussions. But that place is not universal. And sexual details are so rarely appropriate that I don't expect to encounter them in *any* public forum I participate in. As far as I'm concerned, we already talk plenty about sex in our lives, sermons, discussions, and literature. I don't agree at all with your call to make it more common, to discuss it more often. > It _is_ a gift of God, after all. I don't discuss or share every gift of God. In fact, gifts of God deserve respect and care. I have experienced more than one occasion when the spirit told me not to share a thought or experience I had planned to share. I don't display my garments for all to see, I don't discuss the temple endowment outside of the temple, I don't share details of my sex life with anybody (um, yet, I suppose there could arise circumstances where it would be appropriate, but I expect that to be very rare). God expects us to pursue every good gift in the measure he has given it. We need to seek the balance and priorities of God. They are His gifts, after all, and not our own to do with as we please. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 06 May 2002 16:03:40 -0600 On Fri, 03 May 2002 18:05:49 -0600 "Todd Petersen" writes: > Also, even King Benjamin worked in the fields along with his people. > What makes LDS writers think they don't need to do the same? At last, the crux of the matter. And the answer to the question that still has not been asked. Does a writer labor to produce? Apparently not, and so is unworthy of her hire. scott -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Talent Search: Actor for Joseph Smith Date: 06 May 2002 16:40:55 -0700 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > > > Talent Search for Principle Actor to portray the Prophet > > Joseph Smith > > > The actor chosen to portray this role must be of high moral > > character in his personal life as well as on screen. > > "In his personal life" I understand, but "on screen" absolutely baffles > me. How is the actor going to lead an immoral life on screen? At least > without the director and editor being in cahoots with him. This is because the actor who portrayed Joseph Smith in "Legacy," they later learned, had been a porn star. Needless to say, that made them a little sensitive about this issue. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 06 May 2002 17:12:47 -0600 D. Michael Martindale said: "Let's not hide from it, leaving all references to and images of sex to the world, thereby losing by default. I say, bring on the sex!" Hallelujah! Losing by default. That's exactly what it will come to. Well, said. There is a truth in my collection of truths (gathered like driftwood over the few short years of my life) that I summarize as "good intelligence makes for good decisions" It's a simple concept. If a person is presented with good/true information surrounding a decision they must make, it is within their power to make a "good" decision. Or, put another way, they will be able to predict with a reasonable amount of accuracy the consequences of their decision. Their decision will be informed. On the other hand when a person is given faulty, skewed, incomplete or even deliberately misleading information they are no longer able to make "good" decisions. They will, more times than not, be grotesquely surprised by the consequences of their actions. At the moment, the world we live in, the culture at large, whatever you want to call it, is handing out skewed information surrounding sex. (along with a thousand other things we all could name) I remember a poster in my brother's high-school health class. It was a picture of an unrolled condom with the legend "When you give the gift of love, make sure it's properly wrapped." Neither the health teacher or any of the school's administration that my father talked to saw anything wrong with it. They were, in fact, mystified by his objection. One of the greatest things literature has done for me in my life is present me with information and ideas that differed greatly from each other and from what I heard in school, at work, in church and in my home. I learned to separate the tripe from the truffles, to understand what was opinion and what was objective, to separate fact from fiction, and niftiest of all, to _glean_ fact from fiction. As an author I try to write truthfully even when I'm turning out sword and sorcery fantasy. (if that makes sense to anyone. _I_ know what I mean) I think there is a great good to be done in the Mormon culture through literature that presents the widest possible range of information, philosophy, opinion, doctrine, science etc... Literature is a great way of disseminating good intelligence, especially if it's entertaining. Sex is only the beginning. -Ethan Skarstedt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rose Green" Subject: Re: [AML] Environmental Questionnaire Date: 06 May 2002 22:35:10 -0500 >18. Other than in national parks, are there any wild bear in the >continental >USA? > >Lots of black bear in the Pacific Northwest. Also in the Sierras. I don't >know about the East. Yes, there are (if you take "east" to mean "east of Utah"). They are in Arkansas--every so often we'd hear about them coming into town and wandering around in subdivisions when I lived there. Rose Green _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Money and Art Date: 06 May 2002 22:49:35 -0500 Kathy Tyner: Let me assure Thom, Larry and anyone else wondering if we at The Sugarbeet are hoping we'll eventually be making a living off this enterprise-not hardly. _______________ Not to worry, and I didn't mean to hit a sensitive note. I was just having a little fun at your expense (ooh, there's that awful word again), because I'm jealous and not good enough to write for the Beet myself. So you and Todd and all the others keep writing. And I'll lighten up a little. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Environmental Questionnaire Date: 06 May 2002 20:01:55 -0500 At 11:36 PM 5/3/02, Alan Mitchell wrote: > > 5. How long has the earth's temperature begun to gradually rise? > About 10,000 years. Since the last ice age. What about the Little Ice Age, and the period of warmth that preceded it? -- Ronn! :) Ronn Blankenship Instructor of Astronomy/Planetary Science University of Montevallo Montevallo, AL Disclaimer: Unless specifically stated otherwise, any opinions contained herein are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent the official position of the University of Montevallo. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 07 May 2002 00:19:44 -0600 lajackson@juno.com wrote: > > We "pay" them in exposure to 40,000 readers and > > publicity in the SL TRib and newspapers all over the > > country. That's better than a few bucks, don't you think? > > > > I guess we pay people in fame. It was lucky fame, but > > fame of a kind nonetheless. > Ha, ha. Ho, ho. Hee, hee. Yes, I get it now. > Hoo, hoo, wheee . . . > > And where do I put that on my little bank deposit slip > so I will be able to pay the mortgage on the 1st? As one of those who is getting paid in the exposure currency, I don't think it's anything to ha-ha-ho-ho-hee-hee at. Like the ultimate goal of romance is sex (unless you're a woman), the ultimate goal of an aspiring professional writer is to collect some cash for it. But there's such a thing as dues-paying. Thom has lamented about getting cash for his work because he's been paying dues for a long time now and figure his break is due. But not all of us are in that position. Some of us are delighted with the exposure. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter E. Chamberlain" Subject: RE: [AML] Environmental Questionnaire Date: 07 May 2002 07:40:15 -0600 Just as an addition to the question about wild bears. Upstate New York, specifically the Adirondack Park has a large black bear population. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 07 May 2002 08:17:29 -0700 May I just say, Michael, beautifully expressed. Thank you for giving voice to the feelings I've had over the years. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Environmental Questionnaire Date: 07 May 2002 13:53:45 -0400 Alan Rex Mitchell wrote: >18. Other than in national parks, are there any wild bear in the continental >USA? >Lots of black bear in the Pacific Northwest. Also in the Sierras. I don't >know about the East. There are black bears here in upstate NY. I'm pretty sure they range all over the US. I know they're as far south as the Carolinas and as far west as Arkansas. After that, well, they're no longer in the east. Back around Thanksgiving, a colleague was driving up from Pennsylvania at night and there was some confusion with the cars ahead of him. He slowed down, but hit a very dazed black bear. It had already been hit by three cars. It died and everyone was upset. Especially her cub. They are protected and their population is getting larger. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Re: Money and Art Date: 08 May 2002 15:12:42 -0500 Larry was laughing all over the place about getting paid in exposure, and my response is: get a day job. To even think that one could reasonably pay the rent writing is about as absurd a notion as any. Sure it happens--many on this list know people who make money--but I know for a fact that Dean Hughes, for example, doesn't make much. But people also win the lottery or are born into money or have a meteorite smash into their house. What most publications can pay for short fiction and poetry is a pittance, not enough for a good date for a poem, and maybe enough for a couple of books for a story. Mostly you just get paid in copies and a line for your resume or something to go on your cover letters to agents/editors. Just look through the Writer's Market and you'll see. In my line of work (teaching) the fame and notoriety is much more valuable than any cash payment. Also there is a certain amount of value in exposure in that agents and editors are more likely to look at you if you have this exposure than if you don't. That is if you're trying to publish beyond the pulp market So, having an naive sense of payment and value could make one laugh, but in the long run, exposure is worth more than money in many ways. Some writers, however, do put the money before all else, they want to write and cash out like people in the tech industry often do, but most good literature doesn't get produced under those terms. The writing I like and respect isn't done, in general for the money, even when some money comes along. It's done for its own sake. Even a 30,000 dollar advance for a novel isn't much if you spread it out across the total working time. Sure it would be nice to get money, but (now I'm really laughing) don't hold your breath, especially if you're an LDS writer. Better to forget about the cash, in my opinion (hallelujah if it comes; no biggie if it doesn't) and get to work. Maybe the root of this discussion is planted in this notion that getting paid is a pretty good indication that what one is doing is legitimate. We have an unpaid clergy, who seem pretty dedicated. Would they be better dedicated if they got a little scratch, like the rest of the Protestant world? Is that a fair comparison? -- Todd -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Steve" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 06 May 2002 17:52:12 -0600 on 5/3/02 6:05 PM, Todd Petersen at petersent@suu.edu wrote: > Also, even King Benjamin worked in the fields along with his people. > What makes LDS writers think they don't need to do the same? (Okay, self; take deep breaths, count to 10 backwards, picture a very peaceful place where no one will hurt you and you won't feel the need to hurt anyone..... in, out, in, out, ....) But LDS writers DO do the same; and their writing IS their field. To make a distinction between "writing" and "real labor" is a distinction you can choose to make personally, but I don't believe it reflects reality. My music paper and piano keyboard and computer screen are my field and I work way dang totally hard for many of the same reasons and same motivations King Benjamin expressed. What I do is a real job; not ethereal or mysterious or unfairly satisfying and without draw-backs and stress like other "real jobs." >I'm not interested in making my living with the Sugar Beet, Thom. It's fun. Work sucks, the Beet is fun. If I had to worry about my success with the Beet affecting my ability to adequately provide for my family, I'd be so stinking nervous... Welcome to the world of being a writer, musician, artist, anyone self-employed at all. If work "sucks" and writing is "fun," and both are honorable, why make the puritan choice? Well, money is a possible reason and yes, I am often "...so stinking nervous..." that I have trouble sleeping at night. But wouldn't I feel the same if I'd just purchased a new "Hogi Yogi" franchise and wondered if it was going to fly? I have had occasional part-time jobs along the way since music is a crazy way to attempt a living with actual spouse, children, vehicles and consistent shelter involved. I have not begrudged the jobs (and they have not been particulary glamorous or highly skilled) since nearly all work is honorable, especially with the purpose of supporting my family. These part-time jobs (including the one I just got last month since the dentist prophecied 3 sets of braces in the next 5 years) also fulfilled my main requirement for a part-time job; they gave me time to write. God gave me a particular piece of land to plow and I'll be hanged if I don't work in that field, no matter what else I have to do to make it possible. It is always my main labor -- my "real job" -- even when I've been packing boxes or taking pictures of desserts for industrial emailings, etc. Obviously, this concept of "real work vs. writing" touched a nerve with me, but I think I am also speaking for the many folks I know well and distantly who follow their personal sense of mission into the unexplored and risky territory of trying to live as artists. I applaud those who maintain writing as a hobby or necessary release. May they create many great and wonderful (and yes, hilarious) things. I applaud those who feel to reverse that way of living and maintain themselves by the sweat of their creative brows. May they create many great and wonderful things. May they both respect and honor each other and the work -- both "writerly" and other-than -- which they both do. Thanks for letting me knee-jerk react, :-) Steve -- skperry@mac.com http://stevenkappperry.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 07 May 2002 13:50:39 -0600 I served a mission in Salt Lake City, Utah. At one point I was teaching a non-member who had grown up here as a born-again-christian. As was the norm with nearly all of my interactions with born-again Christians (the non-denominational kind) she was belligerent and argumentative despite all we could do. The one and only time she felt and recognized the spirit, we were discussing our refusal to tell her what went on in the temple. She was refusing to understand the old secret vs. sacred explanation and was as belligerent as always. I received a prompting from the spirit that amazed me. I held up my hand to stop the discussion and said to her "Would you call what goes on between you and your husband in your bedroom, secret or sacred?" She hesitated a moment and said, "Sacred." I lowered my hand and said, "It is the same." The reason I say she felt the spirit is because I could tell from the look in her eye that she wanted to accuse us of performing sexual acts in the temple, etc... But she held her tongue. She suddenly understood the principle beyond her power to deny. All she could say was , "Oh, I understand." The spirit of contention was gone,... for the moment. My companion asked me later if I was crazy, pulling a stunt like that. All I could say was that I certainly wouldn't have done it on my own. =20 I guess I can tie this in here. Like Jacob and Michael have jointly pointed out, there are times when sex should be brought up, and discussed, and times when it shouldn't. I think also that not talking about it enough is as bad or worse than talking about it too much. If we seek the spirit to guide us in our writing perhaps we can help solidify our culture's perception of the line between the two cases. When, as a culture, we have a more unified perception of that line we'll be able to have healthy and fruitful discussion of the topic when appropriate instead of the tangled minefield of taboos that exists now. -Ethan Skarstedt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kellene Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Disney Morals? Date: 07 May 2002 14:20:47 -0600 Clark: > So when you later give the example of a marriage "that has plenty of > romance, and there's not an iota of sex in it" you really are wrong. Not is > saying that there is plenty of romance. Rather you are wrong in saying that > there isn't any sex in it. Semantics. If you're defining sex as intercourse, coitus, the actual act, which is the way Webster's defines it (along with gender and another longer definition that involved reproduction), then guess what? Their marriage doesn't have an iota of sex in it. Of course it has sexuality in it. Very few people, and very few relationships, are devoid of all sexuality. And that was my point. the original statement was that there was no clear distinction between sex and romance. Sex, as defined by Websters, and perceived by most people (I think) is the act or having to do with reproduction, which certainly involved the act of sexual intercourse. Sexuality is another thing all together. Kellene -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Church News Articles Date: 07 May 2002 13:30:50 -0700 This is very interesting indeed. I will be anxious to read it when I get the issue. Is this perhaps a sign of some change from the rather ordinary reporting typical of the Church News? I hope so. Thanks for the heads-up. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 07 May 2002 14:53:25 -0600 Ronn: Many, if not most, environmentalists seem to think that the ultimate cause of all environmental problems is overpopulation. I don't remember all the details, but an article in BYU Magazine a year or two ago discussed a conference that addressed this very thing. It showed numbers that contradicted what all the frantic zero population people are saying. Basically, it said that while certain parts of the world are growing fast in population (such as the US), other areas are decreasing in population. Again, I don't remember all the details, but I at least Russia and much of Africa are losing their people faster than they are gaining them--due to things like disease, poor health care, high infant mortality, STD's and other reasons that lead to infertility, poor care of the elderly, etc. If someone remembers more about the article, please chime in. This is from what I remember. It was nice to read something to contradict all the alarmists who say I shouldn't be having more than two children to replace me and my husband. Another interesting issue I recently read (and sorry, can't remember where now--probably the newspaper) said that China is running into a problem they hadn't predicted with their one child policy: no extended family support. They now have a generation with increased problems that run the gamut from crime and drugs to poverty because no one has siblings, no one has aunts or uncles, no one has a family to fall back on for support. (Not to mention the lack of females to marry because of aborting and killing female babies and the nasty problems that is generating, like forced marriages for the man who bids highest and prositution.) Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 07 May 2002 16:06:16 -0500 Ronn Blankenship wrote: > Many, if not most, environmentalists seem to think that the ultimate cause of > all environmental problems is overpopulation. In particular, they say that there > are already too many humans on Earth. How do LDS environmentalists reconcile > that with the Church's emphasis on families? A non-environmentalist might say that environmentalism is religion, and we already have a religion. Or we might ask, too many humans for what? Some environmentalists consider humans a plague on the Earth, a cruel dagger in the heart of nature. My position is that nature is a human concept. All animals, humans included, interact with their environment and change it. But if we were animals without reason ("just animals," one might say), then it would hardly matter. Nature is valuable only when there's someone to value it. Otherwise life is only chemistry, and nature is ultimately nothing but physics. I find a great deal of aesthetic value in physics, and my sense of aesthetics is gratified by my knowledge that somewhere in the world there are such beasts as the koala and the dung beetle. But if we weren't here to ponder the meaning and beauty of nature, it would have neither. The ultimate cause of environmental problems isn't human overpopulation, but human population, and the problems exist because we believe that they exist. But in that case the problems aren't scientific, they're moral and religious. A human population of six or seven or twenty billion can probably be sustained indefinitely on this world. The question is, should it be? Why or why not? The answer revolves around the values we put on humans, bears in the wild, bears in a park, and why we think that a view that doesn't include human structures is or isn't intrinsically superior to one that does include them. Russian poets have found a great deal of inspiration in the Brooklyn Bridge. I'm as moved by the New York City skyline from the ocean as I am by the Rocky Mountains. I love the environments that we create. Not uniformly, but I wouldn't care for Alaskan nature if it were dragging me out of my tent as a midnight snack, and none of us uniformly loves nature's environments. Aren't we and our works also nature, also environment? Are ducks and trees better subjects for literature and art than subways and power-plants? A pine tree may be more beautiful than any poem by Emily Dickinson or a Ford F150, but any fool can grow a tree. That truck is the product of genius. It's as deserving of a poem as any tree. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: RE: [AML] Environmental Questionnaire Date: 07 May 2002 17:55:05 -0400 At 07:40 AM 5/7/02 -0600, you wrote: >Just as an addition to the question about wild bears. Upstate New York, >specifically the Adirondack Park has a large black bear population. In the little tourist town of Gatlinburg, Tennessee, they have signs all over town explaining what people should do if they meet bears in the town parking lots (and they do come down out of the mountains there). Richard B. Johnson, (djdick@PuppenRich.com) Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Church News Articles Date: 07 May 2002 15:39:13 -0700 I don't usually read the Chruch News, but happened upon a copy on a recent Utah trip. I read the two articles mentioned by Kathy and was so moved that I planned to subscribe. Especially the article about eating disorders--it's one that every parent or teacher of teenagers should read. Jana Remy -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 07 May 2002 17:55:39 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 8:29 PM > The biggest motivation for me to > > get this theatre group going with Scott Bronson is so I can finally make > > some money with all the plays I've written over the last decade or so. > > > > Thom Duncan > > > > And I sincerely wish you and Scott fabulous success. I'm sure my wife and I > will attend your theater several times--but not for my turn on earth. You should reconsider. I think you'll find our version rather refreshing. (Did > I ever tell you how taken I was with Places in the Heart--I think that was > the name of it.) _Matters of the Heart_. It's our second offering of the season. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Talent Search: Actor for Joseph Smith Date: 07 May 2002 18:01:19 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 11:53 AM On Fri, 03 May 2002 01:12:34 -0600, D. Michael Martindale wrote: >> The actor chosen to portray this role must be of high moral >> character in his personal life as well as on screen. > >"In his personal life" I understand, but "on screen" absolutely baffles >me. How is the actor going to lead an immoral life on screen? At least >without the director and editor being in cahoots with him. > That sounds like a very awkward way of saying the actor shouldn't have portrayed any immoral acts or characters in his previous film work. Which, by the Church's standards, leaves out just about any major actor with a respectable track record. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report May 5 2002 Date: 07 May 2002 16:05:56 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of May 5, 2002 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 4 Murder by Numbers 3,624,487 2,565 17 Ryan Gosling (actor) 23,893,720 35 The Other Side of Heaven 107,245 103 143 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,251,868 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 73 Galapagos 10,196 7 920 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 12,664,692 75 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 9,507 4 731 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,248,048 82 China: The Panda Adventure 5,515 4 283 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,266,198 97 Mark Twain's America 3D 2,997 1 1403 Alan Williams (composer) 2,208,017 107 Mulholland Drive 1,520 4 210 Joyce Eliason (producer/writer) 7,219,578 Alongside a record-setting performance by Spidey this weekend (did we expect anything less?) "Murder by Numbers" (starring Ryan Gosling) managed to stay in the #4 spot. "The Other Side of Heaven" saw a big drop in both its weekend gross and the number of theaters where it was showing as we move into summer blockbuster season. Traditionally, it is difficult for independent films to find a venue during the summer months, so expect this trend to continue. If you haven't caught "Heaven" yet and have intended to do so, you might end up having to wait for the video. Box office for "The Singles Ward" were coming in late for the second week in a row, but the movie is still in theaters -- and doing well. LAST weekend the movie was in 67th place nationwide, earning $30,448, bringing its total gross to $584,607. By the time you read this, the gross will have topped $600,000 for the $425,000-budget comedy. NEXT week "The Singles Ward" is opening in about 10 theaters all over Arizona. TURK AND VIRGIL COME HOME: The box office hit "Ocean's Eleven" ($183 million in U.S. ticket sales) drops off from the box office report this week because it is no longer in theaters. The DVD/video is in stores on 7 May 2002. "Ocean's Eleven" set the record for the top-earning film ever to feature Mormon main characters (the Malloy twins, played by Scott Caan and Casey Affleck). George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts and a bunch of other folks are also in it -- but who cares? The REAL stars are those safe-cracking boys from Provo. REED'S ULTIMATE X: Ads have already begun appearing on network television for "Ultimate X," the ultra-hip extreme sports IMAX documentary shot by Latter-day Saint cinematographer Reed Smoot. It opens this coming weekend (May 10). Opening this coming weekend: "The New Guy", starring Mormon actress Eliza Dushku (a.k.a. "Faith" from TV's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"). MORMON NOMINEES AT MTV MOVIE AWARDS: The nominees for the 2002 MTV Movie Awards have been announced. The annual award ceremony is scheduled to take place June 1st. "The Fast and the Furious," starring Latter-day Saint actor Paul Walker, received 5 nominations: Best Action Sequence, Breakthrough Male Performance (Paul Walker), Best Male Performance (for Vin Diesel), Best On-Screen Team (Paul Walker and Vin Diesel) and Bset Movie. The other nominees for Best Movie were "Black Hawk Down", "Legally Blonde", "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" and "Shrek." Shrek (which received a total of 4 nominations) was originally produced by John Garbett, a Latter-day Saint and the co-producer of "The Other Side of Heaven." Anne Hathaway was nominated for Breakthrough Female Performance for her starring role in "The Princess Diaries." Hathaway is not a Latter-day Saint, but she played one in "The Other Side of Heaven." Hathaway received the "Princess Diaries" role when she went to an audition during a layover en route to New Zealand, where she filmed "The Other Side of Heaven" -- her first feature film. "Ocean's Eleven" also was nominated for Best On-Screen Team, a nomination going to Casey Affleck, Scott Caan, Don Cheadle, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Elliott Gould, Edward Jemison, Bernie Mac, Brad Pitt, Shaobo Qin and Carl Reiner. Two of the eleven characters played by these actors (Casey Affleck and Scott Caan) are Mormons. In the past, actors have won Academy Awards for playing Mormon characters, but this marks the first time an actor has been nominated for an MTV Movie Award for playing an openly Mormon character. BIG WINS AT INT'L FAMILY FILM FESTIVAL: Latter-day Saint filmmakers won major awards at the prestigious International Family Film Festival held this year in Valencia, California April 19-21 (formerly the Santa Clarita International Film Festival). The winner for Best Feature Comedy was "The Penny Promise." All of the principal filmmakers of "The Penny Promise" are Utahns and/or Latter-day Saints. The movie was co-directed by T.C. Christensen (cinematographer of numerous films such as "The Testaments" and "American Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith", and director of "Bug Off!", "The Touch of the Master's Hand", etc.). The other director was Timothy J. Nelson ("Jumping for Joy", "Who Gets the House?", "No More Baths"). The producers were Jeff Miller ("Testaments", "Return to the Secret Garden", "Same River Twice", "Lewis and Clark: Great Journey West", etc.) and Don A. Judd ("The Princess and the Pea", "Rigoletto", "Seasons of the Heart", etc.). The screenwriters were Dave Trottier ("Hercules Recycled"), Tim Nelson and T.C. Christensen. The winner of the Best Feature Drama award at the Festival was "The Climb", which was helmed largely by Protestant fimmakers, but which was filmed in Utah County, and many of the crewmembers were Latter-day Saints. "The Climb" was directed by John Schmidt, produced by John Shepard, and written by Robert Pierce and Patrick Egan. The cast includes Ned Vaughn, Jason George, Dabney Coleman, Kyle Santiago, Clifton Davis, and Todd Bridges. Why did Schmidt et al make "The Climb" (budget: $2.5 million) in Utah County? Could be that the mountains were just right and the local crews are highly professional yet affordable. Or maybe they think that there's something in the water that results in successful movies like "Brigham City." BYU MAGAZINE COVERS LDS CINEMA: In the Spring 2002 BYU Magazine publishes an article about LDS Cinema: "Taking It to the Big Screen" (http://magazine.byu.edu/article.tpl?num=34-spr02), written by Charlene R. Winters, focuses on Mitch Davis and his film "The Other Side of Heaven", Richard Dutcher ("God's Army" and "Brigham City") and Academy Award-winner Kieth Merrill. There are quotes from these three filmmakers, as well brief references to their backgrounds and how they came to focus their filmmaking efforts on movies with Latter-day Saint themes and characters. An accompanying page "BYU Alumni Create LDS Films" (http://magazine.byu.edu/article.tpl?num=01-spr02) lists a number of recent or upcoming films made by BYU alumni which feature Latter-day Saint themes and characters: Scott D. Tiffany's documentary "Forgotten Voyage," Kels Goodman's upcoming epic feature film "Handcart", "Jack Weyland's Charly" directed by Adam T. Anderegg, "Out of Step" directed by Ryan Little, Rob Sibley's "The Shadow of Light", and "The Singles Ward" (Kurt C. Hales, Dave W. Hunter, John E. Moyer). This page also links directly to LDSFilm.com as a source for more information. NELEH WATCH: Wow. No two ways about it. The latest episode of "Survivor: Marquesas" was simply Neleh-rific. Neleh was really the star of this one, and her "character" experienced quite a few twists. Paschal won the reward challenge -- an incredible display of raw physicality considering he is the oldest contestant. The challenge involved racing the other competitors in diving for shells in deep water, followed by running along the bottom of the ocean carrying 40 pound stones. Paschal, the old guy, won. Neleh didn't quite come in last place -- she bet Vecipia and Sean. Paschal's reward was an opportunity to spend an evening on a cruise ship -- with showers, new clothes, and a fine meal. In a surprise twist, the host told Paschal to pick somebody to accompany him, and he unhesitantly chose Neleh, who has been inseparable from him throughout their stay on the island. On the cruise ship, Paschal and Neleh cleaned themselves up after weeks without a shower. They enjoyed a fine meal, which included escargot. Of course they both declined alcoholic beverages, something that their non-cruising fellow tribe members commented on ruefully about back on the beach: "Those are the wrong people to go do some drinking!" Paschal left the waiter a $200 tip for the $300 meal. (The show was picking up the tab, so why not?) Neleh may be the greatest survivor ever to play the game, but after she returned to the island she made a few apparent blunders. They weren't able to smuggle food back to their compatriots, but Neleh offered the five who were left behind a mint -- a single mint that she had in her mouth when she returned from the ship. The others were polite, but were NOT impressed, as they made known during later interviews with the camera. The editing showed Neleh looking generally lazy and princess-like the whole next day. Her wonderfully clean hair and gazing at her clean nails did not endear her to the others. The episode's editors made some effort to make it look like Neleh would be voted off the island. They even showed Sean and Vecipia making plans to go to Robert ("the General") and Tammy to make a new alliance that would vote Neleh off. But when the actual voting came, nobody voted for Neleh. Robert won the immunity challenge, and, predictably, Tammy got voted out. (Tammy and Robert were the only two left from the evil Power Four of John, General, Tammy and Zoe, whose eventual downfall was subtly orchestrated by Neleh.) Nobody, in fact, voted for Neleh. Robert and Tammy voted for Vecipia, which shocked pretty much everybody, and made no real sense. The next day, Tammy explained to Jane Clayson on "The Early Show" that she had voted for Vecipia because Vecipia had not pulled her weight around camp with regards to chores. And she apparently had not been aware of the extent to which Sean and Vecipia had been ready to make an alliance. Apparently Sean and Vecipia only talked about making an alliance with Tammy and Robert -- but never actually approached them about it. Will Neleh make it to the Final Four, and behond? Stay tuned. MOLEN OUTDOES HIMSELF: Just one more bit of "Other Side of Heaven" trivia. Now that "Heaven" has topped $4 million at the U.S. box office, it is no longer Jerry Molen's LEAST successful feature film. Molen's film's have been among the biggest in the world: movies like "Jurassic Park", "Last World", "Twister", "Rain Man", "Schindler's List" and "Hook." Big box office. No one expects "Heaven" to enter the rarified stratosphere of his top-earning films. But this week it surpassed his least-earning theatrical release: "The Trigger Effect" (1996), which grossed "just" $3,608,238. (Actually, Molen was was the executive producer on "The Trigger Effect," so "Heaven" remains the lowest-earning movie on which he was the above-the-line PRODUCER.) Next up for Molen: "Minority Report", opening this summer, helmed by Steven Spielberg, starring Tom Cruise. Molen is the first-billed producer on "Minority Report." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Irreantum2@cs.com Subject: [AML] New Irreantum Contents Date: 07 May 2002 23:11:47 EDT The newest issue of Irreantum, the literary quarterly of the Association for= =20 Mormon Letters, includes the following:=20 Interview:=20 Brady Udall=20 Novel Excerpt:=20 The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint, Brady Udall=20 Memoir:=20 My Innisfree, Camille Traveller Bell=20 Essay:=20 To Fulfill the Vision of Mormon Literature, Diana Simmons=20 Stories:=20 Companions, Darlene Young=20 Cinder-Relic, Melva Gifford=20 Who Needs Salt Lake? Bill Caudle=20 Poetry:=20 Lo volv=ED a ver, Paul Sexton=20 Shadows, Paul Sexton=20 First Psalm, Kevin Peel=20 Canyon Cliff Swallows, Patricia Gunter Karamesines=20 Diapason, Michael Collings=20 Prayer, Michael Collings=20 Reviews=20 2001 Mormon Literature in Review, Andrew Hall=20 Artistry in a Missionary Story, Dean Hughes=20 A review of Gordon Laws's My People=20 Unlikely Miracles, Katie Parker=20 A review of Anna Jones's Haven=20 A Kingly Collection, John S. Tanner=20 A review of Arthur Henry King's=20 Conversion: Poems of the Religious Life,=20 1963-1994, ed. Fred C. Pinnegar=20 Promising New Series, Andrew Hall=20 A review of Dean Hughes's The Writing on the Wall=20 Plots in Hiding, Terry Montague=20 A review of Betsy Brannon Green's Hearts in Hiding=20 Mormon Literary Scene=20 AML-List Highlights=20 Rameumptom:=20 Confessions of a Former farms Filing Clerk;=20 or The Top-10 Rejected farms Papers, Edgar C. Snow Jr.=20 For a copy of this issue, send $5 to the address below with a note requestin= g=20 the winter 2001-2002 issue. To subscribe to Irreantum, send $16 for 4 issues= .=20 To join the AML, send $25 annual dues (includes Irreantum subscription and a= =20 copy of the book-length AML Annual). AML=20 PO Box 51364=20 Provo, UT 84605-1364=20 For more info about all aspects of the AML, visit http://www.aml-online.org/. To stop receiving AML updates, reply to this message with REMOVE in the=20 subject line.=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] Re: Mormon Environmentalism Date: 07 May 2002 22:13:07 -0600 Jacob Profitt writes: "I think discussions of all kinds are useful and valuable, but I am very = impatient with debate. I'm kind of sick of people taking emotional = positions that they cannot change, particularly when they refuse to = allow discussion of things they disagree with. So, to bring it back to the original topic, you can't get away with the = bromides typical of so much Environmentalism. It just won't do. If you = are going to be Environmental, you are going to be forced to articulate = your assumptions, and then justify them." I think this "debate" or exchange of ideas in the written language (and = a very specific kind of language, btw, .....email lanuage) illustrates = how quickly communication becomes, ( I dunno, "distorted" is a buzz = word, shall we say "snarled"?) when people start talking about = controversial issues from different perspectives, experiences and frames = of reference. I don't=20 *think* that what I was writing was a bromide, or even emotional; or = that I was attempting to veto further discussion of things I disagree = with (although, I REALLY have the potential for that kind of debate, = I've been trying to reform for the list and will only use it for my = family and church callings henceforth.) Mostly, I was mentioning a = recent environmental issue that I think most people would like to = educate themselves about. I don't have time to the research for = anyone, but the resources are pretty availabe through reputable = websites, I'm sure. Try the local newspaper archives for a start. I think that Jacob was most likely writing in response to some of his = other experiences with some environmental activists in other debates, = other issues, other states. However, since I initiated the topic, I = could easily take comments like the above personally, at which point, I = would be tempted to revert to my family and church-calling tone and veto = further discussions (I'm a cub scout leader so, you know), by trading = slogans/bromides and position statements in much the way Jacob = describes. But the point is, if we really want an ongoing conversation (either here = on AML-List or anywhere), then I think it behooves us to be careful = about statements that can be seen as discussion vetos, entire position = dismissals, or blanket stereotypes of those to whom we're responding. = Deep down, I hope I would rather help heal the rifts in our community = and religious organization, academic settings, etc. than inflame them. = I'm not sure I know how yet, I hope to try. But on an intuitive level, = I would like to see the collective "borders of the tent", so to speak, = enlarged to include the more diverse backgrounds we see coming into the = church (without breaking any of the commandments, let me spell that = out....so much of what I *mean* I already assume is assumed by our = audience), and help those back who may have been offended, = misunderstood, or themselves misunderstood the intent of others. =20 Thanks=20 Jana Lee Peterson-Pawlowski http://www.geocities.com/janrand janrand@networld.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 07 May 2002 23:16:43 -0500 D. Michael Martindale: She was raised with an open attitude about sex, but couldn't bring herself to utter the word in sacrament meeting. Jacob Proffitt: Couldn't? ... Sacrament meeting is a good example of a situation where it is inappropriate to discuss sex, not because the topic is dirty or shameful, but because it is simply an inappropriate setting. _______________ And may you be blessed never to be assigned to speak in sacrament meeting on the topic "The Law of Chastity," with instructions from the bishop to "be specific, because the ward really needs it." Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kathy Fowkes" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 08 May 2002 10:07:21 -0700 > > Also, even King Benjamin worked in the fields along with his people. > > What makes LDS writers think they don't need to do the same? > > At last, the crux of the matter. And the answer to the question that > still has not been asked. Does a writer labor to produce? Apparently > not, and so is unworthy of her hire. > > scott (I've been away and so am struggling to catch up; sorry if this has already been addressed or if, given the subject heading, I'm off-topic. But then again, maybe that's my point?) Unworthy of his hire? I guess if all you are writing for is to obtain money, then yes I suppose it can be looked at this way. But I think, given the covenants made in the waters of baptism and at the temple altars, LDS artists and writers, when laboring for the kingdom of God, most certainly are hired, trained, lead, and payed. The coin one is paid in is of far greater value than mere mortal money, though. But payment for services rendered is extremely generous! :-) Kathy Fowkes kathy_f@cox.net Mesa, Arizona -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Fake Article on Mormons Date: 08 May 2002 12:24:28 -0600 1857 Document About Mormon Church Is A Fake http://www.Beliefnet.com/story/105/story_10527_1.html >Did you guys see this? barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Environmental Questionnaire Date: 07 May 2002 15:32:06 -0500 It isn't clear to me that Alan's questions are really about the environment, or that correct answers show an understanding of environmental issues. Question 1, for instance, is about astronomy. Question 8 is about hydrostatic pressure (the pressure on a dam depends on the height of the water behind it, not the length of the reservoir), an engineering question more than an environmental one. The predator-prey question (12) is an exercise in differential equations (in the simple model, the size of the populations varies sinusoidally, with predators and prey out of phase by a quarter cycle and prey leading predators, but nature is rarely so simple) that conveys some interesting insights to ecology, but those insights can be more easily obtained without the math. Question 28 is peculiar (the documented evidence was the work of humans; I don't know of any other species that document evidence, or even make shopping lists); 19 is political (think "highway appropriations), and it's not the only one. I refuse to answer 48 without the advice of my attorney. As for 50, I'm cool in any color shirt. I don't know the population density of the U.S. right off hand, but the density of the population of my ECON 2010 class is extraordinary, on the order of fruitcake (the densest known terrestrial substance). There are lots of bears in the continental U.S. (Question 18), which, of course, includes Alaska; there are also lots of bears in the _contiguous_ states (they're a pesky nuisance at my parents' place near Durango, and they upset the dog). The Big Dipper doesn't rotate (14) - the Earth does - but its apparent rotation will occur even if you _don't_ stay up all night watching it. If you stay up all night to watch its rotation here in Louisiana, you'll die of blood loss before you can tell anyone whether it rotated or not. The coyote population in the LA basin (9) depends on the stringency of border patrols and the performance of the Mexican economy. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Church News Articles Date: 08 May 2002 13:43:03 -0700 There is an error I made in mentioning the blessing Mackenzie received, one of the men said he did NOT think their trial was over. One word, but it changes the whole meaning. Thanks! Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rich Hammett Subject: [AML] Re: Money and Art Date: 08 May 2002 15:45:00 -0500 (CDT) > Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:12:42 -0500 > From: "Todd Petersen" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) > Subject: [AML] Re: Money and Art [various quick snips unmarked below] > So, having an naive sense of payment and value could make one laugh, > but in the long run, exposure is worth more than money in many ways. > Some writers, however, do put the money before all else, they want to > write and cash out like people in the tech industry often do, but most > good literature doesn't get produced under those terms. The writing I > like and respect isn't done, in general for the money, even when some > money comes along. It's done for its own sake. Oddly, the engineering firm I used to work for had the same idea--actually stated by a couple of mid-level managers. Sadly, they don't seem to be able to hire and keep people. The firms that pay the most seem to get the most out of their workers in this area. Why is writing different? > Maybe the root of this discussion is planted in this notion that > getting paid is a pretty good indication that what one is doing is > legitimate. We have an unpaid clergy, who seem pretty dedicated. Would > they be better dedicated if they got a little scratch, like the rest of > the Protestant world? Is that a fair comparison? I don't know, it would certainly lighten the stress that collects on bishops' families for instance. Is it really that great to take a man away from his family for several years, compared to paying him so that he also has time for his family? I think public art funding is at least as worthwhile as public education funding, as a good to society. Of course, I'm sure there are those who would debate education, as well. :) rich -- \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / rhammett@HiWAAY.net "Better the pride that resides / in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter E. Chamberlain" Subject: RE: [AML] Environmental Questionnaire Date: 08 May 2002 14:59:04 -0600 I spent my teenage years as a scout in the Adirondack Park and every year we had bears in our campsite. They would saunter in around lunchtime, scatter us to the trees and steal our food. After they had left we would go and pick up what they had left, usually the lunch meat... Peter -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pichtj@nsula.edu Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 08 May 2002 16:01:13 -0500 (CDT) I appreciated Steve Perry's comments on writing as work. People occasionally tell me that what I do isn't really work, or that I don't work in the real world (whatever that is). In a way I agree - I'm lucky enough to enjoy doing something that also pays a regular salary. I just took a break from reading student essays to read some Nabokov, and before I go home I'll play the piano for a while (I have one in my office). I spent an hour this morning discussing European labor laws and the perils of the Euro experiment with a colleague. Is this work? Yes, it is. I'm planning to develop a course on Nabokov (yes, I'm an economist, but teaching in an interdisciplinary honors college means never having to say "I can't teach that"), I'm playing some of the prelude and postlude music for our commencement, and I'm working on a paper about the effects of EU agricultural policy on former East Bloc countries. All of which offers some sort of value to someone. Work isn't about breaking a sweat or a fingernail. It isn't about getting dirty, nor is it about making something that someone can touch. It's about improving the lives of people around you, about making your society a better place. If the baker wants to bake loaves of bread and then toss them in the lake, fine, but that's not work. If he sells one to me, he makes both of us better off, and that's honorable work. My piano teacher works (I wouldn't pay him if he didn't), Marie-Claire Alain works (I'm listening to her performance of a Widor organ symphony as I write this), and the person who came up with the beurre blanc recipe I'll be using for dinner tonight works. They take resources (if only their time and fertile imaginations) and turn them into something worth more than what they started with. That's work. Mormons have a distorted view of work. Hugh Nibley once remarked that we have more respect for the man who gets up early to write bad manuals than for the one who sleeps in until ten and writes a masterpiece. We hold in higher esteem the person who paints houses than the person who paints canvases, probably because the former is doing something practical and certain to be remunerative. It's a puritanical point of view, as Steve noted, holding that work is a function of sweat, misery, and wages. It's a view enshrined in our tax code, the differentiation between "earned" and "unearned" income (that "unearned" income often results from the willingness to put resources into the financial systems that are the life-blood of a modern economy and to manage them - work as important as making steel). It's the belief that making other people better off is just a happy side-effect of work, irrelevant to the nature of work. Painting, writing, and playing the piano well are all work, though usually of a very poorly paid variety. If it's wealth you want, get an MD or open a dry-cleaning establishment. Mormons are often enamored of medical and business schools - very practical, very dependable wages, high likelihood of being able to take care of your family while serving as a stake president. I'm happy there are people who learn to be anaesthesiologists - I wouldn't want an operation without one - and I don't begrudge them their enormous fees (well, to the extent that those fees are due to a badly functioning medical industry I do, but not to the extent that they represent the high cost of getting that training and the very inelastic nature of supply and demand in that market). I also don't much regret the low pay of artists and writers. In the nature of markets, these things just are, sort of like gravity. I have much more to say on this, but I don't suppose this is the forum for a lengthy discourse on the economics of labor markets and the price system. Let me just note that I think it's sad that so many people have jobs they dislike, or study to enter professions they don't care about but which offer financial security. Work isn't about being miserable, but many of us think that that's a natural part of the work experience. Our priorities and expectations are distorted, I think. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: HOJONEWS@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Talent Search: Actor for Joseph Smith Date: 08 May 2002 17:21:05 EDT In a message dated 5/8/02 1:55:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ThomDuncan@prodigy.net writes: > >> The actor chosen to portray this role must be of high moral > >> character in his personal life as well as on screen. > > > >"In his personal life" I understand, but "on screen" absolutely baffles > >me. How is the actor going to lead an immoral life on screen? At least > >without the director and editor being in cahoots with him. > > > That sounds like a very awkward way of saying the actor shouldn't have > portrayed any immoral acts or characters in his previous film work. > > Thank you all for this conversation. My husband submitted for an audition. I don't think he caught this, so I'm copying this post for him. Though he hasn't had a long screen career, he does have a psychotic part in a movie that has yet to be released. Mmmm. Wonder if that would count? Carolyn Howard-Johnson, Author of This is the Place, an award-winning story about a young journalist who writes her way through repression into redemption For a FREE First Chapter Click Here or send to: carolynhowardjohnson@sendfree.com FREE Cooking by the Book at http://www.tlt.com/authors/carolynhowardjohnson.htm -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] QUINN, _Elder Statesman_ (Review) Date: 08 May 2002 15:11:02 -0700 (PDT) Just an excellent review by Jeff Needle of Quinn's "Elder Statesman." I am reading the book myself and was thinking of reviewing it, but after Jeff's, I can't think of much more that can be said:-) ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! http://shopping.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 08 May 2002 16:16:22 -0600 >Ronn: >Many, if not most, environmentalists seem to think that the ultimate cause >of all environmental problems is overpopulation. I came across this in an up-close-and-personal way recently when I moved to Seattle (land o' liberal). One of my co-workers is a very dedicated zero-populationer and when Bill Gates and his wife (Melissa? Melinda?) announced they were having another baby she just went ballistic. You would have thought they had announced that they had the cure for AIDS but had decided to keep it as their own little secret. Such anger! It blew me away. To be honest, until I met my co-worker I never thought of zero-population in terms other than those of Saturday's Warrior. Now I know that crazy ideas never really die. Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Nature Writing Date: 08 May 2002 15:52:29 -0700 (PDT) --- Jonathan Langford wrote: > "Nature writing" per se is a very narrow literary vein. I'm not > surprised > that we haven't seen much of it in Mormon letters. I don't see much of > it > in the western literary tradition. Literature, on the whole, tends to > be > about humans; literature that takes nature as its major focus will > always, > I suspect, be a minor literary footnote at best. Still, there are a > number > of genres where nature shows up in an important way, and those genres > have, > I think, a healthy representation within the Mormon tradition: > nature-oriented poetry and poetic imagery (e.g., the writing of John S. > Harris, and I believe Sally Taylor too); western writing; science > fiction > and fantasy (e.g., Shayne Bell); and probably pioneer journals and > narratives as well. As a result of Jonathan's post and the thread as a whole, I've been trying to think of some narrative tensions that might make for distinct Mormon narratives. Something that isn't exactly "Nature Writing" but dramaticez narratives that relate to Mormon attitudes toward the environment. What I came up with could actually be extended to other communities in the West, but here we go... One of the interesting tensions that I witnessed growing up in southern Utah and something that continues to fascinate me is the way Mormons living in the West express themselves in relation to nature, in particular, it seems to me that many Mormons connection to the land has moved from that of harsh place that nevertheless provides the means to survive and make a living (or not in many cases) to that of a recreational wilderness. The desert has blossomed like a rose so let's pluck it and put it in a vase for our own enjoyment. This manifests itself in two major ways, I think: One is a slavish devotion to gardening and the other is an emphasis on outdoor recreation. I like the gardening thing (although I am always cracked up by Thorsten Veblen's observation that the American lawn is a trope taken from the European aristocracy who had large lawns to prove that they not only held pasture land but could afford to not graze animals on it), but I have mixed feelings about the outdoor recreation thing -- hunting, tearing through the desert on motorcycles and ATV's, waterskiing and boating at Lake Powell, etc. Now it's been a while since many Mormons have had to eke out their living through the land, but it seems like my grandparents generation has a different way of looking at nature than my parents (baby boomers) generation. The saints have always had outdoor recreation, but I see distinct change in tenor that began with the 50s and, imo, got worse in the 80s. This trend I goes hand in hand, I think, with the suburbanizing of Mormon cities and even small towns (where the homes became pre-fab, the occupations more professional, service or business oriented, the attitudes and fashions more in line with mainstream American culture, etc.). Okay, a couple of concrete examples: The tension that arises when motorcyclists tear through a rancher's (or sheepherder's) main grazing area, creating ruts, fowling water troughs, littering, etc. The tension that occurs when the poorer families in town can't get hunting permits because the guy that runs the office has given him to his buddies, or they can afford to buy more up, or whatever. This is especially difficult when the poor families are the older, more established families (i.e. grandpa and his seven wives settled there back in 1874 or 19ought6), and the folks with the big trucks and the new guns, etc. are 'newcomers.' That's what I can come up with at the moment. I'm sure there are other situations, and it's quite likely that there are already some examples of Mormn fiction out there that pick up on this theme. All I'm saying is that considering that while many of us agree that latter-day saints aren't 'anti-nature,' there is room for exploring the range of LDS attitudes toward the environment and how they create tension in modern (or recent) LDS life and society. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! http://shopping.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Church News Articles Date: 08 May 2002 18:44:36 -0700 What is the cover story of this issue? I pick up my issues at the Mormon Batallion Visitors Center and don't want to miss it. Thanks. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 08 May 2002 22:15:27 -0400 I heard a similar story on NPR. The focus seemed to be on an only child not only having aging relatives to support, but also four grandparents. It talked about how the changing economy is allowing more Chinese to circumvent the monetary and educational penalties for having more than one child. I'm not real up on the zero population argument, but I don't think that the rate of death in other countries should somehow make us feel good about our level of repopulation. I'm not saying I'm against having large families. Just that I don't think some other countries dire straights should factor very largely in our reasoning. Tracie Laulusa ----- Original Message ----- > > Another interesting issue I recently read (and sorry, can't remember where > now--probably the newspaper) said that China is running into a problem they > hadn't predicted with their one child policy: no extended family support. > They now have a generation with increased problems that run the gamut from > crime and drugs to poverty because no one has siblings, no one has aunts or > uncles, no one has a family to fall back on for support. (Not to mention the > lack of females to marry because of aborting and killing female babies and > the nasty problems that is generating, like forced marriages for the man who > bids highest and prositution.) > > Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 08 May 2002 20:17:41 -0600 If the baker wants to bake loaves of bread and then toss them in the lake, fine, but that's not work. If he sells one to me, he makes both of us better off, and that's honorable work. Jim Picht So . . . that means unless I publish and sell--then I'm not working? If I sell well, does that mean I'm working more than if I sell poorly? And raising children . . . it's not work getting them off to school and changing diapers unless I sell one or two? Wait . . . I just got an idea. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Environmental Questionnaire Date: 08 May 2002 20:48:33 -0500 Peter Chamberlain: ... [The bears] would saunter in around lunchtime, scatter us to the trees and steal our food. After they had left we would go and pick up what they had left, usually the lunch meat... _______________ In other words, even bears know the value of spam when they see it? (Sorry.) Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Money and Art Date: 08 May 2002 21:55:16 -0500 Todd Petersen: Larry was laughing all over the place about getting paid in exposure, and my response is: get a day job. To even think that one could reasonably pay the rent writing is about as absurd a notion as any. . . . Maybe the root of this discussion is planted in this notion that getting paid is a pretty good indication that what one is doing is legitimate. _______________ Time out. I have a day job. I have a night job. I have a part-time job, too. And I'm pretty dedicated to my unpaid clergy job, as well. I learned a long time ago that I would not be able to rear a family on the income I would receive in what I had hoped would be my fun and fulfilling profession (not writing). So I used my degree and did something with it that pays the rent. (The fun and fulfilling part is the part-time job.) I do not believe pay has any relationship at all with the legitimacy of work. Books have been written on the subject (pardon the literary tie in here). I have also noticed that, at least in my experience, the more fun the work, the less the pay. I believe that writing is legitimate work. If I didn't, I wouldn't have just spent three weeks agonizing over a silly little book review for which I won't be paid, probably won't be noticed, and which has given me much grief. But I did it for two reasons. First, I said I would. Second, I love to read and write. And so this was an opportunity for me to hone my writing skills and deliver an honestly crafted message in a way that I felt was fair and wouldn't offend too many people. (I lied. Third, thanks to Terry Jeffress, I will be able to look it up on the internet and see my name in lights.) Believe me, it was tempting to bag it and return to my day job. But my day job is not nearly as fun. I didn't mean to offend you in making fun about being paid in exposure. Exposure is the key to success in what I had hoped would be my fun and fulfilling profession. We use it all the time. I was having a little fun with you, just as you and the staff at the Sugar Beet are having a little fun with us, too. I believe what you are doing is as legitimate for no pay as it would be if you gave your entire staff a 20% raise. Just like the work I do in my unpaid clergy job is as legitimate as the work I do that pays the rent. The reason I don't pick out an article in each issue of the Sugar Beet to be offended about is because I have a deep respect for the work and talent and effort that went into writing it in the first place, and I have an admiration for those who are able to write so well. So don't tempt me. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 08 May 2002 18:41:54 -0700 Jim Picht wrote: ."A human population of six or seven or twenty billion can probably be sustained indefinitely on this world. " I for one vote for a world with few enough human beings to leave some wilderness nearby. Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism Date: 08 May 2002 23:41:05 -0600 On Tue, 7 May 2002 22:13:07 -0600, Jana Pawlowski wrote: >I don't=3D20 >*think* that what I was writing was a bromide, or even emotional; or = =3D >that I was attempting to veto further discussion of things I disagree =3D >with (although, I REALLY have the potential for that kind of debate, =3D >I've been trying to reform for the list and will only use it for my =3D >family and church callings henceforth.) Mostly, I was mentioning a =3D >recent environmental issue that I think most people would like to =3D >educate themselves about. You know, it didn't strike me as particularly emotional or argumentative. But your original comment (posted 26 April) on the subject of nuclear = waste storage read as follows: >Anyway, if anyone in Utah is interested, there is one last chance to = speak against >N-Waste storage in Tooele. That sounds more like a suggestion as to what people ought to think about the issue than a plea for us to educate ourselves about it. Or--at the = risk of becoming argumentative myself--does this mean that in examining the = pros and cons of the issue, we will all naturally see what the correct = conclusion is? I agree that it is important to learn the facts about environmental = issues before taking sides on them. What frustrates me (and this is a general comment, not directed at Jana, by the way) is that so many environmental activists would prefer us *not* to do the research ourselves. Many of = them are dedicated people who have come to the conclusions they support = because of extensive study, but instead of encouraging others to do the same, = they try to sell us on their conclusions. The idea that we should find truth for ourselves is firmly embedded in = the Mormon psyche (see Moroni 10:4-5 and D&C 9:8, for example). Last week = Jacob and I argued (at home; don't you all just wonder what our dinnertime conversations are like?) his contention that this is why the LDS people aren't generally involved with environmental activism (at least the kind that implies there are Truths handed down from Paul Ehrlich that should neither be questioned nor doubted. Shoot, I was trying to keep the = cynicism monkey in its box, and I failed). *I* think it's either apathy or the = fact that most Mormons are slightly more worried about the irregularity of = their =46amily Home Evening schedule, i.e. "haven't had it since, like, ever, = but we know it's important and we feel totally guilty about it." But I think Jacob's partly right. I think that, at least for some people, the unwillingness to simply accept what they're told collides with their perceived inability to devote enough attention to learn about = environmental issues, and produces...not a lot of nature writing. Which honestly doesn't bother me much. Like Jonathan, I prefer a good scientific study and peer-reviewed commentary. And since I don't think = the scarcity of LDS nature writing reflects any institutional oppression, I'm not going to get worked up on that count either. I just hope that the people who *do* care about this kind of writing don't feel that they shouldn't produce it, simply because it doesn't have a strong Mormon tradition. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Reno" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Re: Review of GARDNER, _Urantia_ Date: 09 May 2002 12:21:10 -0500 [MOD: I am forwarding this comment, which came to me as moderator from a non-AML-List member.] You web site posts a review by Kevin Christensen of a book written by Martin Gardner called Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery. http://www.aml-online.org/reviews/b/B199536.html It is full of grossly false statements and flawed arguments. I found it inconsistent that Kevin questions Mr. Gardner's grasp of the Mormon religion, but accepts Gardner's understanding and statements of the teachings of the Urantia Book uncritically and repeats his lies and slandorous falshoods. It is clear Kevin has never read the Urantia Book. His review is little more than falsehoods, rumors, inuendo without any supporting facts or evidence. I would expect such behavior from a man such as Martin Gardner, but was disappointed to see if on a Mormon web site. Do not misunderstand. I have no problem with honest criticism even if it is negative; but statements should be based in fact and truth, not rumor and falsehoods. How much Mr. Gardner has read I don't know, but he has managed to make numerous false statements and gross mispresentations of what it says. One response to Gardner's book can be found at the following link: http://urantiabook.org/archive/mjs_archive/mjs_purpose_of_revelation.htm http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/mblock1.htm Robert Reno -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 09 May 2002 01:43:11 -0600 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > I'll never forget the sacrament meeting where a woman speaker > > was raised in a home with "an open attitude toward S-E-X." > Couldn't? You have no evidence that she couldn't bring herself to utter > the word in sacrament meeting. Being comfortable about discussing sex > doesn't mean you should feel free to discuss it in any forum imaginable. > I don't > consider the temple endowment dirty or shameful, but I don't think > sacrament meeting is an appropriate setting for discussing it, either. > With sex, even uttering the word can be inappropriate depending on the > circumstances because of the weight and intimacy of the topic. So if I want to acknowledge the existence of the temple endowment in sacrament meeting, I should say, "T-E-M-P-L-E-E-N-D-O-W-M-E-N-T"? I don't recommend going into detail on how to have sex in sacrament meeting, any more than quoting at length the endowment ceremony. But I've heard the endowment ordinance discussed in many a church venue, including sacrament meeting. Not once did anyone feel compelled to spell it out instead of just name it. > We are very sensitive of > context and situations for discussion, but that is only appropriate for > something we hold so sacred that is so easily, and frequently, degraded. > We don't cast our pearls before swine, we > don't discuss the temple ceremonies outside of the temple, we are *not* > open about anything and everything. These are two responses that inevitably seem to appear in discussions about sex or nudity: "appropriate" and "pearls before swine." I've come to loathe these words. As far as I can tell, people generally invoke "appropriate" when nothing more concrete can be thought up. Where's the definition of appropriate? Where's the list of what is and what ain't? In which scriptural passage is the concept described or defined or even commanded? Answer: none. (I just did a search on Deseret Book's scripture website.) As far as I can figure, when most people say "appropriate," they means how my momma raised me, and how I think everyone else should act. As for "pearls before swine," I see ugliness in calling everyone a swine who isn't us. This assumption that everyone who doesn't think like me is automatically going to mock what I hold in reverence is something I can't accept. > That is a *good* thing, not > something to castigate. Sex has meaning, it is intimate, it is > something we discuss only when we are in the appropriate context for the > discussion. That is not at all the same thing as shame. There's that word again: "appropriate context." Who's deciding what the appropriate context is? Where's the list? Where's the Official Proclamation? Why is one person's judgment of appropriateness better than another's? > I have the > privilege of being considered a sensitive man. As such, I have been in > situations where I was surrounded by women and considered part of the > group--someone they could trust to be sensitive in ways they trust. I > have heard the discussions they have about sex. Believe me, there is > nothing shy or shameful in those discussions. I would classify these women as not having shame, but rather having fear that if they discuss sex like that in other venues, people will give them that "look" I talked about. They may not remain publicly silent because of shame, but they remain silent because they fear the thought police. People will talk about intimate things in an environment where there is trust. And that's exactly my point. The woman I mentioned in sacrament meeeting probably said "S-E-X" instead of "sex" because she couldn't trust her fellow "Saints" to not be offended by such an innocuous thing. > I have heard, very rarely, a joke involving sex in Gospel Doctrine followed by a delightful > chuckle and appreciative nods. But that is rare because it is so rarely > appropriate--not because sex is a hidden and shameful act. Again, appropriate by whose standards? By some rational, objective standard, or by the standard of those most easily offended? > Sometimes > sacred really *does* mean secret--or at least restricted, private, and > appropriately self-censured. But Mormons seem to believe that sacred _always_ means secret, and I don't buy it. > You forgot "flaunted" in your list. I figured "defiled" covered that. Nothing in your Britney Spears example contradicts what I'm saying, unless you think I'm saying girls should get up in sacrament meeting in skimpy outfits and dance provocatively. > Sure, there *are* appropriate times to discuss and/or express sex. But > there are also times when it is *in*appropriate. And who draws the line? The lowest common denominator. I'm saying it's time to educate our fellow Saints to raise the bar, so actual information about sex can be disseminated to those who need it. I'm not imagining this need, else why did that Deseret Book about sex for LDS couples sell like hotcakes? For heaven's sake, a person ought to be able to say the word "sex" in sacrament meeting if that's what she's talking about. Being _that_ discreet is not appropriate, is not righteous, is not hiding pearls from swine, is not reverencing sacred things. It's discomfort from misguided social conditioning. > Anyone who talks about > sex in certain contexts, while maybe not sinning, are at least > cheapening something I hold sacred and I will not hesitate to either > remove myself or express my displeasure. Which certain contexts? How am I supposed to know what they are? Where's the list? Is it the list of God, the list of the Prophet, or the list of the LDS person standing in front of me at the moment? Why is one list superior to another? > > I say, bring on the sex! > > You can bring it on all you want. But, I won't be a participant. Oh, I > don't want us to be so hesitant about it that it never comes up. And yet you applaud spelling the word instead of saying it. > Sex does have its place in our stories and art. It has a place in our > sermons and discussions. But that place is not universal. According to which scripture or General Conference address is the discussion of sex restricted to certain environments? The _extent_ to which we discuss sex may not be universally equal in all environments, but to say there are some venues where the word can't even be uttered? I'd like to hear an _actual_ reason why not. Something that doesn't invoke "appropriate" or "swine." > And sexual > details are so rarely appropriate that I don't expect to encounter them > in *any* public forum I participate in. Why not? The personal details of a specific couple's sex life--sure. But details in general? Why are abstract details that apply to no one in particular so sacred? Why is education "inappropriate," just because it's about sex? > As far as I'm concerned, we > already talk plenty about sex in our lives, sermons, discussions, and > literature. I don't agree at all with your call to make it more common, > to discuss it more often. We already talk plenty about sex in negative and degrading ways. I want a balance, not just more of the same. I don't think it's making sex common to try to talk about it in positive, uplifting ways more often. On the contrary, it's combatting the existing trend to cheapen it, which silence is incapable of doing, because silence loses by default. > > It _is_ a gift of God, after all. > > I don't discuss or share every gift of God. In fact, gifts of God > deserve respect and care. I have experienced more than one occasion > when the spirit told me not to share a thought or experience I had > planned to share. I don't display my garments for all to see, I don't > discuss the temple endowment outside of the temple, I don't share > details of my sex life with anybody (um, yet, I suppose there could > arise circumstances where it would be appropriate, but I expect that to > be very rare). And I recommend that if the spirit whispers to you not to bring up sex, that you don't do it. But what on earth does that have to do with general policy? I may feel uncomfortable discussing a specific instance where a gift of the spirit was manifested unless I was prompted to do so. And I wouldn't discuss specifics of my sex life with my wife except in extraordinary circumstances. But what on earth do these things have to do with discussing either subject generally? I've heard discussions on the sacred gifts of the spirit a zillion times in church. I've heard endowments discussed often, as well as garments. True, I've never seen anyone model garments in church, but I'm not advocating live demonstrations of sex in sacrament meeting either. There is a difference between intrusive details of a specific individual's life and speaking generally on the subject. > God expects us to pursue every good gift in the measure > he has given it. We need to seek the balance and priorities of God. > They are His gifts, after all, and not our own to do with as we please. Since I haven't read any official statement from God about what is and what isn't appropriate when discussing sex, your statement cuts both ways. You are no more free to substitute your concept of "appropriateness" for God's will than anyone else. People's definitions of "appropriate" are culturally developed, and have nothing to do with God's will, unless a specific reference can be put forward to demonstrate it's God's will. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] ABANES, _One Nation Under Gods_ (Report) Date: 09 May 2002 12:23:38 -0500 Title: One Nation Under Gods -- A History of the Mormon Church Author: Richard Abanes Pub: Four Walls Eight Windows (c) 2002, hardback, 651 pages (text, notes, bibliography and index $32.00 ISBN: 1-56858-219-6 Rather than a review, I've decided on a brief book report on a book that I've started and am not sure I'm going to finish. But I thought a few words were in order, since this book has been part of some discussions on the internet. The book is "One Nation Under Gods" by Richard Abanes. It is just another in the ever-growing corpus of anti-Mormon tracts that have appeared over the years. Upon first glance, the reader is impressed by its sheer size. More than 450 pages of text, nearly 150 pages of notes, plus bibliograpy and index. A lot of work went into this effort. I opened it in the hope that this would be, at last, a new and more challenging effort. Alas, it was not to be. Having read only 25 pages or so, it is unfair for me to judge the whole book. I'll just note a few things that caught my attention: 1. Abanes' introduction contains a quote from Orrin Hatch where utters the words about the Constitution "hanging by a thread." Familiar words to most Mormons. This then follows: "The prediction by Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, contains what has always been the Mormon American dream -- i.e., the transformation of the U.S. government into a Mormon-ruled theocracy divinely ordained to 'not only direct the political affairs of the Mormon community, but eventually those of the United States and ultimately the world.' This lofty aspiration, which dates back to Mormonism's earliest years, continues to be a dominant element of the faith espoused by Joseph Smith's followers." (p. xvii-xviii) Really? Are you all out to take over the world? Is this a "dominant element" of your faith? I've been in and around Mormons for more than a dozen years, and somehow you've managed to hide this from me. I vow from this day forward to be more vigilant. Seriously, Mr. Abanes, I believe, reveals something here. He really hasn't spent much time among the Mormons. This theme continues, more later. On page 14, Abanes relates the problems correlating the various versions of the First Vision. Yes, this has been treated many times. Bookcraft published a nice volume on this very subject; BYU Studies (I think) also had a nice article some years ago. No big secret here. Abanes' conclusion? "Although Smith's First Vision is a requisite part of Mormonism's past, historical documents reveal that it probably never happened." (p. 14) Quite a leap, don't you think? Here's the corker, and here's where I stopped reading. I trust I can cite this without comment, saying only that Abanes clearly, clearly has never read the Book of Mormon, and clearly has no knowledge of Mormonism beyond the flash cards supplied by Sandra Tanner (to whom he gives much credit throughout the book): "Smith's 'second' vision (including the 1827 retrieval of his golden plates) is just as rife with internal and external inconsistencies as is his 'first' vision. For example, in 1842, when the LDS publication 'Times and Seasons', published a version of the second vision, the angel was named 'Nephi' rather than Moroni. Joseph's 1832 account of the 'second' vision does not even identify the angel, but instead, refers to the entity as an 'angel of the Lord' who told him about plates engraved 'by Moroni.' Obviously, if the angel in Smith's room spoke 'about' Moroni, then he certainly could not have 'been' Moroni." (p. 25) Honest, he really says this. I kid you not. My advice -- save your money. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com or jeffneedle@nethere.com Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com or jeffneedle@nethere.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Talent Search: Actor for Joseph Smith Date: 08 May 2002 04:14:32 -0600 Melissa Proffitt wrote: > That sounds like a very awkward way of saying the actor shouldn't have > portrayed any immoral acts or characters in his previous film work. I guess that shuts out Marvin Payne, who played a violent white supremacist in a film once, or opera singer Michael Ballam, who played a murderer in one film, and Satan himself in another. The poor individual who played the murderer in _Brigham City_ is definitely out (and shall remain nameless here for you benighted souls who haven't seen the film yet). Thom Duncan couldn't play the part, since he played an evil mobster who murdered Joseph Smith in his own play (but Thom's personal life would disqualify him anyway). (Yes, that was a joke.) Charlton Heston: not a chance. He played a man who lusted to kill another for revenge in _Ben-Hur_. And he let his bare butt show in _Planet of the Apes_, no doubt a more evil act than murder for revenge. The same sin disqualifies Johnny Whitaker, who can be found skinnydipping in the Reader's Digest adaptation of Tom Sawyer. Wilford Brimley--even ignoring his age--can't be considered, since he was an unscrupulous partner in _The Firm_. Tom Hanks--don't make me laugh! He played a homosexual--'nuff said. Jay North can't, not with all those pranks he pulled as Dennis the Menace. Nor can Orrin Hatch, who evilly appeared in an R-rated film. Gordon Jump played a slave auctioneer in one of the Planet of the Apes movies (sure it was apes, but it was still slavery.) If that isn't enough, he now plays one of the most evil characters in all of television: the Maytag repair man. Donny Osmond should definitely be banned for the unpardonable sin of starring in _Going Coconuts_. Perhaps Richard Dutcher should be disqualified for appearing in _Singles Ward_. Certainly we must give thumbs-down to the entire cast of _Johnny Lingo_. Well, I got more silly as I progressed. I can't help it--it's congenital. But my point is, you may be right about what that phrase meant. But if you are, I'm disturbed by the implications. It's evil to play an evil role? -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Gerald N. LUND, _Come Unto Me_ (Review) Date: 08 May 2002 20:20:31 -0500 Gerald N. Lund _Come Unto Me_ (The Kingdom and the Crown, Volume Two) Shadow Mountain, 2001 Hardcover, 591 pages ISBN 1-57008-714-8 $26.95 Reviewed by Larry Jackson This is the second book in Lund's series, The Kingdom and the Crown. Set in the Holy Land at the time of Christ's ministry, it continues the story of the fictional Simeon, ardent Zealot, and of the Household of David ben Joseph, a merchant of Capernaum, Miriam, the only daughter of Mordechai ben Uzziel of Jerusalem, and their family and friends, intertwined with the historical figures of Jesus and Mary of Nazareth, five of the original apostles, and others noted in the histories of the time and, in particular, the Bible. On the fiction/adventure side, Simeon recklessly tries to undo the damage of the crisis that ended the first book of the series. He struggles to balance his youthful and sometimes misguided enthusiasm with his desire to accept and apply the more peaceful teachings of the Savior in his own life. Miriam also struggles with her new-found faith, living in the home of a father who has forbidden her to have anything to do with Jesus. And, if absence makes the heart grow fonder, the relationship between Simeon and Miriam has miraculously developed as this book in the series concludes. On the historical side, events from the New Testament include the parables of Jesus on discipleship, his (and Peter's) walking on the water, and some of the other miracles that occurred on and near the Sea of Galilee. It is the time of the rising influence of Jesus and his teachings, as concerns begin to build in other circles, and as his influence begins to grow during the middle of his ministry. This is the first book I have read by Lund. I have not read _Fishers of Men_, the first in this series, nor have I read any of his other popular works. Perhaps anticipating the possibility that a reader might jump into the middle of this series, Lund included a very helpful three-page Synopsis of Volume One, along with a two-page List of Major Characters with brief one- or two-line descriptions that I found to be very helpful, given that there are 39 of them. Lund's style of writing is different. This book is a historical novel. "_Shalom,_ Simeon ben David," Sextus Rubrius said in Aramaic. It he was surprised to see his visitor, it did not show on his craggy face. "And peace to you, Sextus Rubrius. I apologize for coming at this hour, but I am leaving for a time and needed to see you." Sextus waved a hand. When he reached the bottom of the stairs, he motioned toward one of the doors, but Simeon shook his head. "I can't stay long." Sextus nodded. Simeon couldn't help but see the contrast between the two of them. The centurion was close to Simeon's father's age, perhaps a few years older--around fifty. He had probably spent thirty or more years as a legionnaire. Those years showed on his face and in his body. He was built like an ox--solid, steady, deliberate in his motions. His hair, thick and showing streaks of gray, was short-cropped. The hands were not overly large but were strong and thickly veined. His features showed the weathering of a man who spent his life out of doors. Like most Romans, he was clean shaven. Simeon guessed that he had already shaved--or been shaved--that morning, for there was no hint of stubble on his face. (30) The novel parts were easily discerned, and the author reminded me over and over when the historical parts arrived. But in giving those reminders, I was left wondering just how historical they really were. The parts about Jesus were readily recognized from the New Testament. Lund was careful, in most cases, not to overextend the familiar scriptural story as it pertained to the Savior's words and actions. But on many occasions, the historical embellishments around the scriptural story left me wondering where history ended and fiction began. Then, to remove any doubt, chapter notes appeared. "The call to be perfect is found in Matthew 5:48. The account of the miracle of the coin in the mouth of the fish is found in Matthew 17:24-27. Obviously the author has supplied some details not found in the scriptural account." (Chapter 5 notes, 100). "The scriptural accounts do not specifically talk about a large wave that frightened Peter, only that when he "saw the wind, boistrous, he was afraid" (Matthew 14:30). Other small details were furnished by the author but are in harmony with the Gospel accounts." (Chapter 6 notes, 116). The author seems to have given much thought and effort to the chapter notes, but some of them are contradictory and many are not convincing. I felt as if I were in a religion class. The reading at first seemed ponderous, the author's comments well-intended, but sometimes patronizing. Notes at the end of each chapter served mainly to remind me how disjointed I felt as I read. The book never came together for me as a whole. I struggled through nearly half of it before I forced myself to put aside my concerns and just take the text as it came. The additions to the historical parts were sometimes interesting but not meaningful to me. The fictional story line was predictable. There were no surprises. Mildly exciting moments in the plot were few and far between. The characters were, for the most part, simple. Oddly, one of the better parts of the book occurred as the fictional characters discussed some of the things Jesus taught. The discussions (I remember two) were thought provoking, brief, and what I think an institute instructor would want to hear his students discuss among themselves during moments of serious introspection and contemplation. In his preface, Lund says, "My hope for all readers, whether they agree with my portrayal and depiction of the Savior and his disciples or not, is that this work will stimulate in them a desire to answer for themselves the question that Jesus asked: "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?" (Matthew 22:42)." If you enjoyed reading the first book in this series, you will probably enjoy this one, as well. The storyline, both historical and fictional, moves forward. Perhaps some of the troubles I had getting into this book would have resolved themselves with the first, had I read it and thus become more accustomed to Lund's style of writing. I think the book is intended for adults and mature teens. Those who have studied little of the historical events at the time of the Savior will think they are learning a lot. Those with more of an understanding of the times will find themselves wondering why the author tried so hard to explain things about which historians and scholars have spent lifetimes disagreeing. And those interested in a little adventure novel will find that, also. Larry Jackson May 8, 2002 ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 08 May 2002 18:23:19 -0500 I admit to having mixed feelings on this topic. On the one hand, I think that a lot of the best artwork, in many fields, is inadequately compensated, and if artists were primarily driven by a desire to make money from art, there's a lot of good art that wouldn't get created. On the other hand, I believe firmly that "the laborer is worthy of his [or her] hire." (An aside here, related to Todd's comparison of artistic work with Church service: As I recall, early revelation specified that bishops--when that calling was considered to be a full-time job, involving administration of the law of consecration--were, in fact, to be maintained out of the bishop's storehouse. But I may be misremembering. Please correct me, someone, if I'm wrong... In any event, I don't know if this was ever implemented. But I am pretty sure that today, most of those except full-time missionaries who are engaged in full-time work for the Church, such as mission presidents, receive either a salary, or--if it is a calling rather than a job--a stipend.) I think it's also important to acknowledge that there are many different patterns of economic compensation, besides direct payment for a work itself. As Todd points out, relevant publication has an important value to university-level teachers seeking advancement (e.g., tenure). Each year, my wife comes up for review to determine the relative size of her raise (this year, nothing: the University of Wisconsin system, like so many others across the country, is in a budget crisis); one of the factors is research/publication. For those teaching creative writing, in particular, literary publication in respected venues is likely to be a critical factor in obtaining tenure. This, of course, is one of the reasons why venues professors seek to publish in (whether academic journals or literary journals) pay nothing, or next to nothing: the people submitting have a stronger need of publication than of money. But I'd say that the motivation (or at least the incentive) is still largely economic--but administered in a different fashion. There are, I think, several separate (but intertwined) issues involved here: (a) The question of whether artists should be writing from a desire for money or out of some other motive. (b) Pros and cons of the amateur (uncompensated), part-time professional (compensated), and full-time professional models for artistic production. (c) Pros and cons of different sources of economic support for art: artist subsidy, marketplace, private patronage (including, for example, support for professors at private universities such as BYU who earn tenure in part through their creative production), and public patronage (including, for example, support for professors at state schools who earn tenure in part through their creative production). I think that includes all the sources that have been discussed on the list... A complicating factor in this discussion is the factor of support for artistic venues versus support for artists. Answers to all these questions are, I think, different for different types of artistic endeavor. Or to put it another way: I think that different methods and levels of compensation are likely to lead to different types of artistic production. I suspect, for example, that due to economics, few heads of households will be found publishing in the type of literary magazines that pay only in contributor copy, unless they are also working on university faculties. (I think a demographic survey of those publishing in different types of magazines would be fascinating; have such surveys been done, I wonder?) At the same time, such literary magazines are also free to publish to a much narrower potential audience than, say, science fiction magazines, which must support themselves largely through subscription and newsstand sales. Economics is, in my view, an inherent part of the system; how it works within particular markets would, I suspect, be a fascinating study. **** On a related note: I'm somewhat intrigued--and disturbed--by Todd's comparison of art to Church service. Are we willing to follow that all the way to its logical conclusion, and argue that artists should not be compensated at all for their work, until they reach a point where a consensus develops that a specific artist should not have to do anything else but create art for the rest of his/her life, and that the public (or some private group) is willing to provide a stipend for that to happen? (This in fact happened to Beethoven, as I recall: at a certain point in his life, a group of nobles gathered together to provide him with a generous annual salary, on condition that he simply continue to make his home in Vienna. No other requirements that I recall.) Or should artistic production remain forever uncompensated? Or should it be compensated, but at a low enough level to make it unattractive except to someone who really wants to do that in preference to other kinds of work? What is it that makes it desirable for artistic creation to be uncompensated, if (for example) other areas of labor, such as teaching, or editing, or scientific discovery, or invention, are compensated? Is art somehow in a different category from these, and if so, why? What about the support staff for artistic creation (as it were): the editors, typesetters, actors, musicians, conductors, directors, prop painters, etc.? I understand that each of us, in our own lives, tends to donate time to causes we consider good, that we know will not be compensated--starting, perhaps, with family and Church service, and spreading out from there. Given the nature of the system for supporting artists in this society, it seems inevitable that much artistic work, especially in certain fields, will remain in that category. (For example, I love _The Sugar Beet_, and doubt that a system could be devised that would involve significant financial compensation without killing its freshness.) From that perspective, I think it's admirable for individual artists to view their own efforts in certain categories as volunteer efforts, undertaken for the common good, or for the sake of the art itself, without hope of compensation. I'm much less comfortable with the notion that artists *ought not* to expect such compensation; even less with the notion that art produced with the expectation of compensation is somehow tainted by that expectation. (I do recall an excellent essay by Hugh Nibley titled "Work We Must, But the Lunch Is Free" that argued that ultimately *none* of us should be working for hope of compensation. A truly mind-expanding essay, for me; but I think his arguments apply no more directly to art than to any other area of human endeavor.) I'd close with a plea for charity all around as we talk about how artists "ought to" act and "what makes good art." If there's one thing this discussion has brought into focus for me, it is that even as creative artists, we all live in very different worlds. The "literary magazine" writer deals with different realities than the science fiction writer, who in turn inhabits a different world (so to speak) than the children's writer, or the writer of historical fiction, or the poet, dramatist, songwriter, musician... In describing and appreciating our own method(s) of working and the type(s) of creative production we prefer, we need to be extremely careful not to denigrate the tastes and preferences of others. Jonathan Langford Speaking (mostly) for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: [AML] Panelist Needed Date: 09 May 2002 05:16:00 -0700 [MOD: Please send suggestions of specific names directly to Levi. More general suggestions about how to fill the slot can go either to Levi or to the List.] I am in the process of assembling a panel discussion for the Sunstone symposium in Salt Lake City on August 8, 9, 10 on the topic of missionaries returning early. I am having a hard time finding someone to represent the official point of view, preferably a former bishop, stake president, or mission president. Does anyone on the AML-list know of a person who might be willing and able to participate? Or do you have suggestions on some other way to fill this slot on the panel? Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Kenny KEMP, _I Hated Heaven_ (Review) Date: 09 May 2002 03:47:47 -0600 I HATED HEAVEN by Kenny Kemp 1998, Alta Films Press Trade paperback, 278 pages $12.00 (available on www.alta-films.com for $9.95) ISBN 189244210-8 "If This Is Heaven, I'll Hate It Too" In the film _Heaven Can Wait_, the afterlife is depicted as a highly bureaucratized place. Football player Warren Beatty is taken prematurely by an angel, because Beatty was involved in a car accident, and the angel, assuming he couldn't survive it, wants to spare him the pain. But the angel's superior James Mason checks the official lists and finds out Beatty does survive the accident. He needs to be returned to his body, except his body as cremated, so now they have to go through procedures to find another body for him. It's all handled through "corporate" policy. The Albert Brooks film _Defending Your Life_ has an afterlife where new arrivals are boarded in fancy hotels and can dine at all sorts of restaurants without having to worry about counting calories, fat intake, or cholesterol. They spend several days there as the powers that be, a legalistic bureaucracy, decide whether they are ready to move on to a higher existence or must return to Earth in a reincarnated life. The Michael Keaton tour de force _Beetlejuice_ also has a very bureaucratized afterlife, albeit presented in a silly, satirical way. Suicides are assigned to be the bureaucrats as punishment for their sin. Take-a-number offices exist where the numbers climb into the millions and the "Now Serving" number is four. Policy is rigid and often nonsensical. The classic science fiction novel _Stranger In a Strange Land_ by Robert Heinlein, while never acknowledging the existence of God, nonetheless sketches a portrait of an afterlife with a very hierarchal bureaucracy. The punchline of the whole book depends entirely on this state of affairs. The book _I Hated Heaven_ by LDS author Kenny Kemp fits right in with these other works of fiction, but with a decidedly Mormon twist to his afterlife. Nothing about the book would tip off a reader ignorant of LDS theology that this is a Mormon author at work, but for those in the know, the LDS basis to his imaginative afterlife is unmistakable. From the insistence that the next stage after mortality is Paradise, not Heaven, to the lack of wings on angels, to the premortal teachings new arrivals get in the classes they are expected to take, we are swimming in LDS concepts without ever once seeing the words "LDS" or "Mormon." The reason for this is obvious. Kemp is writing to a national mainstream audience, not an LDS one. He is playing the Orson Scott Card counterpart for the religious genre, where Card often laces his mainstream science fiction and fantasy books with multitudes of LDS spice without ever letting on. Kemp does as fine a job, too, letting the more traditional Christian readers enjoy the book as an imaginative new way of looking at the afterlife, while LDS readers get to have fun being "in the know." But whether he really has radical ideas about the spirit world, or whether he just wanted to allow his imagination to roam wherever the needs of the story took him--because, after all, this technically isn't an LDS book--Kemp's evocation of Paradise is one that seemed to me to violate a number of things we supposedly know about that existence. And his version of God is safely categorized as unusual, to say the least. But there's no legitimate reason for Mormon readers to get upset over these things. It's all in fun, after all, just an interesting speculative romp. A comic and romantic adventure, as Kemp's website puts it. Not that the book starts out feeling remotely comical. The first several chapters are very serious, introducing the characters who will be dealing with the otherworldly aspects of Kemp's story. Tom Waring is a construction businessman and a Christian, married to non-believing wife April. They struggle with how to raise their only son Joshua with such conflicting worldviews. Their compromises are precarious, and their own conflicts heartrending. Tom and April love each other dearly, but Tom longs for the day when April will develop faith, and April struggles hard to keep from condemning the faith Tom has that she can see as nothing but insanity. The books opens with a funeral. Chuck, friend and coworker of Tom, is burying his wife. This brings on a crisis of faith for April--or should I say a crisis of non-faith?--as she grapples with her sorrow over the loss of a friend and her desire, but inability, to believe that there is more after this life. Several chapters later, the question becomes more personal to her as Tom is diagnosed with pancreatic cancer that should have already killed him, and does shortly after the diagnosis. In her enhanced grief, she begs him to return to her and tell her if something exists beyond the grave. He promises he will. Tom is whisked away in the inevitable tunnel of light, and finds himself in the afterlife of Kenny Kemp, a place surprisingly similar to mortality. Tom can see that his spiritual body is composed of the same sort of components that his physical body was: organs, cells, sensations. Although eating and sleeping are unnecessary for the spirit body to survive, the desires to enjoy these things are still with him, even to the feeling of hunger. Even sex, he is assured, is something that spirits can enjoy. Although Kemp acknowledges the LDS doctrine that disembodied spirits long for their physical bodies, one wonders exactly what they are longing for, since every physical advantage mortals enjoy is available to disembodied spirits, but with none of the disadvantages. Tom finds Paradise--_not_ Heaven, as he is constantly reminded--to be a place where people live pretty normal lives in apartments that are constructed out of unnamed material that is presumably the spiritual version of lumber and concrete and steel. Their technology is, by design, kept approximately equal to that of Earth's, to make the transition of death easier. But there are notable exceptions, one being the super-notebook computers called Records that everyone carries around with them, that are networked together in some ultimate version of the Internet. These are the things that the bureaucrats use to keep tabs on everyone, for bureaucrats are in plentiful supply. Tom is assigned one named Jonathan, who is about the most quintessential bureaucrat there is. Tom runs up against countless policies that rub him the wrong way, and understandably so. Kemp's Paradise is some kind of unholy hybrid of Correlation gone horribly awry and Orwell's _1984_. If I were stuck in this Paradise, I would hate it as much as Tom did. Naturally everyone but Tom is perfectly happy with how this utopia runs. Tom even tries to make a go of it, but he can't easily let go of the promise he made to his wife. He's determined to return to Earth and tell her what he's learned. The only problem--of course--is that it's against policy. Indeed, it's against the Prime Directive. (I wonder where Kemp got that label from?) He tries to go through channels to get a waiver of policy, filling out forms the size of which no exaggerated satire on bureaucracy ever dreamed of. His application for a waiver is quickly bumped back, rejected. He bullies his way into the "Council" and demands to be allowed to return to Earth, but they adamantly refuse. Finally, Tom decides his love for his wife and his promise to her overrule any policy or ruling by some council. He discovers a deep chasm with a precarious bridge spanning it, and is told that the bridge leads to both Hell and Earth. But the bridge is forbidden to anyone without authorization to cross. And it's guarded by a burly white-booted (as opposed to jack-booted) thug. At last Tom runs across a person as disgruntled about Paradise as he, and someone who seems to know more about Things than Tom does. The person offers to help him across the bridge and find his way to Earth where he can finally keep his promise to April, no matter the cost to his own eternal soul. The whole situation is stacked against Tom from the beginning, otherwise there wouldn't be a story. Nothing about Paradise appeals to the reader any more than Tom, and I for one would have been across that bridge the instant I learned about it just on principle. But we're willing to forgive author Kemp for rigging the game, because the story is fun to read, and if the setup is predictable, the way the story develops is not. The ending wasn't my favorite ever. It felt a little rushed and a little pat, kind of how I felt at the ending to the "Best of Both Worlds" two-part episode on _Star Trek: Next Generation_. But I tend to prefer more ambiguous endings than the average reader. Traditional readers may love it. _I Hated Heaven_ is interesting enough on its own to write about, but there's more to the story than that. Kemp wrote this book and tried selling it to "every publisher in the solar system," as he says, and they all rejected it. So he self-published and self-distributed it. Tens of thousands of copies later, it earned him the 1999 Inspirational Fiction Award from the Independent Publishers' Association, and he landed a movie deal for it. Even though the book was published back in 1998, this is what makes the book interesting now. If the movie ends up being released (you never know with Hollywood until it happens), it will be another addition to the recent spree of LDS films, and one like _The Other Side of Heaven_ or the upcoming _Charly_ that will be an adaptation of an LDS book. Let's keep our eyes open. _I Hated Heaven_ isn't a Shakespearean masterpiece of literature. I've seen depictions of the afterlife that I liked better (e.g., Robin Williams' film _What Dreams May Come_). But _I Hated Heaven_ is a fine addition to the subgenre of afterlife-as-bureaucracy stories that is enjoyable to read, and is certainly a refreshing change of pace to the many very traditional LDS novels that come out like clockwork each year. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Steve" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 09 May 2002 09:41:58 -0600 Todd: >>> Also, even King Benjamin worked in the fields along with his people. >>> What makes LDS writers think they don't need to do the same? Scott Bronson: >> At last, the crux of the matter. And the answer to the question that >> still has not been asked. Does a writer labor to produce? Apparently >> not, and so is unworthy of her hire. Kathy: > Unworthy of his hire? I guess if all you are writing for is to obtain money, > then yes I suppose it can be looked at this way. But I think, given the > covenants made in the waters of baptism and at the temple altars, LDS > artists and writers, when laboring for the kingdom of God, most certainly > are hired, trained, lead, and payed. The coin one is paid in is of far > greater value than mere mortal money, though. But payment for services > rendered is extremely generous! :-) Yours Truly: I certainly agree with Kathy about the retirement benefits for consecration and I also doubt that any writers -- even those with some financial success resulting from their labors -- are in it for the money. If money were the motivation they'd do something else. I'd prefer being non-specific and conceptual here, but I don't know how to discuss the subject without personal experience, so please forgive: Since "The Church" is the earthly organization administering the Heavenly covenants, including consecration, I try to look to it as a guide for how to direct my efforts. I have been asked to participate musically and as an actor in a handful of church projects. In each case, "they" called and suggested what they had in mind, suggested a deadline and a date for a concept meeting, and stated what they would pay. Had they called and asked me to do this as church service I would have been thrilled to say yes. When I am asked to give firesides or address a certain topic in a youth conference somewhere I never charge at all, but when I give the same presentation at EFY or BYU or Ricks' Education Week -- the church pays me! Last week "they" were recording the soundtrack to a neat new church film on temples -- aimed at non-members -- and they called in a 20-voice choir to sing the choral parts. They paid the composer, the orchestra members and the sound engineer. They could have found any number of singers willing to consecrate that time, but instead they called the best sightreaders they knew and people able to sing many different styles and blend -- people available to sing in the middle of the workday because they are professional singers and actors -- and they paid them all the going hourly studio rate. Because I know those singers I know they would have done it for free if it had been asked. I looked around and smiled to notice that I also happened to be singing with Elders Quorum presidents, Young Womens Counsellors, RS Presidents, Primary teachers, home- and visiting teachers, and Bishopric members. All of whom consecrate like crazy all week long in their church callings. CASE #1 Lets say I write the latest pop hit for Pariah, I mean Mariah, Carey; we'll call it "I Believe In Me, Cuz I'm Beautiful." If it sells millions, no one begrudges any royalties I receive even though they know the song is a throw-away. After all, even Twinkies cost money to make. CASE #2 Lets say the Church pays me to write a song about temples for a church seminary film. I spend many many hours and go through four rewrites until it's just what they want. Then the church film and copyright folks tell me they want unlimited rights without payment of royalties; I say, "cool," 'cause it sounds like consecration to me. So we do it. Then they say, "But you also keep your copyright because we want you to put this out on an album, and you have all rights concerning royalties on that project, because we want our church writers to be able to make their way, even if it's a small way." So I do it. I get $.07 mechanical license (the current rate established by law) per copy for that song and lets say we sell out our first run of 1,000 the first day it's released (I can dream, can't I?). Cool. I get $70, I am a professional songwriter, I can afford to Jiffy Lube my car this quarter. Of course the entire album cost $25,000.00 to produce, so it will be years before the record company breaks even and we can produce another one. Are we in this for the money? No, but who cares -- I hope the CES folks call again someday! Then I get an anonymous letter saying that we shouldn't charge for CDs of church songs, that I'm "getting rich off the Saints," and should repent and consecrate my time. Case #1 is fiction of course, but Case #2 is recent history. I'm about to try and state my main points. Sometimes we are asked to consecrate our talents, sometimes we are hired for them. I have been paid to write some religious songs. I have also written many for free or at the request of neighbors, friends, my bishop or stake president (I'm currently stake music chairman) and these I post for free on my website. I have not, however, noticed the plumber, piano tuner, and carpetlayer being asked to render their services for free in the church building. (There are probably some who do though.) We should always be willing to consecrate, but just because Gerald Lund -- I mean Elder Lund, now -- gives up writing Sci Fi and starts in on his lifelong dream of writing "The Work and the Glory," he shouldn't be required to forego all royalties or advances just because the subject matter is religious. (I have the feeling that he has more than likely paid the 10% the Lord currently asks of us "consecrators," plus other offerings and personal charitable "consecrations" which are none of my business.) Please forgive the large amount of the personal in this post; I offer it in support of the idea that if we are to improve the number and quality of work of the Saints in the arts, the laborers must be worthy of their hire and the oxen must be unmuzzled as they tread the threshing floor. Remaining as willing as we all are to tread on empty stomachs for the love of the kingdom and its King whenever He calls. Steve -- skperry@mac.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 09 May 2002 13:07:47 EDT I don't know if this feeling is common to my fellow full-time artists, but here it is. For some, what work is for is to make money. For me, what money is for is to make work. If the money to enable the next project comes from the last project, great. If it comes from the government, great. If it comes from an anonymous donor, great. If it comes from somebody who doesn't like me, but for some reason owes me money, great. Kathy Fowkes said (rather beautifully) that Mormon artists are paid well in spiritual coin for the work they do. I agree. But I also regard every temporal coin as coming from the Lord, and always to enable the work more than to reward the worker. Marvin Payne __________________ Visit marvinpayne.com! __________________ "...come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift..." (from the last page of the Book of Mormon) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 09 May 2002 12:32:41 -0500 Rich Hammett wrote: > >> The writing I like and respect isn't done, in general for the money, even when some money comes > along. It's done for its own sake.<< > > Oddly, the engineering firm I used to work for had the same idea--actually > stated by a couple of mid-level managers. And a very good idea it is, I think. The ideal from my perspective is that the work is done for the love of it (in which case it's only notionally work) and that it's valued enough by others to generate some decent pay. Work that's done primarily for the money isn't, in my experience, usually as good as work done for love of the work or love of acclaim. > Sadly, they don't seem to be able to hire and keep people. The firms that pay the most seem to get > the most out of their workers in this area. It's not that they get more out of their workers, but that they're better able to get workers who give more of themselves. All else equal, I'll choose to be paid well for doing something I love than to be paid poorly. The managers you describe seem not to understand that principle. Someone who truly loves engineering will probably prefer to do that kind of work for low pay than to work as a drone for high pay, but there's always someone willing to offer a good engineer the high pay. Your former firm > Why is writing different? Because writers are often self-employed, and those who aren't don't usually provide their employers with as much value as does a good electrical engineer. Other than that, it _isn't_ different. The writer who writes for the love of writing will probably write better than the one who's paid by the word and whose interest in it stops there. The point seems so axiomatic that I hardly understand how it can be controversial. The fact that some jobs pay well and others don't and the reasons for that also seem to me completely unremarkable. It makes me wonder whether we're all even discussing the same thing. > I think public art funding is at least as worthwhile as public education > funding, as a good to society. Now we've passed from a discussion of whether people need to be paid to write well to one of who should pay them and how much. It also leads us to the question of _which_ writers should be paid through public funding. All of them? Enough to support a family? And what about pastry chefs, pianists, and itinerate scholars? When you choose a path in life, you should choose it knowing the probable ramifications. I'm constantly telling students (to no effect) that they should choose their paths on the basis of what they like, not on the basis of what pays well. If you like what you do, you'll probably do it well, and even in a very tight field that can generate some income. If you choose a major that you dislike, you'll prepare yourself for a job you dislike, and even though it pays well, you'll spend all week thinking only about the end of the week. And you never know what the job market will do - you might spend six years learning to be a CPA, only to find that the pay isn't as good as you'd expected, the jobs aren't as available, and that you have 40 years of accounting tedium ahead of you (assuming that you don't like accounting - I know people who love it and who find teaching tedious). Getting money for your work is fine and honorable; working for money is the path to emotional and spiritual numbness. No one owes you a living for doing what you like, whether that's medicine, writing, accounting, baking, or engineering. It's up to you to choose your field and to choose your path within that field, and if money is what motivates you, you'll choose your path accordingly. If money isn't what motivates you, then you shouldn't expect society to fork over the cash in appreciation of your choice; hope for it in appreciation of your work. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: [AML] Kieth Merrill Query Date: 09 May 2002 17:29:15 +0000 Does anyone know how to reach famed LDS film director Kieth Merrill? Kindly reply to me directly if you do. Eric D. Snider _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Church News Articles Date: 09 May 2002 10:41:11 -0700 The Lubbock Texas Temple is on the cover. It's for the week ending April 27, 2002. I think I was a little off saying it was the most recent issue Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter E. Chamberlain" Subject: RE: [AML] Environmental Questionnaire Date: 09 May 2002 11:39:19 -0600 Smarter than the scouts though, we would eat it. -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of lajackson@juno.com Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 7:49 PM Peter Chamberlain: .. [The bears] would saunter in around lunchtime, scatter us to the trees and steal our food. After they had left we would go and pick up what they had left, usually the lunch meat... _______________ In other words, even bears know the value of spam when they see it? (Sorry.) Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 09 May 2002 11:51:30 -0600 (MDT) > Jim Picht wrote: ."A human population of six or seven or twenty billion can > probably be sustained indefinitely on this world. " > > I for one vote for a world with few enough human beings to leave some > wilderness nearby. > > Levi Peterson > althlevip@msn.com Here's an insight I've always wanted to write about, but I always get funny looks. I grew up in Alaska - I'm an Eagle scout. I hate "nature." I'm not saying I go chop down rainforests for fun, but I really prefer modern landscapes. I like enclosed parks - nice, but controlled. For me, nature is dirty, unsanitary and out to kill me. Despite the claims of enviornmetalists, Wolves have killed people. In Alaska, I knew lots of people who have been mauled by bears. Bugs get into your nose and mouth and your tent. The food gets extra protein by way of dirt and wook chips. It stinks. As an English major, I always have to bite my tounge when reading the romatic poets, because I find little ennobling or enlightening about a wilderness. I'm glad others find pleasure in it - I don't. And of course, I'll be made a scoutmaster at some point in the future and I'll still have to go on those campouts I hate. On "enviormental issues" I'm still conflicted. I can't believe that whatever it is coming out of the smoke stacks at factories is good for the planet, but I also don't believe the radical claims of the enviormental group. I see no real proof for global warming, the ozone hole (and it is not a hole, merely a thinning) has a possible natural explanation - so I don't know where to come down on that. Maybe that's why Terry Tempest Williams doesn't appeal to me. I really can't find any reason why the "wilderness" or "nature" (to me a human construct anyway) enriches my life in anyway. So maybe I am a heathen. I don't know. All I know is, as I said before, I find "nature" to be dirty, unsanitary and out to kill me. Does anyone else feel this way, or is the personal essay I'm composing on this subject going to be regarded as proof I'm certifiable? --Ivan Wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 09 May 2002 12:15:07 -0600 Jim wrote: "Let me just note that I think it's sad that so many people have jobs they dislike, or study to enter professions they don't care about but which offer financial security. Work isn't about being miserable, but many of us think that that's a natural part of the work experience. Our priorities and expectations are distorted, I think." *** Amen. I've become a bit of a joke with my in-laws because of my views on this. My husband's family had five sons. All followed Dad's footsteps into some sort of engineering--chemical, mechanical, electrical, civil, and software (this one was my husband--granted, this is more creative than other kinds of engineering). Even the son who had serious artistic talent and drives opted into engineering. He completely abandoned his art, changed his major, and now works with a company several states away that makes electric signs. I was irate that the family all just agreed with his decision and shrugged, "Art isn't a very practical way to support a family" as if it was an all-or-nothing choice. No one suggested that he could use his art as a part-time endeavor, or at the very least keep it as a hobby--or better yet, find one of dozens of jobs that he could use his artistic ability in, like graphic design or advertising. The whole family knows about my writing and is supportive of it (but then, I'm a stay-at-home mom, so I'm allowed), but they think that my very real dismay at their son's decision to work with circuits instead of a paint brush is *cute.* Grrr. I pity the poor guy. I don't think he cares one snit about electrical anything, but chose the field to please his family. He'll end up miserable if he doesn't ever use his God-given gifts. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] ABANES, _One Nation Under Gods_ (Report) Date: 09 May 2002 12:27:22 -0600 On Thu, 09 May 2002 12:23:38 -0500, by way of Jonathan Langford wrote: >Title: One Nation Under Gods -- A History of the Mormon Church >Author: Richard Abanes Abanes is also the author of _Harry Potter and the Bible: The Menace = Behind the Magick_ and _Embraced by the Light and the Bible_, among other = titles. There's another one about ten of the most dangerous cults and how to keep your loved ones from being converted by them. Naturally the LDS Church = is included. He is a popular debunker of cults (is a former cult member himself) but his logic frequently leaves much to be desired--as Jeff discovered. I think his books have great appeal for evangelical = Christians who are already convinced he's right. Though it's too bad he revealed the secret desire of all Mormons to take over the world. We're really only supposed to discuss that in Relief Society Enrichment nights. Or did you think we *really* cared all that = much about making picture frames out of old milk cartons? Melissa proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pichtj@nsula.edu Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 09 May 2002 13:35:08 -0500 (CDT) Paris Anderson wrote: > So . . . that means unless I publish and sell--then I'm not working? If I > sell well, does that mean I'm working more than if I sell poorly? And > raising children . . . it's not work getting them off to school and changing > diapers unless I sell one or two? No, it's not work if you chuck them in the lake with the baker's bread. Selling them is irrelevant to the concept of work, or rather, to the concept of valuable or useful work. My comment dealt with the results of the effort (bread on my table versus bread in the lake), not the remuneration involved. I'm amazed at the ability of people to hone in on a statement, ignore its salient elements and pull out the trivial ones, and turn an argument on its head. The salient element of my comment about the baker throwing bread in a lake wasn't that he didn't get paid for it (that's the trivial element), but that he destroyed the bread, that his activity brought no good to anyone. When he sold the bread to me, the salient element was that he and I both benefited, not that he got paid. If payment were the critical element, I'd have specified a price. I didn't say that it's work if you _sell_ something; I said (explicitly) that it's work if it improves the lives of others. If the baker wants to give me the bread, great, but the price is only meaningful from an economic perspective, not from the perspective of defining his activity as meaningful work. I'm not defining work in an idiosyncratic way. If you drop down on your floor right now and do some pushups, that's work, but it's also irrelevant to our discussion. Activities that make you sweat and make your muscles ache are work by _some_ definition, but no one is going to argue that you should expect payment for all such activities. I think implicit in our discussion has been the concept of _useful_ work, and the argument has been partially over the meaning of "useful." So far as I know, payment isn't part of the definition, and I think our focus on that element is a distraction. I'm defining work as activity that makes the lives of others better, period. If you exert great effort to raise your kids and turn them into little sociopaths, you're working in the trivial sense, but you're not doing anything that anyone should applaud, let alone pay for. So, raising children is always work in the trivial sense (work=effort). So is beating them. Breaking windows is work, stealing cars is work, writing tracts for the KKK is work. Gardening is work, making bread for a neighbor is work, serving as ward clerk is work. Some work is remunerative, some isn't, some is good for society, some isn't, some deserves acclaim, some doesn't. Some generates income and shouldn't, some generates no income but we wouldn't mind if it did. Who should decide which jobs should pay, and how much? Not I. I only note, writing is work, and writing that improves the lives of the people it touches is valuable work. Baking is work, baking that feeds people who want it is valuable work. Money isn't part of the equation, and it's a red herring to put it there. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 09 May 2002 10:36:31 -0800 >===== Original Message From "Annette Lyon" ===== it said that while certain parts of the world are growing >fast in population (such as the US), other areas are decreasing in >population. Again, I don't remember all the details, but I at least Russia >and much of Africa are losing their people faster than they are gaining >them--due to things like disease, poor health care, high infant mortality, >STD's and other reasons that lead to infertility, poor care of the elderly, >etc. It was nice to read something to contradict all the >alarmists who say I shouldn't be having more than two children to replace me >and my husband. > This line of logic bothers me. It seems to imply that since people in other countries are dying, we are welcome to reproduce with impunity. I would say that it rather argues that we should be doing more to help the people who are dying. Also, when somone in America reproduces, many more resources go toward that new person - much more than goes to new people in other countries. So hypothetically, if Americans quit reproducing so much, there would be many more resources to go around. And if American's produce more new people because new people are dying in other countries, then even more resources will be taken up leaving less for new people in other countries, thus accelerating their mortality, thus giving us the exuse to continue our reproduction. It seems that a vicious cycle would be created. I also object to this argument on quasi-religious grounds. If it is true that the mortal experience is an important part of eternal progression, then I say we have the obligation to create a world where everyone's mortal experience can be rich, not just the American's. I'm not arguing for zero population growth (I have two new people of my own, one of whom is watching me type this. Hi Mason!) But I am arguing that the the world is much different (economically, medically, environmentally etc) than it used to be. We have to think something new. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Keystone Project: The Day Alma Died Date: 09 May 2002 13:54:54 -0500 I don't recall seeing it mentioned on AML-List, so I'll pass along the information. A website for "The Keystone Project" is online, presenting the beginnings of a projected 30-volume series of novels expanding upon the Book of Mormon. The URL is: http://www.keystoneproject.com/ In case you haven't actually seen this in book stores, I can vouch that it really exists. The first volume is _The Day Alma Died_. The thing is, like, 800 pages long. It is written by "b.v. cheyenne", a pseudonym for the actual author, who is a "prominent Latter-day Saint." 30 volumes. That's a lot of volumes. If they're all about 800 pages long, that's 24,000 pages. The site has the tag line "Isn't about time you read a GOOD book about GOOD things?" The book is illustrated too, with occasional black-and-white comic book-style illustrations (not that the illustrations are in panels or have word balloons, but that they feature crisp penciled-then-inked drawings). The next volume is One Very Wicked Man (http://www.keystoneproject.com/OVWM.html), expected release date: October 1, 2002. The website states "Yes! There is still time to help us write the book!": [QUOTE] Yes! We actually are inviting you to help us write the next book in the series THE KEYSTONE: One Very Wicked Man Experience the collaborative process in writing a creative work from the very foundation of this important epic novel. See your contributions in print and experience the satisfaction of knowing that others are enjoying the fruits of your creative efforts and contributions. Upon publication, see your name listed in the credits, along with notice of the part you've played in writing the book. If you'd like to be a part of this effort, email "b.v.cheyenne" and tell the author about yourself, your interest, and any special qualifications you may have. Professional writing skills are not requisite, but intelligence, insight, and a cooperative demeanor and spirit are essential. [END QUOTE] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Gerald N. LUND, _Come Unto Me_ (Review) Date: 09 May 2002 11:35:41 -0700 Alas, Larry is very kind. You all probably don't know that I had this book, couldn't read it, and sent it along to Larry, at his request. I made it through a little over 100 pages, just couldn't continue, and passed it along to a hardier soul. > "_Shalom,_ Simeon ben David," Sextus Rubrius > said in Aramaic. It he was surprised to see his > visitor, it did not show on his craggy face. > Now, I may be wrong, but isn't "shalom" Hebrew? Is the equivalent word in Aramaic identical? I had to blink a few times, wondering why Lund felt it necessary to qualify Shalom as Aramaic! What was his point? Further on, he has his Jewish characters saying "Oy." Uhhhh, this is Yiddish, a language that didn't even exist in Jesus' time. In an effort to impress us with his limited knowledge of language, Lund simply stumbles and falls. I'll stop here. [Jeff Needle] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] QUINN, _Elder Statesman_ (Review) Date: 09 May 2002 11:36:46 -0700 Many thanks! I'm sure your review will be equally appreciated. My experience with you is that you really are smarter and more observant than I am. Please don't deprive us of your thoughts. (I really mean it!) ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:11 PM > Just an excellent review by Jeff Needle of Quinn's "Elder Statesman." I > am reading the book myself and was thinking of reviewing it, but after > Jeff's, I can't think of much more that can be said:-) > > > > ===== > R.W. Rasband > Heber City, UT > rrasband@yahoo.com > > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] How We Make Decisions (was: Mormon Environmentalism) Date: 09 May 2002 12:41:11 -0600 I wonder if I could suggest what seems to me to be an interesting side = issue here. To a certain extent, what we believe on any subject is based on evidence = and reasoning. Absolutely true. But we get lots of information on any = subject, and often the information conflicts, and advocates for any = position also spin their information so we'll agree with them. Up to a = point, then, it seems to me that we believe what we choose to believe, = independent of evidence. This isn't to say we're impervious to evidence, = or that we're not open-minded. It's just to say that with the flurry of = information we receive on any given issue, we're unlikely to carefully = sift all the evidence for any issue. We're most likely just gonna make a = choice. For example, a hot issue in Utah right now has to do with the storage of = nuclear waste, with a temporary facility proposed in Utah, and a permanant = facility proposed in Nevada. It's an issue that interests me, and the = newspapers are full of stories and op-ed pieces about it. And I can't = help but notice that most of those op-ed pieces are by advocates for and = against storage, either from industry spokespeople or anti-nuclear storage = activists. How can I make up my mind? Well, I think I'm reasonably = informed, but I'm also no expert, and I do notice that both sides have = 'experts' they cite. So I just decide; I'm against both facilities, and = will support candidates, in part, on their stance on this issue. (Of = course, for me, the fact that President Bush supports Yucca Mountain is = reason enough to oppose it.) And when I decide, I realize that in part = my opinion is uninformed and emotional. And I'm okay with that. This is also true on historical questions. I'm writing a play about = George Washington right now, and a very minor and unimportant issue that's = come up has to do with his kneeling in prayer at Valley Forge, as depicted = in that famous Arnold Friberg painting. Well, I don't think George = Washington did pray for his troops at Valley Forge. I find the evidence = that's cited in favor of his having prayed unconvincing. I think the = painting is silly; he was far too accomplished and experienced a horseman = to leave a saddled and bridled horse shivering in the snow so he could = pray. But the main reason I don't think George Washington prayed for his = troops at Valley Forge is because I've decided not to believe it. It = doesn't fit my conception of the man; it doesn't seem in character. He = was a Deist, a comfortable Virginia gentleman with fairly conventional = religious opinions for his time and class. I also have decided not to = believe it because I generally reject the myth of American exceptionalism. = So I've made a choice in my play (which I'm obligated to do as a writer), = but I've also made a choice to believe in certain bits of evidence, and to = disbelieve in other evidence. =20 If one believes, however, that the history of America is a history of = people seeking religious freedom, driven here by God, then it follows that = George Washington must be portrayed as righteous man actively seeking = God's blessings. As it happens, that's not how I see him, nor how I see = our history. I don't see him as a righteous man, or a spiritual man, I = see him as a competant man; someone who was pretty capable at a number of = tasks. I see the history of America as primarily a history of genocide = and slavery, with a search for religious freedom pretty secondary.=20 Anyway, I think we do this all the time. I think we make up our minds = what we'll believe, and then we look over the evidence for facts that = might support us. Sometimes, pretty rarely I think, we find evidence so = compelling that we change our minds. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "bob/bernice hughes" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism Date: 09 May 2002 14:35:24 -0600 [MOD: I'm not at all sure that Jacob and Melissa's comments were intended in the way that Bob describes here. Still, I think Bob makes some good points about how such comments *can* be taken. Let's all be careful, here--on both sides (all sides) of this issue--not to be too quick to impute motives to others, or to describe positions and groups in ways that can be taken as unfair generalizations. Without, of course, meaning that we ought not to express what our own views are...] >>Jacob Profitt writes: I'm kind of sick of people taking emotional >>positions that they cannot change, >>particularly when they refuse to >>allow discussion of things they disagree with. So, to >>bring it back to >>the original topic, you can't get away with the bromides typical of so >> >>much Environmentalism. It just won't do. If you are going to be >>Environmental, you >>are going to be forced to articulate your >>assumptions, and then justify them. >>Melissa Proffitt writes: >>What frustrates me (and this is a general comment, not directed at Jana, >>by the way) is >>that so many environmental activists would prefer us >>*not* to do the research >>ourselves. Many of them are dedicated people >>who have come to the conclusions they >>support because of extensive >>study, but instead of encouraging others to do the same, >>they try to >>sell us on their conclusions. And Jacob earlier wrote that Mormons are skeptical of Environmentalism because Mormons are ‘practical,’ ‘don’t scare easily,’ and resist ‘following the crowd.’ The clear implication is that if you choose to embrace Environmentalist arguments, you are not practical, scare easily, simply follow the crowd, you ignore extensive study, and write trite platitudes (bromides). I disagree with these gross generalizations about Environmentalists in general, Mormon Environmentalists in particular, their positions and arguments, and their willingness to accept factual data. Quite the opposite, actually. Although I am not a member of any Environmental organization, those I have dealt with are more open to new information and show more flexibility that those on the other side of the issue. You may trust the Enrons of the world, but I do not. I may choose to further research a topic; but if I choose *not* to further research, I may take a base position one way or the other. Choosing to side with Environmentalists as a base position is no worse than choosing to side with the opposite side as a base position. Once again, I refer you to the book _New Genesis: A Mormon Reader on Land and Community_. Here are some of the essay titles: “Conservation versus Conservatives: How the Gospel Fits” “Poverty, Population, and Environmental Ruin” “Navigating the Environmental Crisis: Mending Policy and Mythology” “The Mormon Village: A Model for Sustainability” “Sustainability: Will the Children Return?” “Stewardship of the Air” “Stewardship in the Backyard” “Wilderness in the Hand of God” etc. Clearly this is a book written by Environmentalists. Mormon Environmentalists. Some of authors of the essays in the collection are: Vaughan J. Featherstone Hugh W. Pinnock Hugh Nibley Eugene England Emma Lou Thayne Ted Wilson etc. I could be wrong, but I thought these Mormons were respected academics, artists, church and political leaders, and intellectuals who have chosen to be allied with Environmentalists. They certainly don’t scare easily, they are not followers. They understand what extensive study means, they are open-minded. The are very articulate, yet often in their writings they indicate that it was not logical arguments that brought them to this position, or simply emotion, but rather walking through a clear-cut forest or looking out over the valley smog on a summer afternoon. I’ll keep my mind open, but for now I will side with them and be proud to have that ‘E’ label attached to me, too. If I come across any anti-environmental essays (or even bromides) by folks of the same stature, I’ll reconsider. Bob Hughes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] Re: LDS Environmentalism Date: 09 May 2002 13:40:37 -0600 Melissa, at the risk of sounding like a sissy, let me say that the one phrase, "to speak against" was pretty innocuous because 1) I'm not ashamed to say that I do have a bias against storing nuclear waste in Utah (or any of the West for that matter) and 2) I'm just getting back into the List and writing, my kids have been sick for a month, I'm distracted, and am not dotting all my I's nor crossing my t's. I implore the group (and this is general, definitely not directed at Melissa) to not start making each other an offender for a word or a phrase anyway. If a person wants to speak *for* nuclear waste disposal in the West, they are in very good company: Consoritiums from the East, the Bush administration, the Eastern states themselves. I sort of root for the underdog when sending out notices. I spent 1.5 hours at the meeting and it intriguing from a literary point of view as well as an education experience to say the least. I couldn't help notice that those who opposed the waste were extremely well-articulated and informed. Those for it (aside from the scientists who were employed to speak for it) were (for the most part, not all) to be pitied.....they were uneducated, in poverty, obviously seeking financial gain from the deal (and desperately needing it, which makes it all the sadder to me.) That's my observation, I can't put it in scientific terms I guess, you had to be there. Jana Pawlowski -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 09 May 2002 14:46:58 -0600 I wanted to respond to the dialogue between D. Michael and Jacob. Jacob said: > > > I have heard, very rarely, a joke involving sex in Gospel > Doctrine followed by a delightful > > chuckle and appreciative nods. But that is rare because it is so rarely > > appropriate--not because sex is a hidden and shameful act. And D. Michael asked why the recent book on sexuality was such a best seller at Deseret Book (Mo lit connection). Recently we had a lesson in gospel doctrine class that focused on avoiding any thought, action, or circumstance that might lead us (married people) into contact with the opposite sex. The stories told were about people who had committed adultery and then their whole lives were destroyed, all because they took the first inoncuous step of some kind of innocent contact with the opposite sex. I've heard these kind of lessons and warnings in church all my life. I guess they must be pretty important or we wouldn't get them so often. But I sat there thinking about the other side of the coin, the positive side of our sexual relationships with our spouse. I wondered why instead of being frightened one more time with warnings about sin (which somtimes have the opposite effect of intriguing and getting people more interested in sin), we couldn't more often talk about how to make one's sexual relationship with one's spouse more fulfilling and meaningful. I wondered why we couldn't talk about how each spouse has a responsibility to exercise, eat healthy, and make oneself as attractive as best as possible. I wondered why we couldn't talk about how the physical relationship is an absolutely vital bond that needs to be nutured and strengthened. I remember how when I was first married it took me a very long time to get over the embarrassment and guilt that I had associated with sex because of all the talks about sin and the cultural attitude of forbiddeness. I would blush in shame over something that was supposed to be wonderful. Some time ago I knew of an LDS man who had been married for 30 years and I also know that his wife hated sex and only tolerated it rarely (sound familiar anyone?). This man was excommunicated for having a one-time sexual encounter with a woman. He was devastated by his sin and went through the difficult circumstance of being tried by the high council. That procedure is supposed to be private. Yet immediately in his small Utah town he was accosted by well-wishers on the street who knew everything about it and offered their sympathy. He was eventually rebaptized, but he held deeply bitter feelings about the entire experience. However, the real problem--the lack of a sexual relationship with his wife--was never addressed or fixed. That couple needed to visit a sex therapist--and make darn sure to find one in the big city and out of the little Utah town. Or the church leaders should explain to the wife that her sexual relationship with her husband is just as important as her duties as Relief Society President. (And I know women what you are thinking! There is much more to a relationship than the physical act--women need romance and conversation and time and caring. I agree. But men need these things too and the sexual relationship should encompass all of them.) I think the remains of Puritanism in our culture has inculcated negative attitudes in women of my generation more often than we would think. So I wonder if adultery have more to do with bad marriages rather than avoiding temptation? Could the formerly-emphasized imperative of having one baby after another be part of the issue? Why has the advice on birth control changed so much since I was young? I know when I was pregnant, nursing, pregnant, nursing ...on and on for 15 years that I had little interest or strength for sex (although I must have had it at least every nine months or so). And I felt because of instructions I had been given by my church leaders when I was a student at BYU in the 70s that I was required to continually bear these children and not use birth control unless of dire circumstances of my life being in danger. It is good things are changing. The young women in my ward today don't have one baby after the other like we did. So I agree with Michael that we need to be more open about such matters. The ones who need it are my generation--we are still repressed. I suppose the younger generation knows a lot more than I ever did about it. All I know is that even though I posted this message on the list, I can't even say the word "sex" to my children without embarrassment. I need to get over it. Gae Lyn Henderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Correction to Review of LUND, _Come Unto Me_ Date: 09 May 2002 20:58:12 GMT In the deep of night, I created a typo in the first excerpt I quoted. Following the 5th paragraph of the review, the 2nd sentence of the quote should begin with the word _If_, not _It_. "If he was surprised to see his visitor, . . ." I apologize for the mistake, which was mine, and any inconvenience it may cause. Larry Jackson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 09 May 2002 15:34:21 -0700 To be perfectly honest I'm somewhere in the middle of the road on this = discussion. My take on this (appropriateness of the word SEX in Sacrament meeting, = etc.) is it hearkens back to the first three versus in section 89 of the = D&C: "...adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all = saints, who are or can be called saints." There are still too many who are offended at a word so in order to = disseminate information at/in a Church setting they have to announce = Special Firesides (like our current Stake had many years ago - the = subject was Love and Marriage and it wasn't just holding hands and = kissing on the cheek either). That way those who would get offended by = the discussion of the subject do not come to the special = meeting/Fireside and screw up the fun for those who want to listen and = learn (even though they are probably the ones who need it most).=20 My wife told me of a Relief Society meeting many years ago (she will = correct me if I'm wrong ;-)) where our Stake President got up and said = quite frankly: "Sisters, there are way to many of your husbands who are = taking cold showers. This needs to change." Bottom line - if the subject of Sex were to be talked about in Sacrament = meetings there would be some who would leave the Church saying that had = no place in being discussed over the pulpit. Others (myself for one) = would say Bravo! There are too many people with weird ideas out there = and do not change them until someone in authority says something in a = Stake Conference or General Conference. Maybe we need to lobby for something like this as a General Conference = address - wouldn't THAT be interesting? Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] LABUTE,_The Wicker Man_ Date: 09 May 2002 17:31:28 -0700 (PDT) More about Neil Labute's upcoming remake of the horror/cult classic movie "The Wicker Man" can be found at http://www.tvguide.com/movies/flickchick ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! http://shopping.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Brigham City Pageant (Deseret News) Date: 10 May 2002 00:42:37 +0000 Deseret News Thursday, May 9, 2002 Brigham City is the place for pageant BRIGHAM CITY =97 LDS wards and stakes in Box Elder County are getting into the "pageant" business, with the premiere of an all-new musical pageant, "Brigham Young: We'll Find the Place," this week in the historic Brigham City Tabernacle. The biographical production touches on significant highlights from the life of the pioneer prophet, including his conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the church's movement to Kirtland and the valley of the Great Salt Lake. The cast includes Sean Salter as the youthful Brigham Young, Floyd Westover as the adult Brigham Young and Brett White as Joseph Smith, with Hailey White and Darilyn Starr as, respectively, Brigham's first two wives =97 Miriam, who died of consumption, and Marieanne, whom he met in Kirtland. The original music and script were written by Marva Jean Pederson and John Ensign II. The production is being co- directed by Marlene Harper and Kim Hoffman, with a cast of nearly 40 drawn from throughout Box Elder County. Performances are Friday and Saturday, May 10-11 and 17-18, at 7 p.m. in the tabernacle, 200 S. Main. Admission is free. Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Join the world=92s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.=20 http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 09 May 2002 20:26:47 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > These are two responses that inevitably seem to appear in discussions > about sex or nudity: "appropriate" and "pearls before swine." I've come > to loathe these words. As far as I can tell, people generally invoke > "appropriate" when nothing more concrete can be thought up. Where's the > definition of appropriate? Where's the list of what is and what ain't? > In which scriptural passage is the concept described or defined or even > commanded? Answer: none. and... > As for "pearls before swine," I see ugliness in calling everyone a swine > who isn't us. This assumption that everyone who doesn't think like me is > automatically going to mock what I hold in reverence is something I > can't accept. and... > There's that word again: "appropriate context." Who's deciding what the > appropriate context is? Where's the list? Where's the Official > Proclamation? Why is one person's judgment of appropriateness better > than another's? The problem here is that the definition of "appropriate" is completely relative to the individual. You want a definitive statement about where the "appropriateness" line is, and I don't believe any such thing exists because that line is drawn in the hearts and minds of each and every individual. Whether we ought to discuss sex more openly or not, the simple fact is that many people *are* squeamish about it. Many people *are* embarrassed to discuss it in public. Many people *are* convinced that it's somehow wrong to speak to general audiences about something that is very private and personal to them. And they may very well be wrong to think and believe as they do. So what's the right answer? To berate these people in public, then force them to either listen to things that offend their sensibilities or stay home from church? Where's the charity in that? Where's the respect for the sensibilities of others? Is their only safe haven to close their doors against the entire world--even their religious one? I happen to agree that we ought to be less squeamish. I agree that if we cede open discussion of sex to those without an eternal perspective that we grant them unopposed victory in the philosophy wars--and the behaviors that inevitably result from philosophical foundation. I really wish that more Mormons were willing and able to be more frank and open about a lot of subjects and that fewer Mormons would judge and dismiss each other over lines that I consider to be largely arbitrary and completely relative. But I have a hard time demanding that all people discuss everything at my preferred level of detail in a general meeting. You're absolutely right--the lines of appropriateness for general public discourse *are* oriented around the least common denominator, so that even the weakest among us can receive of wisdom and feel community with the body of the saints. I consider that a good thing; the time for exclusion on such a basis hasn't arrived yet, IMO. Which in no way stops anyone from having the discussions. As you point out, a book on the subject was written and widely read in Mormondom. I suspect it caused more people to get together in small groups and discuss the general subject of sex and its relationship to living the gospel. I suspect it offended the sensibilities of many and prompted them to write critical letters to the publisher. Some probably deepened their testimony with the book, and others' testimonies were probably weakened. Those who want to talk about any subject are free to seek out venues that encourage that discussion. I'm currently seeking discussions on racism in Mormonism, feminism, homosexuality, depression, and political theory. I have discovered forums for the discussion of all of those subjects within our Mormon community. I believe my stance on all those issues to appropriate for a Mormon to have. But I don't believe that I need to share all of my views in a general public forum. Sure, I wish I could discuss homosexuality in more frank detail in my Gospel Doctrine class. But out of respect for those who are offended, I limit my discussion to broad questions and accept that many people in my ward think me corrupt or degraded for even thinking about the subject. I believe they're wrong, but in the end their disapproval has pretty much no effect on my effort to honestly understand--and to make a great many mistakes in logic, reason, and judgment as I try to expand that understanding. And yet I have discussed the issue at length with some of my neighbors (but not all), and with my home teacher. I've had very frank and open private discussions on the matter with several members of the AML-List. The squeamishness or disapproval of others hasn't stopped me from seeking wisdom as well as I can, and finding people who are willing to discuss it at the level of detail that I seek at this point in my life. To me it's a matter of respect for others. In my home we are fairly open about the things we discuss (I spent most of dinner discussing this whole issue of frankness about sex with my wife, as my children listened). I hope my children will feel free to discuss any issue with me, and I encourage them to do so. But I won't have every discussion in front of them. Draw the line where you need to draw it, find the forums that support your level of frankness, and allow others the freedom to defer participation in those discussions without being required to stay home from public church meetings. To me that's at least part of what charity is--which is something else Mormons ought to understand better than we do, IMO. > People will talk about intimate things in an environment where there is > trust. And that's exactly my point. The woman I mentioned in sacrament > meeeting probably said "S-E-X" instead of "sex" because she couldn't > trust her fellow "Saints" to not be offended by such an innocuous thing. Spelling out the word still communicates it, so unless she believes that most of her fellow "Saints" couldn't puzzle out what S-E-X spells, she offended them anyway--and drew a fair amount of attention to herself and her subject matter in the process. It's possible that she spelled it out of a desire to protect the sensibilities of younger members of the congregation--for right or wrong. I tend to believe that she was herself quite squeamish about the subject herself, and that was the only way she could overcome her own squeamishness. So rather than condemning her for the limits of her frankness I choose to celebrate how far she extended her own reserve, how much of her fear she faced and overcame in order to talk about a subject that seems to be one that embarrasses her--for right or wrong. That she said it at all seems to be a triumph of expanding frankness. That it also illustrates a limit to her frankness is less interesting to me than that she said it at all. It suggests that the line is moving in the direction I think it should, even if it's only moving slowly. Different interpretations. > Again, appropriate by whose standards? By some rational, objective > standard, or by the standard of those most easily offended? There is no rational, objective standard--at least not in this context of limited knowledge and wisdom. It's all personal and subjective. In my opinion. > I'm saying it's > time to educate our fellow Saints to raise the bar, so actual > information about sex can be disseminated to those who need it. Absolutely! Write a book. Do a lecture series. Invite people to meet with you to discuss the issue. Disseminate the information so that those who need it can gain access to it. But I still don't accept that people either have to accept your level frankness or stay home from public church meetings. Making information on any subject available is not the same as requiring that people listen to it in order to express their faith. That's part of why I so regularly encourage people to tell their stories--whatever those stories are. It's why I'm in the process of acquiring a magazine (and hopefully starting a book line)--so I can create one more forum where Mormons can tell their stories of faith and hope and personal exploration that may include some details that will offend other Mormons. But I can't force anyone to read the words I want to publish, and I can't demand that those words be the definition by which their worthiness to be called "Saints" is measured. The best I can do is work through patience and long-suffering to expand and communicate my own wisdom. > According to which scripture or General Conference address is the > discussion of sex restricted to certain environments? According to which scripture or Conference address is the discussion of sex--at any level of detail--*required* in the general public meetings of the Church? Maybe people shouldn't be squeamish, but they are. Maybe they should discuss sexual issues with more directness and frank detail, but they don't--at least not all of them. The best we can do is attempt to extend and educate. But I think it's no less spiritually damaging to condemn the squeamish masses than it is to build hedges around certain subject matters so they can't be easily discussed. I personally agree with your broad call to extend and expand the frankness in our discourse. I think sharing our experience and learning from the experience of others is a godly trait. But all are not edified equally by certain words or subjects, so we choose to limit certain discussions in certain forums--not out of moral necessity, but out of respect and charity for our audience. In my opinion. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Turk325@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 09 May 2002 22:54:07 EDT In a message dated 5/9/02 11:31:31 AM, dmichael@wwno.com writes: << I don't recommend going into detail on how to have sex in sacrament meeting >> Oh, what a temptation to be a smart aleck. Kurt Weiland. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Collective Agency? (was: Mormon Environmentalism) Date: 09 May 2002 17:05:39 -0500 A while ago, Jim Picht wrote: >No, no corporation has ever done anything evil. Every act of evil is an >individual act. A corporation is a group of people, and to blame things on a >corporation is to indulge in collective blame which leaves everyone guilty >and no one guilty. The Holocaust wasn't perpetrated by a corporation (the >Nazis) on a corporation (the Jews). It was perpetrated on individual people >who had names by individual people who had names. The Jewish People wasn't >the victim; Jewish people were the victims. The German People wasn't the >criminal; German people were. [snip] >The people who join a Book of Mormon style secret combination covenant with >one another to do evil. The people in the combination are themselves evil; >they can't say "it was the Secret Combination that did it, not me." Etc. While this is an important point, I also can't help but think of the many times in scripture when a people is spoken to *as* a people, with (apparently) the capacity to choose evil or good, to deserve punishment or reward. It seems to me--based on what I see in scriptures, and elsewhere--that there is such a thing a collective agency, in addition to individual agency. This, I think, is one of the basic paradoxes of human nature: that while we are individuals, we are also, irreversibly, social--which I think means, in part, corporate (in the sense of a group, not a modern business corporation)--beings. I don't think it's possible for any of us as individuals to define ourselves, without at the same time some reference to the group(s) of which we are members. Our cognitive tools for viewing the universe are developed socially, as much as individually. Thought largely seems to be formed by language, which is inherently social. I would go so far as to say that the space we have for the exercise of agency is largely granted to us by the conflicts, overlaps, and tensions among the different groups to which we belong. This is one of the reasons why the Book of Mormon, for instance, speaks so often of the problems caused by the traditions of the fathers. It's also the only argument I've ever been able to accept for why God could conceivably approve the destruction of innocents, simply because they belong to a particular group (as seems to have been the case in the Old Testament). (I also notice that very often, God's message of comfort to those who are rejected by their own people is not that popularity doesn't matter, but that "They who are with us be more than they that be against us"--i.e., a reminder of the large celestial community to which we belong, even if we seem alone here on earth.) So what is the literary tie-in with this? Simply that I think an awareness, and acceptance, of this facet of human nature can, I think, do much to enrich our literature. There's a tendency in western literature, I think, to see the basic struggle as being the individual versus the group. I think it's more complex than that. (I also think that part of the inherent value of reading, and art in general, is that it opens up the way to viewing oneself as part of a larger community than those with whom one happens to live geographically. This goes beyond merely being an intellectual value; I think it's spiritually important as well.) All of us tend to belong to multiple communities; much of the range of our conscious thought and choice relates to the decisions we make as we navigate among those different groups and collective identities. Returning for a moment to the question of collective agency, group guilt or innocence: it seems to me that much of the internal structure of any group, be it political party or government or business, has to do with fixing power and responsibility for decisions. So yes, I think a group does have agency. It certainly has the power to make decisions. It's an abuse of the concept to claim that a group's decision-making relieves the individual of responsibility for his or her own choices, but I don't think we need to deny that groups make choices in order to maintain the responsibility of individuals to make choices of their own. I'm aware that in doing this I'm stepping, to a certain degree, within Jim's own area of specialty, as the discussion started with the notion of business corporations. But in broadening it to the question of whether such a thing as corporate agency *ever* exists, it seems to me that Jim has opened this up as fair game to the rest of us as well... A truly good and subtle literature, it seems to me, denies neither group agency (the hyper-individualistic approach) nor individual agency (the naturalistic, deterministic approach), but is instead largely concerned with exploring the interface between the two. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 09 May 2002 22:06:51 -0500 Jim Picht (my, I seem to be picking on him a lot today) wrote: >My position is that nature is a human concept. [snip] But if we were >animals without reason ("just animals," one might say), then it would hardly >matter. Nature is valuable only when there's someone to value it. [snip] > But if we weren't here to ponder the meaning and beauty of nature, it >would have neither. This argument, I think, rests on two assumptions that I'm not sure I buy into: (a) Things (including living things) have no value in themselves, but only as they find themselves reflected in consciousness. (b) The only sources of consciousness in the universe are human. With regard to (a), it seems to me just as reasonable to suppose that all beings have value in themselves, and that the role is consciousness in the universe is to value, protect, and provide environments for those things. Are humans the only race that possesses intelligences and is coeternal with God--thus (presumably) having value in themselves? I see no evidence in the scriptures one way or another. With regard to (b), it's certainly possible (for example) that Enoch's vision of the Earth groaning with sin is intended metaphorically only. Still, it seems to me that consciousness and thought are (to some extent) a matter of degree, and not of a binary off-on switch, with humans on one side and all other forms of life on another. Personally, I have no difficulty with the notion that fulfilling the measure of a being's creation might involve a development of something approaching intelligence. In any event, I think this is, again, too much up in the air for us to make the assumption that the human perspective is the only one with which we need to be concerned--though it can, of course, be argued that it's the only one we currently can access. But that, it seems to me, is not an excuse for disregarding the possibility of eventual communion (which millenial prophecy seems to anticipate; cf. the lion and the lamb lying down together, and Pres. Kimball's anticipation that this would be in part the result of a changed way of humans interacting with them) but rather a reason for us to seek the knowledge that we need to gain a true understanding of our fellow creatures, and possibly communion with them. The scriptural injunction to tend the Earth, in my view, suggests coming to know it for its own sake, not only for its potential benefit to us. Even from the perspective of human interest, I think Jim's formulation of environmental choices is overly simple. He writes: >The ultimate cause of environmental problems isn't human overpopulation, >but human >population, and the problems exist because we believe that they exist. But >in that >case the problems aren't scientific, they're moral and religious. A human >population of six or seven or twenty billion can probably be sustained >indefinitely on this world. The question is, should it be? Why or why not? The >answer revolves around the values we put on humans, bears in the wild, >bears in a >park, and why we think that a view that doesn't include human structures is or >isn't intrinsically superior to one that does include them. This paragraph seems to suggest that the cost of human damage to the environment is largely a sentimental/ethical/esthetic one. But from the reading I've done, I don't think we know the real cost yet. Environmental systems seem to be consistently more complex than earlier assumptions suggested. Certainly, in addition to the moral and religious concerns Jim cites, there are also many unanswered questions on the concrete, material level about sustainable quality of life for 6 or 7 or 20 billion humans. I see these as largely scientific questions, because it's only through science that we can come to any reliable sense of the potential cost--without which no reasonable cost-benefit analysis can be made. (Even the assumption that Earth's population can sustain itself indefinitely at 20 billion assumes that human population increase will, at some point, stop. So we're back at zero population growth again--just at a point a little further in the future. Honestly--in answer to Harlow's question--I see no way to reconcile the popular Mormon conception of ever-increasing numbers of humans on the Earth with any kind of environmental realism, unless you assume a miracle--or a catastrophe--which will step in to limit human growth. Which is one of the reasons *I* think many members of the Church ultimately refuse to buy into an environmental perspective on things: because it seems, ultimately, to bring them into fundamental conflict with one of the teachings of the Church. That, and the sense that the problem is simply too big to do anything effective about...and the concern with the quotidian that Melissa cites) On a personal and religious level, I find the sheer diversity of life on earth to be strong evidence of the importance of that diversity. Either it's important for its own sake, or it's important that there be such a diversity for the sake of humans. Or it's not really important at all, and God's acts of creation have no real importance or purpose. I'm basically a conservative soul (I'm speaking personally, not politically). And one of the tenets of conservatism, to my mind, is that given a reasonable choice, you don't change things until and unless you have a clear understanding of what you're giving up if you do (as well as what you hope to gain). That's one of the reasons why I'm deeply wary of what seems to me to be the general human assumption (much more widely shared than environmental concerns, which are still a rather superficial overlay in human culture, in my opinion) that decisions made in the short-term human interest will have few negative consequences in the long run, or consequences that can be remedied. I see no such guarantee. At the same time, I see over the past two centuries or so an unprecedented (and accelerating) level of tinkering with the natural systems on which we as humans depend, with little secure knowledge of eventual consequences, and little willingness to act even when the evidence suggests that those consequences will be negative. But that's just the way it looks to me... (Apologies for possible over-editorializing. My purpose isn't really to debate these particular points, but rather simply to say what it is that contributes to my own viewpoint on these issues.) Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lee Allred" (by way of Jonathan Langford) Subject: re: [AML] New Irreantum Contents Date: 10 May 2002 10:27:09 -0500 Recieved the new issue of IRREANTUM today, and am enjoying it, particularly Andrew Hall's "2001 Mormon Literature in Review." I would like to clarify part of Andrew's review, however. He cites M. Shayne Bell's story collection HOW WE PLAY THE GAME IN SALT LAKE CITY AND OTHER STORIES as being available in e-book form. Quite true--but the wording might suggest that that is the only version available. The story collection is also available in print form. There's a iPublish.com 304-page paperback version (ISBN 0759550069) available for $13.95 list price. --Lee Allred leea@sff.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Talent Search: Actor for Joseph Smith (Comp 1) Date: 10 May 2002 12:59:17 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From Paynecabin@aol.com Thu May 09 10:48:58 2002 In a message dated 5/8/02 2:55:50 PM, ThomDuncan@prodigy.net writes: << That sounds like a very awkward way of saying the actor shouldn't have portrayed any immoral acts or characters in his previous film work. Which, by the Church's standards, leaves out just about any major actor with a respectable track record. >> It would also leave out minor actors like me, who work for the church pretty regularly. I think they want somebody who hasn't acted out sexual immorality on film, which can't be faked, as opposed to other kinds of immorality, which can. I have only hated and killed people on film, but always done it with all my clothes on. This is not to say that sexual immorality is worse than other kinds, just that it can't be faked, like all my murders have been. Marvin Payne >From iaw2@email.byu.edu Thu May 09 12:02:04 2002 > Well, I got more silly as I progressed. I can't help it--it's > congenital. But my point is, you may be right about what that phrase > meant. But if you are, I'm disturbed by the implications. It's evil to > play an evil role? > > -- > D. Michael Martindale > dmichael@wwno.com I wonder if we aren't just over-reacting. It seems we've all created a straw man that may not exist, but we're going to take potshots at anyway. If what Richard Hopkins said is true (I've heard similar allegations) that the man who played JS in Legacy was a porn star - that may be all the church is worried about. I think that is a valid concern to have. --ivan wolfe >From margaret_young@byu.edu Thu May 09 12:04:20 2002 >From whence the insistence that the actor who portrays Joseph Smith should not have played "bad guys" onscreen: Actually, as I understand it, at least one prominent actor (I won't specify the gender) in _Legacy_ had also done some soft porn movies. The fallout from the _Legacy_ cast (everyone knows the actor who played Joseph Smith is gay) is what we're dealing with here. A new rule got established that the actors need to be "moral." Understandable. The big question is, who saw the actor in the soft core films and then drew it to the attention of the Correlation Committee? I would REALLY have liked to see that letter! [Margaret Young] >From Melissa@proffitt.com Thu May 09 12:08:08 2002 On Wed, 08 May 2002 04:14:32 -0600, D. Michael Martindale wrote: >Melissa Proffitt wrote: > >> That sounds like a very awkward way of saying the actor shouldn't have >> portrayed any immoral acts or characters in his previous film work. > >I guess that shuts out Marvin Payne, who played a violent white >supremacist in a film once, or opera singer Michael Ballam, who played a >murderer in one film, and Satan himself in another. The poor individual >who played the murderer in _Brigham City_ is definitely out (and shall >remain nameless here for you benighted souls who haven't seen the film >yet). >Well, I got more silly as I progressed. I can't help it--it's >congenital. But my point is, you may be right about what that phrase >meant. But if you are, I'm disturbed by the implications. It's evil to >play an evil role? =46or once I agree with you. :) I only wanted to clarify what I've = heard expressed before about the Church's position when it comes to hiring = acting talent, not to imply that I think it's a good position. I *imagine* that they are concerned about accusations of hypocrisy (hiring porn stars = while simultaneously promoting sexual purity) but that is simply a guess. I = also don't know how reasonable those fears are. When I was in elementary and high school drama, I preferred playing the evil roles. I was Prince John= in Robin Hood (this was a LONG time ago) and I once played a slutty fallen angel who went around with Satan tempting people. That was fun because nobody had any idea it was me in the costume. I guess this means I *am* evil.... :) Melissa Proffitt >From marianne_hales_harding@hotmail.com Thu May 09 12:09:14 2002 >Well, I got more silly as I progressed. I can't help it--it's >congenital. But my point is, you may be right about what that phrase >meant. But if you are, I'm disturbed by the implications. It's evil to >play an evil role? Oh, come on now, it's fairly obvious that they were trying to find a "nice" way to say "Porn stars need not apply." Marianne Hales Harding -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 10 May 2002 01:12:16 -0600 Jonathan Langford wrote: > I think it's also important to acknowledge that there are many different > patterns of economic compensation, besides direct payment for a work > itself. I have three volunteer things I do that nonetheless compensate me in ways that are not direct payment. I am a board member of the AML. I am chairman of the AML writers conference. And I am on the staff of the Sugar Beet. I shamelessly use these things, choosing whichever I think will have the greatest impact in the situation, to help me stand out among the crowd, especially if I'm soliciting someone to do something for me. These "nonpaying" volunteer positions have greased many wheels where merely being a big blowhard on AML-List would have done nothing for me. > There are, I think, several separate (but intertwined) issues involved here: > > (a) The question of whether artists should be writing from a desire for > money or out of some other motive. It still amazes me that this is an issue at all. Writers "should" write out of whatever motivation they have, and it's nobody else's business what that motivation is. I truly don't see it as "appropriate" (aargh! I used that word!) for anyone to suggest that anyone else should be writing for any particular reason. > Are we willing to...argue that artists should not be > compensated at all for their work, until they reach a point where a > consensus develops that a specific artist should not have to do anything > else but create art for the rest of his/her life, and that the public (or > some private group) is willing to provide a stipend for that to happen? > Or should artistic > production remain forever uncompensated? Or should it be compensated, but > at a low enough level to make it unattractive except to someone who really > wants to do that in preference to other kinds of work? > > What is it that makes it desirable for artistic creation to be > uncompensated, if (for example) other areas of labor, such as teaching, or > editing, or scientific discovery, or invention, are compensated? Is art > somehow in a different category from these, and if so, why? Art _is_ in a different category: namely, no one can define it. That's why I think that, although the current system of compensation for artists is terrible, it's still the best one, because any other I can think of requires someone to decide for all what good art is. Since no one can legitimately make that decision, the only way left is through the free market, where people vote, both with their dollars and with how passionately they feel, on what they think good art is. If an artist can convince a large enough audience that their work is good enough to contribute a few bucks to it which accumulates into a large sum, or a small audience to contribute a lot of bucks to it, or feels passionately enough about his own art to fund it himself, then that is the artist who gets to have his work out there. This is what's disturbing about government-funded art: the few deciding for the many what good art is by using the many's money, not their own. If the few feel so passionately about certain kinds of art, let them fund it themselves, not extort money out of others to do so. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 10 May 2002 12:07:40 -0600 Ivan Wolfe really struck a chord: >I'm an Eagle scout. I hate "nature." >I'm not saying I go chop down rainforests for fun, but I really prefer = >modern >landscapes. I like enclosed parks - nice, but controlled. >For me, nature is dirty, unsanitary and out to kill me. Despite the = claims of >enviornmetalists, Wolves have killed people. In Alaska, I knew lots of = people >who have been mauled by bears. Bugs get into your nose and mouth and = your tent.=20 >The food gets extra protein by way of dirt and wook chips. It stinks. And so on. At which point, it's fair game to point out that Thoreau, at = Walden, sent his laundry out. I think of myself as an 'environmentalist' and a 'nature lover,' but in = fact, I'm a city boy. I love 'nature,' as long as we're talking Hyde = Park, within easy walking distance of restuarants, tube stops, theatres = and the Royal Albert Hall. And I can imagine enjoying camping, a little, = if I had something like my neighbor's camper, with its kitchen unit, = working flush toilet and satellite dish. I know people who really love = camping, the rougher the better. I think that that must be a skill, = learning to camp, similar to the skill required to compete as an Olympic = gymnast or something. I feel bad, sometimes, at not having acquired it, = because my Dad and brothers are all outdoorsmen. =20 I'm IMPRESSED with nature. I fully appreciate how easy it would be for = nature to kill me. That's why I want Nature to stay right where I can = best appreciate it, channel 43 on my cable system. =20 See, I suspect that the things wolves appreciate best about nature is the = accomplishments and achievements of other wolves. And so what I like = about, say, National Geographic, is the photography. I like the skill = involved. I was recently talking with a friend of mine, a photography = buff, who was mentioning Ansel Adams. What amazed him was Adams' ability = to calculate f-stops in his head. That is to say, those photographs are a = tribute, yes, to nature, but also to an extraordinarily skilled artist for = whom nature was the favored subject. This past summer, my family and I did the whole Church history tour = thing--Nauvoo, Kirtland, Palmyra, etc. We took the hike down to the = Sacred Grove, and tried to imagine Joseph kneeling in prayer there. I was = amazed at the thought of it. I don't know how long it took him to kneel = there, but I do know one thing; he was being eaten alive by insects the = whole time. And that's maybe the most amazing part of that whole story; = he kept concentrating and focussing and all the while gnats were buzzing = in his ears, sweat trickling down the back of his shirt. As for Nauvoo, I = don't know how they did what they did. Drained the swamps? In that = weather? Eric Samuelsen=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Book Groups (Andrew's Poll) Date: 10 May 2002 08:55:53 +0000 Andrew's poll wants to know about grass-roots support of Mormon literature. Tell us about your experiences in book groups/clubs. Have you ever participated in a local book group? In a book group dominated by Mormons? If so, did your group read any Mormon literature? Did you suggest any titles? How did it go? Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] re: Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 10 May 2002 12:16:39 -0600 Someone told me that he thought my writing was ALWAYS about sex. (Well, that's not true, of course--though quite a number of my stories do address it.) I have been so aware of marriages where the wife in particular was squeamish about sex, and shared herself infrequently with her husband. I personally feel that such is a violation of covenant. The wife has given herself to her husband, and he to her, in a sacred setting (in or out of the temple) and before God. A marriage between a man and a woman symbolizes (to an extent) the marriage between Christ and the Church. It suggests that just as we must become intimately, even nakedly familiar with our Savior--hiding nothing--and rejoicing in His benevolence, so we are called upon to become intimately acquainted with our spouse, giving of ourselves freely and receiving "due benevolence." As does Gae Lyn, I know of a case where a man was excommunicated after he committed adultery--twenty years or so into a marriage where his wife refused him sexually. Well, the Church judged that man, but God will judge the wife. I'm pretty bold on this subject, by the way, and have told my married daughter that sex should become one of the great joys of her life. When we got the "Chastity" lesson in Relief Society, I got so sick of the "Beware" signs getting stuck up everywhere that I finally blurted out, "So is sex good at all?" That brought a rather timid laugh from my RS sisters, and the answer, "Yes! That's why it's sacred!" By the way, unlike Joseph Smith, I consider the Song of Solomon deeply inspired and magnificent, expressing the joy of fully intimate relations between spouses and the joy of full spiritual intimacy between Christ and his bride. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] ABANES, _One Nation Under Gods_ (Report) Date: 10 May 2002 11:26:16 -0700 Hee hee hee! I always knew there was something sinister going on there. My only question -- once you take over the world, what are you going to do with it??? Melissa wrote: Though it's too bad he revealed the secret desire of all Mormons to take over the world. We're really only supposed to discuss that in Relief Society Enrichment nights. Or did you think we *really* cared all that much about making picture frames out of old milk cartons? Melissa proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism Date: 10 May 2002 12:48:01 -0600 On Thu, 09 May 2002 14:35:24 -0600, bob/bernice hughes wrote: >>>Melissa Proffitt writes: >>>What frustrates me (and this is a general comment, not directed at = Jana,=20 >>>by the way) is >>that so many environmental activists would prefer us=20 >>>*not* to do the research >>ourselves. Many of them are dedicated = people=20 >>>who have come to the conclusions they >>support because of extensive=20 >>>study, but instead of encouraging others to do the same, >>they try to= =20 >>>sell us on their conclusions. > >And Jacob earlier wrote that Mormons are skeptical of Environmentalism=20 >because Mormons are =91practical,=92 =91don=92t scare easily,=92 and = resist =91following=20 >the crowd.=92 The clear implication is that if you choose to embrace=20 >Environmentalist arguments, you are not practical, scare easily, simply=20 >follow the crowd, you ignore extensive study, and write trite platitudes= =20 >(bromides). Bob, I am really sorry you chose to read my comments in this light. Let = me elaborate so as not to be misunderstood again: 1. Many people who are already environmental activists take the = positions they do because they have done the research and are convinced of its accuracy. They are responsible, informed individuals who have strong feelings on the subject. 2. UNFORTUNATELY, some of the people in this camp, in trying to convince others of the legitimacy of their stance, choose to use emotional = arguments rather than pointing "newbies" to the data and research THEY THEMSELVES = read in order to reach their own conclusions. This disturbs me for a lot of reasons, primarily the implication that either the data are not sound, or they don't trust people to reach the "right" conclusions. =20 It has been my experience that, with a very few exceptions (as with every possible field of study), scientists who research environmental issues = are rigorous-minded individuals who are interested in finding out what is happening to our world on local, regional and global levels. Reasonable people look at their results and often come up with different--even opposing--interpretations. All I want is the opportunity to do the same without being sold one way or the other. > I may choose to further research a topic;=20 >but if I choose *not* to further research, I may take a base position = one=20 >way or the other. Choosing to side with Environmentalists as a base = position=20 >is no worse than choosing to side with the opposite side as a base = position. I'm afraid I will simply have to disagree with you on this topic. Not = that it is wrong to start from one base position as opposed to the other, = which is fine with me. What I disagree with is the idea that it is ever right = to simply stop doing the research. There are people in both camps who have changed sides because they chose not to stop questioning assumptions. Environmental thinking is very closely tied to environmental policy; our government is passing laws and regulations intended to affect the environment based on the expressed opinions of the people. ("Opinions" meaning "positions one takes on an issue," and not implying that because it's 'opinion' it's nonfactual or unworthy of consideration.) Taking an unconsidered stance on an issue that could have a measurable effect on people, animals, or the environment would be in my opinion highly irresponsible. You cited the essays of several Mormon intellectuals on the subject of = the environment. As it happens, I have read a number of the essays you = mention. Do I agree with them? Not entirely. But I have never said that they = were stupid for taking the positions they do. In fact, about a third of the environmental reading I do is by people whose opinions are completely the opposite of mine. And no, I don't do it to poke holes in their arguments= or ridicule their diminished mental capacity. I do it because I want to = really know both sides of the argument--not just what someone I agree with = *says* is the stance of the "opposition." This is my idea of responsible, = rigorous thought. Yes, it's true that I approach such issues from a certain base position--but I don't let that stand as a replacement for independent analysis. (Hmmm. That could probably be taken as a personal attack implying that Bob doesn't engage in independent thought, which was what = he originally thought I was implying, rather than as an elaboration on my approach to scientific research. Oh well.) Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Small LDS Publishers and Amazon Date: 10 May 2002 12:27:45 -0600 I have a question about purchasing LDS books. The other day I tried to buy Blake Ostler's recent book on the attributes of God from Amazon for a discussion I've been having with him over on LDS-Phil. Amazon listed his book, but didn't have any way of purchasing it. It turned out the only way I could get the book was to go directly to the publisher (Kofford Books) and order from their rather amateurish web page. (The order page had numerous misspellings) Further, unlike Amazon, this entailed a $4.00 s&h charge. Ouch. Is this pretty typical for LDS books? I notice Amazon has most Signature and Deseret Book books on LDS, along with the other major publishers. (University of Illinois Press, etc.) Since I think Blake is making an important contribution to LDS theology which really has languished for most of the last century, I hope to see more of these sorts of books. Yet they don't really seem to be making it as a significant publishing enterprise or even are available to the typical member. (Most of whom order off Amazon or Desert Books web pages) What is the place for smaller publishers in reaching the wider Mormon audience? BTW - for those interested Blake's book can be ordered from www.koffordbooks.com I notice that it is now available from a secondary book seller, "Meador Books", on Amazon as well. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Collective Agency? Date: 10 May 2002 14:18:16 -0500 Jonathan Langford wrote: > This, I think, is one of the basic paradoxes of human nature: that while we > are individuals, we are also, irreversibly, social--which I think means, in > part, corporate (in the sense of a group, not a modern business > corporation)--beings. I don't think it's possible for any of us as > individuals to define ourselves, without at the same time some reference to > the group(s) of which we are members. That's an important point, I agree, but it raises questions about the nature of responsibility and morality in a society in which evil has become lawful, and to do good requires giving in to temptation. What are the moral limits of political (corporate) action? What are the implications of evil for the theory and practice of politics? The 20th century has presented us with several excellent examples of societies in which evil was lawful - the Third Reich and Stalin's USSR (one might argue that the society was actually lawless, but the distinction for my purposes here is too fine) spring to mind. The de-Nazification of Germany after WWII and the de-Sovietization of Eastern European countries after 1990 expose some problems of defining guilt and responsibility in such societies. Mass evil occurred in those countries, and it was a phenomenon of obedience, unlike the theological concept of sin and evil that stem from disobedience. Morality can't be determined by community, else there'd be no defense from totalitarianism, and no way to judge someone who conformed to community standards. In the wake of their totalitarian experiences, the Germans, Russians, Poles, Bulgarians and others cringed in the face of the need to explain individual actions, or shied away from exposing them. People had chosen not to think, and thus had fallen into evil. But thinking or not thinking is a political and moral act, and not thinking was itself evil. Thinking people have a hard time understanding the behavior of people in a totalitarian state because it's hard for thought to grasp thoughtlessnes. What Arendt called "the banality of evil" is this essential senseless element of mass or group evil. Eichmann left aside any unease he might have felt in arranging the Holocaust in the execution of duty. He wasn't a sadist or a monster; he was worse, a thoughtless, feeble-minded clown. He might as well have been shipping crates of paper as Jews. And so it was across Germany and the USSR. Any people can succumb to mass evil if they see no legitimate limits to political or corporate action. The most effective way to seduce them to evil is to show them the aquiescence of everyone else. That doesn't take away individual responsibility, but it does say that the corporate environment can make it easier to forget. In that sense we can say that there are evil corporations and evil states, but the moral responsibility is still individual. Justice is possible because there are limits beyond which humans shouldn't go. That's part of what it is to be human, and that's one reason that collective guilt and innocence are unjust. They impute blame and praise regardless of individual actions, and they make the judgement of particular acts pointless. If all are guilty, none is better or worse than anyone else, so all are innocent. It was the lack of personal responsibility that made Nazi death-camps, the Soviet Gulag, the Cambodian killing fields, and the Rwandan genocide possible. It was the unwillingness to think and to pass moral judgement. Bureaucracy, whether political or corporate, evaluates personal actions on the basis of their efficiency in achieving some end, not on the ends they strive to achieve. It reduces the individual to a tiny cog in the machine, undermines individual responsibility, and leads to the rule of nobody (my preferred definition of 'bureaucracy'). But when those cogs have to stand responsible for what they've done, they're reindividualized into somebodies. In Arendt's words, "If the defendant excuses himself on the ground that he acted not as a man but as a mere functionary whose functions could just as easily have been carried out by anyone else, it is as if a criminal pointed to the statistics on crime - which set forth that so-and-so many crimes per day are committed in such-and-such a place - and declared that he only did what was statistically expected, that it was mere accident that he did it and not somebody else, since after all somebody had to do it." > Our cognitive tools for viewing the universe are developed socially, as much as > individually. Thought largely seems to be formed by language, which is > inherently social. I would go so far as to say that the space we have for the > exercise of agency is largely granted to us by the conflicts, overlaps, and > tensions among the different > groups to which we belong. I think you go too far. I think that there's an essential human nature that language and society can undermine, but that only individual humans can abandon. Our exercise of agency may be limited, but we're never compelled to evil. We have to choose it either by acting or by abandoning thought. Our fellows can encourage us to good or evil, and they can make the choice easy or hard, but they never lift from us the responsibility for our decision. > So yes, I think a group does have agency. It certainly has the power to make > decisions. It's an abuse of the concept to claim that a group's > decision-making relieves the individual of responsibility for his or her own > choices, but I don't think we need to deny that groups make choices in order to > maintain the responsibility of > individuals to make choices of their own. I don't think I'm arguing semantics when I say that individuals within a group make choices, not the group itself, and that the group functions precisely to relieve the individual of responsibility for choices. It can't really do that, but it can persuade us otherwise if we turn of our critical faculties. We're social animals, but not in the way that some jelly-fish are social, all wedded into a single entity. We aren't a single organism, nor even a single super-organism like some termites and ants. > I'm aware that in doing this I'm stepping, to a certain degree, within > Jim's own area of specialty, as the discussion started with the notion of > business corporations. But in broadening it to the question of whether > such a thing as corporate agency *ever* exists, it seems to me that Jim has > opened this up as fair game to the rest of us as well... It's hardly the proprietary domain of economists, and corporate behavior isn't an area on which I've even spent much thought, let alone developed any expertise. I agree with you fully in this: > A truly good and subtle literature, it seems to me, denies neither group > agency (the hyper-individualistic approach) nor individual agency (the > naturalistic, deterministic approach), but is instead largely concerned > with exploring the interface between the two. It's at that interface that morality exists, isn't it? One man alone can hardly be more a more effective moral agent than can an ant in an anthill. It's at the interface where individuals interract in a thoughtful way that interesting things happen. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 10 May 2002 13:30:50 -0600 > > Sometimes we are asked to consecrate our talents, sometimes we are hired for > them. I used to be ambivalent about what to do should the Church ask me to donate my time and artistic talent. In the past, I have consented (directing roadshows, for instance). But one day I was talking to James Arrington about this and he turned my eyes around. He said, paraphrasing, "If the ward meetinghouse bathroon springs a leak and they want Brother Jones the Professional Plumber to fix it, they pay him. If the ward wants a stake dramatic production, they call James Arrington the Professional Actor but they expect him to donate his time. What's wrong with this picture?" Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 10 May 2002 14:03:07 -0600 On Thu, 9 May 2002 13:40:37 -0600, Jana Pawlowski wrote: >Melissa, at the risk of sounding like a sissy, let me say that the one >phrase, "to speak against" was pretty innocuous because 1) I'm not = ashamed >to say that I do have a bias against storing nuclear waste in Utah (or = any >of the West for that matter) It's not the bias you have that concerns me, particularly since your = other posts have been very clear on your position. In itself, it was = innocuous. (You'll notice I didn't come screaming after you at the time.) Combined with the later statement that you were just mentioning an issue, which to= me implies a *lack* of bias, I thought the incongruity should be pointed = out. > 2) I'm just getting back into the List and >writing, my kids have been sick for a month, I'm distracted, and am not >dotting all my I's nor crossing my t's. Okay, now *this* would make you sound like a sissy. :) Either you = aren't ashamed of coming from your strongly held position, or you made a mistake because you weren't able to be thorough in checking your posts. I think everyone who's ever posted to this list has written things they didn't intend, myself included, for no reason other than it just happens = sometimes. So if you're saying that you would have phrased your first post = differently if you'd read it more carefully, I'm fine with that without knowing that you're under stress. Though I do feel sorry for you and the sick kids, which is never fun. >I implore the group (and this is >general, definitely not directed at Melissa) to not start making each = other >an offender for a word or a phrase anyway. Well, here's another issue. If somebody makes a statement that is = ambiguous (or possibly antagonistic) isn't it right to address that statement and point out the other ways said statement could have been understood? It would be wrong to assume the very worst possible interpretation and = respond to that alone--if I had accused Jana of being a shill for Earth First!, = for example, based on one small discrepancy. But that's different from = pointing out the other possible interpretations and letting the author clarify his initial message. Actually--on the topic of not being hypercritical of small errors--I = think we have two duties: first, to be generous in interpreting others' = comments; and second, not to be overly defensive when our own are corrected. = Although I have trouble with that last one because I dislike being wrong in = public. Still, I think it's at least as important not to be offended for a word = as it is not to make others the offender. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Gerald N. LUND, _Come Unto Me_ (Review) Date: 10 May 2002 17:12:58 EDT Aramaic is very similar to Hebrew. It uses the same alphabet, many of the grammatical rules are the same, but some of the translations come out a little bit different because of the things that are different. It was the language of the common man at the time of Christ. Hebrew was used in the synagogues and has continued to be throughout the centuries, even though Aramaic is now one of the dead languages. Several of the last books of the OT were written in Aramaic, however--Daniel for one, which is what we were working on the summer I took it. They used to teach it at BYU (probably still do.) Karen Tippets -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: Re: [AML] Talent Search: Actor for Joseph Smith (Comp 1) Date: 10 May 2002 16:08:56 -0600 >ivan wolfe > >If what Richard Hopkins said is true (I've heard similar allegations) that the >man who played JS in Legacy was a porn star - that may be all the church is >worried about. I think that is a valid concern to have. I wonder what percentage of porn actors go into porn because it's an exciting and glamrous branch of showbiz, and how many go into it because it's the only acting gig they can get. Does the church's reputation suffer if it helps an ex-porn star earn a living? MBA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 10 May 2002 17:27:24 -0500 Stephen Carter wrote: > ...when somone in America reproduces, many more resources go toward that > new person - much more than goes to new people in other countries... if > Americans quit reproducing so much, there would be manymore resources to go > around. And if American's produce more new people... then even more resources > will be taken up leaving less for new people in other countries, thus > accelerating their mortality... Much dismal literature has been predicated on the notion that the world's resources are divided up in a zero-sum game. If Americans are rich, it can only be by using more than their fair share of resources and making others poor. The world is caught in a Malthusian vise, its masses doomed to immiseration as burgeoning populations devour that fixed resource pie. I'm amazed that the marvels of modern technology are made of sand - silicon chips and light pipes have replaced copper wire and banks of mercury switches. Less power is required to do more and more, and resource supplies stretch further and further into the future. The resource pie has grown and continues to grow. Ceramics and carbon can replace steel and aluminum, new houses are lighter and more spacious than old houses that cost more to build. There are bottlenecks and there always will be, but they fall or move back when we push hard enough against them. Economics has been called the dismal science (the blame is Malthus'), but it's really the optimistic science, and economists' optimism has been justified time and again. One of the things I love about Mormonism is its innate optimism, an optimism that should find expression in our literature and art. Some have noted critically the Mormon idea that there's enough and to spare in the world, but there really is. Wealth isn't about stocks of oil and cobalt and titanium, but about squeezing more from less. The dismal world of the mercantilists, who thought a nation's wealth was measured in its gold stocks, was toppled by the British and Dutch who realized that wealth is found in daring and imagination, that a nation poor in physical resources can grow spectacularly wealthy all the same, while nations (like Spain) that see the world in fixed-pie terms can be crushed into poverty by their gold stocks. Wealth is a human creation, not a natural resource that has to be divided up just so. I say, leave doom and gloom literature to people who think this world is a vale of tears. Our literature should recognize the true injustices and problems in the world without giving in to pessimism and without fear. And now it's time for me to go to a graduation party. I need to recover from wandering around campus today in a black woolen robe and velvet hat in bright sunlight, high temperatures, and high humidity. And don't bother calling me to task for anything I've written, because I'm leaving town tomorrow for a month in Paris and Prague (if my wife can find her passport, she'll be coming with me). Goodbye, and don't feel guilty about having ten kids and driving an SUV. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Collective Agency? Date: 10 May 2002 15:47:34 -0600 ___ Johnathon ___ | While this is an important point, I also can't help but | think of the many times in scripture when a people is | spoken to *as* a people, with (apparently) the capacity | to choose evil or good, to deserve punishment or reward. | It seems to me--based on what I see in scriptures, and | elsewhere--that there is such a thing a collective agency, | in addition to individual agency. ___ This is an excellent point and very important. The scriptures more frequently speak of communities than they do individuals - especially in terms of prophecy and punishment. Because of our individualist tendencies in America, we have a hard time reading texts in that way. Still there is a recognition that God views in terms of communities in terms of his historic workings with human beings. ___ Johnathon ___ | This, I think, is one of the basic paradoxes of human nature: | that while we are individuals, we are also, irreversibly, | social--which I think means, in part, corporate (in the | sense of a group not a modern business corporation)--beings. ___ I don't think it a paradox, but I think it is something we frequently forget. If you compare the way our culture works with ones in the more Catholic countries where community is emphasized more, there are some astounding differences. Even in our early days with United Orders, community was far more important than today. That's not to say Mormon community is so in favor of individual views that we have no sense of community. As many in Utah point out, there is a strong homogenization tendency. Those who vary too far from the community norm are often shunned. I notice though, that our literature tends to focus much more on the individual than the community. Indeed you tend to see more angst in LDS fiction that is the individual feeling the weight of belonging to a community. The individual feels stress because of this "conforming" inclination. If they do break from the community there is then that tension of how to be an individual, yet belong to the community - but the focus is always on the individual and not the community. I can think of any fiction I've read or heard about that looks at all these things from the point of view of the community losing a member or the pain the community feels as the individual breaks away. Examples of the books I'm thinking of are things like Card's _Folk of the Fringe_ or some of Evenson's short story or recent novel. In all cases the focus is on the outsider. There is always this sense of alienation. That is, I think, typical of American literature. Compare this to more Catholic based literature like John Donne. No man is an island. Let no man ask for whom the bell toils. It tolls for you. All that line of thinking is breaking down the distinction between individual and community. The recend thread on Environmentalism really ties into this, as Johnathon points out. Environmentalists are pushing for a holistic sense of community. If Mormons worry about this, it is because of that fear of community I think. This is interesting as the entire thrust of the gospel is a making-one. Literal at-one-ment. Community is intrinsic to LDS theology. It begins with our notion of family and marriage is the first primal at-one-ment. The intention of a ward is literally to become a big family and the next step is the church as a whole as a family. Unfortunately, as the mainly failures of various United Orders show, that isn't easy to accomplish. The goal, however, is a City of Enoch, which has more in common with the Catholic view of community epitomized by Donne than it does most modern LDS literature. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 10 May 2002 16:43:27 -0600 ---Original Message From: Stephen Carter > This line of logic bothers me. It seems to imply that since > people in other > countries are dying, we are welcome to reproduce with > impunity. I would say > that it rather argues that we should be doing more to help > the people who are > dying. How does having children mean that we aren't helping people who are dying? I don't get the trade-off you imply. > Also, when somone in America reproduces, many more resources > go toward that > new person - much more than goes to new people in other countries. So > hypothetically, if Americans quit reproducing so much, there > would be many > more resources to go around. And if American's produce more > new people because > new people are dying in other countries, then even more > resources will be > taken up leaving less for new people in other countries, thus > accelerating > their mortality, thus giving us the exuse to continue our > reproduction. It > seems that a vicious cycle would be created. I don't think that we do or should have more children because others are having fewer. It's a dumb reason, but then, I don't know of anybody who has children based on the children that other countries are or aren't having. Most people I know have children because they want them and can afford them. In the U.S., enough people want children who can't have them that even children who aren't desired can find a home to love them and raise them. With regards to sparing resources for other countries, though, I think you've neglected two very important details. First, while it is true that American's consume more than people from other countries, it is also true that we produce way more. We in the U.S. are capable of producing enough food to feed the entire *world* using the farming techniques we have now and the land we could allocate to farming. We don't only because people don't want us to--they'd prefer that we produce computers, software programs, movies, and pharmaceutical innovations. If American's stop reproducing, then the result will be *less* to go around as our production also drops off. Our workers are some of the most efficient in the world and we are net contributors not consumers of world resources (taken as a whole). Where would we be without the health and industry innovations pioneered in the U.S.? Second, the health and mortality problems of other countries are man-made. Africa doesn't have to be a benighted backwater with declining populations and high mortality rates. Africa has awesome mineral resources--on par with anything we have here. But the problem isn't that there isn't enough food in the world to feed the people in Africa. The problem isn't even that we're all hoarding our resources so they can't have them. The problem is that petty despots and tyrants wage war on each other and no infrastructure exists to get the resources to those who so desperately need them. The point being that how many children we have in the U.S. has really nothing to do with the population or mortality of those in Africa. Much more important to alleviating the pain and suffering in that part of the world would be political change and stability followed by intelligent delivery of the aid (in knowledge as well as resources) that we've proven time and again that we're willing to send. > I also object to this argument on quasi-religious grounds. If > it is true that > the mortal experience is an important part of eternal > progression, then I say > we have the obligation to create a world where everyone's > mortal experience > can be rich, not just the American's. I absolutely agree. But how do you do that? That's the problem. Having fewer children in the U.S. isn't going to do anything for those in other parts of the world. How can we create a world where everyone's mortal experience can be rich? Since I cannot force people to change their political, legal, and economic systems, the best I can do is welcome the children I feel I can support and to ensure that they have access to the best I can give them (speaking spiritually and not necessarily economically). > I'm not arguing for zero population growth (I have two new > people of my own, > one of whom is watching me type this. Hi Mason!) But I am > arguing that the the > world is much different (economically, medically, > environmentally etc) than it > used to be. We have to think something new. I'm open to suggestions. What is it that we can think that is new and will alleviate this suffering? One of the powerful things about fiction in general is that we can explore new modes of thought. We can error check systems before actually undergoing the cost of implementing them. Doing this is a strong trend in Science Fiction (and Fantasy to a lesser extent) and one of the reasons I enjoy it so much. A work that can posit an entirely new and foreign world has latitude to explore the workings of something new and see how it might function if implemented. This is what makes Robert Heinlein so interesting, though I hardly agree with his Rational Anarchy conclusions. The thing is, based on his books, I can see what he thinks is a good idea and apply my personal perspectives against it so I can articulate *why* I think things wouldn't really work that way. What I'm saying is, if you have a new way of thinking, then put it out here so we can examine it. What I dislike is when people knock on how we're doing things now without ever expressing how they think things should be done differently. This isn't meant as an attack on you, Stephen, I mean this generally. If things aren't going how you wish, then tell what, how, and why things should change. This discourse is what drew me to literature in the first place and keeps me coming back for more. My college "career" is a broad swath through academic disciplines as I looked for things that explored the world and attempted to understand it in all the glorious human complexity. I started with economics, went to history, political science, and classical studies. Eventually, I ended up in the English department and discovered home--a place where cause and effect can be discussed, where lives are dissected and ideas analyzed in their full human imperfection. I loved it then, and love it still. Which is why I repeat--if you have ideas, let them out. Let us see how you would solve problems (human, societal, religious, personal, *any* problems). Just don't expect us to agree all the time--that's part of what attracts me to this mess :). Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 10 May 2002 17:01:32 -0600 ---Original Message From: Jonathan Langford > This paragraph seems to suggest that the cost of human damage > to the environment is largely a sentimental/ethical/esthetic > one. But from the reading I've done, I don't think we know > the real cost yet. Environmental systems seem to be > consistently more complex than earlier assumptions suggested. True, but they are also proving to be consistently more robust that earlier and even current assumptions suggest. > Certainly, in addition to the moral and religious concerns > Jim cites, there are also many unanswered questions on the > concrete, material level about sustainable quality of life > for 6 or 7 or 20 billion humans. I see these as largely > scientific questions, because it's only through science that > we can come to any reliable sense of the potential > cost--without which no reasonable cost-benefit analysis can be made. While I see it as a scientific question, as you do, I approach zero population in the same way I approach having children of my own. To me, it's really the same question anyway. Since science hasn't decided if we can support 20 billion humans on the Earth, that question has no relevance to me. I think science has conclusively proven that we can support the 6 billion we have now (and would do a better job of *that* if it weren't for waste and cruelty). Extrapolating for the next couple of billion people we could add, I'm pretty comfortable with our capacity to absorb them when/as they arrive. We can produce enough food and shelter for them if they want it. For me, absent revelation or science, that's enough information to make the decision to have more children and not be so paranoid that welcoming more babies into the world *might* be a bad thing. Looking too far ahead is just borrowing trouble. We're not going to double the population of the world so very soon and we'll certainly have opportunity to make changes/corrections along the way. I'm not saying that we should halt scientific inquiry, mind. We should certainly try to find out if we *can* handle 20 billion people on the planet. We should be monitoring the effects that we have and be careful that we aren't making short term decisions that will irrevocably harm our long-term prospects. That said, we shouldn't feel like we can only proceed once we have all the answers. We will never have all the answers. Heck, I don't believe that we will ever have all the questions. But we have enough to make decisions right now and that information indicates to me that a) we're to multiply and replenish the Earth--that command has not been rescinded and b) we have enough to see us through the foreseeable future. We walk by faith, not knowledge. That will be the case until and unless our knowledge is absolute. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] re: Mormon Environmentalism Date: 10 May 2002 18:57:46 -0600 ___ Jonathan ___ | With regard to (b), it's certainly possible (for example) that | Enoch's vision of the Earth groaning with sin is intended | metaphorically only. ___ While I think many of us take such scriptures metaphorically, there is a strong tradition in the church that doesn't. This ascribing animal-like properties to inanimate objects is called animism. For instance Orson Pratt believed that all the units of element were intelligent and that larger intelligences are really a kind of community. Higher forms of intelligence are emergent from these communities. This is somewhat like what we see in the social sciences. There we have properties of a group that emerge from individuals. An example of this is so-called mob-mentality or the "laws" that we find in economics. These group-properties don't necessarily occur in the individuals, but neither can the individual be separated from them. It's kind of a hard thing to wrap ones mind around, but emergent properties are actually very common. An other example of that is the properties you might have as a family which are separate from how individuals act. While I'm not married, I've noticed this sort of thing happening quite a bit. A married couple - especially those together for a long time - tend to unconsciously act as if they were a single person. Some theologians adopt what is called "Social Trinitarianism" which suggests that the Godhead (the oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost) is actually a social unity and not the metaphysical unity of Trinitarianism. There have been some versions of this pushed for Mormon use by making the personal beings of Social Trinitarianism into full persons as required by our theology. Anyway, without going too far off tangent, I think that there are ways to view the earth as a living thing like those in the Gaia theory do. Indeed I think that Mormonism actually has more support for this than most other religions. I should add that I *personally* don't think that this is the case. ___ Jonathan ___ | Still, it seems to me that consciousness and thought are (to | some extent) a matter of degree, and not of a binary off-on | switch, with humans on one side and all other forms of life | on another. ___ I think this is unarguable. That's not to say there might not be something special about humans. But there are plenty of folk traditions in Mormonism about the resurrection of animals. Further the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1 or its related texts as a spiritual creation suggests that these things have spirits. (Whatever that means -- even in this folk doctrine things aren't defined terribly well) -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art Date: 10 May 2002 17:50:31 -0700 After reading this thread I really like Annette's and Jim's POV on this. = But I think this topic would need to change to something like "Calling = in Life" or Spiritual Gifts". The reason I chose that later was from = what Annette said at the very end of her post: "I pity the poor guy. I don't think he cares one snit about electrical anything, but chose the field to please his family. He'll end up = miserable if he doesn't ever use his God-given gifts." Just as a refresher, Jim wrote: "Let me just note that I think it's sad that so many people have jobs they dislike, or study to enter professions they don't care about = but which offer financial security. Work isn't about being miserable, but = many of us think that that's a natural part of the work experience. Our priorities and expectations are distorted, I think." Now, here comes a couple of questions of perspective after maybe 20 = years or so: What is/are our God-given gift(s) and can they be applied to make money = and/or are they simply for the edification of the Church and/or the = World? Can Heavenly Father guide us to be able to do the former and support = our family while we are edifying the Church and Kingdom? When my wife and I were married I was given a chance to coach a high = school wrestling team as an assistant. This was a dream of mine (I = cannot explain why - I was not a great wrestler). While I was at BYU I = spoke to Chris Taylor who was the 118 lbs. wrestler and was nationally = ranked at the time about being a coach. My wife, who I was dating, had = chosen not to come to the intramural tournament I registered in (and I = got trashed in) but I wanted to find out what I was doing wrong so when = I was a coach (I told Chris at that time I had a feeling I would get the = chance to coach) I would teach my athletes how to do it better than I = did. He gave me some pointers. The school I started out coaching at was my and my wife's alma mater so = I was happy to get a chance to coach there. It was shortly after we had = been married (I kid her our son was the result of her celebrating the = end of that first season). In the 8 years I coached there we had 2 = sectional championship teams and 4 league champion teams. I personally = coached a frosh/soph team to a league championship my last year at that = school. My coaching career extended five more years and I saw success in = that endeavor as well. Two years after that one of the men in our Stake saw me coaching at = another school (I coached the freestyle program for off-season at this = point) and recognized I had a talent for working with young men. He = convinced the Stake to call me into a Scouting position (he couldn't = convince my Bishop to do that). The concepts were the same just the = basic techniques were different. Two years later I basically retired = from coaching (except for when my son begged me to coach him) and have = been in a scouting calling ever since. Now for the literary tie in. Can I make money at this? Maybe, but it = would take some soul searching and study to figure out how. Probably as = a trainer/teacher or motivational speaker or something of the like. My = wife has always been opposed to my being a teacher in high school since = the bureaucracy would drive me nuts (her words). But I know, also, there = are some other things I will be doing first that many of my friends have = been encouraging me to do. Will I make money at it? No idea, but I will = do it any way because I know it will help others. What happens if we have a gift we do not use to bless others with? Only = Heavenly Father can answer that question. I like the parable of the = Talents myself. I keep worrying if I'm hiding something in the Earth but = to date I have not been able to dig it up. I know my coaching, teaching, = and ability to love has developed a lot over the years as has my = patience (my wife may disagree there, though). It was nice to get the = check for coaching at the end of the season but it was never what my = time was worth. When I coached freestyle I only had my expenses paid - = no salary. Over the 12 years of scouting I have spent far more than I = probably should have but the Lord has blessed me so much I couldn't help = but try and use that for the troop/team/ or crew I was working with. = Will I be blessed? Probably. Do I care? Not really. Like I said gifts = are given to bless others. Should we work at something we love? Most definitely. Am I doing that? = That is a qualified maybe. I have loved my work for many years because I = got to fix things. Now I'm in management (boo hiss) and I'm not fully = content. But I have recognized there are still some opportunities to = coach people and make them better from what I have learned over my = career of 20 years. Will I be doing something else eventually? I = certainly hope so. I have a deep feeling Heavenly Father is going to be = opening some doors for career changes in the near future but what that = means only He knows for sure. All I know is whether it is talent I now = have or one I'm developing I want to be somewhat prepared. I do not want = to burry any of those "Talents" in the Earth. Now the tough question - Can or should we force people to do what we = know they should do? I give that an emphatic No! Should we encourage = them? By all means. Many people do not even recognized that what they = are doing in "hiding that talent" and can't see what it will mean in the = future. But if they do not want to listen that is also their choice. Annette - If you really feel strongly that your brother-in-law is not = doing what the Lord thinks He should then pray for an opportunity to = talk about this with him. I have had this type of thing happen where = someone asked me what I really felt and told them they wouldn't like my = answer. When they told me they valued my opinion I told them what I felt = about the path they had chosen. I was totally right about how upset they = got but less than a year later they wrote me to say I was right. The = tough part is the "Free Agency" part of any discussion. Everyone must = make their own choice and sometimes we have to stand by and watch (and = weep). But then we look inside ourselves and evaluate if we are doing = what we should and developing our talents (whether we make money or = not). Some times we work in order to do what we like. That has been my = philosophy for many years. Hopefully when the Millennium comes we will = be able to do what we like and support our family that way. We can only = hope and pray. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] GIVENS, _By the Hand of Mormon_ (Review) Date: 10 May 2002 23:25:57 -0700 Review ====== Title: By The Hand Of Mormon Author: Terry L. Givens Publisher: Oxford University Press Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 320, including notes and index Binding: Hardbound ISBN: 0-19-513818-X Price: $30.00 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle Terry L. Givens may be best known for his volume "The Viper on the Hearth: Mormons, Myths, and the Construction of Heresy." In the present volume, Givens addresses the issues of the origins, authorship, and publication of the Book of Mormon, with contextual studies on its place within the Mormon faith and the larger body of esoteric literature. The flyleaf summarizes quite nicely Givens' goals in writing this book: Givens examines the Book of Mormon's role as a divine testament of the Last Days and as a sacred sign of Joseph Smith's status as a modern-day prophet. He assesses its claim to be a history of the pre-Columbian peopling of the Western Hemisphere...Givens explores how the Book of Mormon has been defined as a cultural product, the imaginative ravings of a rustic religion-maker more inspired by the winds of culture than the breath of God...Givens also probes the Book's shifting relationship to Mormon doctrine and its changing reputation among theologians and scholars. Givens' introduction sets the scene: how does one understand the admittedly-fantastical story of the boy Prophet unto whom the Gold Plates were delivered, and from which came the Book of Mormon? Are they the ravings of a religious lunatic, or are they authentic scripture? After describing the changing role of the Book of Mormon within the Church itself, Givens notes the following: Meanwhile, skeptics are forsaking the facile scenarios of the nineteenth century (that Smith plagarized accounts by Ethan Smith or Solomon Spaulding) and are searching for new sources of and explanations behind the scripture. (p. 5) One evidence of this trend might very well be the existence of Givens' own book, and its publication by the University of Oxford Press. But is his statement largely true? Has the anti-Mormon polemic really advanced beyond the name-calling stage? I haven't seen much evidence of this. I read widely in both Mormon and anti-Mormon literature, and I really haven't seen a great deal of growth on the part of the anti's. Givens seems to be making a point -- that the world at large is finally taking the Book of Mormon seriously. Likewise, I fail to see this trend. Perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong places. Now, to the contents of the book. Chapter One, "A Seer Shall the Lord My God Raise Up: The Prophet and the Plates," tells the story of Joseph's early life and his reception and translation of the plates. Here the author reviews the story of the visits of the angel Moroni, the preparation of Joseph Smith for the translation process, Martin Harris' encounter with Prof. Anthon, etc. This book "written upon gold plates" would forever alter the life and reputation of the young farmboy, and would serve as the principal catalyst behind the rise of a worldwide church. More than any other factor, it would come to ground Joseph's reputation as seer and charlatan, beloved prophet and reviled blasphemer, as disturber of the peace and empire builder. (p. 11) But one must not be misled into thinking that the "content" of the Book is central to this discussion. Note this shrewd observation: The message of the Book of Mormon was and continues to be inseparable from the story of its origins -- a story involving angels, seer stones, and golden plates. Given the fact that epiphanies, dreams, and visions are entirely subjective experiences, and that supernatural trappings are generally more of an impediment than invitation to belief, one might expect that Smith would have emphasized content over context, or at least allowed himself and his audience the leisure of some flexibility in interpreting his experiences... Smith's rhetoric regarding his visions and visitations, in other words, consistently resisted the domesticating strategy of reducing them to an inner experience. "I had actually seen a light," he would write of his first vision, "and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me." (JS-H 1:25) Dream-visions may be in the mind of the beholder, but gold plates are not subject to such facile psychologizing. They were, in the angel's words, buried in a nearby hillside, not in Joseph's psyche or religious unconscious, and they chronicle a history of *this* hemisphere, not a heavenly city to come. As such, the claims and experiences of the prophet are thrust irretreivably into the public sphere, no longer subject to his private acts of interpretation alone. It is this fact, the intrusion of Joseph's message into the realm of the concrete, historical, and empirical, that dramatically alters the terms by which the public will engage this new religious phenomenon. (p. 41-42) In such words, Givens draws a clear line between pure visionaries (such as Swedenborg, who is mentioned generously in his discussion of esoteric experiences) and one whose visionary experience is based in historically-demonstrable fact. Presenting the testimony of the witnesses, among other proofs, Givens takes the stand that, while the *content* of the Book of Mormon is a true historical account, what matters much more is that the book exists *at all.* And the events leading up to its existence in its present form is marked by historical, provable events. Chapter Two, "Out of the Dust -- The Book of Mormon Comes Forth," combines a summary of Book of Mormon Christology with a continuing narrative of the publication and distribution of the Book of Mormon. Chapter Three, "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder: The Book of Mormon as Sacred Sign," takes the reader beyond the text, beyond the experience, and places the Book of Mormon as a sacrament, so to speak, a "sacred sign." Givens traces the biblical-fulfillment aspect of the Book of Mormon, how its appearance was foretold in prophecy. After citing Joseph's comparing the coming forth of the Book of Mormon with Jesus' parable of the man who buried a treasure in a field, Givens states: This is stirring imagery, designating the Book of Mormon a herald, or portent, of other magnificent events to come. The spectacle of its "springing up," "coming forth," and "branching" out, and its consequent role as a locus of heavenly manifestations and angelic activity, seem to suggest that what it signifies as event may be more important than what it actually says. (p. 63) This is the rule of thumb that Givens uses in subsequent chapters. For example, in his discussion of archaeological evidence and historical study, when there is insufficient support for a given proof-method, methods generally used in modern research, he falls back on the book itself, its existence, its palpability, pushing content issues to the side. Whether this is a legitimate approach is up to the reader. Chapter 3 continues with a rambling and often disconnected narrative describing Joseph's credentials as a seer and prophet, as compared to other "seers" who preceded him. One must trudge through arcane discussions of such notables as Emanuel Swedenborg, William Blake and Jacob Boehme before finally focusing on Givens' point: while mediumship in former times focused on the content of the revelations, Joseph apparently...believed the message *was* the manner of its coming forth or he would have spent some time writing or preaching about the Book of Mormon's content, instead of repeatedly talking about how he produced it. (p. 85) Chapter Four presents a formidable title: "I, Nephi, Wrote This Record: The Book of Mormon as Ancient History, Part 1 -- The Search for a Mesoamerican Troy." Students of Book of Mormon archaeology will enjoy the narrative history of the various organizations formed to pursue this study. Its content is pretty standard stuff, but is presented in a more lively manner than the previous chapter. It considers the quest for archaeological evidence as a legitimate source of "proof" of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. However, if you've been paying attention to earlier chapters, you realize that this is hardly the kind of evidence Givens himself is seeking. Which leads us to -- Chapter Five, "I, Nephi, Wrote This Record: The Book of Mormon as Ancient History, Part 2 -- The Search For a Rational Belief." Underlying the debate about the intellectual credibility of sacred texts, or their historical verifiability, is a larger question that has to do with the relationship between faith and reason. *Can* "spiritual" truths be proved? Is rational validation of religious belief *desirable*? (p. 117) Givens cites Hugh Nibley, John Sorensen, and others as major sources of research into Book of Mormon evidences. But he also introduces a subtle feeling that, just maybe, all this research may have a downside. ...any effort to subject religious texts to scientific methods or to subsume them within academic disciplines runs some risks as well. First, it remains to be seen what effect an increasing emphasis on historical substantiation of the Book of Mormon will have on the spiritual bases of Mormonism itself. The church has long negotiated a balance between faith and scholarship. Joseph Smith founded a university in the frontier city of Nauvoo at great sacrifice and effort, and today the church subsidizes the largest private university in America. At the same time, more than a few Mormon intellectuals have recurrently felt ostracized and under siege -- within their church by cautious leadership and without by sometimes irrational institutional resistance. (p. 153) In the end, Givens pushes historicity to the back burner: So the church maintains its position of cautious support, recognizing that the discovery of collaborative evidence may be no less problematic than the failure to build a convincing scholarly case. As the First Presidency wrote to Ferguson in denying his initial 1952 request for funding [as described in a previous chapter]: "The brethren feel that careful explanatory work may very well develop faith-promoting collaborative evidence of the historical value of the Book of Mormon. The Brethren feel that it may be that no discovery will be made which shall establish the historical value of the Book of Mormon. They incline to feel that the faith now required to accept the book is a very considerable factor in the faith of the Restored Gospel, belief in which is the result of faith therein." (p. 154) One leaves this chapter not entirely certain that Givens sees any lasting value in pursuing scientific study of the Book of Mormon. Chapter Six, "Devices of the Devil: The Book of Mormon as Cultural Product or Sacred Fiction," surveys the various theories advanced by skeptics for the appearing, and content, of the Book of Mormon. From Donna Smith's important biography, to Fawn Brodie's questionable psycho-history, and on to the Spaulding, and other, theories of authorship, Givens offers some good introductory material. Seasoned students will find nothing new here. Later in the chapter he explores the adversarial role of what is being called "the New Mormon History." Givens leaves no doubt as to where he stands on this issue: At the present...while Mormons wait for an increasingly persuasive Book of Mormon apologetics -- or the sheer magnitude of their burgeoning numbers -- to attract more serious attention to their scripture, the Book of Mormon wars that rage most furiously are taking place within the Mormon scholarly community. For under that controversial rubric of the "new Mormon history," the Book of Mormon has drawn a fresh generation of interpretations and approaches. (p. 175) And he insists that the orthodox believers wear the white hats, and the new Mormon historians wear the black hats. Of course, he gives their views some air-time, but he leaves no doubt as to his allegience to orthodoxy. Chapter Seven, "Plain and Precious Truths: The Book of Mormon as New Theology, Part 1 -- The Encounter with Biblical Christianity," studies the doctrinal impact of the Book of Mormon. Non-Mormon readers unfamiliar with Mormon claims of tampering with the Bible will be surprised to learn of the many "plain and precious" truths having been lost. Givens considers how the Book of Mormon fills in some of these gaps. It is here that the author make a claim that I doubt can be substantiated. ...in the modern era, the Book of Mormon and the Bible have become virtually interchangeable for purposes of doctrine in the Mormon church. (p. 194) This claim doesn't seem to be true to this reviewer. The Church continues to insist on the superiority of the Book of Mormon over the Bible (even as it is translated correctly). I've had many discussions on this topic over the years, and I've yet to be convinced otherwise. Givens cites the new edition of the Standard Works, which cross-references all four books of scripture in its notes, as evidence. But this is far from evidence that "the the Book of Mormon and the Bible have become virtually interchangeable for purposes of doctrine in the Mormon church." The relationship of the Bible to the Book of Mormon remains murky, in my opinion. Also rather murky is the relationship between the written word and continuing revelation. Diagram this paragraph: In the final result, even as Mormon doctrine subordinates its own canon to the principle of living revelation, these distinctions may count for little. Given the very fluidity of the canon we have seen, any opposition between living oracles and printed scriptures is always subject to negotiation. As Mormon canonical history shows, today's inspired utterances may become part of tomorrow's standard works. Ultimately, then, the principle of continuing revelation and living oracles emerges as inseparable from the foremost embodiment of that principle -- the Book of Mormon. And the Book of Mormon therefore holds out an alluring promise of continuing divine interaction with the human even as it poses the greatest threat to orthodox notions of canonicity and revelation that Christianity has yet seen. (p. 195) Read carefully, the preceding paragraph presents a fascinating possibility -- study the words all you like, tomorrow there may be more words! It is the "principle of living revelation," not the revelation itself, that merits study. And this, of course, contradicts his earlier claim to virtual interchangeability of the Bible and the Book of Mormon as a basis for Mormon belief. The Book of Mormon is sacrament; the Bible is merely text. Chapter Eight, "Plain and Precious Truths: The Book of Mormon as New Theology, Part 2 -- Dialogic Revelation," explores the nature of how God communicates with man. Even as the First Vision experience was one of dialogue, the Book of Mormon is filled with communications between deity and mortals. Also explored is the role of personal revelation in understanding general revelation, in particular, that contained in the Book of Mormon. Givens compares the role of personal revelation in the study of the Bible and in the study of the Book of Mormon: Because neither the canon of the Old Testament nor the "received text" of the New (as that term makes clear) has been transmitted, preserved, or authorized by ostensibly supernatural mechanisms, and because the theological claims of both are conspicuously different from a non-Jewish or a non-Christian set of beliefs, their theological function is not to serve as evidence of an authority external to themselves but to establish and embody truth within themselves. The meaning of the Book of Mormon, by contrast, may be said to reside in the experience of dialogic revelation it elicits...For millions of believers, the Book of Mormon has been the vehicle through which they could find their own sacred grove and reenact on a personal scale the epiphany that ushered in a new dispensation. (p. 239) The reader can see this as a continuation of the author's theme of the Book of Mormon as a sacramental expression of a higher reality. This is a fascinating and thought-provoking chapter. Chapter Nine, "A Standard Unto My People: The Book of Mormon as Cultural Touchstone," wraps it up with a nice study of how the Book of Mormon has defined the culture that Mormonism embodies. Phrases such as "iron rod" enter into the vocabulary of the faithful. Parents name their children "Nephi" and such. But even more, the Book of Mormon stands as a clear point of demarcation between Mormonism and wider Christianity. It is a chasm that cannot be bridged with interdenominational cooperation and deeper understandings. Conclusion ========== Whether to recommend the purchase of this book is a difficult question. Givens' clearly orthodox approach to the Book of Mormon, and to the authority of the church, sometimes affects his views on various questions. His bias clearly shows, for example, in his discussion of the "New Mormon History," already discussed. My thought is that Givens has a larger goal -- to present the Book of Mormon as a viable candidate for serious academic study outside Mormon circles. But his attempt is derailed when he dismisses normal research methods in favor of subjective experience and personal revelation. But this does not mean that there isn't some good, solid history and some helpful insights in this book. I'm glad I purchased it, and will keep it on my shelf for future reference. However, I think Givens will be disappointed when it fails to elicit the kind of response he clearly hoped for. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com or jeffneedle@nethere.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 11 May 2002 03:02:20 -0600 Jerry Tyner wrote: > My take on this (appropriateness of the word SEX in Sacrament meeting, etc.) is it hearkens back to the first three versus in section 89 of the D&C: "...adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints." This reminds me of a discussion on another list I'm on. One person invoked the principle of "moderation in all things" as taught in the Word of Wisdom. I've heard this bromide (fun word) many times, so I finally took the occasion to actually read the 89th section and see exactly where this principle is taught. I found absolutely nothing in the Word of Wisdom that taught moderation in anything, let alone all things. The closest that came to it was the admonition to eat meat sparingly. Everything else was forbidden or pronounced good for the body. In the same vein, I think trying to generalize this "adapted to the capacity of the weakest" concept, specifically applied only to the Word of Wisdom, to all Gospel principles will run afoul of trouble very fast. Is the law of chastity adapted to the weakest of Saints? Should it be? The law of charity? The law of consecration? On the contrary, these seem to me to be laws that require a great deal of strength from members of the church to live fully. I don't see any legitimacy in taking an isolated concept like "adapted to the weakest" that is associated with one specific principle and generalizing it to anything that suits one's fancy. There is no statement anywhere in LDS theology that says we need to adapt our discussion of sex to the weakest of the Saints, which in this case means most easily offended (which, by the way, is _not_ what "weakest" means in the Word of Wisdom). Which brings us to the next point... > There are still too many who are offended at a word so in order to disseminate information at/in a Church setting they have to announce Special Firesides... There is a great deal of "being offended at a word" these days, not just among Mormons, and it's one of the greatest destructive influences in our society, in my opinion. Being easily offended has nothing to do with being weak and everything to do with pride and power. It's pure arrogance to assume that my sensibilities ought to be the sensibilities of everyone, and it's purely a power play to demand that my sensibilities be enforced in the lives of others by whatever power has jurisdiction over the issue (courts deciding if the Red Devil should remain a Springville mascot, bishops banning utterance of the word "sex" in sacrament meeting, or just plain social pressure in the form of public chastising in the name of some self-righteous principle attributed to God). In other words, I'm saying that the worst argument that can be made to convince me about something is to say that I have to cater to the easily offended, for fear they'll "take their ball and go home." To the easily offended I say, "Don't let the chapel door hit your [bleep] on the way out." (Which of course will offend them.) Boy, that's cold-blooded and uncharitable of me, isn't it! But there's one reason people who are offended at a word keep being offended at a word: it works. We empower their "offendedness" by giving in to it. If no one bent to it, they'd stop doing it. Then they could get on with trying to live the gospel instead of deciding if this is the week someone offended them enough to stop coming to church. Or they could abandon the facade and with great relief become the inactive members they want to be, because they have their excuse. Call it "tough charity," if you will. > Bottom line - if the subject of Sex were to be talked about in Sacrament meetings there would be some who would leave the Church saying that had no place in being discussed over the pulpit. Why do we tremble so over the eternal souls of these people, that we make all our choices of "appropriateness" based on their reactions? Do we really believe that that sort of half-hearted, self-centered, uncharitable, pride-filled "faith" will earn them salvation anyway? Do we really believe they'll somehow magically turn themselves around one day, when their current MO already provides them with the results they desire? Do we really think we're doing them any good from an eternal perspective when we give in to their tantrums all the time? Obviously I don't, and that's why one of the last things I worry about when I contemplate writing something for the LDS audience is whether it will offend someone. I'd feel like I failed somewhere if it didn't, because then I'd be catering to the lowest common denominator. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 11 May 2002 03:50:39 -0600 Scott Parkin wrote: > Whether we ought to discuss sex more openly or not, the simple fact is that > many people *are* squeamish about it. Many people *are* embarrassed to > discuss it in public. Many people *are* convinced that it's somehow wrong to > speak to general audiences about something that is very private and personal > to them. And they may very well be wrong to think and believe as they do. > > So what's the right answer? To berate these people in public, then force > them to either listen to things that offend their sensibilities or stay home > from church? Where's the charity in that? Where's the respect for the > sensibilities of others? Is their only safe haven to close their doors > against the entire world--even their religious one? As hardnosed as I get about subjects like this in a theoretical discussion, I actually wouldn't go barging in like the proverbial bull in the china shop and try to change everything in one day. I do believe in showing some respect to the sensibilities of others. But I don't believe in giving in to them if I think they're wrong. Envelope-pushing is in order here. > But I have a hard time demanding that all people discuss everything at my > preferred level of detail in a general meeting. Even as they demand that you discuss everything at their preferred level of detail. > You're absolutely right--the > lines of appropriateness for general public discourse *are* oriented around > the least common denominator, so that even the weakest among us can receive > of wisdom and feel community with the body of the saints. I consider that a > good thing; the time for exclusion on such a basis hasn't arrived yet, IMO. Certainly there are different levels of appropriateness for different venues. A frank discussion on the details of sex for married couples should be a fireside and not a sacrament meeting, as Jerry Tyner suggested. But... > According to which scripture or Conference address is the discussion of > sex--at any level of detail--*required* in the general public meetings of > the Church? According to the admonition that we are to preach the gospel to one another in those meetings. According to the doctrine, specifically mentioned by Elder Packer in General Conference, that sex is the very key to that gospel. According to the need to help members of the church avoid grievous sin that many are committing out of ignorance. According to the definition of exaltation as eternal marriage, and sex being a vital component of making a marriage work so it can become eternal. There is no other aspect more central to human existence, both in mortality and in the eternities, that is so neglected at the pulpit. You can't say that sex is a precious gift of God and the key to the eternities, then say we have no obligation to teach about it in our meetings. > Draw the line where you need to draw it, find the forums that support your > level of frankness, and allow others the freedom to defer participation in > those discussions without being required to stay home from public church > meetings. To me that's at least part of what charity is--which is something > else Mormons ought to understand better than we do, IMO. Prophets don't do this. They have a tendency to preach about that which violates the comfort level of people. Some prophets have died because people were "offended for a word." But the prophets keep on preaching. Jacob in the Book of Mormon was faced with this very problem. He wanted to get up and speak about pleasant, uplifting things. He didn't want to offend the sensibilities of innocent wives and children. But he felt obligated to discuss in detail the very subject we're talking about, risking offense, because it was needed by his audience. It's needed today! An aquaintance of mine told me about a sacrament meeting he attended recently where a 22-year-old woman got up and gave a frank sermon on sex, then scolded the congregation for not teaching the same things as she grew up. She needed to know that stuff! All the young people need to learn this stuff! Adults need to get over their embarrassment and start teaching it! I feel like we're all playing Nero and fiddling over trivial things like sensibilities as Rome burns. In case no one's noticed, we're losing the war over moral sex in our society. Time to get out the big guns, not quibble over how small the bullets need to be to avoid offending someone. > Spelling out the word still communicates it, so unless she believes that > most of her fellow "Saints" couldn't puzzle out what S-E-X spells, she > offended them anyway--and drew a fair amount of attention to herself and her > subject matter in the process. > I tend to believe that she was herself quite squeamish about the subject > herself, and that was the only way she could overcome her own squeamishness. I was there. Nothing in her words or demeanor or tone of voice communicated squeamishness. She was lively and spoke rapidly as she usually does and glowed in her face and spewed those words out very easily. She didn't bat an eye or miss a beat when she uttered "S-E-X." To my best judgment, she was catering to a sensibility that had been habituated into her, in spite of her claim to be able to speak openly about sex. No squeamishness, just habit. > > I'm saying it's > > time to educate our fellow Saints to raise the bar, so actual > > information about sex can be disseminated to those who need it. > > Absolutely! Write a book. Do a lecture series. Invite people to meet with > you to discuss the issue. Disseminate the information so that those who need > it can gain access to it. Or speak in a frankness that you believe is correct, and when the inevitable squeamish people complain to the bishop, have him back you up and explain to them, kindly and with love, that it's okay to talk about sex like that, that such frank talk is needed. > I personally agree with your broad call to extend and expand the frankness > in our discourse. I think sharing our experience and learning from the > experience of others is a godly trait. But all are not edified equally by > certain words or subjects, so we choose to limit certain discussions in > certain forums--not out of moral necessity, but out of respect and charity > for our audience. In the New Testament, the Saints were taught to avoid eating meat consecrated to an idolatrous god, not because it was evil, but because it might offend some of their brothers and sisters. Because eating or not eating such meat is a trivial decision, it certainly would be charitable to avoid it solely to avoid offense. But the topic of sex is a very critical one in our times, as it was in the time of Jacob when the law of chasitity was being wantonly violated. To discuss or not discuss it is not a trivial decision--it's one with eternal consequences. Jacob didn't want to offend anyone, but he felt obligated to, because the ramifications were so great. I believe we're in a similar position today. I am a strong believer in the concept of tough love when warranted. There are times when risking offense is the charitable thing to do. Jesus was good at avoiding offense when there was no reason to offend, but was equally willing to cause great offense if the message was important to get out. Open discussions about sex is one of those important messages, in my opinion. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Gerald N. LUND, _Come Unto Me_ (Review) Date: 11 May 2002 09:03:51 -0700 >In an effort to impress us with his limited knowledge of language, Lund >simply stumbles and falls. I agree that things like this in books are annoying...but one question--where was the editor? Isn't it the editor's job to stop the author from making faux pas like this? I wonder if Lund argued the point with his editor and had the language mixups left in on purpose. And if that's so, I wonder if the reasoning is that the reading audience "won't know the difference". And if THAT'S so, it offends me, as a reader, that I am thought so little of. I must say I've never read Lund's books, although I have one on the shelf that I thought I might try sometime (the first in the series in question), and I only made about 200 pages of THE WORK AND THE GLORY, for the same reasons that I can't read Danielle Steele. Poor writing bores me. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Gerald N. LUND, _Come Unto Me_ (Review) Date: 11 May 2002 11:29:24 -0400 JEFF NEEDLE on excerpt from COME UNTO ME: > > > "_Shalom,_ Simeon ben David," Sextus Rubrius > > said in Aramaic. It he was surprised to see his > > visitor, it did not show on his craggy face. > > > >Now, I may be wrong, but isn't "shalom" Hebrew? Is the equivalent word in >Aramaic identical? I had to blink a few times, wondering why Lund felt it >necessary to qualify Shalom as Aramaic! What was his point? Hebrew was derived from Aramaic. (In the Torah's Passover ritual, Jacob(Israel)is described as "a wandering Aramean.") The earliest forms of written Hebrew that have been discovered are nearly indentical to ancient Aramaic. I know that Herbrew and Aramaic share many of the same consonants, and in both languages the accents fall on the same syllables. If I remember correctly, by the the era of the Roman occupation of Jerusalem, Aramaic had become "the street language" in Judeah because it shared some many features with the various languages that had evolved over the previous centuries in that part of the region. As for why Lund would include this in his book--well, I haven't read his book, but I assume that he's merely showing off his research. I wouldn't think this would serve his fiction very well. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 11 May 2002 15:32:23 -0500 In the few minutes I have between turning grades in and having to go home and pack, I thought I'd write a few words about the following: Jonathan Langford wrote: > Jim Picht (my, I seem to be picking on him a lot today) wrote... Au contraire. Think of it as offering me the opportunity to expand on things I wrote earlier. I'm too genteel to comment on my own posts, so you do me a valuable service by allowing me the chance to get in a few more words on the subject. > (a) Things (including living things) have no value in themselves, but only > as they find themselves reflected in consciousness. > > [I]t seems to me just as reasonable to suppose that all beings have value in > themselves, and that the role is consciousness in the universe is to value, > protect, and provide environments for those things. Are humans the only race that > possesses intelligences and is coeternal with God--thus (presumably) having value > in themselves? I see no evidence in the scriptures one way or another. I didn't say that things have value only as reflected in _human_ consciousness. If other races have intelligence, or if the only intelligence in the universe is God's, then I'd say that things have value as they find themselves reflected in that intelligence. If there were no intelligence to contemplate it, it seems to me meaningless to say that something has value. More precisely, it seems meaningless to say that anything has more value than anything else. If intelligence can't appreciate it, what makes a flower more valuable than a bacterium more valuable than a virus more valuable than a proline molecule more valuable than a hydrogen atom more valuable than a lepton? Without intelligence, everything is equally valuable, which is another way of saying that value is an empty concept. (Note the analogous nature of this argument to my argument on collective guilt. Value is a moral concept, and moral concepts are meaningful only in the minds of thinking beings. Value isn't a property of nature.) > b) The only sources of consciousness in the universe are human. I made no such assumption, and it isn't necessary to my original argument. > Still, it seems to me that consciousness and thought are (to some extent) a > matter of degree, and not of a binary off-on switch, with humans on one > side and all other forms of life on another. I agree. Hence I think that a moral argument can be made for protecting elements of nature that are of no value to humans. But so far no one has cared to make the argument. If the notion of intrinsic value (value divorced from thought) is meaningless, and if you're going to argue that the human perspective isn't all that matters, then you have to invoke God, the possible sentience of dolphins or some other species, or the potential of life to organize itself into intelligent forms if left unmolested (or perhaps if encouraged) by humanity. Go for it. You certainly make a start in that direction with the following: > In any event, I think this is, again, too much up in the air for us to make > the assumption that the human perspective is the only one with which we > need to be concerned--though it can, of course, be argued that it's the > only one we currently can access. But that, it seems to me, is not an > excuse for disregarding the possibility of eventual communion... Yes, we do have to keep in mind that only human thought is known to exist, and it's hard (but not impossible) to argue that a hypothetical should have precedence over a human when we decide how to treat nature. LDS theology does give us good reason to explore the possibility and not act recklessly in the environment. God's appreciation of a flower may be ample enough reason not to thoughtlessly destroy it. > Even from the perspective of human interest, I think Jim's formulation of > environmental choices is overly simple. Let me point out that I argue against a point of view that sees value as intrinsic to nature, that sees humans as unnatural, or that posits infinite costs for environmental degradation - all very common elements of modern environmentalism, and, in my opinion, simplistic on the order of the most crude religious dogma. I think that by putting the contemplation of nature and the preservation of certain environments in the realm of moral thought, I complexify rather than simplify the discussion. But let's see: > This paragraph seems to suggest that the cost of human damage to the > environment is largely a sentimental/ethical/esthetic one. But from the > reading I've done, I don't think we know the real cost yet. You can't be suggesting that there's such a thing as objective cost! There are certainly economic costs to environmental degradation - pollution imposes costs on society without corresponding benefits (look up 'externality' in your college econ. text), and the use of resources one way means they can't be used another way ('opportunity cost'). Of course, there's a cost to clean water and clean air (the production we give up, the things we might want and won't get when we leave a tree in place or don't process bauxite or burn oil). We can't possibly know the ultimate cost of anything. The economic costs we pay are sometimes measured in dollars, but those costs are always based on human desires, preferences, and happiness. At the core of every economic decision is a moral decision. If we make the wrong decisions about using natural resources, the ultimate cost won't be in money, but in human (and perhaps cetacian, simian, and divine) happiness and possibility. Isn't that an ethical (moral) matter first and foremost? > Certainly, in addition to the moral and religious concerns Jim cites, there are > also many unanswered questions on the concrete, material level about sustainable > quality of life for 6 or 7 or 20 billion humans. There's nothing concrete to "quality of life." That's a purely moral concern. The quality of my life is a function of my expectations, desires, and values. Modern Americans are able to perceive a lower and lower quality of life with more things, better health, and longer life than their ancestors could have imagined. > I see these as largely scientific questions, because it's only through > science that we can come to any reliable sense of the potential > cost--without which no reasonable cost-benefit analysis can be made. Science can tell us something about the physical world we'll face because of our actions, and science (especially economics) can tell us a great deal about what we can expect to give up for energy, food, and shelter under different policy regimes. I'm all for cost-benefit analysis. I don't know of many environmentalists who are willing to sit still for a cost-benefit analysis of air pollution, though. At best they'll argue that we don't know enough to do the analysis, hence the costs of air pollution are incalculable and should be treated as infinite. > Honestly--in answer to Harlow's question--I see no way to reconcile the popular > Mormon conception of ever-increasing numbers of humans on the Earth with any kind > of environmental realism, unless you assume a miracle--or a catastrophe--which > will step in to limit human growth. I don't think the Mormon conception is ever increasing numbers of humans, but increasing numbers of humans until the millenium. Anyway, an economist will tell you that people tend to have kids until the cost exceeds the benefit. It isn't ZPG policies that have slowed or stopped population growth in many parts of the world, but the increasing cost of children. A $400/hour attorney pays a huge cost for down-time to have a child (opportunity cost) compared to a minimum wage earner. Someone who expects no financial return from a child pays a much greater cost than someone who sees children as an investment (often the case in poor and agrarian societies). Think of children as durable consumer goods, and the problem of population growth is the same as the problem of surplus refrigerator production. (Yes, I'm simplifying to an almost ridiculous point, but oddly enough, the data show that in western countries, people _do_ act as if children are a durable consumer good. It goes far to explain patterns of fertility and such things as math lessons for 2-year-olds and baby tuxedos.) > Which is one of the reasons *I* think many members of the Church ultimately > refuse to buy into an environmental perspective on things: because it seems, > ultimately, to bring them into fundamental conflict with one of the teachings of > the Church. I think they buy into an environmental perspective, just not the orthodox environmental perspective of Green Peace and Paul Ehrlich. Julian Simon had a very strong environmental perspective, as does Bjorn Lomborg (who, as a heretic to the true environmental faith, has turned staid scientists into hysterical, spitting Torquemadas - the January _Scientific American_ was weird and wonderful and appalling in its appeals to authority and _ad hominem_ howls). Economists, Mormons, and Danish statisticians aren't anti-environment. Only the villains in _Captain Planet_ cartoons and a few nut cases are anti-environment. Our environmental perspective is simply different than the orthodox perspective. There's a built in optimism to our view that's reflected in the things we write, our disinterest in wringing our hands over vanishing wilderness and the popularity of SUVs. > On a personal and religious level, I find the sheer diversity of life on > earth to be strong evidence of the importance of that diversity. Is that like saying that the sheer number of mosquitoes in Louisiana is strong evidence for the importance of those numbers? Why do you take the existence of something as evidence of its importance? Or am I misreading your sentiment? > Either it's important for its own sake, or it's important that there be such a > diversity for the sake of humans. Or it's not really important at all, and > God's acts of creation have no real importance or purpose. Perhaps they have esthetic importance. Isn't that real enough? Tolstoy's novels, Michaelangelo's sculptures, and the Brandenburg Concertos have no real importance or purpose, but the world would be vastly poorer without them. God could surely have created a world able to support us without all the mountains and deserts, and with no trace of Australia or Hawaii and their flora and fauna. The importance of these things isn't that they're necessary to existence, but that they make existence more interesting and more enjoyable. Doesn't man exist to have joy? Joy isn't just a function of needs, but of wants, and even of wants we don't know we have. When I claim that nature is important for aesthetic reasons, I'm not simplifying or denigrating nature. Nature is a human creation - a human concept - that's meaningless without thought. So is value. So are beauty and art. The threat this presents to environmentalists isn't that it devalues nature, but that it makes the concept democratic. It puts humanity in a position of primacy, giving us the right and the responsibility to decide what nature will be. We have the right and responsibility to decide whether we should burn books. That doesn't mean we should burn books, even though they have no value if there's no one to read them. Nature is an artwork, one crucial to our existence, but an artwork nonetheless. No more, no less. Jim Picht -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: luannstaheli Subject: [AML] Lemony Snickett LDS Connection Date: 11 May 2002 14:31:37 -0600 The illustrator of the Lemony Snickett books, Brett Helquist, is indeed LDS, a BYU graduate from Orem. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] re: GIVENS, _By the Hand of Mormon_ (Review) Date: 11 May 2002 12:02:56 -0700 It has been brought to my attention that I've made an error in the Givens book review. I mention a biography by Donna Smith. Obviously the Smith's had been on my mind, and it's Donna *Hill* I was speaking of. Folks, old age has begun creeping in! Sorry. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com or jeffneedle@nethere.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] _The Scarlet Pimpernel_ Performance Date: 11 May 2002 20:32:31 -0600 I don't know that there is a Mormon connection, but _The Scarlet = Pimpernel_ is playing at Hale Center Theatre in West Valley and it is a = splendid production. I know many on the list are not fans of musicals, = but it would be hard not to love this music. The costumes and some of = the sets have been rented from the original touring company and they are = wonderful. If you liked _Les Miz_ I think you will like this musical. = We saw the opening matinee on Saturday May 11. The sword fight needed a = bit of work, but I'm sure that will come together. I'll let Eric write = the review, but just want to say this show is darned good theater, so = don't miss it.=20 Nan McCulloch=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Talent Search: Actor for Joseph Smith Date: 11 May 2002 19:35:24 -0500 At 05:14 AM 5/8/02, you wrote: >Donny Osmond should definitely be banned for the unpardonable sin of >starring in _Going Coconuts_. Perhaps Richard Dutcher should be >disqualified for appearing in _Singles Ward_. Certainly we must give >thumbs-down to the entire cast of _Johnny Lingo_. > >Well, I got more silly as I progressed. I can't help it--it's >congenital. But my point is, you may be right about what that phrase >meant. But if you are, I'm disturbed by the implications. It's evil to >play an evil role? >D. Michael Martindale I doubt very much that it is-- but-- If it's true that this stems from the actor in Legacy having porn credits, and that info is accurate, I would say yes, it IS evil to participate in the making of pornography. You could argue the policy leaves the actors little room for repentance, perhaps, but I doubt that even you :) can successfully argue that -porn- actors are not committing sin. The arguments concerning swearing & nudity for actors is another issue altogether, one I prefer to leave alone. Someone else can take that one up. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Kelly MCLEAN, _The Ark_ (Deseret News) Date: 13 May 2002 01:10:42 +0000 Deseret News Sunday, May 12, 2002 'The Ark' back afloat at Thanksgiving Point By Ivan M. Lincoln Deseret News theater editor LEHI =97 When two performers from the original Broadway production of "The Scarlet Pimpernel" were in Salt Lake City recently, as part of the cast of Pioneer Theatre Company's "Phantom," they commented that the former was "the most re- invented show" on Broadway during its New York run. Well, that's probably true. But a big contender for "most re-invented show" along the Wasatch Front has to be Michael McLean and Kevin Kelly's "The Ark," returning this week to Thanksgiving Point. Although some songs from the score had been heard in concerts and other settings, the first fully staged production of "The Ark" docked in the fall of 1998 in the Home Arts Building at the Utah State Fairpark. Then it was back to dry-dock for some overhauling. After that, it floated in August 1999 over to Thanksgiving Point, where it was staged inside a tent across from the petting zoo (highly appropriate, since the animals there likely descended from some of those on the original Ark). For its third incarnation, composer McLean has written five new songs, retooled four others, and cut some others from the show. "We're confident that the people who liked it before will like it again," he said during a telephone interview last week. "I tried to figure out why individual chunks of the show worked so well, yet there was a sense of restlessness and people were tired at the end. It's easy to edit out the bad parts. The hardest part is letting go of your 'darlings,' those precious little bits that are your personal favorites." Since the show last played at Thanksgiving Point, "The Ark" has traveled to a couple of interesting, pivotal destinations. One "port" was the 12th annual Festival of New Musicals, a unique gathering of Broadway theater big-wigs for a workshop-style showcase of several new, potentially up-and- coming shows at the John Houseman and Douglas Fairbanks theaters in New York City. There were a lot of interested, possible=20 "backers" and some good feedback on possible changes in the show, according to McLean. Another turning point was when the show was staged by the nationally renowned Village Theatre in Issaquah, Wash. "No one at this theater was connected to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," said McLean, "but they shared the same values we have and they helped us make changes in the show." While these changes have resulted in "tightening up" the script =97 the production is now shorter than it was originally - "it didn't lose the spiritual component of reconciliation," said McLean. The Heber City-based composer noted that in its early stages of development, the show's first scenes "just flew . . . then it turned into 'As the World Turns.' But the show no longer has these soap opera elements." McLean is also excited about the casting of the new revival. His son, Scott, who recently returned home from an LDS mission to Norway, is playing Japheth. An Equity actress from Seattle, Lisa Etheridge-Gray, has the role of Egyptus. Art Allen, who played Noah in both previous Utah productions, is back at the ship's helm, but McLean has written a new "11 o'clock" song for him to sing at the finale. David Tinney is directing "The Ark" =97 and will also portray Ham. If the show is extended past the tentative closing date of May 31, Tinney will be replaced. He's already committed to direct this year's Hill Cummorah Pageant in upstate New York. Also in the cast are Elizabeth Hansen as Eliza, Stephanie Breinholt as Sariah, Kevin Odekirk =97 most recently in the cast of "Les Miserables" on Broadway =97 as Shem, and Marilee Webb as Martha. The latter also has a "Les Miz" connection. Webb was one of the understudy "swing" performers for "The Ark," and the role of Martha was originally being taken by Heather Ferguson. But Heather was just called to play Cosette in "Les Miserables," so Webb is taking over the role of Martha. PERFORMANCES will be May 17,18, 20, 24, 25, 27 and 31 at 7:30 p.m., with Saturday matinees at 2 p.m. on May 18 and 25. Tickets for floor seating and the first row of the tier are $18 in the evenings and $15 for the matinees. Tickets for tier seating are $15 (evenings) and $12 (matinees). Contact Ticketmaster at= =20 325-SEAT (7328), or visit Ticketmaster outlets at all Fred Meyer stores and Gray Whale CD Exchanges along the Wasatch Front. Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: [AML] 3 Good Movies Date: 13 May 2002 09:20:14 -0600 We just saw some good movies--meaning well-done but also (at least to me :) ) uplifting, moral, instructive, helpful. . . three of them. _Life or Something Like It_ had some obvious flaws, including predictability and too many close-ups of Angelina Jolie. Yet there was a thread of genuineness throughout--like the prophet Jack. I won't be revealing anything the trailers haven't showed you when I say that this prophet Jack predicts that the Angelina Jolie character will die "Thursday." Her friend suggests that maybe this won't happen if she just chooses a different kind of life. "But I've worked so hard on this one!" she wails--a high point for me. _Changing Lanes_ was amazingly crafted, carefully filmed, well-conceived. I won't give anything away because it's such a good flick that maybe you'll see it yourself. I've been struggling with how mad I've been at the state legislature and the college for budget cuts which cut position, including MY program. . . .and also, perhaps worse, cut staff that had loyally worked for the college for decades. It seems to me that they just cut those without power (like contract faculty and lower staff positions) rather than going for where the big money is (in administrative salaries). I just started seeing the lower nature of people everywhere, especially in institutions! _Changing Lanes_ gave me a wonderful artistic catharsis by addressing this very theme--the miserable behavior of most of us humans--with a lovely counterpoint of people who CAN choose to behave morally, even in the face of big pressures. And finally--though perhaps you won't agree with me on this one--_Unfaithful_. I figure if they cut down on the graphic sex scenes and cleaned up the language a little bit, this film should be showed in Gospel Doctrine around the Church (just joking, just joking). Still, I have rarely seen anything that spoke so powerfully against adultery and infidelity. I still have to figure out how they did it. . .the story, as you may have seen from the trailers, is about a wife experiencing the "Hollywood dream," a very passionate affair with a gorgeous young guy. What the trailers don't show you is that, from the beginning, you see the sordid downside, the guilt, the immediate knowing of the husband, the jealousy, the confusion, the darkness. Quite apart from the storyline which develops the devastation of the family, the images, music, camera work and acting build and build this terrible emotional condition resulting from adultery. It is so intense that at the end, both my husband and I felt physically ill. I actually felt like I was going to throw up.I thought it was like aversion therapy. It's all subtle but extremely powerful. What's amazing about this is that for once a big Hollywood film did not glamorize the affair but instead gave us a message that adultery ruins you--and your spouse--and your family--spiritually as well as literally. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] ABANES, _One Nation Under Gods_ (Report) Date: 13 May 2002 11:02:13 -0700 (PDT) --- Jeff Needle wrote: > Hee hee hee! I always knew there was something sinister going on there. > > My only question -- once you take over the world, what are you going to > do > with it??? > Haven't you read that Doctrine & Covenants section where it says that after the Saints take over the world it will be transformed into a sea of Jello? ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 13 May 2002 12:22:51 -0700 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > This reminds me of a discussion on another list I'm on. One person > invoked the principle of "moderation in all things" as taught in the > Word of Wisdom. > > I've heard this bromide (fun word) many times, so I finally took the > occasion to actually read the 89th section and see exactly where this > principle is taught. I found absolutely nothing in the Word of Wisdom > that taught moderation in anything, let alone all things. The closest > that came to it was the admonition to eat meat sparingly. Everything > else was forbidden or pronounced good for the body. To which I respond: Even moderation can be practiced to excess. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Gerald N. LUND, _Come Unto Me_ (Review) Date: 13 May 2002 12:10:52 -0700 All acknowledged. And from my own very brief study of Aramaic, some years ago, there are indeed similarities. I just didn't recall if "shalom" was present in both Hebrew and Aramaic. I don't think this is the case. And if it isn't, then Lund is guilty of being cute at the expense of accuracy. ----- Original Message ----- > Aramaic is very similar to Hebrew. [snip] > Karen Tippets -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 13 May 2002 12:44:04 -0700 I smiled when I read both Michael's and Jacob's posts and thought they both had good points. But upon reading Gae Lyn's and Margaret's posts I felt myself nodding in unsmiling agreement. I have said before that it is my not-so-humble opinion that Latter-day Saints ought to be some of the greatest lovers the world has ever seen. I wasn't just being flippant. We have, if we will truly listen and understand a balanced and wonderful view of marital sexuality that was and is a shining beacon of hope in a sea of sex-as-a-necessary-evil thinking. Most of Christianity hascome very late to the game on this issue. They do indeed now recognize it as a gift of God as do indeed have it as a component of a healthy marriage and teach the same in marriage encounter groups and in premarital classes that are mandatory for engaged couples. My newly married niece just went through such a course. While the topic of sex is one that should have consideration of the setting and context it is discussed, I have seen that used as an excuse for shutting down conversations that made someone uncomfortable when it might have helped someone else. A lot of problems have arisen from ignorance bred of a reticence in discussing sexual matters. I know from having witnessed them. One of my college roomates had to have one of her brothers explain what heavy petting was because her parents never bothered to. She told us she nearly got herself into a situation where she said something she thought was innocous to a date and he took it as a "yes". We all thought he was a jerk, but she recognized she gave him the wrong signal because of ignorance. Another woman I knew went through the horror of a rape and she was weeping not just because of the rape, but because that's how her husband had sex with her! She didn't understand, until then, that control and intimidation had no business in marriage because of her ignorance and the discouragement to ever bring up such things-she might've gotten out of such a sick marriage a lot earlier. Unfortunately from the early days of the Church the puritanical attitudes regarding sex prevailed, polygamy nonwithstanding. My best friend's grandmother knocked her husband-to-be out with a book because he wanted to kiss her and her sister had told her she could get pregnant if a boy kissed her. When he came to, he just left and married her best friend the following week. He married my best friend's grandma later after his first wife died, some ten years later. She felt children should be raised in innocence, but she was much more frank with her own children because she felt they would find out another way if not from her. And that is the way it is today. We had a Bishop a number of years ago that gave a lesson to the combined Priesthood and Relief Society and he told us we were falling down on the job. He would ask the youth in interviews if their parents had discussed sexual matters and it's relationship to gospel principles and general biological facts. The kids said, "No, my parents don't tell me anything". He then told them to go home and ask their parents to talk to them, but if they wouldn't he would. He told us he didn't think it was his job to do this, but pointed out to us the rate of youth in the Church involved in some kind of sexual activity at one time or another was 50%! He basically said something I've always agreed with, if we don't discuss this with our kids and with each other, someone else will, someone who probably won't have our standards and might have sinister motives to boot. Dr. David Coombs, out where we are, gave a talk to a couple's fireside that covered both how to talk to youth about sexual matters and how to talk to each other. His wife, who did the fireside with him, said she barely had a grasp on sex the first ten years of her marriage and it wasn't until she began to read and talk to her husband that they learned new things and likes and dislikes they couldn't seem to bring themselves to talk about for so many years, and this from a professional counselor! Dr. Coombs said, "We tell youth "no" all the time, we won't actually tell them what this part of human sexuality is, but whatever it is, don't do it!" Ignorance hasn't solved the problem of youth getting sexually involved, the "For Strength of Youth" Pamphlet has had to be more frank than in the past. Maybe we need to emphasize what a wonderful thing it is, and if we want a really quality experience it means waiting until adulthood with someone, your spouse, who loves and cares for you and wants to learn together and build a life with you, not just hop in the sack for a great physical release. And it won't be easy because it's a desire that feels good!!! It was difficult for my own mother to talk to me about sexual matters, but one thing she said sunk in deeply to my brain and soul, "Sex with the right person, in the right place and at the right time is a beautiful thing." She was ignorant of a similar quote from Bruce R. McConkie about marriage, she just said what was in her heart and I knew she meant it, maybe that's why it made such a profound impact on me. My father did not say much about sex to me, but what few things he did also had an impact. He told me his parents never told him anything about sex and I could still hear the hurt in his voice some fifty years later. He had an uncle that sat him down and told him a lot of things which he was grateful someone cared enough to do. Do we care enough to talk to our kids about this? I challenge everyone to sit down with their kids and found out how much they already know and how much of it is skewed in some way. I know how hip we all think we are, but I'll bet we'd all be in for a shock. Because of our reluctance to address this in books, we have let others take charge of the issue and stamp their view of sex as the norm which usually communicates the message that married sex is dull and routine and only never-married or extra-marital sex is the only exciting and really great sex you can have. I thought the football player Roger Staubach put it in perspective when asked a frank question in an interview, "Look, I'll bet I have as exciting a sex life as Joe Namath does, but I just have sex with one woman." Bravo! Someone said it and the roof didn't cave in! Why not teach not only "Rejoice with the wife of thy youth", but rejoice with the spouse of thy middle age and senior years! My mother's parents did and I thought it was cool that they did, and yes I did give an embarrassed giggle about it, but smiled long afterward. I have been in some conversations in recent times where the LDS women are talking more about sex, but the theme was, "I'm going through menopause and I'm keeping him at bay." or "I don't want to do that anymore" or where women because of their upbring or whatever had weird attitudes about sex and thought nothing of cutting their husbands off. I agree with Margaret and thought what incredible damage they were doing to their relationships with their husbands, what a waste! Pres. Kimball said that in many interviews he had with married couples going through a divorce there was a sexual component to their problems, but neither party would admit to it, what a shame! There might have been help available and a family kept intact, but they couldn't or wouldn't bring themselves to speak of such intimate matters. I lived off of Pres. Hinckley's talk, "The Four Cornerstones of a Happy Home" for many years before it ever appeared in pamphlet form. I could go on, the damage I've seen done because of so much ignorance born of reluctance to deal with such a powerful issue. I've seen cases where the husband didn't want any more children and the wife kept right on having more and I was stunned by both parties refusal to take responsibility for such a huge decision affecting a marriage and a new person's life here on earth. Latter-day Saints should know better than anyone else with the eternal view we have of sexuality and how our personality stays with us in eternity-if we don't deal with sexual issues here in mortality what makes us think they will magically work out in immortality? Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] re: Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 13 May 2002 13:04:05 -0600 I've been reminded of a good and earnest brother in the gospel (I'll call = him Brother X) who was in my ward some years ago, who had a real knack for = bringing sexual matters to the attention of the rest of the ward. I = remember a testimony Brother X bore once upon a time, in which he let us = know that he'd been a virgin when he married the first time, only to = discover on his wedding night that he hadn't been missing much. His = second marriage, he informed us, was much happier because they spent a lot = more time snuggling than actually getting to it, if we knew what he meant. = We knew what he meant. He taught the most memorable priesthood lesson of my experience one fine = Sunday. The lesson was on 'keeping your marriage fresh and alive', and = the audience was my brother and I (both married) about five elderly = prospective elders and four missionaries. Brother X was full of advice = regarding how to keep our marriages fresh and live. The lesson started = off appropriately enough, with a discussion of equitable chore-sharing, = and then veered radically to, uh, other ways to keep marriage fresh and = live. It included a very graphic and vivid description of the proper way = to perform, as he put it, 'manual clitoral stimulation,' complete with an = anatomically correct chalkboard drawing. I sat there in the classroom, = bent over, knowing that if I looked up I'd start laughing, while my = brother, who thought I'd fallen asleep, kept nudging me. True story. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 13 May 2002 18:24:51 -0500 At 04:50 AM 5/11/02, you wrote: >There are times when risking offense is the >charitable thing to do. Jesus was good at avoiding offense when there >was no reason to offend, but was equally willing to cause great offense >if the message was important to get out. > >Open discussions about sex is one of those important messages, in my >opinion. [D. Michael] I am with D. Michael on most of his arguments in this thread. I have only a couple of comments other than, "Uh, what he said." First: The sister he describes as spelling S-E-X out as a matter of rote reminds me of a funny thing my grandmother did and which my father was also taught, relating to a different bodily function: in their household it was considered inappropriate to acknowledge passing wind. No matter the odor, no matter the sound, it was to be ignored. My mother grew up, however, saying "excuse me!" and acknowledging the fact, and taught us to do the same. Needless to say this created some hilarious tension in our house on occasion, while I was growing up. To tie in: this sister may well be frank enough with her children to get the point across, at home. Who cares if she spells all the words or says them aloud? If her home was such that they spelled everything, the communication is still clear, so long as the conversations were *happening* in the first place. Whether I spell "p-a-s-s w-i-n-d" or say "FART!," my meaning is understood. The event (object?) exists whether or not, or how, it's ever addressed. And as to sacrament meeting: With small children present, I believe it's wise not to go into too much detail, but spelling out a word makes it much more interesting than casually mentioning a word heard everywhere. Nothing perks a kid's ears up faster than spelling in front of them. So it may have backfired. Still, I recall one friend who spelled "s-e-x" if her small children were present, but I knew her well enough to know things were as they should be with her & her husband. She just didn't want her little ones in on a conversation they weren't ready for. (And what child _wants_ to think about their parents sex life, anyway? I still don't.) This situation reminds me of another time where a well-meaning brother told the congregation that "Santa Claus is a big lie! You're all lying to your kids, and how are they going to feel about God when they grow up?! They're going to think he's a lie too!" (Something to that effect.) I seriously cringed: none of my children, all very small, had any notion Santa might not be real. It was all right--the kids (being kids) weren't listening. No harm done. Still, that subject is a personal family issue. It's not nearly on the same scale as teaching your children about sex, but the tradition (or not) to have Santa in your home and when and how to tell your kids about it, is a very individual and personal matter, and this brother's statement, as such, violated MY family's business, placing his personal beliefs as supreme, overruling everyone else's in the congregation. In a similar way, teaching your children about sex, how and when you will do it, and so on, is an EQUALLY personal and individual choice, and for someone to get up and deliver a birds-and-bees sermon in Sacrament meeting would be far more personally violating than the Santa story was. It is simply NOT the forum for those discussions. There are very young children present, for which--like the Santa story--too much information, too soon, could be as damaging as "too little too late." Granted, there are right ways and wrong ways to go about it, and even saying nothing at all DOES teach something. (Usually the wrong thing, but that's another discussion.) But error or not, that choice is PERSONAL. This is not so much an issue about offending others, as dictating that *your* way of doing something is the only right way. In the same vein, I do think more clear, less euphemistic discussions are badly needed in Relief Society, Priesthood, and especially YM and YW meetings and lessons, YES, but NOT in Primary and Sacrament Meeting. But I believe that more often than shame, coyness, or what-have-you, what holds us back from being frank (especially with youth not our own), there is an unwillingness to overstep parental boundaries. I know that's been the case for me. I still may have overstepped a time or two anyway. As for the best-selling book _Between Husband and Wife_: I bought it, read it, and found it lacking. I wrote a long review for the List which was never posted, because I was too busy with other things to rewrite it (it was too graphic in spots for List guidelines, and the book itself, being nonfiction and nonliterary, isn't the type we normally review here). However, it is an excellent book for frigid persons who believe sex is shameful. It is excellent at explaining the sacredness of sex and the reasons that indulging without the covenant of marriage is so harmful, and why indulging within it is both necessary and good. I think it's an excellent tool for teaching youth correct principles about sex and chastity. For those purposes, it's desperately needed. It just so happens that none of that material enhanced my existing knowledge one speck. I think a book about our varying experiences teaching children about sex, and how we each were taught--for good or ill--would be a wonderful addition to Mormon literature. I could write it, but my only credential is being a parent. I don't have degrees in the subject or in family counseling or anything else to make it credible. But it would fascinate me to compare notes--HONEST notes--between different approaches and their results. Does keeping children naive protect their innocence or cause worse problems? Does giving them all the details make them curious to go out and try it, or satisfy their questions so they don't have to seek actual experience? (Personally I'm in the give-the-details early and often camp, and I don't mind saying so.) Would fiction drive the message home more clearly, or be more widely read? Which venue would effect the greatest necessary changes? Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] re: LDS Environmentalism Date: 13 May 2002 17:38:17 -0600 Frankly Melissa, you lose me in your verbiage below. Let me say in my *defense*, it's my belief you have extrapolated certain points from my original post, instead of judging from the whole tone *or* content of it. I believe my original post ended with (endings always give the heaviest weight to a mesage keep in mind) that it would be "interesting to attend whether you were 'for or agin' it'." (and my, haven't we had some wonderful conversation on it, I'm thrilled to be further enlightened on the general topic of environmentalism by everyone on the list) As far as (and this gets far more nit-picky than I like to get with or without sick kids: the slicey-dicey nature of heavy-handed analysis and rhetoric makes me a little queasy to read or write) the "speak against" the nuclear waste part of my phrase, was taken from the news article announcing it as I remember it. Utah government and business leaders are calling for people to speak out against it. That's in the papers. (And it looks like we're going to beat it in Utah at least) With or without that bit of information, I think my post lent itself to a common sense interpretation of offering the information for those who were interested in either side of the topic for reasons mentioned above. I don't think anybody on this list is in danger of being subversively fed environmental propaganda from me or anyone else......I give everyone here FAR more credit than that. As for my reasons or apologies that seem to annoy you (altho' thanks for holding back on the full-out attack ) I think both are very applicable and not irrelevant to myself as a writer. 1)a bias, a thinking female. 2) sick kids, well I think it's important as a female LDS writer and just a female in general to use my family as, not an excuse, but an explanation of why my writing may be eliptical at times. I probably wouldn't have mentioned it if I wasn't being pushed to the wall about a particular phrase in my post. But I wouldn't want to be criticized then have my hands tied behind my back so as not to defend myself. Fair game. Did anyone else mind my explanation? And hey, I'm removing the mote from my eye as we speak, if it ever was there. Jana -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "webmaster" Subject: [AML] LDS Box Office report May 12, Part 1 Date: 13 May 2002 18:47:40 -0500 CHARLY WORKS WITH DESERET BOOK: The producers of the upcoming feature film "Charly" announced a major deal with Deseret Book to re-print Jack Weyland's novel "Charly" with a new cover reflecting the movie. Details of the marketing agreement include television, radio and print advertising, as well as in-store and Web-based promotion. The new edition of the book will hit stores in August; the movie will be released in September. Read the full press release on the official "Charly" movie website: http://www.charlythemovie.com/04302002.html CHRIS HEIMERDINGER: THE MOVIE: You can get your first glimpse at Chris Heimerdinger's upcoming documentary "LEHI'S LAND OF FIRST INHERITANCE" at http://www.cheimerdinger.com/other/books.asp?BOOKID=8 There is a preliminary mock-up of the video cover, brief description, and a video clip viewable by users who register with the site. Heimerdinger has written that he hopes this project will be a major stepping stone toward eventual feature film versions of some of his very popular LDS young adult novels, including his "Tennis Shoes" series. YET ANOTHER HIT IMAX FILM FROM REED SMOOT: Reviews are coming in for "Ultimate X", Reed Smoot's IMAX documentary about extreme sports. Mostly positive reviews, although not ecstatic. RottenTomatoes.com so far tracks 8 positive reviews and 3 negative ones, a "freshness" rating of 73%. Smoot, one of the most successful Latter-day Saint cinematographers in the history of film, has photographed an astonishing range of films, including "Mysteries of Egypt", "Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure", "Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man", "Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey", "Legacy", "Grand Canyon: The Hidden Secrets", "Harry's War", "Windwalker", "The Lost Manuscript", "Cipher in the Snow" and many others. YET ANOTHER DISASTROUS MOVIE CHOICE BY A TALENTED ACTRESS WHO DESERVES BETTER: Reviews are coming in for "The New Guy", which features Eliza Dushku as the lead actress and the nerd-turned-hipster's love interest. Most of the reviews are really, really negative, including ratings of 1 star, zero stars, or "F." RottenTomatoes.com tallied 22 negative reviews and 1 positive one: a "freshness" rating of 4%. Ouch. On the other hand, Roger Ebert gave it two stars -- exactly the same score he gave "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" this week. RICHARD DUTCHER STARRING AS NOT QUITE HIMSELF: There are finally images and text up on the official "The Work and the Story" movie website. Starring Richard Dutcher as a convenience store clerk who dreams of making movies, this mockumentary by Nathan Smith Jones is currently in the editing stages, targeting a September 2002 theatrical release. Check out the graphics and trailer: http://www.theworkandthestory.com/ NO LONGER A SECRET: Blair Treu dropped us a line to to note that his latest movie "Little Secrets" (aka "Secret Keeper") will have a nationwide release on August 16. This family-friendly film has already garnered an armful of major festival awards and critical notices. Starring Tayva Patch ("Out of Step", "Brigham City", "Testaments"), Jan Gardner and Rick Macy ("Out of Step", "Brigham City", "Testaments"). Music is by Sam Cardon ("Brigham City", "Mysteries of Egypt"). Cinematography by long-time Treu collaborator Brian Sullivan. Jerry Stayner and Wynn Hougaard ("Out of Step", "The Singles Ward") are the editors. Christian Vuissa ("Roots and Wings") served as assistant director. CARD REVIEWS JOSHUA: This column previously mentioned the release of "Joshua", a feature film produced by a Presbyterian minister, based on a popular novel by a Catholic writer. The movie has been written about in the trades as another foray into Christian-themed feature films. But whereas recent entries into the genre have been either Evangelical-oriented (e.g., "Left Behind", "The Omega Code") or Latter-day Saint-oriented (e.g., "God's Army", "Brigham City", "The Other Side of Heaven", "The Singles Ward"), "Joshua" appears to be neither. Based on Card's comments and those of other reviewers, "Joshua" appears to reflect a Liberal Protestant position. Latter-day Saint writer (and frequent movie reviewer) Orson Scott Card weighed in on "Joshua" in his weekly newspaper column "Uncle Orson Reviews Everything." Card calls the movie much better than he expected. He states that the acting is uniformly excellent, and notes some of favorite performances, particularly those by stars Tony Goldwyn and F. Murray Abraham. But Card goes on to say that "the script was not very good." His most pointed criticisms are of the movie's theology: "This is the official nice-guy forgive-everybody feel-good Jesus that is only believable if you ignore half the New Testament... Where's the Jesus who said his law was even more rigorous than the law of Moses? No, they showed only a Jesus who doesn't actually expect you to obey commandments or, really, do much of anything except be helpful and say pious things about God. As if the gospels were just chapters in James Redfield's Celestine Prophecy. Most annoying, however, was the depiction of the priest who opposes him. Yes, I know the movie ends with Joshua visiting the Pope and calling him Peter, thus confirming his authority, but until that moment all the depictions of F. Murray Abraham's down-the-line priest showed him -- and the official church -- as dark, oppressive, and condemning. Am I the only one to whom this movie seemed deeply anti-Catholic?... In the effort to show us how Jesus doesn't want us to judge anybody, the film judges 'judgmental' people very harshly, cruelly, and unfairly. It's just like all politically correct puritanism: It becomes intolerant in the name of tolerance, unfair in the name of fairness." The rest can be read on Orson Scott Card's official website at: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2002-04-29.shtml THE FIRST ANNUAL L.A. LDS FILMMAKER/ALUMNI GATHERING, hosted by the Theatre and Media Arts department at Brigham Young University, will be held June 8, 2002. Students interested in attending to showcase their films or talents should contact Nancy or Heidi in D-581 HFAC. NELEH WATCH: This week's episode (9 May 2002) of "Survivor: Marquesas" (a.k.a. "Survivor 4") had an impressive amount of Neleh material to watch. This isn't surprising, considering the fact that she shared the screen with only 5 other remaining contestants. The big surprise of the episode was that each of the survivors had a loved one visit them: Kathy's son, Robert's sister, Sean's friend, Vecipia's husband, Paschal's wife, and Neleh's mom. The visits were short, but very emotional and watchable. The loved ones competed in the turtle shell-themed puzzle, and by winning this reward challenge Kathy's son earned the right to stay on the island for a day or a night. Vecipia had moments to shine when she won the sling shot immunity challenge, barely beating out Neleh, who was in great form. Neleh has rarely performed so well in a challenge. This episode featured much talk against Neleh. Sean, Vecipia and Kathy all seemed to be plotting against her, all accusing her of not being as sweet as she seems. "You know, cute little Mormon girl, sweet little Mormon girl ain't got jack to do with this game," Vecepia said to Sean, letting her Baptist-based anti-Mormonism slip out. Interestingly enough, the competitor most widely identified as being a Baptist on the show is Paschal. Before this season got started, many writers and online "Survivor" fans predicted that Paschal, an active Baptist, would hate Neleh simply because she is a Latter-day Saint. It turned out that this Baptist from the deep South and the Mormon from Utah formed the tightest bond on the show. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism Date: 13 May 2002 17:42:02 -0600 ---Original Message From: bob hughes > And Jacob earlier wrote that Mormons are skeptical of > Environmentalism > because Mormons are 'practical,' 'don't scare easily,' and > resist 'following > the crowd.' The clear implication is that if you choose to embrace > Environmentalist arguments, you are not practical, scare > easily, simply > follow the crowd, you ignore extensive study, and write trite > platitudes > (bromides). Not at all. What I am saying is that we don't typically follow *any* specific agenda. You could as easily apply my comments to any "ism". Since Environmentalism isn't a pressing concern for most Mormons, they don't typically have a broad opinion about it. Those "isms" that gain LDS support do so only after undergoing some pretty intense scrutiny. So what about the "Conservatism" of Utah culture? I find this so-called conservatism pretty over-stated in general. Personally, I don't consider Utah a Conservative state at all, but that is based on my own definition of conservative (which is strongly libertarian). I think that Utah provides a lot of friction for change, but as much as that friction is attributable to LDS members, I think it is more a function of the reluctance to implement change without analysis and the paucity of time or lack of urgency to become personally informed. Some issues that *are* personal get a lot of push (like land use in Southern Utah). But that push isn't based on devotion to an "ism" as much as it is based on a personal understanding of the issue (like, don't tell me what I can or can't do with my land). We don't trust authority very well. My point is that this mistrust has a basis in our theology and is therefore a trait attributable to Mormons in general. I'm not saying anything at all about people who disagree with me about something they believe. > I disagree with these gross generalizations about > Environmentalists in > general, Mormon Environmentalists in particular, their positions and > arguments, and their willingness to accept factual data. > Quite the opposite, > actually. Although I am not a member of any Environmental > organization, > those I have dealt with are more open to new information and > show more > flexibility that those on the other side of the issue. I disagree with this characterization of Environmentalists. Environmentalists may have more credentials and may publish more studies, but I find that they are as agendized as any other political group and they are *not* open to new information nor do they show any more flexibility than their opponents. The touchstone of this lack of flexibility is the Environmentalist reaction to Bjorn Lomborg. Attacks on his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" are loud, emotional, and accredited, but they aren't very open or flexible. The most telling, and oft repeated, gripe about the book is that Bjorn isn't an environmentalist and his book wasn't peer reviewed. Environmentalists bemoan the time they have to spend countering the book, but then, they haven't bothered to *actually* spend the time to do so. To me, if you are going to refute a claim, you are going to have to do more than point at your credentials and whine about wasting your time. To be fair, there has been the rare refutation that deals with general vs. local topical aggregations, but those have hardly served to cripple the data *or* the conclusions derived from them. Even given Lomborg's book, though, the biggest problem I have with Environmentalists is that they tend to overstate their case--that they seem reluctant to admit weaknesses in their data and that they often simplify on the side of the greatest possible scare. They skew their conclusions in order to evoke the strongest reaction they can. I find that irresponsible and find that it weakens their case even when they *are* right. Stop telling me what *could* happen and let's discuss probability and cost vs. benefit in taking possible corrective action. And don't be so quick to discard ice cores studies that undermine your assertions or so quick to advance computer models that can't even accurately predict the *past*. > You > may trust the > Enrons of the world, but I do not. I may choose to further > research a topic; > but if I choose *not* to further research, I may take a base > position one > way or the other. Choosing to side with Environmentalists as > a base position > is no worse than choosing to side with the opposite side as a > base position. Again, I disagree. It isn't that I choose to trust Enron or any other corporation. I don't trust *any* group to act in my best interest. I'll trust principles and systems if I feel that I understand them. Which is why I prefer free markets, the rule of law, and representative democracy. But I won't translate that into automatic endorsement of any specific group. I trust corporations more than I trust governments as a general rule because corporations are forced to follow principles I feel I understand and trust, but that's a general rule and not anything I implement in any specific instance without care and scrutiny. And I trust corporations that are forced to answer to consumers more than I trust advocacy groups that claim to answer only to the morality of their positions. But really, my point is that choosing to side with Environmentalists is *as* *bad* *as* choosing to side with their opposite. If you are going to propose that we take actions that will cost billions of dollars and eliminate thousands of jobs then, IMO, you are irresponsible to do so unless you have taken the time to understand the issues. Trust the Environmentalists if you wish, support them if you feel they're doing worth while work (personally, I think some of them do--the research and data collected by some Environmental groups is invaluable), but if you are going to support forcing people to do things they don't want to do then you had better be aware of the issues, costs, and expected benefits of that force. And you had better have oversight and error checking integrated at the heart of your solution as well. For me, that is the baseline for taking political action. If you are aware of the issues, costs, and expected benefits, then by all means, advocate away. My point is that it is a personal responsibility to be informed and that faith in *any* organization is misplaced. How does this relate to Mormons in general and our lack of support for Environmentalist groups? It is my opinion that Mormons in general function largely on the same basis I outline above. They prefer not to act without knowledge and are skeptical of authoritative sources and groups. After all, a church that teaches its members to ask God if they speak for Him is installing a very fundamental check against appeal to authority. If we are verifying our theological sources, it isn't that big a step to verify economic, political, or environmental sources. That doesn't mean that I think Mormons who choose to be Environmentalists are following the crowd--quite the opposite. It means that I think that Mormons are Environmentalists due to personal conviction and a study of the data--not out of emotion. Just as my antagonism to Environmentalism is due to personal conviction and a study of the data. Other Mormons who don't fall into either camp don't typically vote with the Environmentalists, but that is because they haven't studied the issue and don't feel qualified to support Environmental initiatives. > Once again, I refer you to the book _New Genesis: A Mormon > Reader on Land > and Community_. Here are some of the essay titles: > > "Conservation versus Conservatives: How the Gospel Fits" > "Poverty, Population, and Environmental Ruin" > "Navigating the Environmental Crisis: Mending Policy and Mythology" > "The Mormon Village: A Model for Sustainability" > "Sustainability: Will the Children Return?" > "Stewardship of the Air" > "Stewardship in the Backyard" > "Wilderness in the Hand of God" > etc. > > Clearly this is a book written by Environmentalists. Mormon > Environmentalists. Some of authors of the essays in the > collection are: > > Vaughan J. Featherstone > Hugh W. Pinnock > Hugh Nibley > Eugene England > Emma Lou Thayne > Ted Wilson > etc. > > I could be wrong, but I thought these Mormons were respected > academics, > artists, church and political leaders, and intellectuals who > have chosen to > be allied with Environmentalists. So? I agree with some of the essays, disagree with some of them, haven't read most of them. I don't care if they are respected academics, artists, church and political leaders, and intellectuals. Their credentials just don't matter. And any book with a paperback list price of $20 isn't one I'm going to run out and buy any time soon... > The are very articulate, yet often in their > writings they > indicate that it was not logical arguments that brought them to this > position, or simply emotion, but rather walking through a > clear-cut forest > or looking out over the valley smog on a summer afternoon. How is that not emotional? Nevermind. To me, there are only two valid reasons to instigate force: a) logical and skeptical reasoning that has been researched, debated, tested, and brought to a vote or b) direct revelation from God. And make no mistake, Environmentalism is all about force. > I'll keep my mind > open, but for now I will side with them and be proud to have > that 'E' label > attached to me, too. If I come across any anti-environmental > essays (or even > bromides) by folks of the same stature, I'll reconsider. Try Bjorn Lomborg. He started out as "an old left-wing Greenpeace member" (his own description). He was outraged by the claims of Julian Simon in an interview he read. Simon said that our environment was actually *improving* in every way we could measure--improving most in the most industrialized countries. Lomborg wanted to show how Simon was simply spouting American right-wing propaganda. To his surprise, he couldn't. "The Skeptical Environmentalist" consists of the data he took from publicly available studies, his analysis of that data, and what it means for our Environment and for Environmental issues. He stands so far un-refuted in the majority of his points and he is quick to acknowledge counter-points and not just to refute them (though he does refute most of them). The thing I find most puzzling about Bjorn Lomborg, though, is that his opponents have so far mainly neglected to actually take on his research. The attacks against him have been unconvincing for their lack of detail or data. When they aren't simply ad hominem, they are vague or refer to some "scientific consensus" or Lomborg's lack of environmental credentials. But even if you don't agree with me, or him, I want to reassure you that I don't think you are acting merely out of emotion or feeling. One of the more harmful (and subtle) assumptions human beings make is that "if you know what I know, you'll do what I do." Or, similarly, "if you know what I know, you'll believe as I do." It is often the motivating factor in calls for "education". I think it would be useful to be able to hear and understand one another without being expected to conform to their standard. Similarly, I think that we shouldn't assume that just because people don't conform to our own expectations of behavior that they must necessarily be functioning from a different set of beliefs or knowledge. If you know all that I know and I know all that you know, I want to preserve the ability for us to disagree without having to assume that one of us is stupid or crazy. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 13 May 2002 17:51:56 -0700 Michael, Your point is well taken and your argument sound. I think I need to = clarify my positions (as originally written) so it is clear where I = stand on this issue. I feel like Michael, Margaret, and Gae Lyn (and I know my wife feels = much this same way). The Law of Chastity needs to be emphasized in more = ways than to say "No sex before marriage." Our Children, if no one has = noticed, are the "Y" Generation. The reason I say this is they ask "why" = all the time from when they are real small until they get much older. = Before they believe they want to know all the details for everything. = This is not a bad thing. The adults/parents at this time are dealing with more difficult = situations than our parents ever dealt with. The problem is many still = have the old stigmas regarding Sex. That was not my problem. My problem = was my parents did not talk about the whats and wherefores. The why nots = were always talked about but I think at the time I was growing up the = problem was not enough details were disclosed. Like others said = "Masturbation is wrong." But they would only talk to the boys one on one = (if even that) to tell you what it was. You learned more (WTMI) in Sex = Education Classes in Jr. High and High School than at home or Church. = Not that my mom and Dad wouldn't have talked to us but I didn't know the = questions and they never gave us the "birds and bees" talk. The other = bad thing was no one explained what molestation was. These kind of = things adults know about but kids do not and it is the kids in this = generation who are better armed for those kind of things than we were. Do we need to talk about this? Absolutely!!! Where should it be = discussed? My guess is some, and not watered down, in Sacrament. Some in = Priesthood and Relief Society meetings and some in joint = Priesthood/Relief Society meetings. There are things children must know = to protect themselves and also to help them overcome the guilt of some = situations (date rape, molestation, incest, etc). Young adults need to = know some things to stay morally clean and prepare mentally for marriage = (sex is not dirty once the ring is on but keep your hands to yourself = before you are married). There are things married adults need to know!!! = Again, way to many cold showers being taken by husbands and not because = all the hot water is used up. If the wife has a problem with what the = husband wants or visa versa or frequency, or anything to do with this = topic there are councilors who are trained to deal with this - even LDS = councilors. One councilor said it very well: Sex is how married people = play with each other. If it isn't fun - why isn't it? Sex is the glue = and it should be stronger than superglue! When I was living in Woodland = Hills and my family was in Temecula before we moved to Northridge Friday = night and Sunday afternoon mom and dad were not to be disturbed. Our = children knew mommy and daddy needed some time alone. They understand = now (eeeeeeeeeeeyw, gross!) but it is something that keeps us men = focused on the meaning of marriage and not get wrapped up in office = situations.=20 I agree with Margaret - any man who strays after several years of being = married to someone who will not have sex with you she will be judged. = The man should have divorced her then got married again so I don't have = that much sympathy that way but the woman is in for a real awakening. My grandmother used to say "Call a spade a spade!" If we do not bring = this topic to the front when given the opportunity and explain every = aspect clearly to our children and grandchildren (and anyone else who = needs to hear it - adult or young adult) who will be judged? I know I do = not want this responsibility. I know there are probably many leaders who = have not said enough to make Sex a clear subject. You can tell from = President Hinckley's talk in Conference the box is being opened and = those who violate covenants will be dealt with. It is the leaders who = need to have the courage to do so!!! If they ask us to talk follow the = Spirit no matter how difficult it seems because the words you speak may = help someone. The only hurt that would be done would be to the hearts of = the innocent who have been violated and never knew what had happened. = They are the only ones (like Jacob in the BOM) who I would ache for. = Those who are the perpetrators deserve to have themselves exposed to the = blinding light of the Gospel. I have a friend who even after President = Hinckley's talk doesn't realize he is at fault and he screwed up. That = to me is sad. Just a brief explanation: The reason I used the part from the Word of = Wisdom was because I have heard that statement used before when I was = given a topic to talk on. I think that time is long past and I agree = with what Margaret, Gae Lyn and Michael has said - we need this to be = talked about frankly and clearly for all ages who need to know at the = level they need to know about. As well as the particulars they need to = be aware of - good and bad! Like I said above - this should be something = that is FUN not dark, dirty, and hurtful.=20 There is a reason there are booklets in the Cub Scout and Boy Scout = Manual about sex and molestation. They don't need to know the mechanics = but what people should not do to them. The adults may need to get frank = about the mechanics and what should and should not be expected by = husband and wife. There are books people can be referred to but they = need to be careful - an awful lot of worldly stuff out there. I think = the good books that have recently been published by Deseret are good but = some need more. We should not be afraid of this especially if we want = our children and grandchildren not to have the same problems we had. = Thanks about that. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Money and Art Date: 13 May 2002 20:54:10 -0500 Thom Duncan: But one day I was talking to James Arrington about this and he turned my eyes around. He said, paraphrasing, "If the ward meetinghouse bathroon springs a leak and they want Brother Jones the Professional Plumber to fix it, they pay him. If the ward wants a stake dramatic production, they call James Arrington the Professional Actor but they expect him to donate his time. What's wrong with this picture?" _______________ Not that I necessarily agree with the position, but where I came from, they wouldn't have paid Brother Jones, either! Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 13 May 2002 21:22:34 -0600 As obvious as it may have been to everyone else, I just figured something out--it appears to me that Michael is using the word frank to indicate "direct" or "plain," whereas I have been using the word frank to indicate "explicit" or "detailed." I think we've been (to at least some degree) discussing different things. In the sense of being direct, I absolutely agree with the vast majority of what Michael has said. I offer as my only caveat that I'm not convinced that direct or plain speaking (at least not in a general-audience meeting) requires offering explicit detail. Once again, I think I responded to the ghost of arguments past rather than paying close attention to what Michael actually said. Sorry. D. Michael Martindale wrote: > As hardnosed as I get about subjects like this in a theoretical > discussion, I actually wouldn't go barging in like the proverbial bull > in the china shop and try to change everything in one day. I do believe > in showing some respect to the sensibilities of others. But I don't > believe in giving in to them if I think they're wrong. Envelope-pushing > is in order here. I couldn't agree more. To me this is part of what's meant by "long-suffering." People are far more likely to accept an idea or to learn to think differently if they're brought along line by line (to abuse that familiar phrase) rather than forced into a binary evaluation when they have insufficient background to deal with it. It's part of what's frustrated me a bit about parts of the environmentalism discussion; it feels like there's too much line drawing and not enough fact sharing and explaining. People are condemned for not having an opinion on a matter that they haven't researched yet. I find it a bit unfair to raise a question and demand a reasoned answer all in the same moment. Which I think has happened a little bit with the idea of discussing the importance of sex in both individual intimacy and the larger gospel context. It's a bit of a fad right now because a decades-long reserve has been broken and a new generation of Mormons feels more ready to discuss the issue than previous generations did--a good thing, in my opinion. But I resist the wave that wants to make discussion of sex the most important element of the gospel. It is one of many, many important principles that should be discussed openly and plainly. But it is one of many equally important topics. > > But I have a hard time demanding that all people discuss everything at my > > preferred level of detail in a general meeting. > > Even as they demand that you discuss everything at their preferred level > of detail. Yes. Because my choice to defer certain levels of detail in one forum does not stop me from having those discussions at other times and places. As you point out, a fireside is a far more appropriate forum for explicit discussion than a sacrament meeting. > > According to which scripture or Conference address is the discussion of > > sex--at any level of detail--*required* in the general public meetings of > > the Church? > > According to the admonition that we are to preach the gospel to one > another in those meetings. According to the doctrine, specifically > mentioned by Elder Packer in General Conference, that sex is the very > key to that gospel. According to the need to help members of the church > avoid grievous sin that many are committing out of ignorance. According > to the definition of exaltation as eternal marriage, and sex being a > vital component of making a marriage work so it can become eternal. > There is no other aspect more central to human existence, both in > mortality and in the eternities, that is so neglected at the pulpit. You > can't say that sex is a precious gift of God and the key to the > eternities, then say we have no obligation to teach about it in our > meetings. This is where we diverge. I don't believe that sex is *the* key to the eternities, or *the* key to the gospel. It is one of many keys, and neither more or less important than any number of other elements such as obedience, honesty, charity, faith, repentence, or baptism. Again, part of my resistance is how the terms are defined. If by sex we mean emotional intimacy and full devotion to another, I'm in more than complete agreement with you. If by sex we are talking about physical intimacy (including simple touching, such as holding hands or rubbing shoulders or just sitting close), I'm still mostly with you--though there are some people who are unable (as opposed to unwilling) to share physical intimacy, and I'm not prepared to say that they're spiritually retarded by definition or limited in their ability to progress in the eternities by this physical (or emotional) limitation. Far too many Mormons already condemn far too many childless couples for bad reasons; I don't think we need to create a new class of people to condemn for not meeting our own expectations. If we're defining sex only as copulation, then I begin to agree somewhat less. As much as we pity the man whose wife wouldn't have sex with him, he still sinned in his adultery; he still disrespected his eternal covenant and his committment of faithfulness to his wife. While the wife will yet be required to answer to her sins, so will he. They both sinned, and in neither case am I qualified to condemn; of me it is required to forgive both and to support both with my concern and respect. Part of what I resist is the sudden urge to put sex above all other principles and ordinances of the gospel. I believe there is such a thing as disproportionate emphasis, and I believe that the current fad is to elevate sex to a higher position of importance in the eternal hierarchy than is strictly correct. Which is a natural part of learning more--we tend to elevate a single principle above all others when we first become convinced of it. We tend to put the entire gospel in one practice or idea when we have finally understood it. For some number of years, speculation on the eternal role of sex may well dominate our stories and discussions. We've not talked about it for so many years that we seem bent on catching up on all that lost time in a few short months. And we certainly can't gain greater understanding until we discuss it. I'm just not convinced that a satisfying sex life is the most important element of the gospel. I'm not even convinced that sex is a required component of (earthly) marriage, though it is certainly most desireable wherever possible--and not possible in every case. Contrary to popular belief, we do not perform proxy sex on behalf of the dead in the temple; it isn't that kind of necessary. > Prophets don't do this. They have a tendency to preach about that which > violates the comfort level of people. Some prophets have died because > people were "offended for a word." But the prophets keep on preaching. They tend to call their particular generation to repentence for violation of specific principles of the gospel. I don't believe that it's an explicit requirement of being a prophet that you find some point to offend people on; they offend by speaking the principles of revealed gospel and calling the people to repent and follow that gospel. Anchoring on the distinction between direct speaking and explicit detail, I fully agree that discussion of the role of sex in an eternal relationship is appropriate fodder for discussion in the general meetings of the Church. But if the prophet stands up during General Conference and instructs us in the explicit details of the range specifically approved techniques for sexual intercourse, I will probably have a moment of pretty serious cognitive dissonance and my faith will be sorely tested. Which is not to be confused with the prophet standing up in General Conference and instructing us on the importance of both emotional and physical intimacy with our spouses, and calling us to repentence for not paying enough attention to both parts of that equation. I think there is a distinction. If and or when the prophet crosses my line, I will be forced to deal with it. Until then, I will tend to speak on general principles rather than specific techniques and details. > I was there. Nothing in her words or demeanor or tone of voice > communicated squeamishness. She was lively and spoke rapidly as she > usually does and glowed in her face and spewed those words out very > easily. She didn't bat an eye or miss a beat when she uttered "S-E-X." > To my best judgment, she was catering to a sensibility that had been > habituated into her, in spite of her claim to be able to speak openly > about sex. No squeamishness, just habit. So what was the great tragedy of her habit? If she was open and frank and clear, then the silly social convention of spelling a word is just that--a silly social convention worthy of no more specific notice or condemnation than the style of her hair or the amount of eye shadow she wears. Whether she spells the word or speaks it directly, the message is the same--unless some are offended for (the spelling of) a word. > Or speak in a frankness that you believe is correct, and when the > inevitable squeamish people complain to the bishop, have him back you up > and explain to them, kindly and with love, that it's okay to talk about > sex like that, that such frank talk is needed. Absolutely. Though I think it would be good form to talk about it with the bishop beforehand to make sure that we are not getting carried away in our own missionary zeal to speak on a once-avoided topic--and to take his counsel if he asks us to tone down a bit. > In the New Testament, the Saints were taught to avoid eating meat > consecrated to an idolatrous god, not because it was evil, but because > it might offend some of their brothers and sisters. Because eating or > not eating such meat is a trivial decision, it certainly would be > charitable to avoid it solely to avoid offense. But the topic of sex is > a very critical one in our times, as it was in the time of Jacob when > the law of chasitity was being wantonly violated. To discuss or not > discuss it is not a trivial decision--it's one with eternal > consequences. Preaching repentence on the law of chastity and instructing us in the particulars of sexual relations within marriage are quite different discussions. Because I thought the discussion was not about preaching chastity and fidelity, but rather of discussing the specific role of sex within a properly appointed marriage, both on earth and in eternity. To me they are very different discussions that are best handled in different ways. Which is what I keep coming back to. Sex is not a single topic--it's a broad collection of topics that touch on a wide variety of subjects. In and of itself sex is just physical act that is trivialized by the vast majority of the people on this planet. But sex in a context is something else entirely, and that context demands careful consideration precisely because it is not a trivial decision--it's one with eternal consequences. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] GIVENS, _By the Hand of Mormon_ (Review) Date: 13 May 2002 21:45:05 -0600 ___ Jeff ___ | Has the anti-Mormon polemic really advanced beyond the | name-calling stage? ___ I think that most *anti*-Mormon stuff is like that. However I think to be fair we ought to distinguish between anti-Mormon material and material from those who are critical of our beliefs. The distinction? Probably one of fairness. For instance there is reasoned, well mannered debate between Mormons and Evangelicals. Over on the LDS-Phil mailing list we've had numerous discussions with Evangelical theologians and philosophers. Yet the debate never descends into name-calling and personal attacks like both sides in the Signature - FARMS debates of the 90's did. Perhaps, since this might raise a few flags, I should explain a little. Most Mormons consider traditional Christianity apostate. One doctrine that we tend to criticize more than others is the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet, I don't think those criticisms make us anti-Catholic or anti-Evangelical. (Which is not to say that some individuals don't descend to that level) By the same logic we shouldn't view those who criticize our view of deity as merely anti-Mormon. Critics, yes. Wrong? Yes. But anti? I'm not sure thinking someone wrong entails this opposition to them. This isn't to say that all the silly anti-Mormon stuff isn't still out there. And yea most of the real anti-Mormon material still engages in half-truths, quoting out of context, and makes no attempt to really engage what they are against in terms of what we believe. And yea a lot of the real anti-Mormon stuff is vindictive, often because former Mormons are bitter for perceived losses or wrongs. __ Jeff quoting Givens ___ | First, it remains to be seen what effect an increasing | emphasis on historical substantiation of the Book of | Mormon will have on the spiritual bases of Mormonism | itself. ___ Those who know me know how outspoken I am on the importance of Book of Mormon historicity. Yet at the same time I recognize that there are problems on focusing in on the historicity to the detriment of the message. I think that Givens comments (whatever their intent) are apt here. Consider what happened in Biblical archaeology when the pre-conceptions of some, especially conservative Protestantism, didn't line up with what the scholars kept finding. In a sense the goals of Protestant textual theory (which created modern Hermeneutics) also provided the seeds of its own downfall. Now of course Protestantism survived. But I think that many who couldn't separate the accuracy of individual authors from questions of historicity ended up becoming quite bitter. An excellent example is Morton Smith who's _Jesus the Magician_ was, I suspect, the intellectual "father" of Quinn's _Mormonism and the Magic World View_. Smith ended up losing his faith and looking for "origins" for Christianity in a manner that parallels those of former Mormon critics to an astounding degree. At the opposite extreme, as in Mormonism, many Protestants started to have strong feelings against Biblical scholars who they perceived as attacking their faith, rather than just doing history, archaeology, or so forth. While this polarizing took place (or at least started) in Protestantism several decades prior to it occurring in Mormonism, the parallels are quite interesting. I suspect that the literary "battles" and events of the past 40 years in Protestant literature will probably also have parallels for us over the next decade or so. ___ Jeff ___ | Givens' clearly orthodox approach to the Book of Mormon, and | to the authority of the church, sometimes affects his views | on various questions. His bias clearly shows, for example, in | his discussion of the "New Mormon History," already discussed. ___ Well, I'm certainly not opposed to the "New Mormon History" like some. However I do think we need to recognize that often there are huge methodological and paradigmatic differences between those in that movement and the more mainstream Church views. By that I don't mean necessarily fairness, accuracy, or the strength of argument. Heaven knows there are plenty on both sides who lack those at times. What I more mean are more deep seated philosophical differences. While not all of what is written by "New Historians" depends on such differences, often they do. I don't want to take this to a philosophical tangent, but I think you downplay these differences. I think that taking a stand on this, while certainly a manifestation of ones bias, also is being fair to the situations in question. I can't speak for what Givens thinks here, but I think it often is a little fairer to present the "hidden" assumptions to an argument and make them clear up front. ___ Jeff ___ | But his attempt is derailed when he dismisses normal research | methods in favor of subjective experience and personal | revelation. ___ I can't comment in depth here, lacking Givens text. However it does seem that even "normal research methods," especially in the very soft sciences aren't quite as objective as some might think. This isn't to say we can simply dismiss arguments out of hand. Far from it. However it does mean that we have to be aware of what the arguments actually are. Often arguments as presented aren't the arguments as they actually are. Further, I think we do wrong when we downplay the role of meaning in these arguments. By that I mean issues we bring to the disciplines we study. Obvious, perhaps egregious examples of this are the so-called psycho-histories. Yet those on the orthodox side do the same thing, just with different systems of thought and suppositions. For every feminist critique of polygamy, for instance, there could also be an "orthodox" interpretation. It is this moving beyond the facts to a kind of meta-narrative about the facts that tends to mark the New History. However realistic it is also what marks the earlier narratives that the New History attempts to correct. I think that a correct position is more in the middle - but a middle that acknowledges and encompasses this "perspectivism." We all look at facts in terms of our own history, fears, and desires. The middle ground recognizes why a B.H. Roberts would write history the way he does. It would acknowledge that view of God's hand in the restoration that he tried to portray as he wrote history. If the New Historians try to eliminate that bias and place an other in its stead, so be it. However lets acknowledge the hidden in these narratives of the facts we give. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] ABANES, _One Nation Under Gods_ (Report) Date: 13 May 2002 23:13:55 -0700 Jeff wrote: My only question -- once you take over the world, what are you going to do with it??? Why, turn it into a GARDEN of course. That's what God did when he had it... Kim, who has no grass, only flowers in her yard -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 13 May 2002 21:54:04 -0700 D. Michael Martindale said: > There is a great deal of "being offended at a word" these days, not just > among Mormons, and it's one of the greatest destructive influences in > our society, in my opinion. Being easily offended has nothing to do with > being weak and everything to do with pride and power. It's pure > arrogance to assume that my sensibilities ought to be the sensibilities > of everyone, and it's purely a power play to demand that my > sensibilities be enforced in the lives of others by whatever power has > jurisdiction over the issue (courts deciding if the Red Devil should > remain a Springville mascot, bishops banning utterance of the word "sex" > in sacrament meeting, or just plain social pressure in the form of > public chastising in the name of some self-righteous principle > attributed to God). > > In other words, I'm saying that the worst argument that can be made to > convince me about something is to say that I have to cater to the easily > offended, for fear they'll "take their ball and go home." To the easily > offended I say, "Don't let the chapel door hit your [bleep] on the way > out." (Which of course will offend them.) I must confess, this is one aspect of Mormonism that drives me nuts. Luckily, I haven't run into it too much. For example, a recent sacrament talk I gave led to comments like "Boy, I've never heard the word 'sex' from the pulpit so many times in my life!" (I was assigned to talk on choices in music, and I used bad examples as well as good ones. Sample: "I remember last year hearing one popular song in the radio while I showered every morning, thinking it was a cute little boy-band boppy song. When I first started to pick out the lyrics, I thought "Aww, how nice, it's about a boy willing to put his girlfriend's needs ahead of his own." Then -- I often have a hard time picking out lyrics in a song, especially when the shower's running -- I realised that the 'needs' they were talking about was actually a particular sex act. Oy! I went back to CBC for quite a while after that." A lot of this all boils down to stuff Orson Scott Card said in his essay "The Problem of Evil in Fiction" (in A Storyteller to Zion: I'll assume everyone here has read it, and if you haven't, you should!). You can say the same things about sex as he said about evil in much of the same ways; heck, just take chunks of his essay and just replace the word 'evil' with 'sex'. A paraphrased example: "There's a difference between *depicting* evil in fiction, and *advocating* or *promoting* evil." Do the substitution, and the sentence still rings very true. > Obviously I don't, and that's why one of the last things I worry about > when I contemplate writing something for the LDS audience is whether it > will offend someone. I'd feel like I failed somewhere if it didn't, > because then I'd be catering to the lowest common denominator. Hear hear! Well spoken. The biggest problem with much Mormon art (written or otherwise) is that it *does* cater to the lowest common denominator. Some art should do that, but all art shouldn't. Robert ********************************************************************** Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too 'Man is that he might have joy--not guilt trips.' (Russell M. Nelson) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 14 May 2002 04:19:10 -0600 margaret young wrote: > When we got the "Chastity" lesson in > Relief Society, I got so sick of the "Beware" signs getting stuck up > everywhere that I finally blurted out, "So is sex good at all?" That > brought a rather timid laugh from my RS sisters, and the answer, "Yes! > That's why it's sacred!" This is just so classic an example of what I'm talking about. Here's someone blatantly giving lip service to the idea that sex is sacred, but her actions obviously show she is ashamed of it. What other sacred thing would she nervously titter at the mention of? That reaction is not born of reverencing sacred things. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 14 May 2002 10:09:53 -0700 > > This reminds me of a discussion on another list I'm on. One person > > invoked the principle of "moderation in all things" as taught in the > > Word of Wisdom. > > > > I've heard this bromide (fun word) many times, so I finally took the > > occasion to actually read the 89th section and see exactly where this > > principle is taught. I found absolutely nothing in the Word of Wisdom > > that taught moderation in anything, let alone all things. The closest > > that came to it was the admonition to eat meat sparingly. Everything > > else was forbidden or pronounced good for the body. The scriptures admonish us to be temperate in all things. Things forbidden in the WoW are (for many) addictive and difficult to use in moderation. It's not hard to see why someone would say the WoW is encouraging moderation in all things. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] 3 Good Movies Date: 14 May 2002 17:22:11 +0000 Cathy Wilson wrote: > >And finally--though perhaps you won't agree with me on this >one--_Unfaithful_. I figure if they cut down on the graphic sex scenes and >cleaned up the language a little bit, this film should be showed in Gospel >Doctrine around the Church (just joking, just joking). Still, I have rarely >seen anything that spoke so powerfully against adultery and infidelity. I >still have to figure out how they did it. . .the story, as you may have >seen >from the trailers, is about a wife experiencing the "Hollywood dream," a >very passionate affair with a gorgeous young guy. What the trailers don't >show you is that, from the beginning, you see the sordid downside, the >guilt, the immediate knowing of the husband, the jealousy, the confusion, >the darkness. Quite apart from the storyline which develops the devastation >of the family, the images, music, camera work and acting build and build >this terrible emotional condition resulting from adultery. It is so intense >that at the end, both my husband and I felt physically ill. I actually felt >like I was going to throw up.I thought it was like aversion therapy. It's >all subtle but extremely powerful. What's amazing about this is that for >once a big Hollywood film did not glamorize the affair but instead gave us >a >message that adultery ruins you--and your spouse--and your >family--spiritually as well as literally. > It does indeed demonstrate the devastating effects of adultery. However, it also depicts someone committing another major sin and getting away with it. (I won't give it away, though the trailer already tells you more than it should. But all-revealing trailers are a diatribe for another day.) To me, whatever points the film earned by being truthful on adultery were negated by being so Hollywood and cheap in regards to the other thing. Eric D. Snider _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] 3 Good Movies Date: 14 May 2002 12:06:33 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 9:20 AM > We just saw some good movies--meaning well-done but also (at least to me > :) ) uplifting, moral, instructive, helpful. . . three of them. > > _Life or Something Like It_ had some obvious flaws, including predictability > and too many close-ups of Angelina Jolie. Excuse me, but whatever faults this film may have, you can never have too many close-ups of Angelina Jolie! > And finally--though perhaps you won't agree with me on this > one--_Unfaithful_. I figure if they cut down on the graphic sex scenes and > cleaned up the language a little bit, this film should be showed in Gospel > Doctrine around the Church (just joking, just joking). Still, I have rarely > seen anything that spoke so powerfully against adultery and infidelity. The director's other film staring Michael Douglas and Glenn Close, _Fatal Attraction_ had a similar affect in that it showed what horror could escalate from a one-night stand. It was a great cautionary tale. >What's amazing about this is that for > once a big Hollywood film did not glamorize the affair but instead gave us a > message that adultery ruins you--and your spouse--and your > family--spiritually as well as literally. It's not necessarily for once. Other films have done this, one of which I give as an example above. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Money and Art Date: 14 May 2002 12:26:15 -0600 When the Church stops paying the professional architects, contractors, and builders who erect our temples, I'll stop expecting to be paid for my professional services toward the Church. (I don't mind donating time in other areas, but I no longer donate time when it comes to things theatrical). Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Virus Warning Date: 14 May 2002 10:33:29 -0600 [MOD: AML-List does not send out attachments, so it sounds like we may be safe from this particularly one in terms of messages from AML-List. However, it sounds like it might be wise for all to beware of unexpected attachments from Margaret...] Jonathan, I don't know if a virus can infiltrate the AML list, but I have a computer virus which has been spamming all sorts of people on my e-mail file and trying to send them the same virus. I am very concerned about this, and have been trying to warn people to NEVER open an attachment from me. (I won't be sending attachments to anyone but Deseret and Darius until this problem is fixed) and to be sure their systems are updated and scanned for viruses. I'm hoping to get my computer cleansed later today. I'm quite sure I brought the virus from my home computer, which is not current on its virus checks. If you think it's wise, please post this. I have periodically e-mailed individuals on the list outside of the list context. I don't want this thing to spread any more than it has already. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art Date: 14 May 2002 12:46:41 -0600 It used to be that all the members of a ward would help construct and maintain a building. I remember well going up and helping stain wood as a little kid. Further we all helped on various other things. I think it was only 10 - 15 years ago that building maintenance was more standardized. If I recall this was more for reasons of economy and simplicity -- sometimes people 'claimed' skills they didn't really have. Further it ensured that jobs were done on time and to a relatively standard degree of quality. (I suspect it cut down on hurt feelings too when some people screwed up) However the basic principle of the church is that most of us have promised to consecrate our time and skills to the Lord. Ultimately we are supposed to see our talents as given to us by the Lord and that we use them first on his behalf. While I can see where Br. Arrington might view this in terms of "the laborer is worthy of his pay," I don't think that the correct view. Consider all the other positions who are called to duty with their talents. I know that every time the Stake or Ward had a few "incompetent book keepers" my Dad was given a calling as secretary or some other job. This was almost always done because the books and records were so screwed up they needed someone competent to fix them. Typically this involved a great amount of time. My dad was picked because he was very organized and, as a physicist, was much more "number oriented" than the typical members of the area. Now why is it that we'd see that sort of calling as fine, while a call to "Choir director" or the like for a musically inclined person is unfair? Likewise, if the Lord has need of someone as Bishop who has training in therapy or psychology and calls him, is that unfair? There is a dangerous precedence here. Now clearly not all callings are based upon ability. (Indeed judging from the many Sunday School teachers I've sat through the opposite is often the case) Yet if we say that music skills are somehow privileged over other skills. . . Well that is a rather dangerous view, isn't it? So I think Larry is correct. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Quinn - Hotmail" Subject: [AML] Re: Money and Art Date: 14 May 2002 15:09:35 -0400 I had the same reaction Larry did when I read Thom's post. I've been in several wards where members were asked to donate their professional skills. Just last week my bishop asked the members of the PEC if there was anyone in the ward who had enough construction experience to install some handrails in the home of a brother who recently suffered a stroke. No mention was made of compensation, yet several men volunteered their services. To me, this was a beautiful example of consecreation at work -- members of the ward doing for someone what he couldn't do for himself. The principle of consecration should apply to everyone equally, artists and plumbers alike. Isn't that the point of consecration? Everyone brings something different to the table. If we all demanded compensation whenever our work-related skills were put to use by the Church, the financial clerk would be writing checks all the time. What about the school teachers who also happen to teach primary on Sundays? What about the motivational speaker who is asked to give a talk in sacrament meeting? What about the CEO who is called to be a stake president? The fact that a person's skills may be in writing or music or visual arts doesn't make that person exempt from the principle of consecration. If anything, the cards are already stacked in favor of the artists of the Church. I think they are more likely to receive compensation than are the thousands of teachers, managers, and other professionals who receive callings or assignments because they possess a particular set of skills. - Quinn Warnick -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] ABANES, _One Nation Under Gods_ (Report) Date: 14 May 2002 12:16:49 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 11:02 AM > > --- Jeff Needle wrote: > > Hee hee hee! I always knew there was something sinister going on there. > > > > My only question -- once you take over the world, what are you going to > > do > > with it??? > > > > Haven't you read that Doctrine & Covenants section where it says that > after the Saints take over the world it will be transformed into a sea of > Jello? > > > ~~William Morris > > It's a disgrace that a non-member like myself has to teach you about your own church. Read it again -- the jello clumps are the islands, the sea will be made of awful tasting fruit punch. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] LDS Box Office Report May 12, Part 2 Date: 14 May 2002 14:03:43 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of May 10, 2002 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 3 The New Guy (NEW) 9,007,833 2,687 3 Eliza Dushku (actor) 9,007,833 7 Murder by Numbers 2,427,318 2,116 24 Ryan Gosling (actor) 27,462,731 17 ESPN's Ultimate X (NEW) 613,670 47 3 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 613,670 43 The Other Side of Heaven 66,503 84 150 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,381,772 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 63 The Singles Ward 25,408 18 101 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 662,785 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Will Swenson, Connie Young, Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne, Michael Birkeland, Robert Swenson, Lincoln Hoppe, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, etc. 69 Galapagos 13,463 6 927 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,260,096 72 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 10,263 4 738 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,264,505 93 China: The Panda Adventure 2,961 4 290 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,284,663 97 Mark Twain's America 3D 2,344 1 1410 Alan Williams (composer) 2,212,042 This week, up-to-date numbers for "The Singles Ward" return. Kurt Hale's Saint-centric satire opened on May 10th in Arizona theaters, and continued playing in Utah, Idaho and at one theater in Hawaii. Interestingly, "The Singles Ward" outperformed "The Other Side of Heaven" on a per-screen basis this weekend. "Heaven" pulled in $792 per theater, while "The Singles Ward" grossed $1,412 per theater. This coming weekend should feature another large drop in most films' numbers. It will be interesting to see which films can survive having both "Spiderman" and "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" in theaters. Obviously, venues for independent films to play will be increasingly scarce. "Murder by Numbers", featuring LDS actor, Ryan Gosling, dropped to the #7 spot this week. Much like David Howard's "Galaxy Quest", "Murder" is truly proving to have legs. You may remember that "Galaxy Quest" never hit the #1 spot, but it seemed to hang around in the top 10 forever. Disney's G-rated "The Rookie" is also doing the same thing, an achievement significant to box office watchers interested in the performance of quality family films. NO LONGER A SECRET: Latter-day Saint film director Blair Treu's latest movie "Little Secrets" (aka "Secret Keeper") will receive a nationwide release on August 16 from Columbia Tri-Star Pictures. This family-friendly film has already garnered an armful of major festival awards and critical notices. Starring Tayva Patch ("Out of Step", "Brigham City", "Testaments"), Jan Gardner and Rick Macy ("Out of Step", "Brigham City", "Testaments"). Music is by Sam Cardon ("Brigham City", "Mysteries of Egypt"). Cinematography by long-time Treu collaborator Brian Sullivan. Jerry Stayner and Wynn Hougaard ("Out of Step", "The Singles Ward") are the editors. Christian Vuissa ("Roots and Wings") served as assistant director. We'll keep you posted as more information becomes available. YET ANOTHER HIT IMAX FILM FROM REED SMOOT: Latter-day Saint cinematographer Reed Smoot's "ESPN's Ultimate X" opened very strongly this weekend. Despite only playing in 47 theaters - it is an IMAX film - the movie grossed $613,670 - that is $13,057 per screen and good enough for the weekend's #17 spot. That made it the third-highest per screen average of the weekend, topped only by "Spider-Man" at $19,756 per theater and "Space Station", which averaged $14,599 in its 33 theaters. It seems there are a few BMX fans out there. Reviews are coming in for "Ultimate X." They are mostly positive reviews, although not ecstatic. RottenTomatoes.com so far tracks 13 positive reviews and 8 negative ones, a "freshness" rating of 62%. Smoot, one of the most successful Latter-day Saint cinematographers in the history of film, has photographed an astonishing range of films, including "Mysteries of Egypt", "Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure", "Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man", "Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey", "Legacy", "Grand Canyon: The Hidden Secrets", "Harry's War", "Windwalker", "The Lost Manuscript", "Cipher in the Snow" and many others. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] GIVENS, _By the Hand of Mormon_ (Review) Date: 14 May 2002 12:22:14 -0700 Fabulous insights, as always. As an outsider, I often lack a certain perspective into all things Mormon. I can always depend on my friends here to fill in the blanks, and I'm very grateful! Thanks, Clark. > I think that a correct position is more in the middle - but a middle that > acknowledges and encompasses this "perspectivism." We all look at facts in > terms of our own history, fears, and desires. The middle ground recognizes > why a B.H. Roberts would write history the way he does. It would > acknowledge that view of God's hand in the restoration that he tried to > portray as he wrote history. If the New Historians try to eliminate that > bias and place an other in its stead, so be it. However lets acknowledge > the hidden in these narratives of the facts we give. > > [Clark Goble] > > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Gerald N. LUND, _Come Unto Me_ (Review) Date: 14 May 2002 12:18:28 -0700 [MOD: This is a compilation of several replies by Jeff.] ----- Original Message ----- > Hebrew was derived from Aramaic. [snip] > As for why Lund would include this in his book--well, I haven't read his > book, but I assume that he's merely showing off his research. I wouldn't > think this would serve his fiction very well. > > ROB. LAUER > I'm realizing now I didn't make my point very well. I'm well aware of how Aramaic and Hebrew relate, and that Aramaic was the spoken language in Jesus' time. I was just cringing that Lund would consider "shalom" an Aramaic word! It's the kind of phony pseudo-scholarship that just drives me nuts. > I agree that things like this in books are annoying...but one > question--where was the editor? [snip] > Kim Madsen Good points all around. Yes, why wouldn't an editor catch it? Perhaps the editor didn't know any better? Shame. [Jeff Needle] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] _Handcart_ Trailer, Poster Online Date: 14 May 2002 15:41:33 -0500 Here's a great looking poster for Kels Goodman's upcoming feature movie "Handcart": http://www.kelsgoodman.com/cgi-bin/i/poster.jpg And you can check out new trailers here: http://www.kelsgoodman.com/video.html -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] LDS Environmentalism Date: 14 May 2002 15:12:18 -0700 Ivan you are not alone. Many who have spent many hours in wilderness = atmospheres for any period of time (i.e. - Scout Outings, Wilderness = Campouts, etc.) would feel the same way. I'm to the point in my Scouting = career where I don't want to camp all the much anymore (time to turn it = over to the younger generation). I have physical problems laying on the = ground without a thick mat for my sleeping bag. I'm also tired of = battling the insects out there. They may not want to eat me but they = sure do take chunks out of flesh when they bite. Not only that but no = matter what you tell boys not to do they do anyway to see if the = consequences are real you told them about. Nature is very beautiful to look at but... While I was on my mission Hartman Rector Jr. came and talked at our = Stake in Wyoming. He told everyone from the pulpit "I was flying over = this country side and I could not help but think "My there is a lot of = land not being used. Why is everyone worried about overpopulation?" = Heavenly Father gave us the resources to use. That some have used them = for greed is only my problem so far as it impacts me and my family. Will = the oil, gas, and auto companies get smart and build cars which are = environmentally sound and get good gas mileage and have good speed and = are affordable? I would venture to guess that will not happen until the = Millennium...but it will happen. There are a lot of things that man has = made that need to be fixed in one way or another but this earth is here = for our wise use. Like drilling in Alaska or mining coal in Utah. All of = this can be done and the environment preserved. There are too many who = for dollars in their pockets will not allow people to try. Will the middle eastern and other OPEC countries embargo us again? = Maybe. I would have a 30 mile bicycle ride to work but I can get there. = There will be others who will go nuts then watch the Environmentalist = try to stop everything. Will the Earth be able to hold a population of 6, 7, or 20 billion? Wow, = good question. How many do we think will be here during the Millennium? = But the Earth will be renewed and receive its Paradisiacal Glory, you = say. That is fine but how many will the Earth hold? The point I'm trying = to make here is due to the Governments of the World and some of the = petty despots who rule there are problems of astronomical proportion. = They could be all fixed except for the greed of Man, be in whatever it = is. I'm sure there are many who will be judged for various offences = against the Earth and its resources as well as against the World = Population. Personally I go with an old special forces saying (modified for this = forum): Let the Savior come and wipe out all the wickedness in the World = and then we can sort it out properly with God as our head and a Prophet = to lead us. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Box Office report May 12, Part 1 Date: 14 May 2002 17:10:07 -0700 (PDT) --- webmaster wrote: > > YET ANOTHER DISASTROUS MOVIE CHOICE BY A TALENTED ACTRESS WHO DESERVES > BETTER: Reviews are coming in for "The New Guy", which features Eliza > Dushku > as the lead actress and the nerd-turned-hipster's love interest. Most of > the > reviews are really, really negative, including ratings of 1 star, zero > stars, or "F." RottenTomatoes.com tallied 22 negative reviews and 1 > positive > one: a "freshness" rating of 4%. Ouch. On the other hand, Roger Ebert > gave > it two stars -- exactly the same score he gave "Star Wars: Attack of the > Clones" this week. > Is Eliza Dushku LDS? The psychopathic Faith of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is a nice Mormon girl? ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] DeAne NEILSON, _Perfect Neighbors_ (Review) Date: 14 May 2002 20:06:43 -0700 Review ====== Title: Perfect Neighbors Author: DeAne Neilson Publisher: Hatrack River Year Published: 1994 Number of Pages: 207 Binding: Quality Paperback ISBN: 0-9624049-6-9 Price: $7.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle Richard and Kate Waterman are a typical Utah Mormon family -- lots of kids, nice house, active in church, etc. But Kate has acquired the habit of walking around her house naked when she's by herself. Her bedroom is high enough from the nearest house so she's fairly confident she won't be seen by her neighbors. But when a new family moves in next door, and the woman of the house sees Kate naked, Kate sees only disaster coming. Instead, the neighbor, Sydney Thygerson, is a rough-and-tumble, hard to put off Mormon. Kate and Syd, and Richard and Syd's husband Sheldon, become quick friends. The story centers on the interaction between the two families, their children, and their activities in church. As active members of their ward, they find themselves in a constant round of home teaching, baby-sitting, choir directing and confection baking. Kate's passion is to become the "perfect neighbor," and is constantly frustrated by her shortcomings. Syd is content with just keeping up with life, and ends up sharing some powerful life lessons with Kate. Both women grow in the process. Some of the characters are absolutely hilarious. Some even come with very funny pet names (for example, Sister JiffyPop, reflecting her tall, shiny hair-do). The Waterman's home teacher smells so bad that they have to spread a blanket on their sofa when he comes to visit -- something they can take away quickly and launder. One of the members of the ward scouts trash bins for sellable items, and one day adopts a goat as a pet, carrying to church with her the smell of the goat. Yuck! The book speaks about how women cope with their role in the church. It neither commends, nor condemns, the frantic pace of the lives of its heroines. If one were to believe some of the details of this book, Mormon women spend most of their time baking cakes, pies and cookies. And when they're not cooking, they're eating. And then wondering why they don't fit in to their swimsuits. And Mormon neighbors come and go without knocking or ringing the doorbell. And neighbors can be found in your home sweeping, cleaning and washing dishes. Sounds very cozy. Perhaps a little too cozy for my liking. I want to say I enjoyed this book. It's a light read, and has enough humor and pathos to make it a fun read. The image of the Mormon woman presented here is two-tiered: on one level, you have women frantic about the job of raising children, baking cookies, changing diapers and generally running the household. On another level, our two protagonists find the time to think deeply about what it means to be a woman, indeed, what it means to be a person, and how one comes to accept, and even celebrate, one's own imperfections. I must close this with a major irritation, one that is so avoidable with just a little attention to editing. And it is compounded by an example of chutzpah that I don't recall seeing recently. The door behind us opened, and a voice boomed, "Got the truck unloaded yet, sweets?" Then Sheldon saw Richard and I and said, "Ah, this must be the neighbors, mooching off us already!" (p. 7) Okay, if you're like me, you're cringing at the thought that Neilson doesn't know the difference between "I" and "me." And this isn't an isolated incident. I caught at least three additional offenses. I find this so jarring. But, to make it worse: "Sure," said her elder brother, gleefully tickling her exposed foot, and neatly dodging a retaliatory kick. "You're all getting breakfast in bed for Mother's Day. Me and Dad planned it." "Dad and *I*," I automatically corrected. He gave me a confused look. "You *knew* about it?" A grammarian he's not. (p. 72) Chutzpah. If you'd like a nice, amusing read, this is a pretty good book. No great literature, but a clever look at families and the role of women in Mormonism. ----- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com "We're all only fragile threads, but what a tapestry we make." Jerry Ellis, "Walking the Trail" -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ryan Orrock" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 15 May 2002 12:55:44 +0200 Just a thought about Europe and art. A friend of mine sings = professionally in the opera chorus in Weimar, Germany. The state just = cut their subsidy for lack of public money. Now the opera needs to fund = itself. Unemployment in Germany is now higher than when it was when Hitler came = to power. It's continually rising, despite billions being thrown at the = problem. In fact, there was an interesting headline in German news the = other day. Some figure, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, was = spent last year to create new jobs in the state of Th=FCringen, yet = there were less jobs now than before the money was spent. The cycle = continues. The German national debt is currently at 2.5 trillion DM (about 1.25 = trillion dollars) and has tripled since = 1980.(http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0227.shtml) And Germany is one of the most prosperous countries in Europe. Judging on how governments often solve these types of problems, I'm not = sure I would want the give legislators either the responsibility or the = authority to make sure that proper/good/appropriate/divergent/socially = conscious/elitist/non-elitist/etc. art is created. Ryan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 15 May 2002 09:06:43 -0700 Regarding Eric's story of "Brother X", all I can say in shocked Mo fashion is "OH-MY-HECK!" I am laughing and crying at the same time. It's too ridiculous for words. Missionaries??? Only two married men in the room, and a how-to lesson on sex in priesthood!? I can only imagine the discomfort level of the missionaries, not to mention everyone else in the room. And I can just see Brother X blah-blah-blahing away in the front of the room, his back to the class as he sketches on the chalkboard, oblivious to the emotional pain he's causing. One interesting thing to note: As the spouse of a recovered sex-addict, and having experienced both sides of the fence, I've learned that people who are sexually dysfunctional generally have problems distinguishing appropriate boundaries of "sharing" sexual information. I agree with Linda Adams, who, in another posting on this thread, brought up the point of infringing on other people's personal boundaries with TMI (Too Much Information). Brother X certainly couldn't distinguish those boundaries. His behavior would cause me to be highly suspicious of his sexual/emotional "health". I have too much work of my own to do to be learning at the hands of an unbalanced person. It's the best argument I've heard so far for leaving the teaching of sensitive and personal details of sexual relationships in the primary learning environment--the family. If there is dysfunction in the family (I define that as unhealthy or risky behavior), seek the help of qualified mental health professionals along with the spiritual guidance of your bishop. Don't take that to mean that I'm against discussing sex with plainess in group settings. Yes, we should discuss sex in generalities in all kinds of meetings. I could have used some education like that as a newly-wed. It would have saved me 17 years of confusion and emtional pain. The main message of such discussions should be "trust your heart--the Holy Ghost will not lead you astray. If there is something you are uncomfortable with, whether inside or outside of marriage, those feelings are a warning signal that ought to be heeded." For people who have been victimized and have healing that needs to be done, an atmosphere of loving support from spouse, family members, close friends and professionals can help. In that sort of atmosphere, when you bring up something that makes you uncomfortable, people listen with sympathetic hearts and minds and try to resolve differences. If they refuse to talk about it, refuse to listen to your point of view or refuse to express their own deepest feelings on the matter, those are red flags that professional help may be needed. Just don't go to the Brother X's of the world. Eric, I hope you're using that memory in a story somewhere. It's too good to let languish. If not, can I have it?? Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: Re: [AML] Small LDS Publishers and Amazon Date: 15 May 2002 11:55:44 -0600 >>> clark@lextek.com 05/10/02 12:27PM >>> > >What is the place for smaller publishers in reaching the wider >Mormon audience? I did a quick check of a few smaller LDS publishers (Cedar Fort, Agreka, Eborn Books, Horizon) and found that they all had items listed on Amazon, but not always their most recent titles. It could be that Kofford Books hasn't made the effort to get Ostler's book listed on Amazon yet. The only other explanation I can think of is that Kofford prefers to sell through independent booksellers (I've seen the Ostler book at Sam Weller and Benchmark, so it's not that he thinks he can do all the marketing and distribution on his own, or that he's unwilling to give dealer discounts). MBA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Book Groups (Andrew's Poll) (Comp 1) Date: 15 May 2002 16:48:30 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From adamszoo@sprintmail.com Mon May 13 17:22:12 2002 At 03:55 AM 5/10/02, you wrote: >Tell us about your experiences in book groups/clubs. >Have you ever participated in a local book group? >In a book group dominated by Mormons? >If so, did your group read any Mormon literature? Did you suggest any >titles? How did it go? Since it's a poll, I'll answer anyway: no to all. Not for lack of interest in it. It just hasn't happened. The book groups offered by our public library have (so far) failed to interest me, or be held at convenient times for me to attend. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo >From kcmadsen@utah-inter.net Mon May 13 23:14:59 2002 I've been in a book group for five years. We're mostly Mormon women...I think we had a Catholic once, but she dropped out after two years. Most of the women live around by me, so I know them well enough to know their religion. So yes, we're dominated by Mormons. Interestingly, I'm usually the one to suggest LDS authors' work, because I've been looking for "good" Mormon literature. Anyway, we've read the following over the years: THE GIANT JOSHUA by ASPEN MAROONEY Levi Peterson DESERT SONG Marilyn Arnold DARK ANGEL Robert Kirby A STORYTELLER IN ZION Orson Scott Card REFUGE Terry Tempest Williams THE CHINCHILLA FARM Judith Freeman PIECES OF WHITE SHELL Terry Tempest Williams TENDING THE GARDEN Eugene England, Lavina Fielding Anderson (essays on Mormon literature) We've decided to organize a spin off group dedicated soley to LDS literature. Our first meeting is May 29th--we're reading Eugene England's essay "One View of the Garden", and then starting our journey of discovery by reading OLD MEN AT MIDNIGHT by Chiam Potok. I know, I know--not LDS...but we're searching for a common reference ground for us to discuss LDS work, and we thought it would be good to do a comparison by Jewish author who excels at making religion an integral part of the story, but not the sole reason for the story. I've compiled lists of books from suggestions and reviews I've gathered from this AML list, so I'm excited to share the suggestions with the women in my LDS lit book group. How it went? Well enough that there were a core of 12 women who wanted an additional bookgroup just to read and share LDS literature. Kim Madsen >From daryoung@juno.com Tue May 14 10:49:44 2002 I have participated in several book groups, all of which were ward-based, though not exclusive to members. I'm embarrassed to admit here that I had such a bad experience with using Mormon lit. in the first group that after that I made it a rule of the groups I started that we would read NO Mormon lit. (I'm embarrassed because I should be doing more to promote good Mormon lit.) Feelings are just too close to the surface when it comes to choosing LDS books for others to read. One woman chose for her selection the Book of Mormon. Immediately some people felt obligated to read the whole thing in the month (because if you don't, you are not rightous). I saw people act judgmentally towards women who said they did not enjoy reading books by General Authorities. I saw women get their feelings hurt when they recommended a poorly-written LDS novel and others pointed out its flaws. (We seem to feel so much more proprietary when we know the author is LDS. These women have no prob! lem discussing poor writing in a book written by a non-member.) Another problem for me is that I think really good LDS fiction is rare (and before I joined AML, it was hard to even know which books were good. I got tired of wasting my time on them and being disappointed. Tathea comes to mind). And when I find something that really moves me, I am often afraid to give it to others who are not the same kind of reader that I am. (I can't give "The Backslider" to just anyone, for example. Again, the judgmentalism.) If I had a group of people who were literate, well-read and sensitive and not prone to prejudice--and who were willing to buy each book we read since we can't get much LDS fiction from the library here--I would love to study a lot more LDS fiction. Alas, I do not. (Thank goodness for AML!) [Darlene Young] >From andrewrhall@hotmail.com Tue May 14 23:35:36 2002 Well, I'll start out. In Japan we don't have a book group, although I have lent out my video of God's Army and will do so with my new video of Brigham City. I also bought a paperback translation of Card's Seventh Son for a member who showed an interest in it. In Pittsburgh we had two very active book groups. A little background, the Pittburgh 1st Ward is one of my favorite groups of people in the world. It covers 2/3 of the city, and is a very diverse group. Becuase there are several major universies in the ward (University of Pittsburgh, Carneige Mellon, Duquesne), there are many people who are affiliated with the universities or their hospitals. Since the demise of the steel industry, the University of Pittsburgh has become the largest employeer in the city, I believe. Also, due to clean-ups in the industry, and then its demise, the air has cleared up, and it turns out Pittsburgh is a beautiful city. Very green, with lots of vital, interesting city neighborhoods. It was a great place to live. The ward is made up of about 1/3 stable, pernament, local familes, 1/3 young graduate student couples (who sometimes eventually move into the first group category), and 1/3 inner city members, often single parent familes. That is not to say the ward is divided into cliques, there is a lot of social interaction between the various social groups. Our first book group was around to one degree or another since about 1992. It is made up of about 30 people, with people from all the groups, but mostly intellectual types, the majority of whom were connected to the University in some way. We met monthly, and read nonficiton mostly. Many declared themselves too busy to read a whole books, so one person would pick an article or group of related articles, make copies for everyone, and distribute them a couple of weeks in advance at church. We did read a little bit of fiction. Twice I copied off several of the stories from Eugene England's anthology "Bright Angels and Familiars", as well as other stories from here and there. It went very well. Two from Bela Petsco's "Nothing Very Important" collection were particulary popular. We also did a readers' theater of Neal Chandler's Huebner play that was printed in Sunstone. Last year the group reorganized, and becuase several members had to verying degrees left the Church, or were no longer members, it was decided that we would generally avoid readings on Mormonism per se, although the group remains, essentially, a "Mormon reading group." My wife Jenifer also founded a women's book group in 1997, made up of a younger group than the first group, and including more conservative members of the ward, although there was a lot of overlap with the first group. They read mostly novels. A few of them were Mormon-related, Judith Freeman's Set for Life, Paris Anderson's Waiting for the Flash, and Martha Beck's Expecting Adam. They didn't like the Freeman book much, while the response to Paris' novel was quite good. Actually, as a rule they didn't discuss the book for much more than a half-hour. Invariably, after Jen came home at 2 in the morning or so, she would report that they spent most of the night talking about their sex lives. You want frank discussions, hang out with the Pittsburgh 1st Ward women late at night. I hope to find a job in Pittsburgh someday so I can move back. I've enjoyed my book club experiences up to now (and hearing about Jenifer's), and I hope to push some more Mormon lit in ones I attend in the future. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] LDS Box Office Report May 12, Part 2 Date: 15 May 2002 14:25:07 -0600 ___ | Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days | --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- | 3 The New Guy (NEW) 9,007,833 2,687 3 | Eliza Dushku (actor) 9,007,833 | ___ She's not Mormon any more, is she? I remember reading an interview with her where she basically said it didn't "work" for her anymore. If I recall she is more a theist now. (i.e. takes some aspects of the church she likes, like a higher power, etc.) -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Young Adult Lit Date: 15 May 2002 10:47:35 -0500 I just wanted to write and update everybody on the Enrichment Meeting that I did on choosing good adolescent literature. So many of you took a lot of time putting together lists and examples of your favorite novels, and I owe a lot of the success of the night to your assistance. I live in Minnesota, so most of my friends who are real readers don't understand the whole Mormon dynamic, and most of my friends who are Mormon don't spend a lot of time thinking about the world of literature in general. Finding this list and using so many of you as a resource has been invaluable. Thank you. Before I tell you a little about the night, I wanted to respond to Harlow Clark, who wrote with some questions for me way back on April 13th. I've had some problems with my Internet access lately, so I apologize for not getting back sooner. Harlow wrote: > > I can rattle off a good list, but before I do, I'm struck by this > comment. Why can't you recommend books that you love? Would you stand up > and recommend, say, a book about a serial murderer who dismembers the > bodies of his victims, college girls, who ties them down and paints their > naked bodies in two colors right down the center before killing them? > Would you stand up in testimony meeting and say that the Lord guided you > to read such a book? Me neither. I approached it differently when I told > my ward members I was grateful the Lord had led me to Louis Owens' _Bone > Game_ (also to _The Sharpest Sight_). I told them I was moved by the > scene in the sweat lodge ceremony where the Shaman says, "Like Jesus, we > got to forgive everybody. That's real important." I told them that was > particularly moving because the spirit of evil in the novel is a corrupt > Catholic priest of two centuries earlier who would whip the Indians with > wire whips, and defile their women. The priest's lusts and confusions are > mirrored in the killer's. For the whole novel we're anticipating this > sweat lodge ceremony, so the shaman's message is very important > thematically--and not at all what I thought he would say. > > Of course, I can say something like that confident that no one in the > ward is going to seek out Louis Owens' novels--and if someone comes and > asks me what books I was talking about, I can prepare them for the read. > Unless you've had some bad experience where someone read a book you > recommended and, say, you suddenly found yourself released from your > calling, it might be possible to teach a bit about literary theory, > particularly the theory that the reader is responsible for her > interpretation. The author cannot force us to interpret a work in a > particular way, and if we choose to interpret something as uplifting we > might gain experience from it. You chose to interpret certain novels that > way, why can't you teach the RS sisters the same? At least I think > that's an implication of the disclaimer you want to give, "that each > parent needs to decide for herself what's best for her kids, and none of > my choices are 'church endorsed' in any way." This email started me thinking hard about why I had approached this night with some trepidation, and I think I've hit on it. It was important to me to get the sisters in my ward thinking and talking about literature in a way beyond the issue of "what's dirty and what's not." Although I definitely DID want to open their minds to why good literature must contain conflict, sometimes ends unhappily, and exposes us to "evil" behavior. I just needed to come at it sideways so it didn't degenerate into an argument about how righteous people shouldn't read books with swear words in them. So often Relief Society conversations about books or movies revolve around how to protect ourselves from them, to shield our children from their evil influences. Knowing my audience as I do (having been a Mormon female for my entire life :-) I knew if I came out of the gate seeming too pushy or like I had an agenda to get them to "change their minds" (or understand why their thinking is wrong), I would get a lot of people's dander up and we would end up--once again--with an argument about what good, moral Mormon people should be reading or listening to or watching. People would start feeling either self-righteous or embarrassed or offended, and then the whole thing would be blown. The key, for me, was to allow them into the conversation comfortably by allowing for the fact that it *is* valid to be concerned about what our children--and we--read, and I took the responsibility to be mindful of each woman's individual sensibility seriously. Relief Society can sometimes have a hair trigger when it comes to what offends people (I've had looong talks with my husband about this when he's taught a particular lesson in Elder's Quorum and it ended up being about how much the Elders need to change and get better and repent, and I've taught the exact same lesson in R.S. and the comments ended up being about how we all had to feel better about ourselves and not give ourselves such a hard time and allow ourselves room to fail. Priesthood--even Sunday School--and Relief Society can be very different entities.) Anyway, I ended up with a great list of adolescent lit, classics and contemporary pieces and novels by Mormon authors, and a nice "disclaimer" at the top explaining that everyone has a different definition of appropriateness, and it's up to each sister to look at a book before she brings it home. I also had a list of great quotes by prophets and my great Grandmother from Tropic, Utah (who loved to read and felt guilty about it and wrote about it constantly in her journal), and literary figures like Flannery O'Connor. I lifted a few quotes directly from the Eugene England issue of Irreantum (so thanks). I used the list and the quotes as a way to have a "conversation" about literature, instead of having me standing up and pontificating about what I think these women should be reading. The best part of the conversation came when we discussed this quote by Brigham Young: "'Shall I sit down and read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Covenants all the time?' says one. Yes, if you please, and when you have done, you may be nothing but a sectarian after all. It is your duty to study, to know everything upon the face of the earth, in addition to reading those books. We should not only study good, and its effect upon our race, but also evil, and its consequences." I told a story about when I was teaching English at Bingham High School in South Jordan and (as happened quite often) a student refused to read an assigned book. (I think it was ). Only this time, the student--who was on Seminary Council--wanted permission to read only the scriptures and write papers on them. (He even wanted me to make up quizzes. Isn't this a great story????) We used this experience as a springboard to talk about why a prophet like Brigham Young thinks it's a bad thing to only read scripture, and why *fiction* (not just books on history or financial management or marital relationships, and other concrete, "practical" books) falls under them umbrella of what we should be reading in this life. A lot of women talked about how fiction has enlarged their world, has given them empathy, has helped them to understand more fully the multitude of different lives lived by God's children. Fiction has made them think about themselves and about things greater than themselves. It has allowed them to escape, too (which we all agreed was a worthy attribute of fiction). Then a sister raised her hand and said, "I don't think Brigham Young would have asked us to read about evil and its consequences in this day and age. He lived in a different time. It's so dangerous now. I think it's better if we avoid these things altogether." The tone in the room was good enough that I was able to respectfully disagree and start a conversation about how it is our responsibility in this life to understand the nature of evil. How, in fact, fiction was probably one of the safest places to come to understand evil because we are able to experience different choices and consequences vicariously. We went on to talk about why some important books may not be "uplifting" in a narrow definition of the word. Some of the women admitted that if a book made them uncomfortable or angry or sad, they sometimes saw that as a signal that the book was "bad" and shouldn't be read--but then some other women brought up examples of scripture stories that ended badly (and even Shakespearean stories that General Authorities quote. One woman said, "Because they sound like the King James Bible we assume it's somehow more moral than contemporary stuff." Good comment.) Anyway, it was a very good night. One woman started taking down titles of people's favorite books which she intended to hand out on Sunday, and many of the sisters now want to start a book club. I appreciate so much the contribution of many of you who sent me suggestions. Thanks for your help in making this a successful, interesting night. Angela Hallstrom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art Date: 15 May 2002 14:32:45 -0600 ___ Thom ___ | When the Church stops paying the professional architects, | contractors, and builders who erect our temples, I'll stop | expecting to be paid for my professional services toward the | Church. (I don't mind donating time in other areas, but I | no longer donate time when it comes to things theatrical). ___ The difference is that the architect *firms* and contracting *firms* do more than simply give time. You are hiring entire organizations, many of whom are non-Mormon. Further you are requiring resources beyond a few hours a week. Now if those with theatrical talents were being asked to quit their day job to help out with some talent show, I'd see the problem. But if the time asked is no different from what a Bishop, Relief Society President, Elder's Quorum President or so forth give, then you are suggesting a double standard for artists. Now if the ward expected you to supply equipment or the like, then that is clearly wrong. But your own time? Well. Once again, why are artists different from those of us with other skills? -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kellene Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 15 May 2002 15:03:05 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: Here's someone blatantly giving lip service to the idea that sex is sacred, but her actions obviously show she is ashamed of it. What other sacred thing would she nervously titter at the mention of? My question: Does nervous laughter always equal shame? Or can someone genuinely believe that sex is sacred and beautiful but, for whatever reason, be uncomfortable about discussing it? Kellene -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Hatch Subject: [AML] Re: Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 16 May 2002 09:19:08 -0700 "We have observed that wives married to kind and gentle husbands and fathers ARE interested in sex and do not seek to avoid it. Women who are accused by their husbands of being uninterested in sex or wives who profess that sex is only for the purpose of having children are often women who have been mistreated by their husbands." -Stephen E. Lamb, M.D. -Douglas E. Brinley, Ph.D. BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE: GOSPEL PERSPECTIVES ON MARITAL INTIMACY --Beth Hatch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] DeAne NEILSON, _Perfect Neighbors_ (Review) Date: 15 May 2002 15:50:08 -0600 At 09:06 PM 5/14/02, you wrote: >No great literature, but a clever look at families and the role >of women in Mormonism. I always enjoy the Hatrack River books. But I hope they're not supposed to exemplify the only "role of women in Mormonism." The lives these women live would be hell on wheels to me. As Melissa Proffitt (I think) once said on this list about buttermilk, shudder shudder ugh. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 15 May 2002 15:54:11 -0600 Kim Madsen, responding to Brother X: >"OH-MY-HECK!" Well said. >I can only imagine the discomfort >level of the missionaries, not to mention everyone else in the room. And = >I >can just see Brother X blah-blah-blahing away in the front of the room, = his >back to the class as he sketches on the chalkboard, oblivious to the >emotional pain he's causing. Not to mention physical pain. Trying not to laugh out loud, I was in = agony. >Brother >X certainly couldn't distinguish those boundaries. His behavior would = cause >me to be highly suspicious of his sexual/emotional "health". I have too = much >work of my own to do to be learning at the hands of an unbalanced = >person. Well put. I quite agree. I obviously don't know details of Brother X's = emotional health, but he was a very odd man.=20 >Eric, I hope you're using that memory in a story somewhere. It's too = >good to >let languish. If not, can I have it?? I am using it, but of course, if you want to use it, go ahead. I think a = great story is common property. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Box Office report May 12, Part 1 Date: 15 May 2002 16:31:38 -0600 On Tue, 14 May 2002 17:10:07 -0700 (PDT) "R.W. Rasband" writes: > Is Eliza Dushku LDS? The psychopathic Faith of "Buffy the Vampire > Slayer" is a nice Mormon girl? She is the niece of a friend of mine and she is a Mormon girl. And I suppose she may be quite a nice girl as well. But when you put the words together the way you did the collective meaning alters slightly and I'm not sure that Eliza would be exactly comfortable with that description. scott -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 15 May 2002 17:32:56 -0600 > I had the same reaction Larry did when I read Thom's post. I've been in > several wards where members were asked to donate their professional skills. > Just last week my bishop asked the members of the PEC if there was anyone in > the ward who had enough construction experience to install some handrails in > the home of a brother who recently suffered a stroke. No mention was made of > compensation, yet several men volunteered their services. To me, this was a > beautiful example of consecreation at work -- members of the ward doing for > someone what he couldn't do for himself. I would have no problem with this at all. True volunteer help I do not object to. It's when a wealthy Church having the means might require a person to donate some time that would otherwise require compensation. The Church at large doesn't do this. Why should a local ward do the same? > The principle of consecration should apply to everyone equally, artists and > plumbers alike. Isn't that the point of consecration? Scott Bronson can speak to this more exactly but just the other day he and I were talking about this thread. He mentioned, iirc, the Church-commissioned musical _Barefoot to Zion_. Arlen Card was "called" to write the music. He had to audition but was eventually called. And he was paid in cold, hard cash for his services. Truman Angel who designed the Tabernacle was paid for his work. All the architects who've designed LDS temples are paid for their work as are the artisans who do the actual building. Are they guilty of not adhering to the Law of Consecration? Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 16 May 2002 01:24:03 -0600 Susan Malmrose wrote: > The scriptures admonish us to be temperate in all things. Things forbidden > in the WoW are (for many) addictive and difficult to use in moderation. It's > not hard to see why someone would say the WoW is encouraging moderation in > all things. I'll need to be a stickler on this one and ask for some examples of where "moderation in all things" is taught anywhere in the scriptures. I had one fellow claim it wasn't, and I can't think of an example off the top of my head. I think "moderation in all things" is another one of those folk doctrines that everyone accepts as genuine doctrine because it's been repeated so much that no one questions it. Well, I'm questioning it. If you can verify it as official doctrine, then I'd be very interested in finding that out. It may not be hard to see why someone says the Word of Wisdom teaches moderation in all things because it gets repeated so often. But that doesn't make it true. Read section 89--see if you can see anything taught in there except moderation in eating meat. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "kumiko" Subject: [AML] Lance Williams, Producer of _Charly_ Date: 16 May 2002 02:57:34 -0500 [The following profile of filmmaker Lance Williams was sent to LDSFilm.com by the film's publicity agents. We are fowarding it to AML-List with their express permission.] Lance Williams LOS ANGELES--May 8th, 2002 -- After a lifetime in the entertainment industry, Lance Williams' ship has finally come in. Not because he is currently producing another feature film, but because he is producing the screen adaptation of Jack Weyland's best selling novel "Charly." While Charly the movie is the latest foray into the emerging genre of LDS films and is targeted primarily at LDS audiences, Williams notes that it is designed to have crossover appeal to a more general audience. For Williams, Charly is a first in two ways. It is the first LDS novel to be adapted for the silver screen. It is also the first of many LDS films Williams hopes to create. "I have prepared all my life for a chance to make films with a Latter-day Saint theme," Williams said. "For me, this is a dream come true and I intend to dedicate myself to its advancement and success." Williams began his career at age eight working in front of the cameras doing commercials and daytime television. After several turns with legitimate theater, he focused on the television and film side of the entertainment industry, noting that he was better suited to the fluidity of film and TV. Acting his way through high school, Williams was involved with such films as Airport '75, Harry in Your Pocket, and Birds of Prey. He also appeared as a regular on the popular morning television show, "Hotel Balderdash." Williams won the Sydney award for best actor as Adam in the principal role in "The Apple Tree." National Independent Pictures in Hollywood quickly snapped up Williams after he graduated from high school. He soon acquired a taste for working behind the cameras as well as in front of them. Working his way up to associate producer for NIP, Williams helped develop and produce works for network television and feature films. NIP also assigned Williams to produce corporate film and video throughout California. One of his best jobs at the studio was instructing acting at the studio's training division in Newport Beach. Working with new and established talent is a passion that continues with Williams today. After serving an LDS mission to Thailand and receiving a B.A. in film and television from Brigham Young University, Williams continued to have a successful career as an actor, writer, producer and director. He has appeared in major motion pictures as well as small indie films, television programs and commercials. As a producer, he has produced four feature films, a long-running television series, and many corporate, educational and commercial productions. Williams has directed both film and television as well as legitimate theatre. In addition to writing for the industry, he is the author of three published books, including the novel adaptation of the hugely popular LDS play "Promised Valley." Williams continues as the director of the Professional Actors Workshop where he has trained actors for film and television for over twelve years. In addition to producing Charly, Williams is also finishing work on a Masters of Fine Arts degree at UCLA in the Producers Program. Of his career Williams said, "It's been a great ride so far and the best part is all roads have lead to the production of Charly." Williams doesn't plan to slow down any time soon, however. "I plan to continue producing high quality films for both the major and LDS markets," he said, "but if I never made another film in my life, Charly would be a great personal triumph." Lance Williams is based in Los Angeles and is the president of American International Media, Inc. The feature film shingle of Williams' company, Focused Light Films, has partnered with the Utah-based Kaleidoscope Pictures in a co-venture to produce Charly and other LDS-themed productions. For more information, email Starbase Media at schocktaw@hotmail.com. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 16 May 2002 03:08:32 -0600 Kim Madsen wrote: > One interesting thing to note: As the spouse of a recovered sex-addict, and > having experienced both sides of the fence, I've learned that people who are > sexually dysfunctional generally have problems distinguishing appropriate > boundaries of "sharing" sexual information. > Brother X certainly couldn't distinguish those boundaries. His behavior would > cause me to be highly suspicious of his sexual/emotional "health". I have too > much work of my own to do to be learning at the hands of an unbalanced person. There's a scary leap of deduction. It reminds me of someone who heard that sexual predators often have more than sex as something out of control in their lives, for example eating too much. So this person started wondering if each fat person he encountered was a sexual predator. It's a logical fallacy that if A implies B, then B must imply A. Maybe sex addicts have a hard time distinguishing boundaries of appropriateness in speaking about sex, but it's very dangerous to assume that all people who have a hard time distinguishing the boundaries are sexual addicts. > If there is something you are uncomfortable with, > whether inside or outside of marriage, those feelings are a warning signal > that ought to be heeded. I can't accept this either. Otherwise, the woman who refuses to ever have sex with her husband is justified because she feels uncomfortable about it, or the parent who never talks to his or her children about sex for the same reason is in the right. Sex is just too deeply emotional a subject and too fraught with miseducation in our society to ever be able to trust our feelings about it this completely. Uncomfortable feelings _may_ be a warning sign, but it requires a healthy dose of thinking to make sure. Most of the problems Mormons have with sex are based on heeding uncomfortable feelings about it. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 16 May 2002 03:22:36 -0600 Kellene Adams wrote: > My question: Does nervous laughter always equal shame? Or can someone > genuinely believe that sex is sacred and beautiful but, for whatever reason, > be uncomfortable about discussing it? If you like, I'll substitute "embarrassment" for "shame." I think a nervous laugh pretty much always communicates embarrassment. But isn't embarrassment just a form of shame? Uncomfortable is too broad a word to replace for either "shame" or "embarrassment." I feel uncomfortable talking in detail about the endowment ceremony outside the temple, but I don't feel any kind of embarrassment over it, nor do I laugh nervously if the subject comes up. I just think it shouldn't be done. Someone can think sex is sacred and beautiful and decide they don't want to talk much about it. I wouldn't agree with them, but that's their perogative. By why is embarrassment mixed in there? That comes from somewhere else. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 16 May 2002 10:25:12 -0600 > "We have observed that wives married to kind and gentle husbands and > fathers ARE interested in sex and do not seek to avoid it. Women who > are accused by their husbands of being uninterested in sex or wives who > profess that sex is only for the purpose of having children are often > women who have been mistreated by their husbands." > > -Stephen E. Lamb, M.D. > -Douglas E. Brinley, Ph.D. > BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE: > GOSPEL PERSPECTIVES ON MARITAL INTIMACY > > > --Beth Hatch Lest we misunderstand, let's consider carefully the word "often" in the last sentence. Notice it does not say "always." Mistreatment by their husbands certainly is ONE of the reasons why women might not be interested in sex. Other reasons: they may have been sexually abused as a child; they may be one of the minority of persons cursed with a low libido; they may also be lesbian. All these factors and more may influence a woman's disinterest in sex. Let's not let allow this carefully worded statement to slip into the "one-size-fits-all" school of thought. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Kirk Subject: [AML] Las Vegas Cow Parade Date: 16 May 2002 10:17:24 -0700 [MOD: I never cease to be amazed at the range of things I learn about on AML-List...] I've kind of gotten involved with a project called "Cow Parade". If you've been to NYC, Chicago, Houston or Kansas City at the same time they were having their cow parades, you might be familiar with it already - basically, they put a call out to artists to submit design ideas for painting a large (not quite life size, but close) fiberglass cow. These cows are then put on display throughout the city, and auctioned off once the project is done with a portion of the proceeds given to various charities. I know this idea has been repeated in a number of cities using other things besides cows, such as lizards, pigs and horses. Well, Las Vegas is having one, and that is the one I've been working with. It occurred to me this morning that there might be other artists on the list interested in participating, so I figured I would pass on the website info. On the website you can find details on rules, download applications, and, even if you aren't interested in painting a cow, you can look through the many cows - some of which are very whimsical and fun, others beautiful paintings, etc - that have been done in the other cities. the web address is: http://www.cowparade.net julie -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 14 May 2002 13:36:27 -0600 Kathy Tyner wrote: Do we care enough to talk to our kids about this? I challenge everyone to sit down with their kids . . . OK . . . I'm going to e-sit down with a bunch of e-adults and talk about S-E-X. There is a HUGE metaphysical component to sex. And not just to actual intercourse or to thinking about intercourse or physical contact. Everyone has an amount of sexual energy in their bodies, whether it is expressed in the act of sex or whether expressed through art, athletics, business, philosophy, politics or just in the joy of being. This energy, if channeled correctly, can be used for spiritual evolution. I'm sure everyone knows what the meridians are so I won't bore anyone by explaining (They are the tiny rivuletes by which bioenergy travels around the body. Acupunturist stick needles in specific points along these meridians to clear out blockages and let energy flow correctly.) Well, before the meridians existed there existed a very primative set of rivulets called "Strange Flows." The very most primative and the very most important of these is the Main Central Channel. It ocurres early in the life of the fertilized egg--when it is at four to eight cells. In people who have been born it goes from an area slightly in front of the anus, up through the spinal column (occupying the same space as the spinal cord) to the crown of the head (the spot where Mormons put oil when giving blessings.) It then goes down the front of the body, midline, to the origination point. The front half of this flow is called "The Conception Vessel" and the back Half is called the governing Vessel. (Actually, energy can travel either direction through this channel. Or both directions at once--that why these flow are called strange.) When Bio-energy flows up the Governing Vessel into the head strange, magnificent things can happen. Very ordinary things can happen too. A feeling of peace and tranquility is the most common (I haven't decided whether to call that is ordinary or magnificent.) A feeling of being one with God, or one with the Universe or one with all of creation or of melting into everything around are also common sensations. These feelings give rise to spiritual evolution. When these feelings are repeated, they will become more long lasting (awkward sentence) and eventually become perminant. Enlightenment achieved. One method of causing energy to flow up the Governing Vessel is through repeatedly contracting the adductors, the anus and the muscles of the pelvic diaphram. These things happen during sexual intercourse. There are types of massage that are non-sexual, but have the same effect. There are types of exersize that --can-- (maybe) cause this to happen. Acts of charity also cause this to happen. I'm sure most of you have felt a warm, tingling sensation in your spine after sex. That's what I'm talking about. That's your passport to the Universe. And you thought you were just having fun. (I pieced together this view of esoteric human anatomy from texts on various types of massage--Shiatsu, Jin Shin Do, Jin shin Juytsu, Reiki, Taoist massage--along with T'ai Ch'i.) Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Browning Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 16 May 2002 11:13:02 -0600 I hope this has been posted as an example of extreme malarkey. Theres so many problems with this I dont know where to begin. Let's see... "We have observed..."; presumably these are marriage therapists, and not peeping toms. In which case, wouldnt we conclude that they see generally people with disfunctional or abnormal sex lives? And does this mean that all kind and gentle husbands have wives who are interested in sex? Isnt this WAY overgeneralized? Arent there more factors in sexual interest than just the husband? Also, wives that profess that sex is only for procreation could also be very poorly instructed. No, wait. We better blame the husband. So, if I'm not getting any, it's my fault. Thanks Stevie and Doug. Disclaimer: Any implied bitterness is not meant to be seen as sexual frustration on the poster's part. Paul Browning is doing just fine. > ---------- > > "We have observed that wives married to kind and gentle husbands and > fathers ARE interested in sex and do not seek to avoid it. Women who > are accused by their husbands of being uninterested in sex or wives who > profess that sex is only for the purpose of having children are often > women who have been mistreated by their husbands." > > -Stephen E. Lamb, M.D. > -Douglas E. Brinley, Ph.D. > BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE: > GOSPEL PERSPECTIVES ON MARITAL INTIMACY -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 16 May 2002 13:40:47 -0600 Last night, at 12:01 a.m., I went to the first Utah County showing of = Attack of the Clones. It was a sort of cast party for my Great Expectation= s cast. I thought I'd be the first kid on the block to start what I think = may be another lively discussion. I should say immediately that this is = written immediately after getting up in the morning, and that I have not = read any of the criticism pertaining to the film.=20 A few disclaimers: I am not particularly a Sci-fi fan. I don't dislike = the genre, and have in fact read quite a bit of sci-fi/fantasy, but = consider myself at best a casual fan. I loved the first Star Wars film, = but do not and never have thought any of the films were particularly = profound or important. I certainly have never read any of the books, and = would sooner face the gallows than do so. I thought Star Wars was a great = B-movie. The fact that it wasn't actually a very good movie was part of = what made it great. Cheesy dialogue, preposterous situations, amazing = escapes and coincidences and Mark Hamill in the lead; it's pulp, it's a = serial. Nothing wrong with that. I've never been persuaded that the = Force is anything but a hack writer making sure we get who the good guys = are. So those are my prejudices. First the good news: Attack of the Clones is better than Phantom Menace. = It's better paced, the action sequences are a lot more fun, and some of = the actors have loosened up a bit. The Phantom Menace was bad enough that = I really didn't want to see AOTC, but I went with some friends, and we all = enjoyed ourselves. =20 The bad news: in our AML-List discussion of PM, I was troubled by what I = perceived to be an anti-democratic bias in the film. Those concerns are = increased exponentially in this one. I think, frankly, it's a film that = detests and distrusts democracy and that supports what emerges as a = fascist political stance. I was also troubled by what I perceived to be = racist overtones in the last film. They're far worse here. In the last = film, I suggested that Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader) was essentially a = Hitler figure. That's no longer true; I was mistaken. He's not Hitler, = he's Himmler. He's not a fascist dictator, he's the right hand man. = Finally, I was worried about the theological implications of the last = film. Those concerns are, again, far greater in this one. =20 I am not saying, by the way, that George Lucas is racist, or fascist. I = think he's a poor writer who has painted himself into a narrative corner, = and who may have finally figured a way out in this film. I think that the = troubling politics may be unintentional. All I can do is respond to the = film I saw last night, and it's a very very weird film. A few points to get out of the way first. The biggest problem that the = prequel trilogy has is that we know how it's going to come out. There's = no tension regarding Anakin--we know he becomes Vader, and we know that = his love affair with Princess Amidala (I'm probably misspelling all these = names, forgive me), will result in the birth of Luke and Leia. In the = last film, the poor kid who played Anakin was generally regarded as one = the film's greatest weaknesses. I never thought that was fair; a child = actor's performance is generally a reflection of the direction he's been = given. Besides, he wasn't bad in the film. He wasn't unconvincing, he = was just obnoxious. Well, Hayden Christensen, the new Anakin, is also = fairly convincing, but Anakin, in this film, is an obnoxious teenager. = He's sullen and rude and mercurial. I've got three teenagers living at = home right now and am not partial to sullen selfishness. He's not a bad = actor, but the character is also unlikable. And the film spends a lot of = time developing the love story between him and Princess (now Senator) = Amidala. Natalie Portman is cute, and not a bad actress. It's just one = of those things; she and Christensen had no chemistry at all. They both = worked at it really hard, and the film gave the relationship room. It = never happened. So a good quarter of the film is wasted on a love story = that a) has zero suspense anyway, and b) has no romantic tension or = excitement or energy. Lucas does give us some pretty waterfalls and stuff = to look at in the background, and believe me, we spend a lot of time = checking 'em out. Okay, let's talk politics. In Star Wars, the first one, (Episode 4, I know, I absolutely refuse to = call it A New Hope or whatever it is), you had your Rebel Alliance and = you had your Empire. The Rebel Alliance are the good guys and the Empire = were the bad guys. Part of the reason Phantom Menace stunk was because the = politics were so convoluted it was hard to sort it all out. AOTC is far = worse. You've got the Galactic Republic, governed by a Senate (unicameral,= as far as I can tell, with passing reference made to a judicial branch), = plus you've got a bunch of star systems who want to secede, plus you've = got the Trade Federation, plus you've got the Jedi Knights who are sort of = Texas Ranger/Royal Canadian Mounties/Green Beret supercops, plus you've = got a rogue Jedi faction, plus you've got some mysterious cloning planet, = plus you've got a key vote in the Senate over what seems to be a military = appropriations bill, plus you've got Tom Daschle filibustering McCain's = attempt to get a cloture vote to get the bill out of subcommittee. The = opening scroll lets us know from the outset that the politics were going = to be confusing, and that we would never sort it all out, and we never do. = =20 Okay, it's a democracy, it's supposed to be a little sloppy. Except. = There's a crucial scene between Amidala and Anakin, in which they talk a = little political theory in between smooching sessions. And he says, in = essence, "you need a strong leader. Someone you can trust. And then = force everyone to do what he says." Amidala disagrees of course, and = points out that what they have is a democracy, which she defends (though = not, unfortunately, on grounds of personal liberty). The whole rest of = the film subsequently proves that he's right and she's wrong. In fact, = Yoda says it explicitly: the Senate cannot be trusted. And so Senator Jar = Jar gets to do the one thing he does the whole movie; he makes a speech in = which a state of emergency is declared and extraordinary dictatorial = powers are given to Senator What's His Name. The creepy looking dude from = PM. Who looks a lot like, and is probably going to turn out to be, the = Emporer. =20 Now, there's room here for Lucas to get out of it. Yoda admits that the = dark side is clouding his vision a bit. It could be that the next movie = will show that Yoda was wrong, that he should have trusted the Senate, = that giving too much power to one guy is a mistake. (In fact, we know = it's a mistake, because we know what happens next). Some of that may = happen in the next one. =20 But the fact is, for all the politics in this movie, there's no sense of, = you know, actual poltics. Compromise, debate, discussion, finding a = middle ground, balancing the needs of constituents over one's personal = beliefs; there's none of that in the movie. Democracy is never shown to = be anything but a mistake, and the Jedi (who we are to regard as enlightene= d and wise, even if capable of error), are profoundly mistrustful of the = entire political process. And they make it clear that they will obey = civilian orders only up to a point. So in the world of Star Wars, the = Senate is corrupt, the strong man is given absolute power and the military = plays wait and see. And this makeshift interplanetary banana republic is = said to have kept the peace for a thousand years? =20 It gets better. The movie is called Attack of the Clones. Clones are in = the film; they're genetically altered supersoldiers. All Polynesian = (apparently on the theory that Pacific Islanders were the one minority = Lucas hadn't offended yet). They're creepy and creepy looking. (SPOILER = ALERT: STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW). We all recognize them = immediately, of course, because they're Imperial Storm Troopers; same = molded white plastic costumes. And they're on our side, the good guys' = side. They fight with Yoda and Obi Wan, against . . . well, I'm not sure = who against. Trade Federation battlebots in alliance with evil Jedi = Dookoo (something like that), played, inevitably, by uber-villain = Christopher Lee. They fly in, like cavalry, to save Obi-Wan's and = Anikin's butts. The Storm Troopers, with all those wonderful Nazi = overtones, are on our side. See what I mean about bizarre politics? =20 The religious overtones are equally weird. Anakin has to save his mother, = who has been captured by, I think, Banta, or Sand People, or anyway bad = guys. Anyway, they've got her and have been torturing her, and she's = apparently also been crucified. (Remember Anakin's virgin birth?) He = rescues her in time for her to die in his arms. And then he goes berserk = and kills this whole tribe. I mean, slaughters men women and children, = does a whole Book of Joshua on 'em. And then he comes back to Amidala and = tells her and feels bad about it. (She's apparently okay with it, because = they later get married) Now, we know that Anakin is attracted to the Dark = Side, and we know he's going to go over to it. So I ask myself, how does = this work theologically? Going berserk and wiping out an entire tribe of = people, men women and children, that's not enough? That's insufficient to = send one to the Dark Side? You have to do something even worse? =20 I loathed the unearned salvation of Anakin in Return of the Jedi. And, as = I've said, I've never bought any part of the argument you hear about = parallels between Star Wars and the gospel. But this film just makes it = that much worse. There is apparently one one correlation between going = over to Dark Side and our actions. And that is that going over to the = Dark Side gives you more power. But even committing the worst atrocities = does not qualify you for Dark Sideness. =20 Okay, so we've got all the Nazi overtones of genetic experimentation to = create a master race of clones; that's part of the mix in this movie. And = we've got Polynesian superwarriors, so wherever that takes us racially, = that's in the mix. And we've got a democracy that doesn't work and that = the film's heros don't trust, such that they propose a military dictatorshi= p, which happens. And Yoda and Obi-Wan are in favor of all this; they use = the clones in battle, on their side, and they propose the dictatorship. = Our one democrat in the film, Amidala, is a lovesick and naive teenage = girl, and is also apparently okay with the dictatorship. Frankly, there = was one scene in the entire film that had some emotional resonance, and = that was the pain on the face of the child playing Bobo Fett, when his = father (who is fighting against the Jedi) dies, mostly because that = particular child actor was very good. =20 This flm, unlike the first two and =BD, is not about Good vs Evil. That's = not what's going on at all. The bad guys in the film, in fact, use robots = to do their fighting, in contrast with our heros, who use Pacific Islander = Hitler Youth. I can't help but shake the feeling that George Lucas just = flat out doesn't trust democracy and despises politics. Maybe the last = movie will show the tragic consequences of mistrusting democracy. Maybe = the last film will show us how using clones is actually bad, that Yoda = will be shown to have been mistaken. I suspect, in fact, that that's what = will happen. But right now, I think I'm paying the film a compliment when = I say that it's one confused film ideologically. I'm giving Lucas the = benefit of the doubt, by saying that it's troubling or confused ideological= ly. I may well be complicating what's actually a fairly straighforward = Nazi film.=20 What's worst of all, though, is how dispiriting the film is. Okay, the = action sequences are better than in the last film. But the film has no = wit, no cleverness, no energy. There's no Han Solo, no rogueish human = spirit. Even Samuel L. Jackson, the coolest actor in the world, is given = nothing to do but play a boring and colorless Jedi. The main character = relationships don't work. Amidala and Anakin have no spark, no chemistry. = Obi-Wan spends much of the film nagging sullen teenager Anakin, so that = relationship is a drag. Yoda and Obi-Wan come across as genial colleagues,= nothing deeper. It's well past time to close the R2D2/C3PO vaudeville = act. It's a superior film to the last one technically; better paced, = slightly more plausible, a little better acted. =20 And then, there's one absolutely great moment. One two minute segment, = late in the movie, actually works, actually has the spark and energy and = wit and humanity the whole rest of the film hasn't had. I'd say the film = is worth watching really only for this one two minute sequence. It's the = fight scene between Christopher Lee and Yoda. So that's where we are with = this franchise. A muppet saves the day. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 16 May 2002 12:51:05 -0700 > I'll need to be a stickler on this one and ask for some examples of > where "moderation in all things" is taught anywhere in the scriptures. I > had one fellow claim it wasn't, and I can't think of an example off the > top of my head. I think "moderation in all things" is another one of > those folk doctrines that everyone accepts as genuine doctrine because > it's been repeated so much that no one questions it. Well, I'm > questioning it. If you can verify it as official doctrine, then I'd be > very interested in finding that out. A quick search of the scriptures at the church website for the word "temperate:" Alma 7: 23 23 And now I would that ye should be humble, and be submissive and gentle; easy to be entreated; full of patience and long-suffering; being temperate in all things; being diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all times; asking for whatsoever things ye stand in need, both spiritual and temporal; always returning thanks unto God for whatsoever things ye do receive. Alma 38: 10 10 And now, as ye have begun to teach the word even so I would that ye should continue to teach; and I would that ye would be diligent and temperate in all things. D&C 12: 8 8 And no one can assist in this work except he shall be humble and full of love, having faith, hope, and charity, being temperate in all things, whatsoever shall be entrusted to his care. > It may not be hard to see why someone says the Word of Wisdom teaches > moderation in all things because it gets repeated so often. But that > doesn't make it true. Read section 89--see if you can see anything > taught in there except moderation in eating meat. What I suggested was that it gets read that way because the things it tells us to stay away from are addicitve, and difficult to use in moderation. Some alcohol can be good for you in moderation, right? I know a handful of people who can drink in moderation. The rest of the people I know who drink are alcholics. I'd rather not take the chance of finding out which type of person I am (esp since alcoholism runs in my family), so I stay away from it altogether. And that's basically how I view the WoW; stay away from things you can't use in moderation. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art Date: 16 May 2002 14:13:42 -0600 ___ Thom ___ | He mentioned, iirc, the Church-commissioned musical _Barefoot | to Zion_. Arlen Card was "called" to write the music. He | had to audition but was eventually called. And he was paid in | cold, hard cash for his services. ___ But once again that is a full-time activity. A job. Some with architects and the like. A yearly road show with the ward teens doesn't quite equate to this. You don't seem to want to distinguish between something that is a full time activity from something that is not. Now admittedly some part-time consecration can take quite a bit of time. Just look at how much time Bishops, Stake Presidents and the like put forth. I agree that if someone basically asks you to quit your day job and do the equivalent for the church that you ought to demand compensation. However, it seems that when you say you'll donate time for anything except "when it comes to things theatrical" you've moved across that line. So let me ask you. Should an accountant say the same thing if he is called to be secretary or the like for a ward? Sorry, that calling is to close to what I do for a living? No psychologists or therapists allowed as bishops? No DJ called to be ward activity chair? Where I draw the line is in terms of the amount of time and resource required. Where you draw the line seems to be based upon whether it is the same as what you do professionally. Yet in doing so you seem to apply a different standard between artists and non-artists. You will not convince me that a professional musician spends more time being choir director than any other choir director. If some individual does, then that is based upon how they allocate their time and not the nature of the calling. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Las Vegas Cow Parade Date: 16 May 2002 15:35:24 -0500 Kansas City had theirs last year and it was quite fun to see all the cows. Many of the KC cows were also made into Hallmark figurines and sold locally (I can still find them here and there). It's worth a peek, if you don't know what Julie is talking about. I didn't know other cities were doing it. Fun. Linda Adams Kansas City, Missouri (Jackson County) At 12:17 PM 5/16/02, you wrote: >On the website you can find details on rules, download applications, >and, even if you aren't interested in painting a cow, you can look through >the many cows - some of which are very whimsical and fun, others beautiful >paintings, etc - that have been done in the other cities. > >the web address is: > >http://www.cowparade.net > >julie Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Box Office report May 12, Part 1 Date: 16 May 2002 13:50:01 -0700 (PDT) --- "J. Scott Bronson" wrote: > On Tue, 14 May 2002 17:10:07 -0700 (PDT) "R.W. Rasband" > writes: > > > Is Eliza Dushku LDS? The psychopathic Faith of "Buffy the Vampire > > Slayer" is a nice Mormon girl? > > She is the niece of a friend of mine and she is a Mormon girl. And I > suppose she may be quite a nice girl as well. But when you put the > words > together the way you did the collective meaning alters slightly and I'm > not sure that Eliza would be exactly comfortable with that description. > > scott > No offense meant; the juxtaposition of rogue Slayer and Molly Mormon just struck me as funny. Dushku talks about her Mormon upbringing at http://www.reel.com/reel.asp?node=features/interviews/dushku/2 ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eileen Stringer" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 16 May 2002 14:59:48 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 1:24 AM > Susan Malmrose wrote: > > > The scriptures admonish us to be temperate in all things. Things forbidden > > in the WoW are (for many) addictive and difficult to use in moderation. It's > > not hard to see why someone would say the WoW is encouraging moderation in > > all things. D. Michael Martindale wrote: > I'll need to be a stickler on this one and ask for some examples of > where "moderation in all things" is taught anywhere in the scriptures. I > had one fellow claim it wasn't, and I can't think of an example off the > top of my head. I think "moderation in all things" is another one of > those folk doctrines that everyone accepts as genuine doctrine because > it's been repeated so much that no one questions it. Well, I'm > questioning it. If you can verify it as official doctrine, then I'd be > very interested in finding that out. True, the word moderation only shows up in the scriptures once and that is in Philipians and I believe it is not the word moderation, but moderate. However, Susan mentioned the word "temperate" and so I did a search on that as well as "temperance" and came up with quite a larger number of scriptures including the phrase "temperate in all things." Now the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition for temperate and temperance both have the word moderation in their definitions. In fact, the definition for temperate is "marked by moderation." I won't give the complete etomology and definitions of the words temperate and temperance or moderation as I believe most have access to dictionaries and can look them up. Now onto the scripture references that I found for the words "temperance" and "temperate" I won't include all that I found, but will include those that stood out in my mind, which exhorted temperance and to be temperate in all things. 1 Corinthians 9:25, Galatians 5:23, 2 Peter 1:6, Alma 7:23 - this scripture in particular tells the reader "to be temperate in all things," as does Alma 38:10, D&C 4:6, D&C 6:19, D&C 12:8 - another inclusion of "temperate in all things." Granted, temperate is not the same word as moderation, but as Susan suggested the leap that most people have made from temperate to moderation is not much of a leap at all. Nevertheless, D. Michael is correct, the scriptures themselves do not admonish "moderation" they do admonish temperance instead and we are not told "moderation in all things" but rather "temperate in all things." Eileen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] New "Onion" Advice Columnist Date: 16 May 2002 14:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Check out "The Onion"'s new advice columnist: http://www.theonion.com/onion3818/ask_raymond_carver.html ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 16 May 2002 15:40:04 -0600 Okay I've got to get into this discussion again and stand up for sex-disinterested women everywhere. I honestly believe (despite the previous discussion about negative cultural attitudes about sex) that the most common reason married women are uninterested in sex is because of anger. I hear men complain that women use sex as a "reward" for good behavior, that they use it as a weapon in a power struggle. I believe that is often the case, and I also think it is difficult to transcend using the only power you think you have. When a woman is angry at a man, the last thing she wants to do is give him what he wants. Is that attitude Christian? Probably not. The anger may be a reaction to things other than the traditional definition of "mistreatment": money problems and decisions about money, feeling ignored, feeling powerless, feeling overwhelmed with responsibilities, feeling he isn't doing what he is supposed to do (the list is endless, I'm afraid). The quality of the relationship of course determines the desire for intimacy. Should one rise above these negative feelings? I hear that at church a lot. Gae Lyn Henderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Hansen Subject: Re: [AML] Las Vegas Cow Parade Date: 16 May 2002 16:12:29 -0600 I'm not involved, but I know that in Salt Lake City they have a whole bunch of bison in this same style presumably for the Olympics. A few years ago when I was in New Orleans they had the fish parade - of which (being an attorney) my favorite was the "Barristercuda" painted and dressed as a lawyer in front of the courthouse. They're definitely trendy, but I like them. Dave Hansen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 16 May 2002 20:12:35 -0400 At 05:32 PM 5/15/02 -0600, Thom Duncan wrote: >> I had the same reaction Larry did when I read Thom's post. I've been in >> several wards where members were asked to donate their professional >skills. True volunteer help I do not >object to. It's when a wealthy Church having the means might require a >person to donate some time that would otherwise require compensation. > >The Church at large doesn't do this. Why should a local ward do the same? > >> The principle of consecration should apply to everyone equally, artists >and >> plumbers alike. Isn't that the point of consecration In another life and at a younger age I spent a couple of years as a brick mason. When it was time to build our church in Rhode Island, it became may task (also as a member of the Branch Presidency) to lay up all the leads (corners etc.)and to supervise the brick work (laying much of the brick and block myself, and supervising the others who helped.)in our new second phase chapel. Because I was in my scene designer/technical director phase, I had to turn down a good summer theatre job to finish the church on time so the church paid me minimum wage to help make up the difference. I didn't kvetch at all even when one of the missionaries who were helping dropped a concrete block on my head and send me to the hospital. (Now that I think of it, that may explain a lot of things. About ten years later, (about 1970 or 71) although I was no longer in the designer/tech.director phase of my career, but I was teaching theatre at a university in upstate New York. One day I received a letter from the church inviting me to come to the Palmyra area and spend the summer doing scenery and lighting for the Hill Cumorah pageant. I no longer have the letter, but it seemed clear that I was being called to donate my time. Not being sure, I called the appropriate telephone number and asked. It was made clear that they were asking me to donate my time. I actually would have liked to do it, but SUNY New York, at that time, was paying "yearly" salaries in nine payments which meant if you were not going to teach summer school, you better have saved some money. I hadn't, so I regretfully turned down the gig and spent the summer running an English as a Second language conference for a bunch of Engish language teachers from Finland. I have since designed sound systems, designed lighting systems, directed pageants and plays as well as using my brick laying talents to build an outdoor barbecue out behind one chapel using brick that had been excavated from the baptism font of the old Nauvoo temple. I have been "used" in many ways by the church, and I think it fits in with my concept of the covenants I made in the temple. No one has to agree with me. Different strokes for different folks. When I directed the centennial pageant for the local baptist church, I charged a fee. I didn't make a covenant for the upbuilding of the Statesboro First Baptist Church. I have been recently called to be Stake Drama Director and to direct some plays. I may have to refuse the call (I try not to do that generally) not because I'm being asked to donate my professional skills, but because my dollmaking and puppetry business (and my grandchildren) are taking me out of town at crucial times. Richard B. Johnson, (djdick@PuppenRich.com) Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: Re: [AML] Lance Williams, Producer of _Charly_ Date: 16 May 2002 21:39:22 -0600 kumiko wrote: > For Williams, >Charly is a first in two ways. It is the first LDS novel to be >adapted for the silver screen. ... > That depends on your definition of "LDS Novel." What about Yorgenson's "Windwalker," some 20 years ago? And I also happen to know that Dan Yates' "Angels Don't Knock" is currently in post-production and will find its way to the silver screen very soon. I'm sure there must be others. (???) -BJ Rowley -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 16 May 2002 23:09:21 -0600 On Tue, 14 May 2002 Quinn Warnick writes: > I had the same reaction Larry did when I read Thom's post. I've been > in several wards where members were asked to donate their > professional skills. Yes, this is often done in an effort to help out specific ward members. > The principle of consecration should apply to everyone equally, > artists and plumbers alike. Isn't that the point of consecration? Yes. I believe so. And as much as an artist is able to help individual members of their (or any other) unit of the church I would hope that they are willing to do so. > If we all demanded compensation whenever our work-related > skills were put to use by the Church, the financial clerk > would be writing checks all the time. What about the school teachers > who also happen to teach primary on Sundays? Again, correct. We consecrate our skills, talents and abilities to the building up of others around us. And yet, the church (and there are two versions of that usage that we will delineate in a moment) doesn't ask (oh, let's use a plumber as an example since we're all so fond of placing the plumber at the bottom of the talent pool--"EVEN a plumber ...") even a plumber to take the work they have done for their livlihood--let's say this plumber builds water heaters from scratch and sells and installs them--and give it to some member of the ward. The ward may purchase it from that hardworking plumber to give to the needy member, but the church will never rob Peter to pay Paul. What the church will do is ask that plumber to put in EXTRA time outside of his daily labors that he devotes to the sustanence of his family, and provide a service of his abilities to help another member in need. Let's go back to Todd Peterson's comment about King Benjamin working in the fields along with all the other Plebes. I believe the point of that scripture is to point out that The King--The Prophet--does his daily labors and devotes EXTRA time to the work of the Lord. Clark Goble wrote: > While I can see where Br. Arrington might view this in terms > of "the laborer is worthy of his pay," I don't think that the correct > view. Well, yes it is. And I think the actions of the Church bear that out. Be fore I explain that, though, let me defend Bro. Arrington's reported comments. James spent lots of money and several years getting an education in the theatrical arts. During that process, and since then, he has used that education to build and install waters heaters of his own unique design and construction. This is how he feeds and shelters his family. For anyone to assume that he should take those water heaters and give them away is ridiculous. How will he feed his family. Now, if the Bishop or Stake president asks him to put in some EXTRA time to use the knowledge and talent he has to ... um ... teach someone else to make water heaters or help install a water heater that someone else has made, I think I know James well enough to say with confidence that he would probably agree to do so. As Thom mentioned, even when the Church calls someone and sets them apart to create a work of art for the exclusive use and ownership of the Church, the Church pays for it. Occasionally, people are called to special missions to participate in these events, but most of the people involved are paid (pretty well) for their services. Until the Church abandons the concept of tithing for full-on consecration, the Church will work within the economic system already in place in the land. The Church and the the church both respect the artist's labor as work in the field. Why can't we? J. Scott Bronson -- The Nauvoo Theatrical Society *********************************************************** "If I were placed on a cannibal island and given the task of civilizing its people, I would straightway build a theatre for the purpose." Brigham Young -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 16 May 2002 23:27:26 -0500 Susan Malmrose wrote: The scriptures admonish us to be temperate in all things. ... It's not hard to see why someone would say the WoW is encouraging moderation in all things. D. Michael Martindale responded: I'll need to be a stickler on this one and ask for some examples of where "moderation in all things" is taught anywhere in the scriptures. ... Read section 89--see if you can see anything taught in there except moderation in eating meat. _______________ I find I often limit myself in my thinking. I get into ruts and think "inside the box" most of the time (whatever that means) when other folks believe I should think "outside the box" (whatever that means). Susan was right when she said, "The scriptures admonish us to be temperate in all things." The very first definition in Webster's New World Dictionary for the word "temperate" is (1) "moderate, as in eating or drinking." Philippians 4:5 says, "Let your moderation be known unto all men." Alma 7:23 encourages "being temperate in all things;" and Alma 38:10 also uses the phrase, "temperate in all things." It is repeated again in D&C 12:8, "being temperate in all things". So there are four examples (not counting eating meat in the Word of Wisdom) that refer to moderation (or being temperate) in all things. This "in the box/out of the box" thinking also came in handy on the recent review I did. I'll discuss that in another post, unless it turns into a busy news day and our moderator decides to combine them. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Gerald N. LUND, _Come Unto Me_ (Review) Date: 17 May 2002 00:20:17 -0500 Jeff Needle: Alas, Larry is very kind. Larry: Perhaps, but honest, I didn't change the review even after what happened at general conference. Jeff: In an effort to impress us with his limited knowledge of language, Lund simply stumbles and falls. Rob Lauer: As for why Lund would include this in his book--well, I haven't read his book, but I assume that he's merely showing off his research. I wouldn't think this would serve his fiction very well. _______________ "_Shalom,_ Simeon ben David," Sextus Rubrius said in Aramaic." There has been some discussion of whether the word Shalom is Hebrew or Aramaic. Because I knew this was part of the reason Jeff handed off the review to me (it wasn't his fault--I did accept his offer), I did a little research of my own before I wrote the review. Ok, I asked two friends who are linguists and whose judgement I also trust. Their responses were quite interesting. Since I didn't ask permission to quote them, I'll just paraphrase them instead. I asked each of them what they thought of the sentence in question (quoted above), and specifically whether the word Shalom was Aramaic, as Lund wrote, or Hebrew. (I did not identify the author to either of them.) The first said he didn't know Aramaic and couldn't say. But, he went on to give two reasons why the word could be the same in both languages. He referred me to another friend whom I had already queried. The second said the two languages were very similar and that the word "shalom" exists in both. Then he surprised me by noting that, while "shalom" was both Aramaic and Hebrew, the element "ben" in the name, meaning "son of," is the Hebrew form of the element, and that in Aramaic it would be "bar". So if he were speaking Aramaic, Sextus Rubrius should have said, "Shalom, Simeon bar David," instead of ". . . ben David." And although Simeon answered as if he understood, it turns out it didn't really matter what Sextus said at all. We read seven pages later that Simeon didn't understand Aramaic anyway. This caused a senior moment for me, as I thought I recalled having just read that Simeon had carried on a complete conversation in Aramaic. So I went back and, sure enough, the Aramaic conversation was on page 30 and the author's comment that he didn't understand Aramaic at all was on page 37. I personally think Rob is on to something when he mentions "showing off his research." I didn't call it that in my review. I think "patronizing" was the word I used. And yes, I suppose a better editor may have noticed these inconsistencies, given enough time to review the manuscript. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 17 May 2002 01:15:55 -0600 Elizabeth Hatch wrote: > > "We have observed that wives married to kind and gentle husbands and > fathers ARE interested in sex and do not seek to avoid it. Women who > are accused by their husbands of being uninterested in sex or wives who > profess that sex is only for the purpose of having children are often > women who have been mistreated by their husbands." Once again, it's always the man's fault. I'd like to see some evidence for this before swallowing it. Is it provided in the book? I don't accept their "observations" as convincing evidence. Do wives like sex because their husbands are nice? Or do husbands get cranky because their wives won't have sex? Which came first? This is why anecdotal "observations" are not considered compelling evidence in science. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Moderation in All Things (was: Frankness in Mormon Writing) Date: 17 May 2002 03:34:14 -0600 [MOD: Thanks to Michael for renaming this thread. I should have done it with all the messages I just finished sending to AML-List on this topic. In any event, let's move beyond whether the scriptures do or don't teach "moderation" or "temperance" in all things to consider this very interesting question of Michael's of just what temperance *means* in the scriptures...with a literary tie-in if anyone can supply one.] Someone sent me four passages in scripture that teach moderation in all things, if you accept "temperance" as a synonym for "moderation." I would accept these as scriptural justification for iterating the principle. But using the Word of Wisdom as justification definitely does not work. > 1 Cor 9:25 > > 25. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all > things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an > incorruptible. > D+C 12:8 > > 8 And no one can assist in this work except he shall be humble and full > of love, having faith, hope, and charity, being temperate in all things, > whatsoever shall be entrusted to his care. These next two, however, make me wonder as I read them. > Alma 7:23 > > 23 And now I would that ye should be humble, and be submissive and gentle; > easy to be entreated; full of patience and long-suffering; being temperate > in all things; being diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all > times; asking for whatsoever things ye stand in need, both spiritual and > temporal; always returning thanks unto God for whatsoever things ye do > receive. > Alma 38:10 > > 10 And now, as ye have begun to teach the word even so I would that ye > should continue to teach; and I would that ye would be diligent and > temperate in all things. They seem inconsistent. In one breath, we are told to be temperate in all things; in the next, we are told to be diligent in keeping the commandments at all times. Isn't this contradictory? How do the words "diligent" and "temperate" go together? -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 17 May 2002 07:37:52 -0700 [MOD: Rex isn't alone in wondering about the literary connection of all this, I'm sure. But I think we've actually had some fascinating stuff that could affect very much how we conduct our own writing, and how we perceive our own Mormon community. And so I have so far felt that it was fruitful to continue...] Though I have been reading this thread, I've not responded, more due to a fractured arm, a crashed hard disk, and getting ready for a local conference on same-sex attraction than to not having something to say. This morning I'm in a place to speak up, so I will. I find this talk of sex fascinating. What topic is more fascinating than sex? Not meaning to question our good moderator, but I've sometimes struggled to see the literary connection in some of the postings. I guess it speaks to the greater culture, which eventually impacts the literature. I didn't want to post on this thread until I felt I was actually speaking about literature. First, a little about my point of view and where I got it. I own and operate a website called, LDSR.org (Latter-day Sexual Recovery). As part of that, I own and operate two mailing lists: Clean-LDS for Latter-day Saints struggling with pornography addiction and Clean-Support for Mormon spouses of pornography addicts. LDSR has bulletin boards where addict issues are discussed, as well as boards where marital issues are discussed, and a special board strictly for spouses of sex addicts. Having moderated these very active forums for several years now has given me quite the education on different perspectives on sex within marriage. I have often thought about publishing my observations, though most publishers seem to want credentials for a piece like that which I do not specifically possess. After all, we want to read books about sex from doctors and about sex addiction from qualified professionals. I'm little more than a webmaster, which doesn't constitute a credential to most publishers or to most readers for that matter. Still, I've probably read more case studies than most professional therapists. I've followed more stories long term over the years than any psychologist. These stories are hard to read sometimes. You just shake your head and wonder how people can mistreat each other so. It tends to make me a little calloused to the point of not being able to readily recognize when something is too frank for its own setting. I am aware of this when I bring things up. I pay attention to where I am. I have done firesides about my own sexual difficulties as I have struggled with homosexuality. It didn't bother me to discuss things with detailed clarity (though not in prurient detail) at a fireside where people can come because they are specifically interested in the topic. I would not ever speak the same way in sacrament meeting. People are there by choice, of course, but did not specifically sign up to hear someone talk about their somewhat sordid past. Sometimes in testimony meeting, I will refer to having had a difficult childhood and having difficult issues to sometimes deal with, but I wouldn't be specific. there. It's not the right place. What Scott (I think) said about being sensitive to other people's sensibilities is something I try to practice. I try to pay attention to who my audience is. Publishing literature is a different story entirely. It's not a mislead audience. While it's possible to misrepresent the content of a book on its cover, you usually can tell from a book's packaging what kinds of information it's going to contain. I, too, thought that the quote from Lamb and Brinley's book, _Between Husband and Wife_ was a generalization that was not as true as represented. Having read the stories of addicts and their spouses, to put the onus on the husband's behavior for how much sex the couple is having is simplistic and often untrue. Women don't marry sex addicts as accidentally as they think. Sex addicts don't marry codependents accidentally. Some part of us, sometimes hidden from conscious view, picks a mate who acts exactly like he or she acts or will act once we're married. The signals are all connected to marry up with someone who is exactly who they turn out to be, even if the issues haven't surfaced. Women marry men who are prone to pressure them for sex without even knowing he will, because there are things they see in him that appeals to something they learned in their family of origin. Men marry women who are going to resist their advances because of the same kinds of things. There are lots of deer-in-the-headlights reactions once we get to know our spouses better, but the honest truth is, we signed up for someone who showed outward signs of being who they are on the inside. To blame husbands for this is just plain wrong. Add to the family-of-origin issues the mutations caused by the marriage itself, and you get two people with lots of things to work on (hopefully) together. I don't think that you could write and publish a frank discussion of sexuality between husbands and wives in the maintsream LDS market. You would have to make it the husband's fault, make the women the victims, and leave out the grit. You don't get anywhere in this culture without championing women. Unfortunately, you don't get anywhere in helping women without providing a venue for them to take responsibility for their own issues. To me, a truly frank work on Mormon sexuality in marriage would ask both men and women to take responsibility for their own sexual problems and work together for a solution that did not represent the problem as being a function of how sensitive and talkative the man is. Rex Goode -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 17 May 2002 09:55:30 -0600 (MDT) Don't have time to respond to all of Eric's post, though I will say - he really has missed the point of the movie. > But the fact is, for all the politics in this movie, there's no sense of, = > you know, actual poltics. Compromise, debate, discussion, finding a = > middle ground, balancing the needs of constituents over one's personal = > beliefs; there's none of that in the movie. Democracy is never shown to = > be anything but a mistake, and the Jedi (who we are to regard as enlightene= > d and wise, even if capable of error), are profoundly mistrustful of the = > entire political process. This conclusion, IMHO, can only be reached by missing all the backstory constantly referred to in the dialouge of all the films, that the republic survived for millenia as a democracy with only minor problems ("there's never been an all out war since the formation of the republic!") The problems only start occuring when a very evil man (palaptine/darth sidious) is able to gain control over a small group of influential senators. The thesis is that democracy works as long as evil conspiracies don't control the key leaders. > immediately, of course, because they're Imperial Storm Troopers; same = > molded white plastic costumes. And they're on our side, the good guys' = > side. This wasn't portrayed as a good thing. basically the good guys were snookered. Or did you miss the "Imperial March" musical cues played with the troopers? > They fight with Yoda and Obi Wan, against . . . well, I'm not sure = > who against. Trade Federation battlebots in alliance with evil Jedi = > Dookoo (something like that), DooKu played, inevitably, by uber-villain = > Christopher Lee. They fly in, like cavalry, to save Obi-Wan's and = > Anikin's butts. The Storm Troopers, with all those wonderful Nazi = > overtones, are on our side. See what I mean about bizarre politics? Again, only because the good guys have been snookered - fooled. Anyway more later - but Eric's response seems to come from someone predisposed to hate the film beforehand. Everything Eric says is portryaed positively I read as negative - as a tragedy that good people got duped by a powerful mastermind. more later. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] LDS Living Magazine Date: 17 May 2002 09:36:17 -0600 Here's a new magazine that looks like it's going to be breaking lots of = new cultural ground: NEW LDS MAGAZINE ANNOUNCED: LDS Living presents: A new LDS Living print magazine for Latter-day = Saint families. FREE GIFT WITH SUBSCRIPTION This new bi-monthly print magazine covers many features that all = families enjoy. Featured articles and topics come from top LDS writers, = speakers, and educators. LDS Living Magazine is fun and simple and devoted to = giving Latter-day Saints useful and inspiring articles all year long. It includes everything from helpful how-to's to stories of LDS heroes in = our midst: EACH FULL ISSUE OFFERS: How-to articles concerning: =B7 Smarter Parenting=20 =B7 Family Finance=20 =B7 Family Togetherness=20 =B7 Practical LDS Living=20 =B7 Safeguarding Your Home =B7 And More... Fun-filled ideas relating to: =B7 Family Home Evening=20 =B7 Relationships & Ideas=20 =B7 Family Travel & Vacations=20 =B7 LDS Home Solutions=20 =B7 Family Games with a Lesson =B7 And More... Enjoy inspirational articles concerning: =B7 Mothers of Courage=20 =B7 Inspirational Families or Individuals=20 =B7 Random Acts Of Kindness=20 =B7 LDS Heroes In Our Midst=20 =B7 Converting Moments =B7 And More... Subscribe now and start enjoying a full-featured magazine designed just for your lifestyle. GET A FREE GIFT WITH SUBSCRIPTION Click Here: http://www.ldsliving.com/LDSLivingMagazineE05LL3.htm -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] LDS Living Magazine Date: 17 May 2002 09:36:17 -0600 Here's a new magazine that looks like it's going to be breaking lots of = new cultural ground: NEW LDS MAGAZINE ANNOUNCED: LDS Living presents: A new LDS Living print magazine for Latter-day = Saint families. FREE GIFT WITH SUBSCRIPTION This new bi-monthly print magazine covers many features that all = families enjoy. Featured articles and topics come from top LDS writers, = speakers, and educators. LDS Living Magazine is fun and simple and devoted to = giving Latter-day Saints useful and inspiring articles all year long. It includes everything from helpful how-to's to stories of LDS heroes in = our midst: EACH FULL ISSUE OFFERS: How-to articles concerning: =B7 Smarter Parenting=20 =B7 Family Finance=20 =B7 Family Togetherness=20 =B7 Practical LDS Living=20 =B7 Safeguarding Your Home =B7 And More... Fun-filled ideas relating to: =B7 Family Home Evening=20 =B7 Relationships & Ideas=20 =B7 Family Travel & Vacations=20 =B7 LDS Home Solutions=20 =B7 Family Games with a Lesson =B7 And More... Enjoy inspirational articles concerning: =B7 Mothers of Courage=20 =B7 Inspirational Families or Individuals=20 =B7 Random Acts Of Kindness=20 =B7 LDS Heroes In Our Midst=20 =B7 Converting Moments =B7 And More... Subscribe now and start enjoying a full-featured magazine designed just for your lifestyle. GET A FREE GIFT WITH SUBSCRIPTION Click Here: http://www.ldsliving.com/LDSLivingMagazineE05LL3.htm -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 17 May 2002 09:55:30 -0600 (MDT) Don't have time to respond to all of Eric's post, though I will say - he really has missed the point of the movie. > But the fact is, for all the politics in this movie, there's no sense of, = > you know, actual poltics. Compromise, debate, discussion, finding a = > middle ground, balancing the needs of constituents over one's personal = > beliefs; there's none of that in the movie. Democracy is never shown to = > be anything but a mistake, and the Jedi (who we are to regard as enlightene= > d and wise, even if capable of error), are profoundly mistrustful of the = > entire political process. This conclusion, IMHO, can only be reached by missing all the backstory constantly referred to in the dialouge of all the films, that the republic survived for millenia as a democracy with only minor problems ("there's never been an all out war since the formation of the republic!") The problems only start occuring when a very evil man (palaptine/darth sidious) is able to gain control over a small group of influential senators. The thesis is that democracy works as long as evil conspiracies don't control the key leaders. > immediately, of course, because they're Imperial Storm Troopers; same = > molded white plastic costumes. And they're on our side, the good guys' = > side. This wasn't portrayed as a good thing. basically the good guys were snookered. Or did you miss the "Imperial March" musical cues played with the troopers? > They fight with Yoda and Obi Wan, against . . . well, I'm not sure = > who against. Trade Federation battlebots in alliance with evil Jedi = > Dookoo (something like that), DooKu played, inevitably, by uber-villain = > Christopher Lee. They fly in, like cavalry, to save Obi-Wan's and = > Anikin's butts. The Storm Troopers, with all those wonderful Nazi = > overtones, are on our side. See what I mean about bizarre politics? Again, only because the good guys have been snookered - fooled. Anyway more later - but Eric's response seems to come from someone predisposed to hate the film beforehand. Everything Eric says is portryaed positively I read as negative - as a tragedy that good people got duped by a powerful mastermind. more later. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Gerald N. LUND, _Come Unto Me_ (Review) Date: 17 May 2002 09:12:33 -0700 > And although Simeon answered as if he understood, > it turns out it didn't really matter what Sextus said > at all. We read seven pages later that Simeon didn't > understand Aramaic anyway. > Yes, I caught that in my initial reading, and nearly howled. > This caused a senior moment for me, as I thought I > recalled having just read that Simeon had carried on > a complete conversation in Aramaic. So I went back > and, sure enough, the Aramaic conversation was on > page 30 and the author's comment that he didn't > understand Aramaic at all was on page 37. > > I personally think Rob is on to something when he > mentions "showing off his research." I didn't call it > that in my review. I think "patronizing" was the word > I used. > > And yes, I suppose a better editor may have noticed > these inconsistencies, given enough time to review > the manuscript. > > Larry Jackson > > This is an interesting comment. Is there some sense that these books, almost guaranteed to sell, are rushed through the editing and publishing process? [Jeff Needle] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Quinn Warnick" Subject: [AML] Re: Money and Art Date: 17 May 2002 12:11:47 -0400 Thom Duncan wrote: | Scott Bronson can speak to this more exactly but just the other day he and I | were talking about this thread. He mentioned, iirc, the Church-commissioned | musical _Barefoot to Zion_. Arlen Card was "called" to write the music. He | had to audition but was eventually called. And he was paid in cold, hard | cash for his services. | | Truman Angel who designed the Tabernacle was paid for his work. All the | architects who've designed LDS temples are paid for their work as are the | artisans who do the actual building. | | Are they guilty of not adhering to the Law of Consecration? Of course not. But I don't think it's fair to equate designing the Tabernacle with putting on a ward play (or, to use my earlier example, doing some light construction work at a disabled member's home). Compare apples to apples -- when the Church (with a capital "C") commissions a work of art or an architectural design, it is likely that the artist or architect would be asked to quit their full-time employment or take a sabbatical in order to complete the assignment. Hence, these people are compensated. However, when the church (lowercase "c," as in a local ward) asks someone with theatrical talent to direct the ward play or someone with musical talent to lead the ward choir, there is an understanding that the assigned work will be done in the person's spare time. If anyone knows of local ward members who have been asked to quit their jobs to work on the stake road show, I'd love to hear about it. But I doubt this type of "consecration" is going on in the Church today. - Quinn Warnick -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "ROY SCHMIDT" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art Date: 17 May 2002 10:28:40 -0600 Often a professional will donate his services at no cost. A lawyer, I believe is required to take so many cases pro bono. Many physicians will do service at a clinic, periodically, at no charge to either the clinic or to the patient. I know of at least one financial planner, who will work with people gratis, to get them pointed in the right direction. I agree with Clark, that of the service becomes full time, compensation is due, but see nothing wrong with being asked to help out from time to time. Roy Schmidt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tait Family" Subject: Re: [AML] Las Vegas Cow Parade Date: 17 May 2002 12:24:16 -0700 There was a big hubub here (Houston), if I remember correctly, because one of the cows was stolen. I don't know if it was ever found. Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tait Family" Subject: Re: [AML] Moderation in All Things Date: 17 May 2002 12:30:57 -0700 > > They seem inconsistent. In one breath, we are told to be temperate in > all things; in the next, we are told to be diligent in keeping the > commandments at all times. Isn't this contradictory? How do the words > "diligent" and "temperate" go together? > > -- > D. Michael Martindale Here's one idea: We need to be moderate in our self-regard; we need to acknowledge that our own interpretations and practices can be flawed and, therefore, we can be temperate in our judgments of other people and their interpretations and practices. We need to be diligent in seeking the Spirit as our guide and in acknowledging and overcoming our own weaknesses, and we need to recognize that most other people are just trying to do the same. Literature can show this and can give us this compassion for each other in a wonderful way. Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: Re: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 17 May 2002 13:31:49 -0400 Eric Samuelson wrote: >But right now, I think I'm paying the film a compliment >when I say that it's one confused film ideologically. >I'm giving Lucas the benefit of the doubt, by saying >that it's troubling or confused ideologically. I may >well be complicating what's actually a fairly >straighforward Nazi film. I think it is a fairly straightforward film, but we're not meant to sympathize with the "Nazis." This isn't a film about good vs. evil per se -- it's a tragedy in which evil triumphs, not through a sweeping hostile takeover, but through the moral compromises and confusion of the good guys. The heroes allow freedom to lose ground gradually because each compromise seems like an expedient choice at the time. By the time the good guys realize how much their evil foes were entrenched all along, they've lost too much ground. Evil wins by default. I thought Lucas did a much better job with Episode 2 than Episode 1, but a sophisticated political treatise it ain't... Eric D. Dixon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 17 May 2002 12:18:16 -0600 (MDT) I really liek Eric - he's a great guy, a wonderful playwright and a (usually) astute critic, but here's more on what i feel is his gross misreading of SW: AOTC" > The religious overtones are equally weird. Anakin has to save his mother, = > who has been captured by, I think, Banta, or Sand People, or anyway bad = > guys. Anyway, they've got her and have been torturing her, and she's = > apparently also been crucified. (Remember Anakin's virgin birth?) Beleived virigin birth - there are hints it may not be that. The Jedi and Anakin's mother say it is - but there are hints it may not be. As for crucifixion - I doubt that. She was tied to a stake, but she had none of the usual appearances realted to crucifixion - her lower body touched the ground, she was facing towards the stake, not away from it. > He = > rescues her in time for her to die in his arms. And then he goes berserk = > and kills this whole tribe. I mean, slaughters men women and children, = > does a whole Book of Joshua on 'em. And then he comes back to Amidala and = > tells her and feels bad about it. (She's apparently okay with it, because = > they later get married) Now, we know that Anakin is attracted to the Dark = > Side, and we know he's going to go over to it. So I ask myself, how does = > this work theologically? Going berserk and wiping out an entire tribe of = > people, men women and children, that's not enough? That's insufficient to = > send one to the Dark Side? You have to do something even worse? =20 No - Anakin never said he was sorry. He was a bit upset, but he neve says he's sorry about it. By that point, I believe its suppossed to be obvious that Anakin has gone over to the dark side. > I loathed the unearned salvation of Anakin in Return of the Jedi. And, as = > I've said, I've never bought any part of the argument you hear about = > parallels between Star Wars and the gospel. Well, at least we agree here. >But this film just makes it = > that much worse. There is apparently one one correlation between going = > over to Dark Side and our actions. And that is that going over to the = > Dark Side gives you more power. But even committing the worst atrocities = > does not qualify you for Dark Sideness. =20 You're not taking it all as a whole. As Yoda said in the Empire movie - the dark side is not stronger - it's just quicker and easier. The whole Balance of the Force thing isn't a balance between good and evil - it's an unbalance of power - the Sith sucking power away from the Jedi, without the jedi realizing it. > And = > we've got Polynesian superwarriors, so wherever that takes us racially, = > that's in the mix. I'm not sure if this is fair - the clones aren't all polynesian in the sense they are a bunch of different polynesians - they are all a clone of one guy who is a polynesian. They look just like him. If the template had been any other race, all the clones would ahve been that race. > And we've got a democracy that doesn't work and that = > the film's heros don't trust, such that they propose a military dictatorshi= > p, which happens. What we have is a government controlled by an evil conspiracy, not a democracy that doesn't work. It worked for millenia before - but would you only be happy if we had three hours of a functional democracy? Where's the tension in that? Lucas is going to start the story where the democracy starts to break down - that's dramatically more compelling. >And Yoda and Obi-Wan are in favor of all this; they use = > the clones in battle, on their side, and they propose the dictatorship. Not because they are right, but because they've obviously been hoodwinked. > Our one democrat in the film, Amidala, is a lovesick and naive teenage = > girl, and is also apparently okay with the dictatorship. No - she was against it. The whole "go into hiding" was obviously a ploy by Palpatine to get rid of Amidala so the more easily hoodwinked Jar-jar would be fooled. > > This flm, unlike the first two and =BD, is not about Good vs Evil. That's = > not what's going on at all. The bad guys in the film, in fact, use robots = > to do their fighting, in contrast with our heros, who use Pacific Islander = > Hitler Youth. Both sides are the bad guys. The clone army and the droid army were created by Dooku in order to create a false pretense for war. > Maybe = > the last film will show us how using clones is actually bad, that Yoda = > will be shown to have been mistaken. I don't need to wait for the next film, this one has already shown that. > I suspect, in fact, that that's what = > will happen. But right now, I think I'm paying the film a compliment when = > I say that it's one confused film ideologically. I'm giving Lucas the = > benefit of the doubt, by saying that it's troubling or confused ideological= > ly. I may well be complicating what's actually a fairly straighforward = > Nazi film.=20 personally, I think you've overused the word Nazi in your post. It's a cheap shot, really. > There's no Han Solo, no rogueish human = > spirit. I actually felt Obi-Wan filled that role nicely in this movie. > Amidala and Anakin have no spark, no chemistry. I'll agree with that. > A muppet saves the day. In this case - it was a fully CGI character. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 17 May 2002 13:12:18 -0600 When I came back from Argentina I was shocked at how much American Mormons get caught up in language--as if American English were the language of heaven. All of scripture is translated. Even the most exact words are just aproximations. Better translations will always come along--even for God inspired translations. Even The Book of Mormon has had slight alterations. Because paticular words and phrases have changed meaning since the book was first translated. Exact words are not important. Concepts are. > Philippians 4:5 says, "Let your moderation be known > unto all men." Alma 7:23 encourages "being temperate > in all things;" and Alma 38:10 also uses the phrase, > "temperate in all things." It is repeated again in D&C > 12:8, "being temperate in all things". T'ai Ch'i teaches the concept with, "Take the middle road." Meaning, either extreme will slow your journey. Paris Anderon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Moderation in All Things Date: 17 May 2002 16:13:20 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- D. Michael Martindale wrote: > They seem inconsistent. In one breath, we are told to be temperate in > all things; in the next, we are told to be diligent in keeping the > commandments at all times. Isn't this contradictory? How do the words > "diligent" and "temperate" go together? I think temperance relates primarily to eat and drink, what we partake of, what we consume. I think temperance in all such things is great. But I still hold to what I said before on this thread. Even moderation can be practiced to excess. I think we need to be diligent, not moderate, in many areas, e.g., keeping the commandments, pursuing improvement, etc. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "b5dorsai" Subject: Re: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 17 May 2002 19:16:00 -0500 http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/index.html This link is to an excellent article by David Brin where he compares the morals and ethics of Star Wars to Star Trek. He makes some interesting remarks. The part that I agreed with the most was the team approach of Star Trek versus the "uberman" approach of Star Wars. I have not see attack of the Clones, yet but I think that it will be a good film to use to discuss ethics with my children. Rick Thomas San Antonio -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art Date: 17 May 2002 23:01:57 -0600 ___ Scott ___ | For anyone to assume that he should take those water heaters | and give them away is ridiculous. ___ Of course, but there is capital invested in this. i.e. what he is likely being asked to donate is excessive, given his likely income level. That's my point really. What ought to be the deciding factor is how excessive the *cost* is, not whether it involves ones specialty as Thom seemed to assert. Earlier you called this "extra time." But even there one can be asked to do callings one simply doesn't have time for. I'd see not problem turning down a calling if I literally thought it would involve too much time given the time I had to give. Now of course I'd discuss this with the Bishop or whomever was calling me. If it was important enough I might give up the other things I thought important. (Say the brethren called me to be a fulltime GA. That is very "expensive" in terms of my living and so forth but I'd probably do that -- not that I think I have to worry about that ever happening, mind you. So I guess I'm saying you are trying to have it both ways. You want to take Thom's position regarding art, but haven't really demonstrated that the artist helping out with the talent show is excessive. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] New "Onion" Advice Columnist Date: 18 May 2002 01:12:39 -0600 "R.W. Rasband" wrote: > > Check out "The Onion"'s new advice columnist: > http://www.theonion.com/onion3818/ask_raymond_carver.html It's stupid. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re:[AML] Frankness In Mormon Writing Date: 18 May 2002 09:41:14 -0700 I just ran across a link to an interesting article posted on the Church's official website: www.lds.org. They have it listed under News Headlines that will bring you to the archives, it's entitled: "How To Live To Be 100". In a small description of the article we're pointed to the comments about living in Utah, not smoking and how just going to church statistically adds seven years to your life. I have little doubt all the above listed things will indeed add years to one's life. But the other thing that caught my eye and brought a mischievous smile to my face and ties in with this thread is the mention of a study done in England that showed men lived longer the more sex they had. A Duke university study showed for women it was the quality that mattered. I'm not surprised the Church site didn't point out this part of the article, but they knew it had to be in there and still felt kosher about linking to the article, so I wonder if that's a tacit approval of what that part of the article has to say, I hope so. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 18 May 2002 14:22:48 -0700 Thanks to Paris for his "esoteric human anatomy" lesson. I found it fascinating. I deeply believe in the one-day-all-truth coming together in a whole picture. I'm sure there are people who take such ideas and run with them to form groups of open sexuality, but I think in the bounds the Lord has set, this may be a great truth to learn from. Kim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 17 May 2002 16:55:08 -0500 At 09:37 AM 5/17/02, you wrote: >Add to the family-of-origin issues the mutations caused by the marriage >itself, and you get two people with lots of things to work on (hopefully) >together. I don't think that you could write and publish a frank discussion >of sexuality between husbands and wives in the maintsream LDS market. You >would have to make it the husband's fault, make the women the victims, and >leave out the grit. You don't get anywhere in this culture without >championing women. Unfortunately, you don't get anywhere in helping women >without providing a venue for them to take responsibility for their own >issues. To me, a truly frank work on Mormon sexuality in marriage would ask >both men and women to take responsibility for their own sexual problems and >work together for a solution that did not represent the problem as being a >function of how sensitive and talkative the man is. > >Rex Goode Amen, amen, and AMEN. Thank you, Rex, for expressing this so well. The more I think about it, the more I think the best venue *would* be fiction. Readers might feel less threatened, yet more empathetic. But again--many LDS readers of such a book--who may need it--would probably throw it down as only a "dirty book." If it could get published to begin with. Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "webmaster" Subject: [AML] Cary Derbidge/Blair Treu Film Announcements Date: 18 May 2002 20:26:20 -0500 Okay folks... big announcements just came in straight from two separate filmmakers. These are seriously funded projects and experienced filmmakers, not just spec scripts or something. Cary Derbidge (producer of "Out of Step", which will be re-released to theaters this Fall) is starting work on a feature film about a Latter-day Saint wedding. He mentions "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" and "Bridget Jones's Diary" as movies that are in a similar vein. Working title for the project is "Temple Marriage". Start thinking about an actual title. I think we'll run a contest to actually name the film. Blair Treu is in development on "Dudes", starring Jeff Bridges and Aaron Carter. This will be his sixth feature film, but only his second theatrically-released feature. Treu's "Little Secrets" (starring Tayva Patch, Vivica Fox, and Rick Macy) hits theaters this summer from Columbia Tristar. Preston Hunter ldsfilm.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Las Vegas Cow Parade Date: 19 May 2002 14:56:28 EDT Omaha is having their second run of "Doe's": Marilyn Mon-doe, is one of the ones that they're developing this year. Some of them are nice art, but at the same time EACH one is costing a minimum of $5000 and the library had to take a 25% hit in funding this year. Funny how we can find lots of cash for things that won't be here next year (at the end of the summer they're auctioned off for additional large sums of money), but can't find money for things that be of longer lasting value. Isn't there a happy medium somewhere? Karen Tippets -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] SPENCER, _Men in Trees_ (SL Tribune) Date: 20 May 2002 02:47:20 +0000 Salt Lake Tribune Sunday, May 19, 2002 'Caution: Men in Trees' Is Loaded With Oddballs and Fresh Cliches BY MARTIN NAPARSTECK Caution: Men in Trees By Darrell Spencer; W.W. Norton; $13 In "Please to Forgive Sloppiness," one of the nine stories in Darrell Spencer's collection Caution: Men in Trees, Marge tells her sister Lyla about her new boyfriend: "He's a vampire hunter who gave up a cushy job in L.A. and came to St. George because one night about 3 a.m., driving through, he'd seen the undead partying out near the graveyard. His cover is he works as a wrench at the local Harley shop." Lyla says, "We're looking at a real personality disorder here," and Marge says, "But in all sorts of interesting ways." Characters with real personality disorders, but in interesting ways, populate all of the stories in Spencer's book. It is the glory and the affliction of Spencer's stories. This is his fourth book, and all are filled with stories of oddballs, mostly from Utah (he used to teach at Brigham Young University), sometimes from Nevada. One of the stories in Men in Trees is set in Ohio, where he now teaches. In "Late Night TV," probably set in Utah (it's one of two stories in which the location is suggested rather than stated) a young man tells a story about his father and his son: "He raised my boy from the dead . . . He put his hands on my boy's head and resurrected him in the name of the Lord. Right away, my boy, he walked around, he ate, he shot one of these BB guns . . . But it didn't stick. He died again." Oddballs are automatically interesting, but their appearance can at times seem manipulative, in the same way false sentimentality manipulates us. Have a bad guy do something bad (say, kill a baby) and the audience will feel sad and outraged; the act does not explore emotions but rather takes emotions already existing in the reader and uses them; that's what manipulation is. We're already interested in the odd, so Spencer doesn't have to work at making us interested. Yet, his best characters are always credible. In "Pronto Bucks," a onetime prizefighter in Las Vegas who has never lost a match and who has not fought in a half-dozen years is offered a chance to make money by throwing a fight to a contender who needs a string of victories to get a title shot. At first the fighter/narrator says "no" with finality, but by the end of the story he is thinking maybe. This character, Tommy Rooke, is borderline punch drunk, but he also reads poetry and Norman Mailer and plays chess. It's a delicate oddballness. Spencer also has a trademark stylistic device: he uses cliches in fresh ways. Example, from "Blood Work:" "J.J. did his homework when he was a kid, figured, in a teen-ager's way, that if you were going to build a life on religious belief you ought to know its history. No riding on anyone's coattails for J.J. He took his Mormonism seriously until the day he, as Ruby put it, bowed out." "Build a life," "No riding on anyone's coattails," "Bowed out" -- the passage is loaded with cliches, but unlike the normal cliche, they don't seem stale; they give fresh insight into a character. It's a tour de force, cliches in fresh ways, the unfresh smelling like lilacs in May. In "The 12-Inch Dog" (probably set in Utah), a young wife is suspicious, or maybe jealous, of her young husband's best friend: "Spanky's come a-courting, and it's not Patty he wants. I see how he looks at me. He looks at me how a woman sizes up another woman who's in her way." And Spanky (his real name is Larry), who is openly gay, says at one point, "What? Am I the other woman?" It is another Spencer trait: a revealing bit of honesty to challenge the readers, some of whom are not going to be willing to admit that a wife or husband (or boyfriend or girlfriend) might be attractive to members of the same sex. A similar reaction could come from the title story in which the protagonist recalls his youth: "Growing up in Vegas, Bobby hadn't given a rat's ass about the peace movement. He'd just done whatever he had to do to keep his own ass out of Vietnam." Those fresh cliches again; not a lot of middle-aged men today are going to be that honest about their flirtation with the anti-war movement of the '60s and early '70s. Oddballs, fresh cliches, sprinklings of honesty. Two and a half reasons to read Darrell Spencer's stories. -- -- -- -- Martin Naparsteck reviews books from and about the West for The Salt Lake Tribune. Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] FREEMAN, _Red Water_ (Deseret News) Date: 20 May 2002 02:53:23 +0000 Deseret News Sunday, May 19, 2002 'Red Water' shows possibilities, pitfalls of historical fiction Some of Freeman's scenes, relationships pure speculation By Susan Whitney Deseret News staff writer When Judith Freeman set out to write a novel about Mormon pioneers, she looked for the diaries of Emma Lee. She didn't find a one. But Emma became Freeman's main character anyway. The result is that the novel "Red Water" is a perfect illustration of= =20 the possibilities and pitfalls of historical fiction. Like the maker of a television docudrama, Freeman started with real events and real people, then jazzed up the history, adding dialogue and sex scenes. Some of Freeman's inventions ring true. Others don't. In Freeman's favor is her talent as a writer. She has a tremendous gift for description. Unfortunately, she goes too far. She describes just a few too many things that didn't happen. Since January, when the book came out, it has been favorably reviewed across the nation. (Curiously, at least some of the reviewers believed Freeman did have access to Emma's diaries. Freeman told the Deseret News she did not.) Reviewers have recommended the book as an insight into Mormonism. They also told people throughout the country about an incident many may not have heard of before =97 the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Each book reviewer =97 whether for the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post or the San Francisco Chronicle =97 began the review by describing the massacre of 1857, when more than 100 members of a wagon train bound for California were killed in the southern Utah Territory. It was necessary for reviewers to explain that background in order to explain the plot of the book. Freeman's novel begins the year after the massacre, when a young British immigrant named Emma Batchelor became the plural wife of John D. Lee. Freeman's story covers the 20 years of their marriage, until the time when Lee was tried and executed for taking part in the massacre. Of course most Utahns already know of the massacre and of Lee and know he was the only person ever punished for the crime. >From the early pages of the novel, however, the reader is curious about Emma. The facts are meager. We know she crossed the Plains with the ill-fated Martin/Willie Handcart Company. That her first baby died. That she ran a ferry across the Colorado River before and after Lee's death. That she married again. That she was a midwife. What we want to know is how she felt =97 about Lee, about his other wives. How did she feel about him being the only one punished? We want to know how she felt about her church. About God. Freeman raises these questions, but she can't answer them, not factually, and the reader becomes increasingly curious about the real Emma. Freeman says she created Emma using the diaries of other pioneers, including John Lee and Rachel Lee, one of John's older wives. Rachel remained loyal to Lee and to the LDS church. Freeman also found a memoir written by one of Lee's younger wives, Ann, who left Lee and her church. From the other diaries, Freeman is convinced that, in the early years at least, John was crazy about Emma. She believes Emma was crazy about him, too. Scenes of their passion and their grief at the death of their child are beautifully written. For the facts of the massacre, Freeman relied on Juanita Brooks' history of Mountain Meadows, titled "The Mountain Meadows Massacre." Brooks published her book in 1950. But, although Freeman grew up in Utah, she had never heard of Brooks' history until a few years ago when she saw it in a used bookstore in Seattle. She was shocked by what she read. During a telephone interview from her home in California, Freeman said she tried to be fair to Lee and to his wives. She also reiterated that "Red Water" should be seen as a work of fiction. Still, this is asking a lot. Some readers, surely, will want to know which parts are true. And while Freeman did succeed in making Emma interesting, it seems inherently unfair to construct a personality for a woman who actually lived and would have had a personality of her own. Here's an example of that unfairness: When asked for proof that a lesbian scene between Ann and Emma actually took place, Freeman said she really didn't believe either woman was a lesbian, she was merely trying to show that polygamy had many nuances. And so, ultimately, Emma remains an enigma. Her thoughts and views are actually Freeman's. And so, ultimately, "Red Water" proves a point about historical fiction. The best historical fiction is factual in setting but uses fictional characters =97 not real people =97 to express all the nuances the author cares to imagine. Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] LYON, _T. Edgar Lyon: A Teacher in Zion_ (Deseret News) Date: 20 May 2002 03:02:31 +0000 Deseret News Sunday, May 19, 2002 Lyon offers candid look at his father By Dennis Lythgoe Deseret News staff writer T. EDGAR LYON: A TEACHER IN ZION; by T. Edgar Lyon Jr., BYU Press, 346 pages, $28.95. ($18.95 softbound) For the thousands of University of Utah students who sat in his lively LDS history courses at the LDS Institute of Religion, "T. Edgar Lyon: a Teacher in Zion," by T. Edgar Lyon Jr., will be a pleasant surprise. T. Edgar Lyon was a local institution. Along with his equally famous compatriot Lowell L. Bennion, Lyon gave generously of his time and intellect for more than three decades. He was a well-read historian who believed strongly in teaching and writing authentic history, and he could make it come alive in the classroom. He also had a photographic memory that made him a fountainhead of information. Although sons are not supposed to write about their fathers (for fear that the work will be biased), T. Edgar Lyon Jr. (Ted) has produced a down-to-earth, inside view of his father's life that is remarkably candid and interesting. He manages to capture the essence of a most unusual, gentle man while at the same time measuring his weighty influence. One of T. Edgar Sr.'s former students, President Thomas S. Monson of the LDS Church First Presidency, recalled to the author that it was as a student in Lion's classes that President Monson "really learned the Gospel." Using his father's oral history, a rich legacy of letters, major interviews with contemporaries and his own vivid memory, the younger Lyon builds the story of a young man in a hurry. The biggest surprise to most of Lyon's ardent fans will be the revelation that he was always painfully shy. Yet, he majored in history at the U.; served a successful LDS mission to the Netherlands, constantly struggling with the Dutch language; earned a master's degree from the University of Chicago; married Hermana Forsberg, the love of his life; and he went back to the Netherlands as a 30-year-old mission president, with a wife, two children and twins on the way. (Later the Lyons had a second set of twins.) Lyon received his call to be a mission president personally from LDS Church President Heber J. Grant, who asked how old he was. When he said he was 30, Grant said he'd been criticized for calling young and inexperienced mission presidents. "I'll=20 tell the Twelve when we meet on Thursday that they don't have any reason to criticize me at all. I was a stake president when I was 24 and an apostle when I was 26. You're a mission president at 30. That's getting along in years." He spent more than three decades teaching U. students at the LDS Institute of Religion. Initially, he and Lowell L. Bennion were the only two faculty members =97 through the 1940s, they taught every course themselves. They instructed 1,400 students, each spending an arduous 22 hours a week in the classroom. In addition, Lyon and Bennion spent most evenings overseeing activities of the church-sponsored fraternity, Lambda Delta Sigma. Lyon was known for his open-door policy. In the Institute building, his office downstairs was always open and students continually walked in to ask him questions or seek his advice. It was miraculous that he got any writing done. The younger Lyon also devotes a valuable chapter to describing T. Edgar Sr.'s unique, delightful and effective teaching techniques. Lyon finished his career as historian for "Nauvoo Restoration, Inc.," headed by LeRoy Kimball. For 15 years, he researched old Nauvoo so that architects and builders could restore the city in a manner similar to that of famed Colonial Williamsburg.= =20 He died before he could finish his history of Nauvoo, leaving his notes and early chapters to Glen Leonard, another historian, whose major new history of Nauvoo will be published in June. Enjoy the man and the book, and whatever you do, don't forget to read the footnotes; they're as fascinating as the text. Book pays tribute to longtime LDS institute instructor By Dennis Lythgoe Deseret News staff writer Few people have had a greater impact on LDS students at the University of Utah than T. Edgar Lyon, who instructed some 20,000 over the course of 45 years. Lyon and Lowell L. Bennion taught LDS Church history and doctrine at the LDS Institute adjacent to the U. for almost 40 years, beginning in the late 1930s. Those have been called "the Camelot years" for religious education and intellectual stimulation at the LDS Institute, when students flocked to attend classes taught by one or the other of these two popular teachers. Lyon, a tall, enthusiastic man known for his seemingly endless memory bank, was a careful historian who learned very quickly =97 and retained most of what he learned over the course of his 75 years. Students who sat in his classes or listened to him speak referred to him as "the walking encyclopedia." He was also a deep and original thinker, a man of enormous energy, a man with almost no temper, who exhibited unusual friendliness and openness with his family, his students and his colleagues. At his funeral in 1978, Bennion said, "In him was a total absence of pretense. He never sought the honors of men. He never took the chief seats. . . . I never saw him angry, deceitful, hypocritical or selfish." During a telephone interview from Santiago, Chile, Lyon's son, T. Edgar Lyon Jr. (known as Ted) chatted animatedly about his fondness for his father and about his book, "T. Edgar Lyon: A Teacher in Zion." The younger Lyon is serving as president of the LDS Church's Missionary Training Center in Santiago. "I'd written an earlier book on my great-grandfather, John Lyon, the first Mormon to publish a book of poetry in 1853, and it was a fun project, following his life from Scotland to Utah," Lyon said. "That was 1990. Afterward, I got the idea I should do something on my dad, but I was afraid no one would publish it because he was not well-enough known. I didn't think a professional historian would do it, so I finally did it out of love for my father." Ted Lyon is a scholar and a professor of Latin American literature at BYU, so he understands the scholarly method, and he was determined not to write "a family hagiography." In the process, he wanted to "capture what Mormonism was like when my father was young." He did most of the research for the book from 1993-1996, just before he was called as president of the LDS mission in Chile. Then he wrote the book when he returned home in 1999 and finished it while teaching at Brigham Young University, before he was called back to Chile earlier this year. "When I started the book, I wanted it to be about T. Edgar Lyon, 'authentic historian,' someone concerned with truthful history. But BYU Press wanted me to stress his teaching accomplishments. I ended up with a much longer book and had to cut it by 250 pages before it was published." Lyon feels good about the finished product, because "Dad's biggest influence is not what he's written but all the students he taught. The thing he used to say is that the LDS students going to the U. were sharp, intelligent students. I don't think BYU was sharp enough in those days to get the best students. The team of Lyon and Bennion was part of the drawing card for LDS students going to the U. I was offered a full football scholarship to BYU, but I didn't consider it an academic enough university at the time. Now, of course, I teach there, so things have changed." Ted Lyon sees elements of his father in himself. "I have his hairline, I'm very interested in history and I have a lot of physical stamina and energy. I also have a lot of patience. I'm even-tempered, like my father." But the younger Lyon does not suffer from the severe shyness his father admitted to during his life. Ted Lyon didn't realize his father was naturally shy until he was an adult. "We saw the public persona of T. Edgar =97 but within himself he was always fighting to be that public person." Lynn Lyon (Ted Lyon's twin), currently a physician and U. professor of medicine, is the only one of the six sons who inherited T. Edgar's phenomenal memory. "Lynn's memory is uncanny. I think he remembers some things that didn't happen!" The Bennion-Lyon team broke up in 1962 when Ernest Wilkinson, then BYU president, tried to transfer both of them to the BYU religion department. Both men were greatly saddened to be broken up after a "David-and-Jonathan" relationship, and many of their former students were also crushed. Rather than accept the BYU offer, Bennion moved "across the street" to become associate dean of students at the U. and a professor of sociology. Lyon spent the majority of his time as historian for Nauvoo Restoration Inc. Ted Lyon is especially impressed with the fact that his dad was such a happy man who was able to make a creative contribution to life. "I think to enjoy your work you need a strong love of creativity =97 and Dad had that." Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 19 May 2002 20:31:51 -0700 On Thu, 09 May 2002 (while I was in between two bouts of computer problems) Jim Picht pichtj@nsula.edu writes: > Who should decide which jobs should pay, and how much? > Not I. I only note, writing is work, and writing that improves > the lives of the people it touches is valuable work. Baking is work, > baking that feeds people who want it is valuable work. Money isn't > part of the equation, and it's a red herring to put it there. > > Jim Picht Yes and no. Money _is_ part of the equation for many millions of people because money is what allows people to keep working. OK, that was the no part. Here's the yes part. About a year ago I started reading Mohammad Yunus's _Banker to the Poor_, an eloquent testament to the dignity of work and the necessity of making available to people the means to accomplish their work. I resonate to Todd Peterson's comments about writing for the love of writing--too readily I resonate. I love Jim's definition of work as something that improves the lives of other people. It resonates deeply with me, and with one of the valuable insights I gleaned from Jim Faulconer's classes. It is very close to the definition of work we arrived at in his (very influenced by Heidegger ("'Eidegger, 'Eidegger was a boozy beggar who could drink you under the table") class on community. I learned a lot from that class. Would I be impertinent to suggest that philosophers who take 20 years to refine their ideas and finish their book, teachers who think deeply and long about great ideas ("In the land of E Pluribus Unum there are many men who sit around all day and think deep thoughts, and they are no more intelligent than you, but they have something you don't have, a diploma,"), and great writing, or who can afford to pay $25 every few months to a web hosting service to self-publish, singers who sing how they "don't care too much for money," and are knighted by the Queen because the tax on their record sales rescues the economy, can do so because they have a steady income? Notice I didn't say "partly because they have a steady income." I'm thinking about the testimony of Virginia Woolf and Tillie Olsen about the minimum conditions necessary to create, a room of one's own and some relief from the constant drudgery of a non-creative job, and the testimony of Ray Carver about how hard it is to write in a borrowed chair (or teach or prepare lessons in one). I remember Tess Gallagher telling our class about the house she built out in the sound (I think) with her reading fees, and how she had taken grief from some of her feminist friends for building the best room in the house for Carver. "If I want to give my man a room to write in, I will." Money is important to me as a writer for one simple reason. Without it I can't practice writing as my profession. Yes, I could do other things. I tried teaching for almost four years at a college where the adjuncts were the lowest paid in the state, had no offices or regular place to meet students and prepare for classes, and taught more classes and students than the fulltime faculty. And while I have been greatly blessed by great teachers, I am not one. I am a great writer (no boast, just a fact: I have great talent--whether I develop it fully or not is another matter) not a great teacher--except I work very well one-on-one or in small groups. So what's left? Support, for example, where I can get on the phone and teach people how to use complex software, or resolve sometimes complex problems with hardware, or software, or the way the two interact. I consistently got quality scores in the top 10% of one company--and productivity in the bottom 10%. I don't work for that company anymore. My talents and patience were a liability. Before that, and before teaching, I spent 19 months on the phones for another company, a company that practically invented tech phone support as a profession--the kings of support. I worked for them at a time when they were deciding that supplying the unlimited free technical support that probably made them the leading word processor was just too expensive, given the drop in software prices generally. (I remember an article in the daily news briefing (from one of ZD's mags, I think) that said the whole industry gave a sigh of relief when they put in their first pay lines.) So my patience and dedication to the customer were a liability to that company as well. And these two companies, six years apart, both came to the same conclusion while I worked there: convert your support reps into a sales force and you can cut down support costs, maybe even make support a profit center. (I pity those poor team leads in the first company who had to tell us with a straight face that after we had solved a difficult problem for an upset customer would be a great time to sell them new services or software, because they would be grateful--who had to stand there with straight faces and listen to our laughter and decide who to layoff after the upcoming merger.) And before that I did some contract writing for a large non-profit org that wanted to translate a 500+ page book into about 100 languages and needed a bunch of writers to go sentence by sentence through the book and write a translator's guide explaining things like the figures of speech and the antecedents for all the pronouns. (English pronouns and their fluidity are particularly difficult for non-native speakers. She kissed him, then he kissed her. How many people are involved in that sentence, 2, 3, 4? There could even be one if you were writing about someone with multiple personalities.) It was a fabulous job, and I did it fulltime for three months, and would have done it full time longer but the software company called me in for an interview. The only writing for pay I've enjoyed as much or more is reporting, where I found a talent for interviewing people and telling their stories, and for relating the dry details of public meetings to how people in the city actually live, for relating and exploring how official decisions, ideas, affect the people who live with their consequences. And that fabulous freelance contract in 1992 (something Bruce Jorgensen, bless him, suggested I look into) rescued me from a terrible job as a political pollster (which, however, gave me valuable practice in recording verbatim people's comments). And before that I was rescued from an increasingly horrible job as a business researcher by some foolish decisions that led to corporate bankruptcy. I dreamed one night, maybe a year before that company self-destructed, that I was driving along and a cop stopped me. It was my supervisor from work (who had married a cop). "You've overqualified your car," she said. And that's been the problem with most of the jobs I've had since grad school, they conflict in important ways with my moral sensibility. Some of the jobs I've had offer very little intellectual stimulation, though that's not necessarily a bad thing. I could go back to the janitorial career that provided me rich material for stories about the homeless in downtown Skedaddle--I discussed that at length over lunch with my brother in a little Greek cafe in Mountlake Terrace one day last October. In some ways having little responsibility, _and_ still having time to write may be better than being such a fine head of technical services that the library cancels your vacation one year (one they knew you'd had been planning for three years) because the new children's library is opening and they just can't spare you. But I don't know how long I would last as Lothar Roper (the much-loved janitor at Wasatch Elementary 30+ years ago). Yes, it would give me the insurance coverage I need for my family, and lots of time to think and write in my head, but very little intellectual challenge. Which is why it would give me time to write in my head. It would also put me in charge of younger workers at a time in my career when I ought to be supervising other workers, but I dread the idea of having to fire someone, just as I hated grading my students as much as I loved teaching them. Heck (St. Provo Girl, If you just said, "Oh my heck," it's not for you.), I can barely stand to send out rejection slips, and have a bunch of poems I need to reject. (I even wince reading that last clause.--hmm, that's risky, dares some smart aleck to say, "I wince reading the whole post.") So I need some job that engages me intellectually and fits my moral sensibility, and my sense of the right livelyhood. (Buddhist phrase, my sister says. If I were to use a more protestant phrase I'd say "life's mission," which Richard Nelson Bolles started writing about in the 7th or 8th edition of _What B&W is Thy Parasail?_ because he's a minister and because job-hunting raises questions of identity. ("Well, Marden, what do you want to be in 10 years," my mother's brother asked his b-in-law answering the question, "What kind of work should I do?") But I hate phrases that have 'mission' in them, unless they are related to the work you train for in the Missionary Training Center. That once impossible word has been co-opted by corporate America ("They robbed all the banks in the Nephite nation, because they had the secret combination.") So what do I do? In the last 15 years, while I haven't enjoyed much earning power I have written millions of words, and through my reporting I've gotten some idea about how to get words in print regularly, and some confidence in my ability to do so. So it seems the best way to earn a living is through what I do best, whether it's technical writing, or reporting, or writing people's oral and family histories, or some combination of all the above. And money _is_ part of that equation because it is a form of energy which allows me to feed and clothe and house my family, power my computer, and watch my garden grow (weeds, mostly, though we do get some mighty good, pickles, grape juice (my vines are dying) apricot jam, and salsa, especially that batch where I threw in the jalapeno seeds along with the rest of the pepper). Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] "Ender's Game" Director Announced Date: 20 May 2002 09:52:48 -0500 On the official Orson Scott Card website, Card confirms an Ain't It Cool News report that German director Wolfgang Petersen has been selected as the director of the "Ender's Game" feature film. The studio is Warner Brothers. Petersen's films include the famed German submarine film "Das Boot." Recent films of his include "A Perfect Storm", "Outbreak" and "Enemy Mine." Petersen is the executive producer of the TV series "The Agency." Interestingly enough, "Enemy Mine" is a highly underappreciated movie, based on a great novella, which is thematically very, very similar to "Ender's Game." If you haven't read the original novella, or seen the movie, you really should do so. If you're a Card fan you'll like either version of "Enemy Mine." [Preston Hunter] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Kimberly Heuston, _The Shakeress_ Date: 20 May 2002 10:49:45 -0600 Some highlights from a recent review in the New York Times Book Review: THE SHAKERESS By Kimberly Heuston. 207 pp. Asheville, N.C.: Front Street. $16.95. (Ages 12 and up) A poor orphan searches for her way in the world, with the help of plucky comrades and her own stout spirit. As she reaches self-knowledge, the handsome heir of a wealthy family sees past her humble garb to ask for her work-stained hand in marriage. Sound like a fairy tale? Kimberly Heuston's thoughtful and ambitious novel "The Shakeress" doesn't end there. True love is not the answer for Naomi, the confident heroine of the title. The book's climax comes not with the lover on his knees in love, but with Naomi on her knees in prayer. In the annals of orphan literature, the success of the Harry Potter series comes largely from the intrigues of wizardry. The energy of this orphan tale set in the 1830's is entirely aimed at the mystery of God. After her parents' deaths in a fire, Naomi and her siblings move to one of the Shaker settlements that dotted New England. The Shaker way of simplicity and work comforts the girl, who develops a talent for herbalism and healing under the watch of a stern but compassionate mentor. Though she's a little too reflective to be convincingly 13, Naomi is sympathetic and likable. As she grows and leaves the Shaker community to become "one of the World's people," our hearts go with her. Where her religious quest takes her, however, not every reader will follow. The world of the novel is authentic early Republic, the time of the Second Great Awakening. Every family Naomi comes across swears by a different religion, and God seems to be everyone's favorite conversational subject. The fervor never leads to conflict, or even mutual disrespect; Heuston, a teacher and first-time novelist, gives us a primer on American religion that is agreeably free of bombast. Her light touch extends to the history as well. Even those who dislike the ostentation of much historical fiction will welcome Heuston's smooth re-creation of New England when parts were still being settled. [...] A children's book about God is almost necessarily proselytizing, but "The Shakeress" suspensefully holds off showing its cards. After Naomi leaves the Shakers to serve as healer in a tiny Vermont village and meet her Prince Charming, it seems possible that hers will be a more personal than denominational resolution. After Heuston transcribes a page-long excerpt from the Book of Mormon, though, the answer to Naomi's questions become increasingly obvious. The ending is a decent surprise, but readers in search of clues to the the author's sympathies might look to the biography on the jacket flap, which gives her home as Salt Lake City. Thankfully, the arrival of revelation doesn't spoil the search. Without subscribing to her religious sympathies, it is possible to appreciate Heuston's sensitive portrayal of religious life. Despite her unadolescent sagacity, Naomi makes an attractive heroine, a girl with lessons to teach beyond the theological. "Life's not designed for cowards. It surely wasn't. You had to grab at it, then plan hard and work harder to make it beautiful, just like a garden." As an independent, self-reliant teenage girl, Naomi provides a model for any quickly maturing questioner, even those who don't share her questions. Her quest is recognizable and welcoming. Tolerance for God-related musings and a God-inspired ending are, however, necessary equipment for this journey. Full review: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/19/books/review/19RODBERT.html?tntemail0 Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] "Oh My Heck" T-shirts Date: 20 May 2002 10:51:36 -0600 A strange bit of Mormon cultural influence: SPECIAL NOTICE TO: LDS EVENTS SUBSCRIBERS HUNDREDS OF EMAILS - REQUESTING "OH MY HECK!" TEE Now the whole country is saying it. LDS Living has received hundreds of emails from people around the country requesting the now popular "Oh my heck!" tee-shirts. Made popular by the only Latter-day Saint On "Survivor" this new "Mormon phrase" has swept the country. LDS Living is making them available for a limited time due to the large demand. Click: http://www.ldsliving.com/details.asp?prodid=90210&cat=75&path= Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Hatch Subject: [AML] Re: Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 20 May 2002 11:54:31 -0700 [MOD: Personally, I want to thank Beth for forwarding the quote. It's stimulated some good conversation, and has helped to take the discussion in a direction that it wasn't going before.] D. Michael Martindale wrote: "I'd like to see some evidence for this before swallowing it. Is it > provided in the book? I don't accept their "observations" as convincing > evidence." First, I want to say that I didn't make that statement myself. I was quoting Stephen E. Lamb, M.D., and Douglas E. Brinley, Ph.D. from their book BETWEEN HUBAND AND WIFE: GOSPEL PERSPECTIVES ON MARITAL INTIMACY. (In D. Michael Martindale's post it appears he's quoting me.) I was concerned because this thread seemed to be placing most of the blame on women--I thought it would be valuable to add another perspective. I don't know the sources or evidence the authors used to make their statement. I'm assuming Stephen Lamb's comes from his medical practice. I no longer have the dustcover on my copy of the book, so I called a Deseret Book store and asked the clerk to read me the authors' information listed from one of their dustcovers. She said that "Stephen Lamb is a member of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology." "Douglas E. Brimley is a professor of Church History and Doctrine at BYU. He is the author of many books on family and strengthening marriage." (I scribbled these quotes quickly, but I think they're accurate.) --Beth Hatch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 20 May 2002 12:52:24 -0600 >Everything Eric says is portryaed positively I read as negative - as a >tragedy >that good people got duped by a powerful mastermind. Yes, that is how I read it as well, Ivan. I wouldn't call the movie pro-fascist at all. The fascists, after all, are really the bad guys, even if the real good guys (the Jedi folks) haven't figured that out yet. I feel like the entire series is very pro-democracy. I was, in fact, planning to write a review entitled "I Respectfully Disagree with You, Eric" but they just added 3 mammoth reports to my workload this morning so my review asperations have fallen by the wayside. I will instead pipe in every now and again if/when this becomes a full blown thread! Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 20 May 2002 13:02:14 -0600 Ivan Wolfe wrote: >Eric's response seems to come from someone predisposed to hate the >film >beforehand I can see how someone reading my review would come to this conclusion, but = actually, I still have enough good will in my system from the first two = movies, which I loved and still love, that I very much wanted to like this = one. That's the way it works sometimes, isn't it, that we respond even = more negatively towards something that we desperately wanted to be good. >The republic survived for millenia as a democracy with only minor = >problems ("there's never >been an all out war since the formation of the republic!") Right, they say that, but they never show it. There's never an instant in = either this movie or PM when you see people engaged positively in = politics. The movie makes a big deal about Amidala, for example, and = clearly she's influential and/or a swing vote. So why not show her = negotiating with someone over something? Why not show a committee = meeting? The democracy they describe is utterly inconsistent with any = politics they actually show. And there's time in the movie for it. Cut = ten minutes out of the love story (which suffers greatly from being so = predictable), and show instead Amidala actually dealing with governmental = issues. While Annakin moons over her. =20 >The problems only start occuring when a very evil man (palaptine/darth = >sidious) >is able to gain control over a small group of influential senators. The = >thesis >is that democracy works as long as evil conspiracies don't control the = key >leaders. Three points to make here: 1) Any kind of functioning democracy has checks and balances in place = controlling the damage for those times when the inevitable evil conspiracy = arises. Certainly that's been true in US history (remember Aaron Burr?). = The Republic in this movie seems to have no such mechanisms in place. Or = if it does, we never for a second see them trying to function, so that we = can have some sense of menace when they fail. =20 2) We never see Palpatine doing any of this. Okay, he's this Machiavellian= behind the scenes guy. That could be fun, to see him functioning. = Instead, the movie wastes a solid hour sending Obi-Wan off to find the = clone planet. Obi-Wan as interplanetary gumshoe is sort of a fun notion, = except that Sam Spade always ends up solving the crime, and explaining all = the clues to us, and the result is a satisfying mystery solved. What we = learn here is that some Jedi we've never heard of placed an order for = clones for reasons that are never specified, paid for by or from some = source that's completely unexplained, in order to advance some cause that = remains utterly obscure. =20 What could we have had? A battle of wits between a huge criminal = mastermind intent on twisting the political process for his own evil = purposes and an equally brilliant good guy, using obscure and difficult = clues to sort everything out, well, that's sort of what's going on in this = movie, Sidious vs. Yoda. The only thing that's missing is . . . everything= , all the scenes in which Sidious twists the political process and all the = scenes where Yoda tries to sort it out. =20 3) From a structural standpoint, this is hugely problematic. Palpatine = becomes the only volitional character in the movie. He's consequently the = protagonist, and everyone else is his puppet. That's just poor writing. That's my complaint about the movie. It's so poorly written, by which I = do NOT mean poor dialogue. Occasional lines of bad dialogue aren't = important. It's just that a large and complex story doesn't get told in = any way coherently, so that no one in it behaves rationally or intelligentl= y at all. =20 Re: Yoda's use of the Storm Troopers: =20 >This wasn't portrayed as a good thing. basically the good guys were = >snookered.=20 >Or did you miss the "Imperial March" musical cues played with the = >troopers? One possible explanation for the Storm Troopers scene might be that the = good guys were snookered. The music cues are there, adding very creepy = overtones. But the movie absolutely does not say in any straightforward = way that the good guys were snookered. We can infer that, and maybe the = next movie will clear it up, but right now, they're on the side of = characters we think of as good. In fact, they are the agents of the obligatory cliffhanger rescue--our = heros are surrounded, their doom is imminent, and then, tantara, the = calvary rides over the hill. That's the structural function of the storm = troopers in this movie. They put the deus in deus es machina. =20 Besides, if I go to see a movie called Attack of the Clones, that title = tells me two things; there are going to be Clones in it, and they're going = to attack something. And usually it's possible to infer that this is = going to be a bad thing. But in this movie, the clones don't attack = anything. They rescue the good guys, very different verb. And they're on = the side of the good guys. At least for now, they are. =20 In the first movie, you had a monolithic government, the Empire, and = rebels against it, the Rebel Alliance, and you knew exactly who the good = guys and bad guys were. The bad guys, among other things, blew up = populated planets. In this movie, you've got the Republic, a large = monolithic entity, and they're a functioning democracy, so they're the = good guys, maybe, except that we never see it function and have no idea = why they're good. And you've got rebels, seceding planets, and they're = bad, I suppose because Christopher Lee is on their side, and he's always a = a bad guy. But we don't know what their grievances are, why they're = leaving, what steps have been taken to placate them, what's at stake, what = human rights violations have taken place by who against who. Instead we = get portentous pronouncements about how the Dark Side is growing in = strength. Not. Good. Enough. Look, it's just a bad movie, not as bad as the last one, but bad enough. = It's bad because George Lucas can't write anymore, and there's no one = around that can tell him that. It's bad because he's completely tone deaf = when it comes to racial issues. It's bad because he's been reading too = much Joseph Campbell. It's bad because he's plugged into the worst = anti-politician rhetoric, because audiences are disposed to dislike and = mistrust politicians. I feel lousy saying this, because he made (well, = produced) two wonderful movies that I will always love and cherish, and a = third movie that isn't bad and at least ties up story ends more or less = satisfactorily (except for Darth in Heaven, an even worse idea than = Ewoks). Since then, nada, two very expensive very bad movies. It's = really a shame. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 20 May 2002 15:54:53 -0600 ___ Eric ___ | But the fact is, for all the politics in this movie, there's | no sense of, you know, actual poltics. Compromise, debate, | discussion, finding a middle ground, balancing the needs of | constituents over one's personal beliefs; there's none of | that in the movie. ___ I'm not quite sure that is fair. While I think there is still plenty to criticize about the style of the film, I believe Lucas is talking about the loss of democracy and not democracy itself. The Amidalah character mentions in passing the very things you bring up. However the film is primarily more an adventure flick that focuses in on how we can be taken over to the dark side. On the political image side I think he is invoking the archetypes of how Rome lost her "democracy" and also the descent to totalitarianism in Nazi Germany. Notice that everything in the political arena is being manipulated by the Chancellor. He sets up the conflict which divides the Republic. One also gets the distinct impression that Yoda knows this and also is willing to go along with things for his own unknown reasons. >From an LDS point of view this is rather interesting in light of both Book of Mormon events and also prophecies about the last days of America. While I think Lucas is still rather ham fisted as a director, this is an interesting archetype. I'm not sure how well it mixes with the overall adventure story, mind you. But it is also interesting how Annakin represents the personification of what is going on in civilization at large. Thus Annakin's inner turmoils (and views of democracy) are the same turmoils that civilization as a whole feels. The regular Jedi seem skeptical of all politicians, but like the early American founding fathers, see them as a necessary evil. Annakin sees efficiency as more valuable than a messy democracy and is willing to see the "helpful" politician as one who can solve the problems. Lest people think this too unlikely a scenario, similar things took place during the Great Depression in the United States with the great populace leader Huey Long. While in that case the Great Depression wasn't really the result of manipulation, it oft times is scary how willing people are to give up their agency in the political arena. Further, Lucas ties this to how willing people are to give up their spiritual/ethical agency in terms of Annakin. This tying of the public arena with the inner arena is fairly typical of the Book of Mormon as literature and Jewish literature in general. I think Ivan answered most of Eric's other criticism, so I'll not repeat them. I do think that Eric missed the whole secret combination aspect of the film. The point is that everything is being manipulated and there are secret societies behind what is going on. Assassinations, betrayals, and so forth. Echoes of 3rd Nephi indeed. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 20 May 2002 15:27:59 -0700 (PDT) This discussion reminds me of an article from "The Weekly Standard" (link cribbed from Slate magazine)by Jonathan V. Last that makes the case for why the empire in the Star Wars universe is a preferred mode of governance: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp A couple of highlights: The Jedi are a group of "arrogant royalist Swiss guard." At least the empire is a meritocracy; whereas, the Jedi order is based on biology (those wacky mitochlorians). And finally a long quote: "But the most compelling evidence that the Empire isn't evil comes in "The Empire Strikes Back" when Darth Vader is battling Luke Skywalker. After an exhausting fight, Vader is poised to finish Luke off, but he stays his hand. He tries to convert Luke to the Dark Side with this simple plea: "There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you. . . . Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy." It is here we find the real controlling impulse for the Dark Side and the Empire. The Empire doesn't want slaves or destruction or "evil." It wants order. None of which is to say that the Empire isn't sometimes brutal. In Episode IV, Imperial stormtroopers kill Luke's aunt and uncle and Grand Moff Tarkin orders the destruction of an entire planet, Alderaan. But viewed in context, these acts are less brutal than they initially appear. Poor Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen reach a grisly end, but only after they aid the rebellion by hiding Luke and harboring two fugitive droids. They aren't given due process, but they are traitors." Now whether you agree with the author's political stance or not, the whole exercise comes off as a little silly, imo. It's the danger of extrapolating politics from a cultural product. And yet, I wonder about how we (Mormons, American citizens) conceptualize politics and the political sphere. Certainly the media culture (both "reporting" and "creative work") colors our thinking. Much of my conception of how power works---how it is accrued, how it is exercised, how it corrupts---comes from scriptural and literary texts. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 20 May 2002 20:23:17 -0400 We have a Stake Pres. who is a very highly regarded doctor. He has taken care of missionaries without compensation for years. He's even been generous enough to help us out a time or two, like when our stupidity got us into a "the form needs to be signed for camp by Monday morning and it is now Saturday afternoon and no way to get the kid to the doctor" situation. Tracie -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 20 May 2002 17:15:12 -0700 Thanks, Linda. Someday I might tackle a Mormon fiction work that is frank about sexuality. First I have to get a job, of course. The novel I started was fairly frank about sexuality, but it was about homosexuality more than heterosexuality, so I didn't cover these issues. It wasn't anything a reasonable person would call "dirty" but some people just can't take any sexuality in literature at all. The biggest problem with my novel, as some who read parts of it assayed, was that it had too many points of view. Yet, in a novel that explores issues of sexuality between people, I would almost think you would want readers to be in the minds of both partners, if you were going to show both sides. Homosexuality is a whole different game when it comes to what makes for willingness. If fact, I think that for homosexual male lovers, willingness is hardly ever a question. In a way, in a story, you could explore the whole question of female willingness through the thoughts of a married LDS man who is attracted to men and struggles to stay faithful to his wife. I am not being politically correct when I say that part of what contributes to the struggle with male same-sex attraction is that seduction is so much an easier task with males than with females. The challenge for me has been to learn to appreciate the added skills it takes to be successfully married to a woman. Without enjoying a challenge, I'd be back where I used to be, in a very real way, taking the easier route. An interesting presentation I heard recently from a psychologist talking about same-sex attraction addressed the level of anxiety many homosexual men feel when contemplating or trying to accomplish physical intimacy with a woman. That anxiety level is just not present when in the same pursuit with other men. Back to the idea of championing the cause of women, I find it difficult in working with same-sex attracted married men to help them get good support to stay faithful to their wives in a culture that condemns men for even having same-sex attracted feelings. Sadly, the "it's the man's fault" mentality pervades this issue. I've seen many a marriage between a same-sex attracted man and an issue-laden woman where the fact that the man has homosexual feelings puts him at a secondary position in the marital hierarchy. Everything is immediately his fault or the fault of his orientation. Most of these men readily accept this blame and much in the Mormon culture urges them to be official guilty party in all disputes. I've seen everything from blame by the wife to violence committed by the wife justified simply because the man was same-sex attracted, even though he was being faithful. This happens with other men as well. Since I operate resources for opposite-sex addictions, I see how often every marital difficulty has one main offender--the man. I fear that even a novel would have to pay homage to the notion that men are 90% of the cause of all problems if it wants a shot at success in the Mormon market. Rex Goode -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 20 May 2002 18:55:58 -0600 ___ Eric ___ | There's never an instant in either this movie or PM when you | see people engaged positively in politics. The movie makes | a big deal about Amidala, for example, and clearly she's | influential and/or a swing vote. So why not show her | negotiating with someone over something? Why not show a | committee meeting? The democracy they describe is utterly | inconsistent with any politics they actually show. And | there's time in the movie for it. ___ Isn't this more of a criticism regarding genre? You wanted the Star Wars equivalent of _All the President's Men_ and Lucas wanted more of a straight action flick. In this regard I must confess I think Lucas was wise to do what he did. You thought the democratic elements were interesting and wanted to see more. I daresay that the average filmgoer would have been more upset had Lucas done what you wanted than they were even with _The Phantom Menace_. (Remember that one criticism with that was too much focus on politics) Now one can question Lucas' decision to go with the whole political subtext. On an other mailing list I'm on that deals with film philosophy some people questioned the fact that the empire rose only 30 years prior to the first Star Wars film. However I think that Lucas is correct in this. If you recall in the first Star Wars they tell Princess Leah that they had just *then* disbanded the Senate. Further as I mentioned there are lots of interesting parallels with Rome and the Caesars or Hitler and Germany. (Or perhaps even David/Solomon and Israel?) Anyway, I don't think showing a bunch of politicians debating would have forwarded the plot at all. Especially since the focus is on how people's *misleading* beliefs about democracy allow them to fall prey to the "dark side." What counts isn't tedious conference meetings about tax codes. (Not even the best FX could spice that up) What counts is the non-politician's *views* of politics. What's even more interesting is that as Anakin begins to fall, we sympathize with him a fair deal. I'm not sure Lucas pulls this off as well as he should have, but it is still there. Obiwan is a little too critical of Anakin. We all were angry and hoping Anakin would let loose on the raiders. I've heard Anakin's exact comments on democracy many times prior to 9/11 made here in America. I suspect that if democracy seems too "argumentative" and "messy" in responding to any future terrorist attacks we'd find more making the same statements. ___ Eric ___ | Any kind of functioning democracy has checks and balances in | place controlling the damage for those times when the | inevitable evil conspiracy arises. ___ You're joking, right? America has numerous checks and balances but most democracies do not. Even in America we had the spectre of Huey Long, as I mentioned. America would be more difficult to take down in the fashion of Star Wars, but not impossibly so. I should add that 19th century LDS views of America actually feared something very similar to what is portrayed in _Attack of the Clones_. They thought that secret combinations were running in America that would eventually turn her against herself. After this the constitution falls and the Elders raise up to save what is left. Indeed the theology of the Council of 50 was directly tied to all this. Now of course the 19th century brethren were somewhat like Jonah in that they didn't understand the prophecies that the Lord revealed to them. However reading some of the religious political rhetoric of the time is rather interesting. The Elders of Israel as the Jedi? The unknown leader (the Beast of Revelation) as the head of the secret combinations -- a latterday Kishkumen? ___ Eric ___ | We never see Palpatine doing any of this. Okay, he's this | Machiavellian behind the scenes guy. That could be fun, to | see him functioning. ___ Actually we do several times. We see how he manipulates Amadalah to be out of the Senate when the votes come up and manipulates Jar Jar to vote him the powers he desires. We see how he uses Dooku to set up rival armies that he can call on. While it isn't as focused on as you wish, it is definitely there in the foreground. Once again I think the problem is that you wanted _All the Chancellor's Men_ while everyone else wanted to see Yoda and Annakin kick ass. ___ Eric ___ | But the movie absolutely does not say in any straightforward | way that the good guys were snookered. ___ "Victory, say you? No, not victory. The Clone Wars have begun." (Yoda at the end) Further the fact that Darth Siditious was behind both the clone and the druids suggest something quite forthrightly, doesn't it? Not to mention that Jango Fett is involved with both the clones and the druids suggests a lot, doesn't it? You can't say too much *that* overtly otherwise the good guys won't really be snookered, will they? Further when Darh Seditious says that everything is going to plan, it is a statement that things *weren't* going the good guys way but his way. Say what you will about Lucas, but subtlety isn't his forte. So all this is pretty overt. I come down actually on the other side from you. I think he was too overt about it all. I'd have preferred more subtlety. But then all of this manner of political intrigue is in the fashion of the old serials of the 30's I suppose. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 20 May 2002 19:19:06 -0600 > Thom Duncan wrote: > > | Scott Bronson can speak to this more exactly but just the other day he and > I > | were talking about this thread. He mentioned, iirc, the > Church-commissioned > | musical _Barefoot to Zion_. Arlen Card was "called" to write the music. > He > | had to audition but was eventually called. And he was paid in cold, hard > | cash for his services. > | > | Truman Angel who designed the Tabernacle was paid for his work. All the > | architects who've designed LDS temples are paid for their work as are the > | artisans who do the actual building. > | > | Are they guilty of not adhering to the Law of Consecration? > > Of course not. But I don't think it's fair to equate designing the > Tabernacle with putting on a ward play (or, to use my earlier example, doing > some light construction work at a disabled member's home). Putting on a ward play may appear to be something easy to someone who hasn't done it but, if you want to do it right, you're going to have to put as much blood, sweat, and tears as if you were to produce the play professionally. What if, on top of that, you are a professional actor, or writer, and, to accept this position, you have to set aside a project that may make money for you. It may be all right for Eric Samuelsen to direct a Stake play. He has a full-time job during the day. In my case, since freelance writing/producing/directing is my only current means of livelihood, I would run the risk of losing money to direct a road show. Would the Lord want me to do that? > Compare apples to > apples -- when the Church (with a capital "C") commissions a work of art or > an architectural design, it is likely that the artist or architect would be > asked to quit their full-time employment or take a sabbatical in order to > complete the assignment. Hence, these people are compensated. However, when > the church (lowercase "c," as in a local ward) asks someone with theatrical > talent to direct the ward play or someone with musical talent to lead the > ward choir, there is an understanding that the assigned work will be done in > the person's spare time. A freelance employed person has no free-time. In fact, every minute that goes by where the free-lancer isn't working is potential money never to be seen again. Someone with a full-time job loses nothing by "donating" their free-time to direct a play. > If anyone knows of local ward members who have been > asked to quit their jobs to work on the stake road show, I'd love to hear > about it. But I doubt this type of "consecration" is going on in the Church > today. If I were asked to direct a ward road show, I would essentially be losing money. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 20 May 2002 19:21:37 -0600 > Often a professional will donate his services at no cost. A lawyer, I > believe is required to take so many cases pro bono. Many physicians > will do service at a clinic, periodically, at no charge to either the > clinic or to the patient. I know of at least one financial planner, > who will work with people gratis, to get them pointed in the right > direction. And you can bet that, in every case, they are taking tax deductions for doing this. Which eventually inures to their benefit. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] "Ender's Game" Director Announced Date: 20 May 2002 19:32:43 -0600 At 08:52 AM 5/20/02, you wrote: >Interestingly enough, "Enemy Mine" is a highly >underappreciated movie, based on a great novella, which is >thematically very, very similar to "Ender's Game." If you >haven't read the original novella, or seen the movie, you >really should do so. If you're a Card fan you'll like either >version of "Enemy Mine." I saw this movie, and I appreciated the thematic content, which dealt with demonizing the enemy, and I thought the acting was great, and then of course it had Dennis Quaid, which is always good. And a young actor named Bumper Robinson did a great job as an appealing alien. The setting was extremely dark and unpleasant, but the overall message made it worthwhile. I've always wondered how close it was to the book, but it the movie is a good example of the way science fiction is great for pointing a moral. Maybe that's why there are so many LDSF writers. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pup7777@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Kimberly Heuston, _The Shakeress_ Date: 20 May 2002 22:22:06 EDT In a message dated 5/20/02 3:31:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Chris.Bigelow@UnicityNetwork.com writes: > THE SHAKERESS > By Kimberly Heuston. > 207 pp. Asheville, N.C.: Front Street. $16.95. (Ages 12 and up) > > Kim is a wonderful writer and I am thoroughly enjoying her book. Her daughter painted the cover and it is cool. She is local Mormon who lives in Salt Lake. I can't wait to see what other great books she has in store for us. I recommend her book to anyone who reads children books. Lisa Peck -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 20 May 2002 20:48:10 -0600 Kim Madsen wrote: I'm sure there are people who take such ideas and run with them to form groups of open sexuality, There are such groups. There are also groups who devote themselves to celebacy for the same reason. There are also groups that are devoted to charity work. All of those methods work, but they work faster if you know what you're doing. I'm still a little foggy on everything, but toward the end of my stay in Spain I ran out of my medication. And sometimes it got so bad I felt like my head was on fire. The only thing I could do was walk around until i was too exhausted to hurt anything. One night I walked passed an old widow-lady sitting in a doorway. There was a black piece of cloth spread on the sidewalk in front of her, and a few coins were tossed onto it. I dropped a couple of pesetas onto it and immediately the fire in my head stopped. The next day I had to walk half way to hell before I found a begger, but when I dropped a few coins the fire in my head went out--and I felt really good. I looked forward to finding beggers because I had discovered a way to use them. A few days after that I went to England and I was saddened to not find beggers. And cigarettes were so expensive. What I think was happening was (and maybe this isn't the case), but::: When I had my accident, a head injury, the governing vessel was damaged. Even meager amounts of bio-energy were blocked from feeding my brain. When I performed these small acts of charity energy was forced through the block and fed my brain. That's why the fire went out and why I felt really good. Maybe sex would done the same thing, but a few pesetas on an act of charity is a lot cheaper. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Gerald N. LUND, _Come Unto Me_ (Review) Date: 20 May 2002 20:49:56 -0600 At 10:12 AM 5/17/02, you wrote: >Is there some sense that these books, >almost guaranteed to sell, are rushed through the editing and publishing >process? It's my opinion that this is true more and more in the publishing business as a whole, not just in the LDS arena. Editors don't edit line by line and correct mistakes; they acquire books. Many authors I know are appalled by the mistakes introduced by their baby editors -- young people fresh out of the nest who change "all right" to "alright" or "she was lying on the sofa" to "she was laying on the sofa." I have become relucant to blame an error on the author until I can be certain that some inexperienced editor was not responsible! The typesetter, of course, ignores the "stet" mark. . . . . barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 20 May 2002 20:52:55 -0600 At 11:31 AM 5/17/02, you wrote: >-- it's a tragedy in which evil triumphs, not through a sweeping hostile >takeover, but through the moral compromises and confusion of the good guys. >The heroes allow freedom to lose ground gradually because each compromise >seems like an expedient choice at the time. By the time the good guys >realize how much their evil foes were entrenched all along, they've lost >too much ground. Evil wins by default. If it makes this point well, it's a good contribution to a culture that makes so many decisions based not on morality, but on expediency. Since people discuss movies like this one at great length, as we have been doing here, perhaps they enlighten more people than does a milk-and-water LDS novel that hesitates to portray any kind of evil. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 20 May 2002 22:19:02 -0500 At 02:40 PM 5/16/02, Eric Samuelsen wrote: >We all recognize them immediately, of course, because they're Imperial=20 >Storm Troopers; same molded white plastic costumes. And they're on our=20 >side, the good guys' side. By Episode IV, though, when they're on the bad guys' side, they have also=20 completely lost their marksmanship abilities . . . -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Gerald N. LUND, _Come Unto Me_ (Review) Date: 20 May 2002 22:01:27 -0500 Jeff Needle: > And yes, I suppose a better editor may have noticed > these inconsistencies, given enough time to review > the manuscript. > > Larry Jackson This is an interesting comment. Is there some sense that these books, almost guaranteed to sell, are rushed through the editing and publishing process? _______________ I can't speak for the publisher, of course. I think an editor should have caught the "spoke the language / didn't understand the language" issue. As far as the other issues, I wonder how many editors there are who are able to distinguish between Hebrew and Aramaic, or who are familiar enough with history in the meridian of time to fact check a book of this type. With his _The Work and the Glory_ series, Lund had access to more history than is available for his _The Kingdom and the Crown_ series. Because I haven't read them, I don't know how well he handled the historical information in the first series. In this book, the second in the second series, he really tried to do a lot with very little information. Personally, I think he overdid it. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 20 May 2002 20:48:33 -0700 Elizabeth Hatch quoted Stephen E. Lamb, M.D., and Douglas E. Brinley, Ph.D., authors of the book BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE: GOSPEL PERSPECTIVES ON MARITAL INTIMACY as having observed that wives who are uninterested in sex are "often women who have been mistreated by their husbands." Michael Martindale comments that such anecdotal evidence as their statement implies is "not considered compelling evidence in science." I can readily accept the anecdotal evidence of Lamb and Brinley. It is my observation that a wife who has reason to appreciate and respect her husband is willing to gratify his sexual need even when hers is dormant. Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] RANDALLS, _Red Moon Rising_ (Review) Date: 21 May 2002 07:57:43 +0000 Author: Vickie Mason Randalls Title: Red Moon Rising. Out of the Barren Ground Volume 1. (The series is also called the "Earth Family Trilogy." at one point) Cedar Fort Incorporated/Bonneville Books, 2001. Paperback, 202 pages, $12.95 It's a stinker. Pass, move on, buy something else. Don't even bother reading my review, I wasted my time reading the book, don’t waste your time reading the review. Delete and move on. You still here? All right, I'll say a few things about it. As you can probably guess, I'm somewhat bitter towards this book, as I signed up to review it, and so felt duty-bound to read the whole thing, when normally I would have chucked it after a few pages. It is a "last days" novel, sketching out a possible scenario for a Mormon end-of-days. The point of the whole thing, explained in the final sermons, appears to be to encourage members to stock up on their food supply and get a big truck loaded with gasoline ready for the trip to Missouri. The story covers a period when the Saints have largely gathered to Jackson County, and are living in scattered self-sustaining villages for a few years before Christ returns to the Earth. The prime factor in social decline is environmental, rather then a nuclear war as in many other apocalyptic novels. Somehow the environment went from its present state to completely degraded in a few short years, and all the available water and food supplies are poisoned. The government and social order have broken down, and the populace lives in either walled-off Christian villages, or as bands of scavengers. The action revolves around the association of a Mormon village, led by the Rock family, and a scavenger band led by the young Rachael. The village is shocked by the band's depraved condition, and Rachael is put-off by the apparent smugness and superiority of the village. But circumstances continue to throw them together, and the village members become indebted to the band for their assistance, and the band becomes converted to the village's faith. Randalls drops the reader in the middle of a last-days scenario. Except for the final chapters, where we are presented with sermons on food storage and the sequence of events in the last days, the novel focuses on the romance between members of the two groups and some periodic adventure, rather then how society got into its mess. Yeah, yeah, anyway. The writing is fair to poor. The POV jumps in and out of characters' heads without warning, and often there are time and scene changes without any warning. The dialogue is often stilted, especially when things turn romantic. The romance was unconvincing. Randalls does a fair job describing the thoughts in people's heads, as long as things don't turn romantic. The "good" Rock family members are bland and indistinct. There is no sense of place. She describes the way the village functions in some detail, but she never gives the reader a feel for the terrain or climate. It may have something to do with her choice to hide the exact locale of the village as being in Jackson County until near the end, but if so it wasn't worth it. The final sermons, presented in stilted, bad-1970s- Christian TV channel-drama style ("Why you're right, Timmy, Jesus does love the little children."), are probably the most interesting parts of the book. She at least got me thinking about food storage and preparedness. Several aspects of the "last days" were unbelievable to me. For example, missionaries are sent from the villages to the outside world, but are utterly rejected, until missionary work is finally suspended. But the villages are shown as islands of plenty in a sea of despair and death. A depraved lifestyle is lots of fun when you can live it up, while the righteous live comparatively aesthetically, but here the general population was starving, while the righteous lived relatively well in their villages. It seems like in a situation like that, people would be applying to join up in droves. The Church has problems with people joining up for its welfare program today as it is, surely it would be a huge problem in this scenario. But no, here the population is not only wicked, but also really, really dumb. Secondly, the women of the village are portrayed as being kept largely unaware of the state of affairs outside the villages. I think that in a return to pioneer conditions, we would trust women to be a bit more involved and aware then that. Also, I need to be more convinced how the atmosphere and ground could become so poisoned in such a short span of time. In an apparent bid to make the book inviting to as wide an audience as possible, the name of the Church these people belong to is never mentioned. As a reviewer said of The Other Side of Heaven, “Mormonism is the religion that dares not speak its name." Even at the end, where she is talking about Jackson County and prophets, she doesn't tip her hand. C'mon, we all know what you're talking about here. In conclusion . . . Ah, forget it. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 21 May 2002 06:59:48 -0600 Quoting "Eric R. Samuelsen" : > Right, they say that, but they never show it. There's never an instant in > either this movie or PM when you see people engaged positively in politics. > The movie makes a big deal about Amidala, for example, and clearly she's > influential and/or a swing vote. So why not show her negotiating with > someone over something? Why not show a committee meeting? I wonder if Padme Amidala's presence in office is part of the problem. Really, what kinds of idiots must the Naboo be to elect teenage girls to be their leaders? She is clearly most interested in maintaining her wardrobe, like any teenage girl. Granted, she does very well in office for someone so young, but she listens too much to Palpatine. I wonder if the powers that be count on her to be someone they can influence. Besides, then she's dumb enough to marry Anakin, which doesn't seem to make much sense except that it's in the script. Anakin is so unsympathetic as a character, what does she really see in him? Except, perhaps, that she's still so naive that she believes love will conquer all? --Katie Parker (still lurking) Salt Lake City, UT -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 21 May 2002 09:40:56 -0600 (MDT) Eric Wrote: >Ivan wrote: > >The republic survived for millenia as a democracy with only minor = > >problems ("there's never > >been an all out war since the formation of the republic!") > > Right, they say that, but they never show it. There's never an instant in = > either this movie or PM when you see people engaged positively in = > politics. Basically - you want 1000 years of peace on film? It seems the dramatically appropriate choice would be to start when things are fallign apart - not spend hours of film showing government comitties sitting around agreeing with each other and making all the right decisions. > Three points to make here: > > 1) Any kind of functioning democracy has checks and balances in place = > controlling the damage for those times when the inevitable evil conspiracy = > arises. Certainly that's been true in US history (remember Aaron Burr?). > The Republic in this movie seems to have no such mechanisms in place. Or = > if it does, we never for a second see them trying to function, so that we = > can have some sense of menace when they fail. Again - should we fault Lucas for not showing a balanced government? Showing a government that works perfectly is rather boring. Get to the part where the evil dudes control all major parts of the government, and no democracy will work. >> 2) We never see Palpatine doing any of this. Okay, he's this Machiavellian= > behind the scenes guy. That could be fun, to see him functioning. I'll agree he should have shown more of this, but if you want to see this, go read the Star Wars Novels "Cloak of Deception" by James Luceno and "The Approaching Storm" by Alan Dean Foster (bot written with input from Lucas) - they both do a good job of fleshing out the political background. (Curiously, most Star Wars fans don't like these books because they are so political, with little action. Perhaps Lucas knew his fan base would hate a picture with lots of political manuvering). > 3) From a structural standpoint, this is hugely problematic. Palpatine = > becomes the only volitional character in the movie. He's consequently the = > protagonist, and everyone else is his puppet. That's just poor writing. I would think with the dark side of the force, he's a bit more than just one treacherous guy. > One possible explanation for the Storm Troopers scene might be that the = > good guys were snookered. The music cues are there, adding very creepy = > overtones. But the movie absolutely does not say in any straightforward = > way that the good guys were snookered. We can infer that, and maybe the = > next movie will clear it up, but right now, they're on the side of = > characters we think of as good. Wait - first you attack the movie for its lack of depth, and then I give an example of some depth, where the audience gets to draw conclusions without it being spelled out for them, and you complain it has too much depth? > But we don't know what their grievances are, why they're = > leaving, what steps have been taken to placate them, what's at stake, what = > human rights violations have taken place by who against who. Instead we = > get portentous pronouncements about how the Dark Side is growing in = > strength. Not. Good. Enough. Great stuff if you want to go see a political thriller. But if you want to see Star Wars with lots of cool special effects and lightsaber battles - that's not what is going to be dramatically most satisfying. >(except for Darth in Heaven) I wouldn't say he was in heaven -it was more like he was one with the universe. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] "Oh My Heck" T-shirts Date: 21 May 2002 10:40:58 -0600 Regarding the LDS girl on Survivor, I'm indebted to the Deseret News for = pointing out that her name, Neleh Dennis, when spelled backwards, spells = out "Helen Sinned." Oh My Heck indeed. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 21 May 2002 11:05:02 -0600 >Notice that everything in the political arena is being manipulated by the >Chancellor. He sets up the conflict which divides the Republic. = >One also gets the distinct impression that Yoda knows this and also is >willing to go along with things for his own unknown reasons. < >/SPOILER> Look, we might be able to infer all this. But Palpatine has maybe three = minutes screen time, and speaks, tops, ten lines of dialogue. And he's = the only guy making all the decisions that drive the entire picture? I = never saw him manipulate anything. We see so little of him, in fact, that = I kept forgetting what he looks like, and I certainly could not remember = his name. Jimmy Smits is in the movie, wearing a brave little beard; he = has about as much to do as Palpatine, and I would find it just as = persuasive if you told me he was Darth Sidious. =20 I think you're probably right; I think we're meant to see this minor and = obscure character as the mastermind behind everything. What you'll never = persuade me is that that's good writing. Reading Ivan's and Marianne's and Clark's posts on this have been = interesting for me. You've described a very interesting, complex and = potentially powerful and dark story. I wouldn't mind seeing that picture. = Fact is, though, it bears only the tiniest, most tangential relationship = to the actual film Attack of the Clones. Let's face facts: we do NOT see = Palpatine manipulating the political process. Not once do we see him buy = votes, gladhand, horse trade, demogogue, give a persuasive speech, = manipulate committee structure, use parliamentary rules to shut off = debate, negotiate, obfuscate, attach a rider to a bill. He does nothing = except sort of radiate badness, and we don't even see him do that much. = =20 When I first arrived in Norway, on my mission, I couldn't understand = anything anyone said to me, and I couldn't say anything to anyone. So the = first few discussions, it became patently obvious that my companion was = going to have to do all the teaching, because I was hopeless. So I told = him my role was to just sit there and radiate the Spirit. That's = Palpatine's role in this film, and it works as effectively in the film as = I worked effectively as a missionary. =20 Eric Samuelsen=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report May 17 2002 Date: 21 May 2002 13:51:16 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of May 17, 2002 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 5 The New Guy 6,478,078 2,687 10 Eliza Dushku (lead actress) 17,305,157 9 Murder by Numbers 1,672,454 1,580 31 Ryan Gosling (lead male actor) 29,911,694 21 ESPN's Ultimate X 344,553 47 10 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 1,103,114 51 The Other Side of Heaven 34,415 57 157 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,454,789 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 55 The Believer (NEW) 26,236 4 3 Ryan Gosling (lead actor) 26,236 58 The Singles Ward 22,481 13 108 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 702,938 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Will Swenson, Connie Young, Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne, Michael Birkeland, Robert Swenson, Lincoln Hoppe, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, etc. BOX OFFICE BUZZ: Latter-day Saint cinematographer Reed Smoot's "ESPN's Ultimate X" passed the $1 million mark in merely 10 days -- not bad for an IMAX film only playing in 47 theaters. In its second weekend, it still made $7,331 per screen. Meanwhile, "The Singles Ward" continues to find an audience -- actually moving up in this weekend's rankings, although it dropped from 18 to 13 theaters. BELIEVE IN GOSLING: Not only did Latter-day Saint actor Ryan Gosling's "Murder by Numbers" remain in the Top 10 this week, after a month in release, another movie starring Gosling in the lead role opened in limited release. "The Believer," which was a critical favorite and an award winner at the Sundance Film Festival, opened in four theaters, grossing $26,263, or $6,559 per theater. This gave "The Believer" the 5th highest per-theater gross nationwide. Now, remember, it opened the same weekend as "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones." Not bad. In "The Believer" (which is based on a true story) Gosling delivers a tour de force performance as an Orthodox Jew who becomes involved with neo-Nazis. Although it played in only four theaters, "The Believer" earned the 3rd highest total gross nationwide of any NEW movie, behind "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" (which played in 3,161 theaters) and "About a Boy" (starring Hugh Grant, which played in 1,207 theaters). ENDER'S GAME DIRECTOR AND STUDIO ANNOUNCED: Latter-day Saint writer Orson Scott Card's official website confirmed a report from Ain't It Cool News that the director chosen to helm the "Ender's Game" feature film is Wolfgang Petersen (who is not a Latter-day Saint). The studio was also announced: Warner Brothers. The recently signed project will soon be announced officially. German director Petersen is a seemingly perfect choice. He has worked with children and he has directed high-quality, big-budget science fiction movies. He directed "The Neverending Story" (featuring child actors, which will be what "Ender's Game" features as well) and he directed "Enemy Mine" (about humankind in war with an ultimately benign and deeply ethical race of aliens). Other films Petersen recently directed include "Outbreak" (1995) starring Dustin Hoffman, "In the Line of Fire" (1993) starring Clint Eastwood, "The Perfect Storm" (2000) starring George Clooney and "Air Force One" (1997) starring Harrison Ford. Many of these have been highly successful blockbusters. But perhaps Petersen's most critically acclaimed film is the submarine war film "Das Boot" (1981), which earned him two Academy Award nominations (Best Director and Best Screenplay). "Ender's Game" tells the story of Ender Wiggin, a half-Mormon/half-Catholic child prodigy who is trained by the government to fight in an expected conflict with an insectoid alien race. ANGEL HANGING AROUND: CBS has renewed "Touched by an Angel", the Hollywood trade papers reported. The show's fate had been in doubt. This weekly television series filmed in Utah, has been the place where many local actors and crewpersons have gotten their first network television experience. DERBIDGE ENGAGED IN NEW FILM PROJECT: Cary Derbidge, the producer of the LDS-themed feature film "Out of Step", has announced his next feature film project. The project is called "Temple Marriage," and has yet to receive a title. The executive producer will be Steve Ames, the D.J. and dance promoter (see his site at http://www.ldsdanceinfo.com). Derbidge told us that the movie, about a Latter-day Saint wedding, will have similarities to "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" and "Bridget Jones's Diary," which I understand to mean that the movie will be a comedy. This movie, which has NOT yet been cast, is in the pre-production stages and is scheduled to be released in theaters in January 2003. In other Derbidge news, there are plans to re-release "Out of Step" (directed by Ryan Little) into theaters this Fall before the movie is distributed on video/DVD by Thomson Productions. "Out of Step" was first displayed in theaters on February 15th, 2002. Despite complaints about technical flaws (sound problems in a few spots, changes in film stock), the movie's excellent script and acting earned it the best local reviews given to any LDS-themed feature film since "Brigham City." But the producers were unhappy with the scheduling and the advertising campaign, and they pulled the movie from theaters. STARRING AARON ECKHART: BYU graduate Aaron Eckhart, who has played important supporting roles in most of Neil LaBute's films, as well as in other big movies such as "The Pledge" and "Erin Brockovich" has been cast in the starring role in "Suspect Zero," an FBI thriller about an agent (Eckhart) assigned to track down a rogue agent (Ben Kingsley) on a vigilante crusade to kill murderers. (It gets even more complicated: Kingsley's character is apparently on the trail of a serial killer, known as "Suspect Zero", who has committed hundreds of murders while copying the modus operandi of other serial killers. Which poses the question: Should Eckhart stop Kingsley, when what Kingsley is doing may actually be making the world a better, safer place?) The part that Eckhart will play has previously been attached in rumors to Tom Cruise, Ben Affleck, and Sylvester Stallone. The movie is being made by Tom Cruise's production company, C/W Productions ("The Others", "Vanilla Sky"). Eckhart stars as Roland Michell in Neil LaBute's "Possession," which hits theaters this summer, and he stars in the sci-fi action pic "The Core", scheduled for release later this year on November 1st. MORE TREU: Latter-day Saint director Blair Treu will soon begin production on yet another feature film: "Dudes", starring Jeff Bridges and Aaron Carter. This major film release will be his 7th feature film, but only his 2nd one to be released theatrically (after "Little Secrets", which will be released nationwide this summer by Columbia TriStar). MORMON CHARACTERS AT CANNES: The Los Angeles Times ran an in depth article about this week's Cannes Film Festival premiere of Paul Thomas Anderson's latest film "Punch-Drunk Love." (See: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/printedition/calendar/l a-000035548may20.story?null) The movie stars Adam Sandler as a small business owner who doesn't fly, but is obsessed with collecting frequent flyer miles, which he does by collecting pudding box tops. He has seven sisters, and is something of an odd fellow, as Sandler's characters are wont to be. Important in the story are "four blond Mormon brothers from Utah who are the bane of Barry's existence." They are "played by four Mormon brothers from Utah." Moreover, "with the exception of Sandler, [Emily] Watson and co-stars Philip Seymour Hoffman, Luis Guzman and Mary Lynn Rajskub, everyone on screen is a nonprofessional. According to the P.T. Anderson website (http://www.ptanderson.com/featurefilms/love/main.htm), the four non-actor brothers are David Stevens, Nathan Stevens, Jim Smooth Stevens and Michael D. Stevens. They play "David", "Nate", "Jim" and "Mike D." They are listed in the cast immediately after Sandler, Watson, Hoffman, Guzman, and Rajskub, in the 6th through 9th billed roles. SMOOT SHOOTS HORSES: Latter-day Saint cinematographer Reed Smoot recently returned from Namibia where he shot an upcoming live-action Disney IMAX film: "The Young Black Stallion," a prequel to Carroll Ballard's 1979 boy-and-his-horse drama "The Black Stallion." The new movie should hit really big screens in early 2003. Smoot, whose hit IMAX film "ESPN's Ultimate X" is currently in theaters, was profiled this week in the Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/05192002/arts/737916.htm ROOTS & WINGS LANDS ON VIDEO: Christian Vuissa's short dramatic film "Roots & Wings" earned him yet another award: it recently won First Prize at the Performing Arts Showcase of the Golden Key Int'l Honour Society. The film is about a devout Catholic Mexican father grappling with how to deal with his family's conversion to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "Roots & Wings previously won the Audience Award, as well as awards for Best Screenplay and Best Actor, at the Final Cut Film Festival at Brigham Young University. The film was written and produced by BYU film student Maria Perez, who is herself a Latter-day Saint convert from Catholicism. "Roots & Wings" will be available on video in August. NEW LITTLE FILM: Ryan Little (award-winning director of "The Last Good" and "Out of Step"; cinematographer of "The Singles Ward") recently screened his new short film "Freedom on the Water" at the Windsong Film Festival in Indiana. For this film he received the festival's Best American Director Award. (Oddly enough, Little was born in Canada.) The purpose of the Windsong Film Festival is to foster recognition of human value and dignity, and affirm cultural and ethnic authenticity with dignity. DANSIE WITH DOUGS: Award-winning writer/director Tucker Dansie (whose documentary "Colors: Up Close and Personal" is sold at Deseret Book and online) has finished his short film "The Lesson," based on the moving, possibly true story about remarkable events at a piano lesson. This is a departure for Dansie, whose short films have previously been comedies. Dansie will soon be shooting "The Dougs." He says the film is about "three Mormon guys named Doug who are all best friends. And they all have these girlfriends, but they decided that they are bored with their girlfriends so one night they decided to all swap with each other. But will the girls agree?" "The Dougs" will star Todd and Lisa Ruitman, and Nate Anderson from Dansie's "Chick Magnet," along with newcomers Dan and Rebecca Barton, and Nate's fiancee Laura. "The Lesson" and "The Dougs" will premiere this summer as part of Unwound 2002, held in Salt Lake City. EXCITEMENT AT THE POLLS: Things continue to heat up at the unbelievably LDSFilm.com online poll page (http://www.ldsfilm.com/polls.html). Currently, in the "favorite LDS Cinema movie" poll, "The Singles Ward" is ahead, followed closely by "Brigham City," with "God's Army", "The Other Side of Heaven" and "Out of Step" only a few votes behind. In the "most looking forward to" poll, "Handcart" is currently ahead of "Jack Weyland's Charly." But the polls are still open, and these results can all change with just a few votes from people visiting the site. BEN KENOBI, MEET JOHN GROBERG: No word yet on whether or not the "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" DVD will be combined with "The Other Side of Heaven" in a package called "Recent Movies About Lone White Religious Guys Traveling to Remote Islands Inhabited by Polynesians." NELEH WATCH: As the whole country must know by know... "Survivor: Marquesas" has come and gone, and Neleh Dennis came in second place. It's an amazing feat, really, considering she was an underdog from the start, and the youngest in a field of 16 competitors. But the 21-year-old Latter-day Saint college student from Layton, Utah kept her cool, had some luck, played hard, and ALMOST won the million dollar grand prize. Her $100,000 2nd place consolation prize should help ease any pain that may have stemmed from coming so close, only to lose in the final seconds of the contest. The 2-hour final episode of "Survivor: Marquesas", which aired Sunday, 19 May 2002, contained a number of direct references to Neleh being a Latter-day Saint, and showed her praying a number of times. Vecepia, a devout Evangelical who along with Neleh was probably the most openly religious and spiritually-oriented competitor on the show, was the winner by one vote. In a side interview shown during the show, Paschal English (a judge from the deep South who came in fourth place) said "It's great to have two nice Christian girls in the final two." In an interesting coincidence, Neleh Dennis is the SECOND Mormon woman to come in 2nd place on "Survivor." Three years ago, on the FIRST "Survivor", Kelly Wiglesworth, a Mormon but not an active churchgoer, came in 2nd place, losing out (also by just one vote) to Richard Hatch. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] How We Make Decisions (was: Mormon Environmentalism) Date: 21 May 2002 13:50:57 -0700 On Thu, 09 May 2002 12:41:11 -0600 Eric R. Samuelsen writes: > To a certain extent, what we believe on any subject is based on > evidence and reasoning. Absolutely true. But we get lots of > information on any subject, and often the information conflicts, and > advocates for any position also spin their information so we'll > agree with them. Up to a point, then, it seems to me that we > believe what we choose to believe, independent of evidence. I've long thought this, and appreciate Eric's eloquent statement. I've occasionally heard people say things like, "Oh, you just believe what you want to. You don't care what's true." But imagine a world where we could be forced to believe things we didn't want to believe. I'll have more to say in another post about how metaphors influence our decision making. (I'm way behind because of a small physical error on my hdd a few weeks ago that happened to be in the sectors housing the system.dat file--still haven't been able to get the computer to recognize my USB flashcard reader, which makes news photographing much harder.) But right now, I just want to comment on Eric's story about why he doesn't believe G.O. Warshington posed for Arnold Friberg at Valley Forge. > If one believes, however, that the history of America is a history > of people seeking religious freedom, driven here by God, then it > follows that George Washington must be portrayed as righteous man > actively seeking God's blessings. Not necessarily. You can portray God's inspiration as working through people despite themselves. There's a lot of scriptural precedent for that. I'll bet there was even scriptural precedent for that before Moses wrote down the story of Balaam's trying to prophesy against Israel and ending up prophesying against Balak. (Indeed, I wrote a paper several years ago called "I Have Come to the Whirlwind to Converse with the Father: The Book of Job as a Ceremony of Irony," which explores the notion that the Job story is a retelling of the Eden story, where God knew beforehand Satan's intents and set up a situation where no matter what Satan did he would be furthering God's purposes. I may add to a revision of that paper the idea that Satan is not necessary to fulfill those purposes, that the purposes of God cannot be frustrated even by the most cunning plans of the evil one.) In the fall of 1987 I got married and started my last semester (quarter?--what does UW use?) of grad school. It being the bicentennial of the Constitution I took a class on the literature and culture of the Constitution. In my class paper I worked with the idea that when the D&C talks about the Constitution as inspired it's referring to the way the document fractures government, dividing power between an executive, a legislative and a judicial branch, giving all three powers that check the powers of the other two branches, then pitting them against each other so they couldn't band together to form alliances, and designing the judicial and legislative branches to be internally fractured: the legislature divided into two chambers, one designed to favor smaller states by giving them the same vote as larger states, the other designed to favor larger states; the judiciary divided both by lifetime appointments that would likely outlast the appointing president and his successor, and by being an odd number so they couldn't be evenly divided. (I'm not sure if I specifically mentioned the D&C or the BofM, but I was clearly working with the idea that the government outlined in the Constitution embodies the kinds of oppositional checks and balances without which, Lehi says, the universe could not continue to exist. (I should note that oppositional checks and balances are not necessarily adversarial--when Donna and I kneel across the altar in the temple as (someone's) husband and wife, we are opposites, but I hope not adversaries.)) > As it happens, that's not how I > see him, nor how I see our history. I don't see him as a righteous > man, or a spiritual man, I see him as a competant man; someone who > was pretty capable at a number of tasks. I see the history of > America as primarily a history of genocide and slavery, with a > search for religious freedom pretty secondary. The Founding Fathers were not necessarily paragons of virtue, whether the virtue being discussed is chastity (Ben Franklin's syphillis) or the belief in human freedom and equality. But I'm not sure it's necessary to see them as such to believe that God raised them up with particular talents to accomplish a particular work. Despite the fact that many of them violated human rights by owning and treating as animals other human beings, they still managed to turn out a document that eventually abolished slavery and became a beacon of hope for people seeking human rights the world over. Of course, I should mention a story from Tom Rogers that still haunts me occasionally. He and Arthur Henry King had a debate over censorship once in the ELWC courtyard (back when they still had one). Tom was arguing against censorship and King was arguing that our leaders, being called of God, have the right to censor. Anyway, at one point, he made it clear they were discussing ideas, not personalities, and that the students could trust that Rogers was making his arguments in good faith, that they came from his rock solid integrity. I've noticed that a lot about Tom (also about Eugene England). He studies literature and history and other things from a firm grounding in the Gospel and when he writes something that challenges his culture he intends it to be received as coming from a person firmly grounded to a person firmly grounded, and he is surprised sometimes when people are offended by what he sends forth. So it was that he prepared a hometeaching lesson one Sunday about the Founding Fathers and their politics, something along the lines of what I've discussed above. I think he was drawing on a priesthood lesson someone in the History department had given. The details are fuzzy, but Tom later got a call from that good brother, who said, "I will be up all night trying to reconstruct everything I said in that lesson." Seems the home teachee was deeply (or shallowly) offended and called one of the high mucky mucks at BYU. Harlow S. Clark, who has just suggested that another way we make decisions is by recasting things that make us uncomfortable in a way that lets us take comfort from them. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art Date: 21 May 2002 14:47:00 -0600 ___ Thom ___ | Putting on a ward play may appear to be something easy to | someone who hasn't done it but, if you want to do it right, | you're going to have to put as much blood, sweat, and tears | as if you were to produce the play professionally. ___ Well, if that were the case, won't *anyone* who takes the calling have the same problem? Why are the artists somehow required to do so much more? Seems like you are suggesting that if one is an artist one can't tone down the work. Every work must be professional. Having put on a few road shows, plays and so forth, I simply don't think you have to put that much work in. If you want to, fine. But don't say that the extra work beyond what is necessary is this requirement the church is giving. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Money and Art Date: 21 May 2002 20:23:35 -0500 Clark Goble: ___ Thom ___ | Putting on a ward play may appear to be something | easy to someone who hasn't done it but, if you want to | do it right, you're going to have to put as much blood, | sweat, and tears as if you were to produce the play | professionally. ___ . . . Why are the artists somehow required to do so much more? Seems like you are suggesting that if one is an artist one can't tone down the work. Every work must be professional. . . . _______________ Thom is good at what he does because he works hard at it and puts his whole heart and soul into it. And directing the ward road show is probably as close as it gets to what Thom tries to do for a living. So, I think I see where Thom is coming from. It appears to me that he would be very uncomfortable if, given the assignment, he did not try to "do it right" and make the road show as professional as possible. Given those circumstances, Thom might not be a good candidate to direct the road show. On the one hand, some professionals are not able to move from the professional mode back into amateur hour. There is nothing wrong with this, in my opinion. I believe this is part of what made them professional in the first place. I have the same problem in my work. I hate it when there is not enough time to do something well (as I define it). Often, in my Church assignments, the time allotted doesn't even come close to the time needed to do a halfway decent job, even when I give my all. And many times, those asking don't understand the difficulty and significance of the assignment, either. (After all, those who work hardest and best make it all seem so simple, don't they?) Does that mean I shouldn't do it? Or that they should ask someone to do it who isn't as concerned about the outcome? Or that I should better learn the art of "scaling back"? Or is "scaling back" really an art form? Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 21 May 2002 15:51:48 -0600 >And you can bet that, in every case, they are taking tax deductions for >doing this. Which eventually inures to their benefit. And in some situations donating money via tithing can be a tax benefit too, but that's not a compelling reason to donate 10% to the church. Tax benefits are icing on the cake and often the icing isn't too thick. My brother is one of those tireless docs who gives away free medical care to needy ward members. He isn't buying a summer home with his tax deductions, if you understand my meaning, and he'd be far better off monetarily to charge for his services. If I were said tireless doc I would be offended at the implication of your comment. Pretty much the rule of thumb in a ward situation is if you're good at something you'll be asked to do it for free. Personally, I've done so much theatre work for free in the name of "career building" that I would feel like a hypocrit if I refused to use my God-given talents in a not-for-my-profit church venture simply because of the issue of payment. After all, "spiritual career building" is even more important to me. Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 21 May 2002 14:53:25 -0700 (PDT) --- Thom Duncan wrote: > It may be all right for Eric Samuelsen to direct a Stake play. He has a > full-time job during the day. In my case, since freelance > writing/producing/directing is my only current means of livelihood, I > would > run the risk of losing money to direct a road show. > > Would the Lord want me to do that? > Thom makes a great point here. It's up to him as an individual to decide how to consecrate his time and energy, and we are in no position to judge a person by their outward-showing consecrations of time and energy. For instance, my fellow Elders seem to enjoy my teaching and have mentioned appreciating the time I put into my lessons, but to be honest I'm getting by on natural talent and knowledge acquired a several years ago. I probably only put 20 minutes into each lesson I teach. That's not to brag or to self-flagellate, but to illustrate how we vary in what we do for our fellow saints and *how* we do it. Another example: yes, there are professionals (doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants) who do *extra* work for their wards. At the same time, some of them also benefit from their membership because their fellow saints will go to them as clients. If more church members were attending Thom's plays and supporting his professional efforts, then perhaps he'd be more likely to be in a position and the state of mind to donate his time to direct a roadshow. To bring this back to a more literary discussion, I'm fascinated by the interplay, the overlap, the tension between church members church service and their professional lives. Neal Chandler's short-story collection _Benediction_ deals with this area to a certain extent, but do any of you know of other works that do this? I see a fascinating novel being written about the rise and fall (and maybe redemption in the end) of a Stephen Covey figure, or of the NuSkin people. We've talked about how money influences art. What can art tell us about money? ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Gerald N. LUND, _Come Unto Me_ (Review) Date: 21 May 2002 15:44:12 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- [snip] > I have become relucant to blame an error > on the author until I can be certain that some inexperienced editor was not > responsible! The typesetter, of course, ignores the "stet" mark. . . . . > > > barbara hume > All of which makes me so much more appreciative of good editing and good writing. Thanks for the thoughts. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 21 May 2002 14:53:25 -0700 (PDT) --- Thom Duncan wrote: > It may be all right for Eric Samuelsen to direct a Stake play. He has a > full-time job during the day. In my case, since freelance > writing/producing/directing is my only current means of livelihood, I > would > run the risk of losing money to direct a road show. > > Would the Lord want me to do that? > Thom makes a great point here. It's up to him as an individual to decide how to consecrate his time and energy, and we are in no position to judge a person by their outward-showing consecrations of time and energy. For instance, my fellow Elders seem to enjoy my teaching and have mentioned appreciating the time I put into my lessons, but to be honest I'm getting by on natural talent and knowledge acquired a several years ago. I probably only put 20 minutes into each lesson I teach. That's not to brag or to self-flagellate, but to illustrate how we vary in what we do for our fellow saints and *how* we do it. Another example: yes, there are professionals (doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants) who do *extra* work for their wards. At the same time, some of them also benefit from their membership because their fellow saints will go to them as clients. If more church members were attending Thom's plays and supporting his professional efforts, then perhaps he'd be more likely to be in a position and the state of mind to donate his time to direct a roadshow. To bring this back to a more literary discussion, I'm fascinated by the interplay, the overlap, the tension between church members church service and their professional lives. Neal Chandler's short-story collection _Benediction_ deals with this area to a certain extent, but do any of you know of other works that do this? I see a fascinating novel being written about the rise and fall (and maybe redemption in the end) of a Stephen Covey figure, or of the NuSkin people. We've talked about how money influences art. What can art tell us about money? ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: [AML] Music Query Date: 22 May 2002 17:11:14 -0400 First the Mormon Literary tie-in: Grades are in and I'm gearing up to write this summer--finish off that next Mormon Novel. I tend to write when music is playing. Certain sounds jiggle certain neural pathways, you've all been there... Anyway, I'm looking for a certain CD. It's been "suppressed" by Windham Hill and would love to create a few chapters with this playing in the background. But haven't had any luck finding it on auction or music sharing sites. It's a compilation disc produced by Darol Anger, called _Chiaroscuro_. Anybody have it who would be willing to sell it? I'd ask if you'd be willing to tape it, but that would be a violation of copyright laws, wouldn't it? Thanks! Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 22 May 2002 00:51:32 -0600 Rex Goode wrote: > I fear that even a novel would have to pay homage to the notion that men are > 90% of the cause of all problems if it wants a shot at success in the Mormon > market. If you believe that, then please don't write that novel, if you have to tell a lie to make it popular. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] re: MCLEAN & KELLY, "The Ark" (Daily Herald) Date: 22 May 2002 05:30:44 +0000 Eric Snider said in a review of "The Ark" >And then there's Ham (David Tinney, also the director), the bad son who >doesn't believe in his father's prophetic calling. He has married >outside >the faith, to a black woman named Egyptus (Lisa Estridge-Gray), leading >Eliza to utter what is still the show's funniest line: "Noah, guess who's >coming to dinner?" >Bronx-born Lisa Estridge-Gray is the picture of sass as Egyptus; her "Why >Can't We" number at the first act curtain blows the roof off the place. It >is unfair to single her out, though, because all the performers sing and >act well. So Eric (and anyone else who has seen it), can you tell us more about how this plays out, in light of our recent discussion on race? Margaret Young and others have made pretty strong claims that the evidence that Egyptus was black is not strong. But here McLean/Kelly seem to stick with the traditional idea that she was. This is one of the few Mormon literature pieces about that these people that I know of, so I'm interested in how they are portrayed. Thanks, Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Changes in Usage (was: Gerald N. LUND, _Come Unto Me_) Date: 22 May 2002 01:02:15 -0600 Barbara Hume wrote: > > Many authors I know are appalled by > the mistakes introduced by their baby editors -- young people fresh out of > the nest who change "all right" to "alright" And what's wrong with changing "all right" to "alright"? It's inevitably going to become acceptable. Anti-alright people should just give it up now. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] MCLEAN & KELLY, "The Ark" (Daily Herald) Date: 22 May 2002 05:10:50 +0000 Theater Review: 'The Ark' ERIC D. SNIDER The Daily Herald on Tuesday, May 21 LEHI -- After two runs as a work-in-progress and numerous revisions in between, Michael McLean and Kevin Kelly's "The Ark" has finally arrived. Artists are rarely 100 percent satisfied with their work, but I recommend McLean and Kelly step back and let this one go. It's finished, and it's good. It is a pop musical retelling of Noah's Ark, taking place entirely on the boat itself. This staging is in Thanksgiving Point's facility known as The Barn, and it's hard to think of a better venue. (A cruise ship, maybe. Or an actual ark.) The actors use all of the space, including amidst the audience, to tell the story. The gimmick is that we are the animals on the ark, and as unflattering as that may be, the effect is that we feel intimately involved with Noah's family and its various crises. We're not merely observers; we're quiet, well-mannered participants. Noah (Art Allen) is the humble, altogether human prophet, supported by his patient wife Eliza (Elizabeth Hansen). Noah forgets how many days the Lord told him it would rain, because that's a detail. "I'm more of a 'big-picture' person," he says. Their son Shem (Kevin Odekirk) is newly married to Martha (Marilee Spencer), who feels she cannot compare in Shem's mind to his own mother. Another son, Japheth (Scott McLean), is inventive and hard-working; his wife, Sariah (Stephanie Breinholt), is comically materialistic. (Her big number, marred by a quiet Betty Boop voice that doesn't register in the huge Barn, is an amusing reminder to the animals that their sole purpose is to sacrifice their skins and feathers to make her look beautiful.) And then there's Ham (David Tinney, also the director), the bad son who doesn't believe in his father's prophetic calling. He has married outside the faith, to a black woman named Egyptus (Lisa Estridge-Gray), leading Eliza to utter what is still the show's funniest line: "Noah, guess who's coming to dinner?" Cooped up on a boat, the family's issues with each other come to a head, mostly in song (far more palatable than the screaming that erupts at my house). Many things about the show have changed. Songs are gone, new ones are added, and the whole thing's shorter. In previous incarnations, the human characters had animal counterparts whose stories were also told; that element is now gone completely. But the greatest change is that it has been simplified. Before, it tried to tell too many stories -- someone can't forgive himself, someone has low self-esteem, and so on. Now it is pared down primarily to Ham's inner turmoil, but with enough attention paid to other characters' issues to give it all some weight. Bronx-born Lisa Estridge-Gray is the picture of sass as Egyptus; her "Why Can't We" number at the first act curtain blows the roof off the place. It is unfair to single her out, though, because all the performers sing and act well. This is a show of great humanity and beauty. It is sometimes uproariously funny, and other times uncommonly moving. See it now, before they change it again. Should you go? By all means necessary. IF YOU GO What: "The Ark" When: 7:30 p.m. Mondays, Fridays and Saturdays through May 31; also at 2 p.m. Saturday Where: The Barn, Thanksgiving Point, Lehi Cost: $12-$18 Info: Call (801) 325-SEAT, or visit www.ticketmaster.com Running time: 2 hrs., including one intermission Copyright 2002 by HarkTheHerald.com _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] DICKENS, _Great Expectations_ (Daily Herald) Date: 22 May 2002 05:14:27 +0000 Theater Review: 'Great Expectations' ERIC D. SNIDER The Daily Herald on Tuesday, May 21 PROVO -- There are enough minor problems with BYU's production of "Great Expectations" to prevent one from loving it. There are not enough of them, however, to keep you from liking it. Liking it a lot, even. It is appealing in an Every-Man sort of way, theatrical but not stuffy, and it tells Charles Dickens' story with style and energy. Adapted for the stage by Barbara Field and directed by Eric Samuelsen, the play moves quickly, with a few portable chairs and tables representing the many locales of 19th-century England. A garden is represented, amusingly, by a single flowerpot, and a rat puppet crawls around Miss Havisham's wedding cake, manipulated by an actor who barely hides himself. Most actors play more than one role and also serve as narrators. They also provide sound effects, sometimes. These conventions, however theatrical they may be, do not keep the play from capturing its audience and transporting it to another time and place. Alas, the narration, which is abundant, often has the opposite effect. It is given in American accents, which sound jarring and coarse next to the British heard in the rest of the play. Nearly every time a narrator speaks, it jolts us out of London and back to the Pardoe Theatre. Furthermore, there is not always enough distinction made between characters played by the same actor. It is usually context, not voice or costume, that sets them apart. There is one awkward moment when a fast costume change makes it seem like Jaggers and Compeyson are the same person, which is not the case. But never mind. If you have not read "Great Expectations" since high school, you may have forgotten how dark it is, and how funny it can be, and how touchingly odd the characters are. Those attributes are in full force in this production, which highlights the evolution of the central characters as much as the intricate plot. Doug Kaufman plays Pip, the orphan boy raised by his abusive older sister (Michelle Gibbs) and kindly brother-in-law, Joe (Conrad Pack). Pip is a pawn for the longest time, manipulated by a convict (Robert J. Gibbs), by Miss Havisham (Nola Smith), by Estella (Amanda Scheffer), and by anyone else who can get their hands on him. By the time he begins acting for himself, it is only to be ungrateful and selfish toward nearly everyone who loves him. Then there is growth, refining and, ultimately, redemption -- all played respectably by Kaufman, who manages to hold his own in a sea of characters more colorful than Pip. Amanda Scheffer's Estella is utterly unlovable, which may be the point: Pip, our protagonist, isn't that great a guy, either. Dickens wrote two different endings -- one where they wind up together and one where they don't -- and this script choses the outcome that is, in my opinion, less justified by the events leading up to it. Among the other performances, Conrad Pack stands out as Joe the blacksmith -- his relationship with Pip seems particularly heartfelt -- as does Tony Gunn as Pip's eager friend Herbert Pocket. Benjamin N. Hess is droll as the all-business Jaggers, and Nola Smith is downright creepy as Miss Havisham. Should you go? It is flawed, but at times it is great indeed. IF YOU GO What: "Great Expectations" When: 7:30 p.m. nightly (except Sundays and Mondays) through June 1 Where: Pardoe Theatre, BYU's Harris Fine Arts Center Cost: $12 general, $9 students and faculty Info: Call 422-4322 Running time: 2 hrs., 20 min., including one intermission Copyright 2002 by HarkTheHerald.com _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: Money and Art (Comp 1) Date: 22 May 2002 23:07:19 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From ThomDuncan@prodigy.net Tue May 21 22:37:35 2002 > We have a Stake Pres. who is a very highly regarded doctor. He has taken > care of missionaries without compensation for years. If I made what a doctor made doing my art, I suppose I would be able to help people with art as well. Thom >From marianne_hales_harding@hotmail.com Wed May 22 11:30:30 2002 >Does that mean I shouldn't do it? Or that they should >ask someone to do it who isn't as concerned about the >outcome? Or that I should better learn the art of >"scaling back"? Or perhaps you might learn the art of knowing your audience. I don't give the dialogue in my roadshows the care I give the dialogue in my professional work because it's a roadshow and there isn't a critic from the Times out there with pencil in hand, the Pulitzer committee hasn't sent out reps....etc. If you don't have enough time/resources/whatever to do the job as you would do it professionally, then do the job as best you can with the time/resources/whatever you have. Most people understand that this isn't a professional job for you, but a time where you are lending a hand and doing the best with what you have. Marianne Hales Harding >From tlaulusa@core.com Wed May 22 17:53:56 2002 Of course Thom would want to put on the best possible road show, while hopefully keeping in mind it's a road show. When I play my flute at church I play the music as musically as possible--even though it may not be technically as challenging as something else I could play. Church music rarely is. But how is that different than the plumber that was being discussed before? Wouldn't we want the plumber to do his best possible work? A road show is a big time demand. We haven't had one here for more than 12 years. If we were having them, I hope the person appointed would be the best possible person--one who would give the kids an opportunity to learn, grow, experience, and have fun. (I'm not sure road show always fill that criteria.) If any of the adults asked to be involved were using their professional skills.....well, I guess that decision would be between them and God. I just think there are other things to consider than if what they are asked to do falls within their professional parameters. Tracie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 21 May 2002 17:28:29 -0600 ___ Eric ___ | Reading Ivan's and Marianne's and Clark's posts on this have | been interesting for me. You've described a very interesting, | complex and potentially powerful and dark story. I wouldn't | mind seeing that picture. Fact is, though, it bears only the | tiniest, most tangential relationship to the actual film | Attack of the Clones. ___ The interesting thing about film and literature is that the work as "seen" by one person often is so different than the work as "seen" by an other. Sometimes this is because a person overlooks or misses some elements. Other times it is because the director/author simply composes the work in such a manner that it doesn't reach a particular audience. What am I to say in this case? The elements that Ivan, Marianne and I pointed out are all in the film. They aren't even subtle aspects of the film. (I'm not sure Lucas could really adopt the light touch subtlety requires) I don't think I'm distorting the film when I point out the things I did. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of flaws in the film. However I can't seem to find too many people who see the flaws you've emphasized. So at that point what more can I say? ___ Eric ___ | Let's face facts: we do NOT see Palpatine manipulating the | political process. ___ But we do, in several key places. We see Palpatine manipulating Amadalah by sending Annakin with her to get her off the planet. This is required for his political schemes. She *must* be off planet when the vote on the army takes place. We see Palpatine manipulate Jar Jar to give him near absolute power. We see Palpatine in the Senate giving a speech saying how he hates the power and how he'll renounce it as soon as the war is over. We see at the end that the obvious events transpiring were orchestrated by Palpatine. It is true we don't see Palpatine orchestrating every element. But is that necessary if we know he is the one doing it? And we know that both because of Episode I and the events in Episode II. Further the meaning of the events take their meanings not only in the context of the film, but in the context of the four other films. ___ Eric ___ | Not once do we see him buy votes, gladhand, horse trade, | demogogue, give a persuasive speech, manipulate committee | structure, use parliamentary rules to shut off debate, | negotiate, obfuscate, attach a rider to a bill. ___ Once again this is you wanting a show different from what most want. Further the above aren't the only ways to manipulate the system. I'm sure that those would have to have taken place as well, albeit in a more subtle way that I think you suggest. However I'm not quite sure why you want to see all this instead of a *Star Wars* film. ___ Eric ___ | He does nothing except sort of radiate badness, and we don't | even see him do that much. ___ A better comparison would be the Satan of the Garden story. Satan there doesn't radiate badness at all. Further Satan's manipulations consists merely of putting ideas before others and letting them act according to their own nature. That is real power. No need for heavy handed manipulations at all. Palpatine is the puppet master, but one with an exceedingly light touch. It's funny that this is what you see as the weakest part of the film while to me it was one of the few elements that was strong in the film. I thought the romance was weak. (Although I must admit that Natalie Portman was very fetching, despite her poor acting) I thought the battles were largely unengrossing. The light saber battle didn't come close to being as exciting as _The Phantom Menance_ or _Empire Strikes Back_'s. Yoda was fun, but I didn't find him as exceptional as most of my friends. There were elements I enjoyed, but to me the best and strongest aspect was how Lucas handled the conspiracy. Without that I'm not sure I'd have enjoyed the film as anything *but* eye candy. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Difficult Reviews Date: 21 May 2002 19:53:38 -0500 Andrew Hall: It's a stinker. Pass, move on, buy something else. Don't even bother reading my review, I wasted my time reading the book, don’t waste your time reading the review. . . . I signed up to review it, and so felt duty-bound to read the whole thing, when normally I would have chucked it after a few pages. _______________ I don't believe my experience was as bad as this, but it was similar. I barely developed an interest in a book I agreed to review. Turning to the review guidelines, I was reminded that, in those circumstances, is was sometimes permissible to read the first chapter, the last chapter, a chapter at random in between, and then write a brief review. About a third the way through the book and still slogging, I turned to and read the last chapter. There was nothing different about it--no ending, no summary, no wrapping up of events. Not satisfied with my grasp of the book, I turned to a chapter I had not read about midway through the book. I still could not have written a short review. I wound up struggling through the whole book hoping, I suppose, to find something of interest. Is this a normal experience? Or does it take a special kind of book to trigger these frustrations? Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Comp 1) Date: 22 May 2002 23:09:13 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] [MOD: This has been a fun thread, with some good discussion that illustrates (among other things) how a specific work of art can be interpreted in different ways, depending on your approach. However, I think it's reaching the point where we need to either bring in a connection to Mormon letters (unlikely) or somehow broaden the discussion. So please keep that in mind as you make your replies...] >From Derek1966@aol.com Tue May 21 16:29:05 2002 In a message dated 5/21/02 02:42:29 PM, ersamuel@byugate.byu.edu writes: << Not once do we see him buy votes, gladhand, horse trade, demogogue, give a persuasive speech, manipulate committee structure, use parliamentary rules to shut off debate, negotiate, obfuscate, attach a rider to a bill. He does nothing except sort of radiate badness, and we don't even see him do that much. >> Um....except for when he influences Jar Jar (the character easiest to manipulate) into proposing to the senate that they should grant him emergency powers, a move more subtle--and ultimately more effective--than any of the actions described above. As a dark lord, Palpatine used his powers of persuasion on the gullible Jar Jar. He says something to the effect that "emergency powers are needed, but how could we ever ask any senator to raise that idea on the floor of the senate" and it's obvious that while he's not directing his comments at Jar Jar, he is speaking to him. Cut to a scene or two later and Jar Jar's out there as Palpatine's personal cheerleader, doing his bidding, so he can grab more power without looking like he's reaching for it. John Perry >From barbara@techvoice.com Tue May 21 16:30:41 2002 At 11:05 AM 5/21/02, you wrote: >You've described a very interesting, complex and potentially powerful and >dark story. I wouldn't mind seeing that picture. Fact is, though, it >bears only the tiniest, most tangential relationship to the actual film >Attack of the Clones. Perhaps this is where a novel would be able to make the point far better than a movie, which has to expend its efforts on stupid stuff like SFX. barbara hume >From iaw2@email.byu.edu Tue May 21 16:51:09 2002 > By Episode IV, though, when they're on the bad guys' side, they have also=20 > completely lost their marksmanship abilities . . . > > -- Ronn! :) Probably because by that point all the clones have retired, and the Storm troopers are fresh recruits. ;) --ivan wolfe >From iaw2@email.byu.edu Tue May 21 16:55:34 2002 > I wonder if Padme Amidala's presence in office is part of the problem. Really, > what kinds of idiots must the Naboo be to elect teenage girls to be their > leaders? What kind of idiots must we Mormons be to have a boy prophet who started the whole thing off? > She is clearly most interested in maintaining her wardrobe, like any > teenage girl. Granted, she does very well in office for someone so young, Princess Leia was 18 in the first/fourth Star Wars movie - Lucas like to write about child prodigies. [Ivan Wolfe] >From ersamuel@byugate.byu.edu Wed May 22 10:57:28 2002 Katie (finally, an ally!) wrote: >Really,=20 >what kinds of idiots must the Naboo be to elect teenage girls to be = their=20 >leaders? She is clearly most interested in maintaining her wardrobe, = like >any=20 >teenage girl.=20 And like most teenage girls (I've got one at home, so I'm an expert) she = has horrible horrible taste in clothes. And don't get me started on her = hair styles . . . . Eric Samuelsen >From parisander@freeport.com Wed May 22 12:21:47 2002 It was my son's birthday party, so I went to attach of the clones. The problems I saw with the film no one has pointed out, so I'll go ahead and say. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that Amidala didn't age? If anything she seemed younger--more immature. The biggest weakness I saw was the characterization. There were no sympathetic characters. In the original first movie every character as appealing. I think it's disappointing when your strongest character is a nylon stockking full of green jello. Paris Anderson >From marianne_hales_harding@hotmail.com Wed May 22 12:25:32 2002 > That's Palpatine's role in this film, and it works as effectively in the >film as I worked effectively as a missionary. > >Eric Samuelsen For me, Palpatine's big evil hayday was in Episode I. The active villian of this film is Count Drooku (am I getting that name right?) with Palpatine taking a bit of a back seat. He's still the evil head...it's just that the action of this film is focused on the evil foot kicking some Jedi "behind." Story-wise in this film Drooku is the antagonist, even if Palpatine is the Big Bad of the entire series. Hey, even Big Bads need a vacation from the plot sometimes :-) Marianne Hales Harding -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 22 May 2002 11:13:47 -0600 [MOD: Please see my note at the top of the compilation post related to this thread. Eric raises an interesting fresh point here, which is worth pursuing: that is, how our previous experiences affect our responses to specific works of art. If someone wants to pursue this, that would be great. However, such a discussion should ideally only start with _Attack of the Clones_ and go beyond that to other examples and/or general arguments.] Ivan and I could go back and forth on this forever, and little purpose = would be served. I absolutely want to reiterate one thing: I LIKE IVAN = WOLFE. I want this to be, and so far believe that it has been, a friendly = exchange. But please, Ivan and Clark and the rest of you, if I have = offended any of you with this, I do apologize. I like you guys. I just = didn't like a movie you liked. =20 >Go >read the Star Wars Novels "Cloak of Deception" by James Luceno and >"The >Approaching Storm" by Alan Dean Foster (bot written with input from = >Lucas) - >they both do a good job of fleshing out the political background. =20 This leads me to a very interesting and important question, which is this: = what constitutes our experience with a work of art? I have not read the = novels Ivan mentions, and that, of course, means that I cannot ever see = the same movie that Ivan sees. He's read books about the story and = characters that I have not read, which means that his experience watching = the film is utterly different than my own. By the same token, the opening = action sequence, the chase through the city scene with Annakin and Obi-Wan = reminds me a great deal of similar scenes in The Fifth Element. Someone = who hasn't seen that film won't have the same experience that I had. =20 No two people can ever have the same experience with any work of art. = Well, okay, that's axiomatic, but this particular film seems rather an = interesting example of that phenomenon. My wife has always loathed the = film Chariots of Fire, for example, because the night we saw it she was = suffering from one of her first, and worst, experiences with pregnancy = induced nausea. So for her, that film (especially that musical score, = which I love) literally makes her sick to her stomach. What I wanted from Attack of the Clones was a rolicking good adventure = flick, with action sequences tied to and proceeding logically and = coherently from an intelligible, witty and internally consistent narrative.= What I got was a completely incoherent story, with bizarro political = references that seemed fairly important but that went nowhere, and with = action sequences that were fairly cool in and of themselves, but that came = from nowhere and led nowhere. Apparently Ivan saw, well, the rolicking = adventure story that I wanted to see. I suspect that this is because he = is privy to a great deal more information about the characters and = situation than I am, because he's read books I haven't read (and won't = read). =20 Now, I think some critics and audience members will watch this film = exactly the way I watched Jurassic Park III. What I wanted from J III was = lots of scenes of dinosaurs chasing people around and eating the bad ones. = I didn't particularly care how much sense the story made, because the = idea is preposterous to begin with. I just like looking at dinosaurs. So = I was capable of turning off my brain for two hours and just watching the = dinosaurs and I had a very satisfying movie experience. I suspect that = most audience that like Attack of the Clones won't care a lick about the = story and will just respond on a 'dude! Yoda kicks butt!" level. Nothing = wrong with that, of course, and there are lots of movies where my response = is about that sophisticated. But for some reason the pretentiousness = (okay, perceived pretentiousness) of what Star Wars has become grates on = me.=20 Two other points: Annakin's mother does say in the first movie she had a = virgin birth, and nobody in the movie contradicts her. Now come on, = folks, that's just weird. Second, Darth is too in heaven, or whatever the = Force equivalent of it is, or he's nowhere. Unearned salvation, pure and = simple. Not to be argumentative or anything. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 22 May 2002 11:56:20 -0600 Frank Deford said something pretty profound today in his NPR address. He was giving a mock address to college athletes, and he basically said to forget about the pros unless you got lucky enough to get drafted. Then and only then should they spend much time dreaming about. He told these imaginary athletes that they weren't nearly as good as they thought they were. That was an interesting comment, one that harrowed me. In any case the important message, I think was to quit playing ball to become a mega-athlete and start playing it to play. Don't build your life around the possibility that you might get to be the next Kobe Bryant, because you're most likely not going to. And if it just so happens that you do become the next big sensation--well cross that bridge when you come to it. In any case, I like what Marianne said about doing enough free work to further her own career that she'd feel like a hypocrite not offering up some of that time in church service. I'd just like to add that this seems like a faith issue, kind of like tithing. Perhaps a person who couldn't take up paying work because they were serving the Lord would eventually find the windows of heaven opened unto them. The Lord does make those promises often. I have a friend who is an oral surgeon. He decided to donate one day a week to working in Tuba City for free. He told me that he was worried that he might take a real hit financially, but the opposite happened. Since he started doing the free clinic work, he's had more money than he knows what to do with, so he goes to Siberia and Africa. He laughingly said that if he knew donating his time would have turned out so lucrative, he'd have started on it a long time ago. -- Todd Robert Petersen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] MCLEAN & KELLY, "The Ark" (Deseret News) Date: 23 May 2002 00:03:31 +0000 Deseret News Wednesday, May 22, 2002 Revised 'Ark' sails with humor, drama By Ivan M. Lincoln Deseret News theater editor THE ARK, Show Barn at Thanksgiving Point, Lehi, through July 6; tickets $12-$18 through Ticketmaster, 325-SEAT. Running time: 1 hour, 55 minutes (one intermission). LEHI =97 The adage that "the third time is a charm" seems to be proven with the third revision of Michael McLean and Kevin Kelly's musical about Noah and his family's adventures aboard a "Ship Without an Ocean" (one of the score's most moving songs Almost entirely retooled since its 1998 and 1999 productions, this new edition makes fine use of the Show Barn's expansive space (although there were serious sound and lighting problems during the opening Saturday matinee). But the plot is now clearly focused on the central story =97 prodigal son Ham's precarious relationships with both his father and his father in heaven. No more is the story fragmented by cute little bits in which the performers change into animals aboard the Ark. Some songs have been dropped entirely; others have been shifted around to give the story stronger emphasis. One really smart thing about this production (and which will certainly make it appealing for other companies who may consider producing it down the road) is that it has a fairly small cast =97 especially for a musical. There are four men and four women. And they're all highly talented. Art Allen, already known to those who've followed the show in its previous incarnations, is back as Noah. His rich baritone voice and his acting ability blend to personify a man you trust to shepherd this strange, new ship on its unknown journey. Elizabeth Hansen is right alongside him as Eliza, his wife, not quite sure what it is her husband has gotten them into but is busily coordinating the care and feeding of both her family and the shipload of animals. Late in the voyage, after 33 days of rain and counting, Eliza warns Noah that the women are stir crazy. "You need to step back and get a fresh perspective," Noah counsels her. "Noah, every time I step back, that's what I step into - a fresh perspective!" she replies. The first two couples to board the ship are two of their sons and their wives =97 lovey-dovey newlyweds Shem and Martha, and inventive tinkerer Japheth and his fashion-obsessed wife Sariah. They're all superbly played by, respectively, Kevin Odekirk, Marilee Spencer, Scott McLean and Stephanie Breinholt. They're surprised by "What a Sight" the boatload of animals is - a snappy tune with a Caribbean beat. (The "animals" are actually the audience.) This generally happy and upbeat spirit is suddenly disrupted by Ham scrambling aboard =97 adding his own element of surprise, his wife, Egyptus. "Guess who's coming to dinner?" is Eliza's astonished reaction, announcing Ham's marriage when Noah comes into the room. Ham is played by director David Tinney, who gives the role emotional depth, with Seattle actress Lisa Estridge-Gray, who delivers her own brand of musical energy as the feisty Egyptus. McLean and Kelly's lyrics propel the story with touches of humor and drama, including the growing shipboard boredom in "The Rain Song," Noah and Eliza pondering their parental duties in "It Takes Two" and each family member noting they've got "A Couple of Questions" about life's interesting problems. Ham is skeptical of his father's prayerfulness in "Whenever He Needs A Miracle," but the intense sarcasm slowly shifts when Ham discovers his own heartfelt needs. Egyptus turns up the heat (and the energy), leading the family through "Song of Praise" and "Why Can't We?" There is light-hearted humor in Sariah's "Beautify Me," suggesting she'll turn the animals' hides and pelts . . . into purses, hats and belts, and, during Act Two, the "Dinner" song, when the family =97 weary of wheat and oats =97 hungers for "lamb shanks . . . sausage franks . . . rabbit stew . . . and barbecue." Toward the end of the voyage, Noah (much to Ham's dismay) sends a raven out to seek dry land. When the raven fails to return, Noah turns to Ham's first suggestion =97 a dove. "It's a female dove," Noah explains, "She won't be afraid to ask directions." In the end, Ham is dramatically reconciled with Noah and with his feelings about God. The family has weathered 40 days and nights of rain, plus countless of weeks waiting for the floodwaters to recede. Ultimately, "The Ark" is about all families =97 their problems, their love for each other and how they survive. Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Difficult Reviews Date: 22 May 2002 21:29:27 -0700 lajackson@juno.com wrote: > > Is this a normal experience? Or does it take a special > kind of book to trigger these frustrations? > > Larry Jackson > > LOL!!! Yes, some books are really awful. I've thought that, if I'm going to review a book, and present it as a reviewed book, I should at least tromp my way through the book in its entirety. Some books are just plain hard work. --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com or jeffneedle@nethere.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: [AML] Books Up for Review Date: 22 May 2002 16:22:41 -0700 Hi folks! Here is another long list of titles for review. Please look over this = list and consider reviewing a book for AML-List. Keep in mind that all = reviews are due one month from receipt of the book.=20 If you are new to AML-List, see = http://www.aml-online.org/reviews/index.html for more info. Regards, Jana Remy AML-List Review Editor USU Press: One Side by Himself: The Life and Times of Lewis Barney By Ronald O. Barney http://www.usu.edu/usupress/individl/One%20Side%20by%20Himself.htm Pantheon: Red Water By Judith Freeman http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=3D03754209= 24 Red: Passion and Patience in the Desert By Terry Tempest Williams http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=3D03754207= 70 CFI/Bonneville: Nauvoo's Magic By Lisa J. Peck http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555175368.html Scones for the Heart By George Durrant http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555175937.html Doug's Dilemma, vol 2 of the Emma Trilogy By Chad Daybell http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555174574.html Escape to Zion, Vol 3 of the Emma Trilogy By Chad Daybell http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555175015.html Something to Give, a story for families By Naomi S. Smith http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555175961.html Dare to Prepare: Missionary Workbook By Lyman Rose http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555175767.html The Ten Lost Tribes: A People of Destiny By Clay McConkie http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555175872.html Against All Odds: Amazing Pioneer Stories of Courage and Renewal By Shirley Bahlmann http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555175902.html Happiness Pursued: Time-tested tools to turn anxiety into happiness By S. Hudson Owen http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555175988.html Molly Mormon? By Tamra Norton http://www.cedarfort.com/catalog/1555176062.html Deseret Book/Shadow Mountain/Eagle Gate/Bookcraft: Waltzing to a Different Strummer By Tom Plummer http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=3D100045698 The Nauvoo Temple Stone By Timothy Robinson http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=3D100040887 Nauvoo: the City Beautiful By John Telford http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=3D100040890 Covenant: Saints at War By Robert Freemen and Dennnis Wright http://www.covenant-lds.com/osb2/itemdetails.cfm?ID=3D49 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Young Heroes (was: _Attack of the Clones_) Date: 22 May 2002 22:55:31 -0600 [MOD: If anyone's interested, I can see the potential for this as a jumping-off point for a literary thread on young heroes...hence my renaming of this subject line.] ___ | I wonder if Padme Amidala's presence in office is part of | the problem. Really, what kinds of idiots must the Naboo | be to elect teenage girls to be their leaders? | ___ Ivan ___ | What kind of idiots must we Mormons be to have a boy | prophet who started the whole thing off? ___ Although Joseph was older by the time he starts the church - albeit still relatively young. On the other hand we have Alexander the Great who was a general at 16 and functioning as a leader before that. He was King at 20 and conquering the world. Moroni has his vision of God at 15 and at 16, like Alexander, is a leader in the Nephite armies. This really isn't that uncommon. You used to be pretty much an adult at a much younger age in the past. Consider for instance Nero who was 16 when he took control of Rome. Uzziah was only 16 when he became King in Israel. I'm sure there are plenty others. -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Conservatism in Fantasy (was: _Attack of the Clones_) Date: 23 May 2002 00:23:47 -0500 I haven't seen the movie yet, and so I can't comment on the specific points Eric makes nor those made by others in response to him. What Eric has been saying reminds me, though, of the apparently inherent social conservatism in much fantasy literature. (I see the Star Wars movies as generically more similar to written fantasy than to written science fiction, in large part because of the huge archetypal emphasis and the utter absence of any development of scientific or technological ideas and their implications in the movies. Which doesn't make them bad--I'm just explaining why I think that written fantasy may be a more analogous case than written science fiction for discussing these particular movies.) So what do I mean by inherent social conservatism? Here are some of the points that I see frequently recurring in much fantasy literature that I think help to create a sense of underlying social conservatism: * Emphasis on blood inheritance * Character as a function of group: family, race, nation of origin, etc. * Story focus on those of "noble blood" * Character as something that is revealed over the course of the story, rather than as something that changes. (This is tricky, because you can get a lot of development that *looks* like change but is actually simply an unfolding of inherent, preexisting character traits.) * Interpretation of a society, people, or nation largely in terms of its past * Glorification of the trappings of quasi-medieval society, without attention to the "violence inherent in the system" (as the Pythons would put it) * Use of largely antedated belief systems as sources of magical power. (E.g., magic comes from knowing something's "true name"--harking back to a view of language as containing meaning, rather than as strictly arbitrary.) * Notions of destiny * Totalizing descriptions of good versus evil (we know who the good guys and bad guys are) * Attachment to archetypes, hierarchies of knowledge and experience, etc. * Willingness to associate a right to rule or govern with possession of unique personal qualifications Not all these factors are necessarily innately conservative, but taken together I think they contribute to a genre that probably comes closer than almost any other to deserving a marxist critique. I say this as both (in many ways) a social conservative and a lover (and would-be author) of much socially conservative fantasy. But just because we love something, it doesn't mean that we should be blind to the implications of what we're buying into. The work of J.R.R. Tolkien, for example, is in many ways deeply conservative in its view of the world and how people can and should interact within it. It is, in my view, a profound, well-thought-out kind of conservatism--but it is deeply conservative nonetheless, depicting a kind of social order most of us would probably find stifling. And I think you find something similar in the first three (at least) _Star Wars_ movies. Which does not, in my mind, disqualify them as enjoyable, or even worthwhile. One of the innate characteristics of any work of art, as I see it, is that it is incomplete: simpler than life. That being the case, any extrapolation of the moral or physical or whatever universe based on a particular work of art will contain points that can be seen as inaccurate or even monstrous. It's important that we remember and point out those flaws. At the same time, because such flaws (based on incompleteness of vision) are inevitable, their presence in another way signifies relatively little about the quality of the work in question. This is a big topic, even if I've done little but approach it (rather ineptly) from one, rather oblique point of departure. It suggests, I think, how much of our critique of a given artistic work on moral grounds will be informed not only by what we read in the work itself, but also in the larger context (especially the social context) in which we read it. (By the way, has anyone else noticed that Eric's critique of _Attach of the Clones_ is on almost entirely moral/ethical grounds? Interesting, considering some of our previous exchanges on this very issue...) Also, I think that there are broad social and ethical implications built into probably every literary genre. Arguments over particular works tend very often to turn on some of these deeper generic questions. But I've gone on too long already... Jonathan Langford Speaking (babbling, really) for myself, not AML-List... jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: [AML] re: MCLEAN & KELLY, "The Ark" (Daily Herald) Date: 22 May 2002 23:51:19 -0600 >Eric Snider said in a review of "The Ark" > >>And then there's Ham (David Tinney, also the director), the bad son >>who doesn't believe in his father's prophetic calling. He has >>married >outside the faith, to a black woman named Egyptus (Lisa >>Estridge-Gray), leading Eliza to utter what is still the show's >>funniest line: "Noah, guess who's coming to dinner?" > Andrew Hall: >So Eric (and anyone else who has seen it), can you tell us more >about how this plays out, in light of our recent discussion on race? >Margaret Young and others have made pretty strong claims that the >evidence that Egyptus was black is not strong. But here >McLean/Kelly seem to stick with the traditional idea that she was. >This is one of the few Mormon literature pieces about that these >people that I know of, so I'm interested in how they are portrayed. > It's pretty much a non-issue in this incarnation of the play. I seem to recall that in earlier versions, it was a bigger deal, but that could be my memory playing tricks on me. At any rate, now, aside from the one sly reference to her being black (and the characters' being obviously startled upon first seeing her), there is no mention of it. The closest they come is Noah referring to Ham having married someone "not of our faith" -- but that could just be a religious thing, not a race thing (though at that point in history, they were no doubt synonymous). Which, now that I think of it, makes me wonder why McLean and Kelly bothered to keep that element. There's the initial shock at Ham having married a black woman, but then everyone immediately gets over it. So why make her black at all? (To keep the show's funniest line intact?) Is it because Mormons tend to assume Egyptus was black and the writers fear we'd be upset if she wasn't, the way Jesus always has to be white and have a beard and long hair? On a side note, I think this was the first musical where I noticed that if there's a black character in a musical he or she HAS to sing a gospel song. When I write my great parody of musicals called "Musical! The Musical," it will have a black character who only sings polkas. Eric D. Snider -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Changes in Usage Date: 23 May 2002 09:29:34 -0700 On Wed, 22 May 2002 01:02:15 -0600 "D. Michael Martindale" writes: > And what's wrong with changing "all right" to "alright"? It's > inevitably going to become acceptable. Anti-alright people > should just give it up now. There's a difference between saying, "The answers were all right" and, "the answers were alright." The first means all the answers were correct. The second, depending on tone, can mean that the answers were satisfactory, or that they were just so-so. Harlow Clark ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Difficult Reviews Date: 23 May 2002 08:53:59 -0700 > I still could not have written a short review. I wound up > struggling through the whole book hoping, I suppose, to > find something of interest. > > Is this a normal experience? Or does it take a special > kind of book to trigger these frustrations? Speaking as the review editor, I'd like to add my $.02 to this discussion: I try to match books with reviewers in such a way that no one is stuck with a book that is so hard for them to like. It does no service to the author and/or publisher if a reviewer who hates romances reviews a romance and gives it a horrible review. However, there are those books that are so awful that just about everyone will have difficulty finding something positive to say. In that case, I recommend an objective discussion of why the book was so bad, with a passage pulled from the book to illustrate your points. It is also helpful to compare quality and style of the book to other similar books on the LDS market. Because we have an obligation to the publishers to provide reviews of each book that is sent to AML-List members under the auspices of the review program, I wouldn't suggest that you skip reviews just because you can't enthusiastically recommend a particular book. Or, if it is really _so_ bad that you cannot review the book, please contact me and I will offer it to another AML-List member. As always, I am very grateful to those AML-Listers who participate in the review program. I believe that our book reviews are a great asset to List discussion and are a wonderful resource for Mormon Literature. Regards, Jana Remy AML-List Review Editor -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] American Immigration Patterns Date: 23 May 2002 10:20:08 -0600 Topic: Was "Environmentalism," then "How We Make Decisions", now "American Immigration Patterns" (not really I just don't know what to call it.) Eric Writes: "If one believes, however, that the history of America is a history of people seeking religious freedom, driven here by God, then it follows that George Washington must be portrayed as righteous man actively seeking God's blessings. " And Harlow's reaction to Eric follows my post. I'd love to recommend a book and see if any histoy buffs on the list are familiar enough to comment further on the book. (as its potential application to Mormon Letters is limitless in Eric's or any of our work.) It is "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America". By David Hackett Fischer. My southern, democrat, scholarly friend recommended it and likes it for the most part, except she thought Fishcer was too hard on the Southerners. (My 5-year old son, Michael, is for some reason kissing me all over the face right now, I'll try to concentrate). I've only read a few chapters, but he does address the religious motivation of migration to the New World in those first chapters. I think it would add to Eric and Harlow's conversation, contributing a little different aspect or an augmentation to their discussion of America's religous beginnings through its founding immigrants, not "Fathers" (no feminist pun implied.) I'm quoting from page 17 "The Exodus of the English Puritans". "The emigrants who came to Massachusetts in the great migration became the breeding stock for America's Yankee population. They multiplied at a rapid rate, doubling every generation for two centuries. Their numbers increased by 100,000 by 1700, to at least one million by 1988--all descended from 21,000 English emigrants who came to Massachusetts in the period from 1629 to 1640. "The children of the great migration moved rapidly beyond the borders of Massachusetts. They occupied much of Southern New England, eastern New Jersey and northern New York. In the nineteenth century, their descendants migrated east to Maine and Nova Scotia, north to Canada, and west to the Pacific. Along the way, the founded the future cities of Buffalo, Cleveland, Chicago, St. Paul, Denver, Seattle, San Francisco and Salt Lake City. Today, throughout this vast area, most families of Yankee descent trace their American beginnings to an English ancestor who came ashore in Massachusetts Bay within five years of the year 1635. "For these English Puritians, the new colony of Massachusetts had a meaning that is not easily translated into the secular terms of our materialist world. "A letter from New England," wrote Joshua Scottow, ".....was venerated as a Sacred Script, or as the writing of some Holy Prophet. 'Twas carried many miles, where divers came to hear it." "The great migration developed in this spirit--above all as a relgious movement of English Christians who meant to build a new Zion in America. When most of these emigrants explained their motives for coming to the New World, religion was mentioned not merely as their leading purpose. It was their only purpose." The book also illustrates the difference between the two methods known as "the old history" and "the new history" so it is chock-full of useful information on how to interpret history, although, his approach is a "cultural history" which blends all three. It's probably not a revolutionary idea, but notice he does mention Salt Lake City in the over-all migrations. My ggg+grandfather was William Hunter, brother to Bishop Edward Hunter, and they were gentlemen farmers from Pennsylvania, large landholders who donated almost everything to Joseph Smith, helping him purchase lands in Nauvoo, etc. It's interesting to see this as a larger patterns in the creation of a New Zion in America, not just by Mormons, but by our ancestors who migrated as Puritans, Quakers, etc. Jana Pawlowski http://www.geocities.com/janrand janrand@networld.com Harlow's Comments: If one believes, however, that the history of America is a history of people seeking religious freedom, driven here by God, then it follows that George Washington must be portrayed as righteous man actively seeking God's blessings. > Not necessarily. You can portray God's inspiration as working through > people despite themselves. There's a lot of scriptural precedent for > that. ........ In my class paper I worked with the idea that when the D&C > talks about the Constitution as inspired it's referring to the way the > document fractures government, dividing power between an executive, a > legislative and a judicial branch, giving all three powers that check the > powers of the other two branches, then pitting them against each other so > they couldn't band together to form alliances, and designing the judicial > and legislative branches to be internally fractured: the legislature > divided into two chambers, one designed to favor smaller states by giving > them the same vote as larger states, the other designed to favor larger > states; the judiciary divided both by lifetime appointments that would > likely outlast the appointing president and his successor, and by being > an odd number so they couldn't be evenly divided. (I'm not sure if I > specifically mentioned the D&C or the BofM, but I was clearly working > with the idea that the government outlined in the Constitution embodies > the kinds of oppositional checks and balances without which, Lehi says, > the universe could not continue to exist. (I should note that > oppositional checks and balances are not necessarily adversarial--when > Donna and I kneel across the altar in the temple as (someone's) husband > and wife, we are opposites, but I hope not adversaries.)) > > > As it happens, that's not how I > > see him, nor how I see our history. I don't see him as a righteous > > man, or a spiritual man, I see him as a competant man; someone who > > was pretty capable at a number of tasks. I see the history of > > America as primarily a history of genocide and slavery, with a > > search for religious freedom pretty secondary. > > The Founding Fathers were not necessarily paragons of virtue, whether the > virtue being discussed is chastity (Ben Franklin's syphillis) or the > belief in human freedom and equality. But I'm not sure it's necessary to > see them as such to believe that God raised them up with particular > talents to accomplish a particular work. Despite the fact that many of > them violated human rights by owning and treating as animals other human > beings, they still managed to turn out a document that eventually > abolished slavery and became a beacon of hope for people seeking human > rights the world over. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Irreantum Proofers Needed Date: 23 May 2002 10:39:14 -0600 The AML is looking for some proofing volunteers to comb through the 70,000-word spring issue for errors, typos, etc. If you can help, please contact Chris Bigelow directly at chris.bigelow@unicitynetwork.com. The proof will probably be ready within 1-2 weeks, with a 7-day turnaround. We would send you a PDF file, and you would send back your corrections via e-mail. Although we don't offer payment, we will support any reasonable resume claims you may care to make about this volunteer editing service. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 22 May 2002 22:10:58 -0600 > Pretty much the rule of thumb in a ward situation is if you're good at > something you'll be asked to do it for free. Personally, I've done so much > theatre work for free in the name of "career building" that I would feel > like a hypocrit if I refused to use my God-given talents in a > not-for-my-profit church venture simply because of the issue of payment. > After all, "spiritual career building" is even more important to me. > Let us not forget the injunction to do many thing of our own free will and choice. We don't have to necessarily do things when the Church calls us to in order to build our spiritual career. I think even doing things for money can have spiritual benefits. In my patchwork career of producing plays for money, I've had people become reactivated through seeing a play of mine that they paid for. Whatever blessings come from helping bring relief and happiness to another seem to ignore whether the service was done altruistically or not. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] _Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 23 May 2002 07:47:39 -0600 On Wed, 22 May 2002 11:13:47 -0600 "Eric R. Samuelsen" writes: > What I wanted from Attack of the Clones was a rolicking good > adventure flick This is another very important element to factor in to the "artistic experience" equation: what we wanted. Our expectations, I figure, do more to shape the experience than anything. For instance, what I was hoping for was a return to the human element. Regardless of how big the spectacle is, if there aren't any interesting relationships in a story, the storyteller loses my devotion. Attack of the Clones split up the most engaging pair of the film in order to move the plot along. Plot schmlot, what about the people? There were, however, a couple of key bits of information revealed that I found fascinating. One, Annakin's reason for going to the Dark Side: All the Good Guys call him by that girlie nick-name--Annie--I feel his pain. Two, we finally know what kind of creature Yoda is: He is a genetically enhanced frog. scott -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] MCLEAN & KELLY, "The Ark" (Daily Herald) Date: 23 May 2002 13:20:41 -0600 Actually, I've never made the claim that the evidence that Egyptus was black is not strong. I think she was black. I think most Egyptians were black. Likely what Andrew is thinking of is my assumption that Joseph's Egyptian wife (Asenath, the mother of Ephraim and Manessah) was black. I also think Rahab (mentioned in the genealogy of the Savior) was black It's a long discussion, and I'm just taking a brief break from very concentrated writing to correct this little tidbit. Happy to pursue it AFTER this third installment of the trilogy is done. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: RE: [AML] Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 23 May 2002 10:45:04 -0700 I've enjoyed the many different takes on "Attack of the Clones" I've seen on the list, even if I didn't agree with everything said, it's made me sit back and think about the the movie and what I took from it. I will endeavor to make some kind of connection to Mormon Letters per Jonathan's request, however slight. :-) First of all, to address Eric's proposition that Lucas has some kind of racist element going, especially in the casting of a polynesian/maori actor to play Jango Fett. I receive emails from SAG, The Screen Actor's Guild at least twice a week. They are probably the world's largest acting union. And one of the current hot topics they are addressing is how to get more actors of color on the screen, there is even a committee specially formed to tackle the issue. They LIKE it a lot when persons of color are cast in roles that they might not ordinarily be thought of in and there has been no complaint concerning the casting of this role that I've seen. To me, when a group is comfortable with one of their own being cast as a villian instead of insisting they must always be portrayed in a positive light is a show of progress. When we LDS are not so touchy about being shown as less than than perfect and holy, and more comfortable being human, when we can say someone is our bishop, or stake president, or apostle or prophet who just happens to be black, latino, or fill-in-the-blank and it is not a topic of great note, we will have made progress. Like Hollywood, we have a long way to go, but I hope we're a little farther along in equality. I do however agree with Eric that the whole premise of the Star Wars epic which Lucas has said himself was and is the fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker has always bothered me with the apparent "just accept the good side of the force Darth/Anakin and all is forgiven, you will be saved!" Never mind that you are usually smoldering and angry, grudge holding, blaming and slaughtered a whole village as you slid toward the dark side, (you mean he wasn't already there?), before embarking on your career of darkness, you will be made whole with little effort or payment for what you have done, all will be well. This part of the Star Wars epic is incompatible with Mormon thinking and theology. I suppose we all want and need redemption, but we have been warned if we do not take hold here and now, and do our best to be decent people, the suffering will be intense and beyond our comprehesion. The two scriptural parallels I can come up with might be the account in Genesis of Simeon and Levi slaughtering the men of the Hivites over their sister Dinah-Gen: 34. and the plain and harrowing warning given in D&C 19:15-20. The other thing I saw pointed out was as much as I love Natalie Portman and I like her character of Padma she could be the poster girl for the modern woman both Mormon and non. You have an intelligent, well educated young woman who should, after the ten year gap between episodes have honed her knowledge and political instincts of the way the political system she's in works. She is supposed to be about 29, 30 years old? Old enough to have some grasp of human nature, and yet, seems to miss lots of clues to what's happening both politically and personally. She falls for a young man about 19 or 20 who, although he has always cared for her and she for him, has huge anger management problems, likes the idea of control and order over agency, and is impulsive and unstable among other things. Good partner material for sure! Oh they try and fight their feelings, but when you're with each other every day isn't it just inevitable? And hey, at least they got married! So many bright-in-other-ways women I know make these kinds of mistakes on a constant basis with men, and besides, he's such a hunk! And he has sooo much potential! And he's younger too! I can work with him! We've come a long way baby. As for other elements of the movie that has parallels with the rise of nazism and facism and end-of-days types of prophecies/predictions, I saw several. Palpatine works behind the scenes and is able to work his machinations through others under the guise of what's best for all. He manipulates weaker individuals. Do people think the great movements of evil we saw in the twentieth century and read about in the Bible and especially in the Book of Mormon happened overnight? They often come about when an evil person or persons sense a complacency or need they can fill and then exploit for their own gain. Whenever we are shown the great city that is the cradle of the Republic we see a constant movement of air cars that never ceases. People are busy with their own lives. They don't want to be bothered to be involved with the running of their society or the upkeep of the republic, that's what they elect the senate for, isn't it? They don't want to deal with bothersome and partisan politics and just want to live their lives, work and have fun. Sound familiar? Nazism and facism rose from punishment, poverty and societal disorder. Hitler and Mussolini were able to initally lend some hope and order and take advantage of regaining a sense of national identity. I had a german neighbor as a kid who defended Hitler to me by saying that he did feed the people at first! In AOTC the threat seems to be a test of affluence, apathy, and a lack of noble purpose or direction for the Republic and a general confusion. I think confusion is one of evil's greatest weapons. Count Dooku even tells Obi-Wan a part of what's going on, a partial truth. Evil often works that way-tell part of the truth, not a complete lie, people will often see a complete lie, but miss a partial one. I think Yoda does sense what's going on, he hasn't put all the pieces together, (or maybe he has), but I think he knows he can't stop it by himself, he can only do what good he's capbable of, even using the clones at first. The LDS parallel might be that "even the very elect will be deceived", even the Jedi. I think of that when Yoda is sitting in the chamber talking to Mace Windu before he meditates. He knows good people are going to make mistakes not realizing how much corruption has already found it's way into the system. Nevertheless, despite all the probing, I don't think Star Wars exactly set out to be a movement. George Lucas makes a good space cowboy opera with great special effects, fight scenes, imaginative worlds and gorgeous, scantilly-clad heroines. Yoda kicks butt in one of my favorite scenes and stands up for all us vertically challenged types. And whatever the criticism, this movie is doing well because it's fun and so will the third one. George Lucas is kind of the nerd's eight hundred pound gorilla proving the meek will inherit the movie world, if not the earth. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] Young Heroes (was: _Attack of the Clones_) Date: 23 May 2002 15:15:32 -0600 >Clark Goble: > This really isn't that uncommon. You used to be pretty much an adult at a > much younger age in the past. Consider for instance Nero who was 16 when he > took control of Rome. Uzziah was only 16 when he became King in Israel. > I'm sure there are plenty others. > Well, yeah. But some of these guys were called to, or inherited, their positions. Queen Amidala was elected by the people. I've heard it said before that the Nephites must have been hard up if they wanted a 16-year-old to lead their army. I think the same of the Naboo. Furthermore, her accomplishments in Episode II aren't along the lines of those of a gifted monarch or gifted senator. If she were truly concerned about her people and what was going on in the Senate, she'd be studying and doing everything she could to prepare for her return. Instead, she goes on picnics with Anakin. And sits by the fire with Anakin. And gazes at the lake with Anakin... Sure, we don't see everything that happens while she's away, but if she's working that should have been alluded to, at least. Plus she shouldn't have let Jar Jar take her place in the Senate. That was really poor judgment on her part. She should, at the very least, have briefed him on everything going on and what he should do. I don't know whether these problems are part of Padme's character, or if they're flaws in plotting. I can accept them as being part of her character, which would add a further twist to the story. But it's possible that this aspect of it just wasn't written very carefully. (Or that the answers were in the movie and I didn't catch them.) --Katie Parker -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] re: Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 22 May 2002 10:57:40 -0600 [MOD: Thanks to Sharlee for this contribution to the discussion. I think this is a good post that helps move the conversation in good directions--among other things, in talking about the sorts of things I think we need to address if we want to write realistically, and read realistic fiction, about marriage. At the same time, I also don't want to get into ever-more-intimate discussions of the specifics of the marriage bed, so to speak. So by all means respond to this post--but keep in mind that this is a public venue, and that this post as written goes about as close to the line in describing private conduct as I want to go for AML-List.] I've been playing catch-up with my e-mail lately, and while I found the "Frankness in Mormon Writing" thread fascinating, at first I had a difficult time figuring out how it tied into Mormon literature. But then I realized that the very fact that we were Mormons writing frankly about sexual matters was ample justification in and of itself. It's been interesting to see how defensive some of us get when it comes to any discussion of gender responsibility in a sexual relationship. I'd like to respond to a couple of points. 1. D. Michael Martindale and others were quick to denounce the observation by Stephen Lamb and Douglas Brinley that wives who are uninterested in sex are "often women who have been mistreated by their husbands." Why the defensiveness? The authors are not making a blanket statement. They say "often," not "always" or even "usually." And this observation is just one small part of a chapter entitled "Some Thought for Husbands." In the next chapter ("Some Thought for Wives"), Lamb and Brinley talk at length about the fact that sex should never be used by a woman as a "manipulative tool." "Sex is not a reward or punishment for behavior," they caution. "Don't withhold intimacy as a way to get even, to seek revenge, or to teach your husband a lesson" (159). Obviously, there is no attempt here to foist all the responsibility onto the man. 2. Someone (Gae Lyn, I think) said she believes that when wives reject sex, it's almost always because of anger. I have to disagree. I'm sure that this is sometimes true (has probably even been true on occassion in my own marriage), but I am convinced that a much more common reason is plain ole' EXHAUSTION--mental, physical, and/or emotional. Forgive me for being personal here, but my own marital relationship is the only one I'm really familiar with, and, hence, the only one I can draw on for anecdotal purposes. (Besides, I think it's probably fairly typical of LDS marital relationships.) When my husband and I were first married, sex was INCREDIBLE. We had both been very chaste teenagers (an awkward peck on the lips was as far as either of us had gone with anyone we dated), so our mutual discovery of the joys of sexuality was wonderful and brand-new. And there was certainly no deficit in the libido department where I was concerned. In fact, we often giggled together at the memory of our obviously uncomfortable Stake President counselling us on sexual matters just before we got married. "I would suggest that you set aside one night each week--Sunday night, maybe--and make that the time when you share your physical intimicy with each other." "ONE night a WEEK!??" we would howl. Our first baby was born just before our 2nd anniversary. This didn't slow us down much. Then the second baby came along, then the third, then the fourth, then the fifth. And suddenly everything changed. I was still madly in love with my husband, but I was tired. ALL the time. Deep-down bone weary. Nursing a baby and caring for several toddlers all day long left me exhausted and feeling all touched out. What I craved more than anything else at the end of the day was TIME TO MYSELF. This was a difficult period for us. Sometimes we talked about it, and sometimes we didn't. It was always better when we did. My husband was sometimes frustrated, but very long-suffering for the most part, and I tried to be available to him, even though, frankly (and boy or boy, am I being frank here or not!? I still haven't decided whether or not I'm actually going to post this thing), I wasn't all that interested much of the time. I think we really tried to understand each other and our different needs, but it was still hard. But the good news is . . . that season has passed! Oh, don't get me wrong. It was a wonderful season--full of hugs and sticky fingers and the pitter-patter of little feet--but it was exhausting too. Anyway, things are good again in the intimacy department. GREAT, in fact. Better than ever. But I really think we need to do a better job of teaching our young people what to expect in marriage, sexually-speaking. Those child-bearing years are tough. They just are. But they pass. And then we get a brief respite before we have to start dealing with things like arthritis and impotence! :-) Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Music Query Date: 23 May 2002 15:26:14 -0600 Sorry, Tony, I can't help you here, but now I'm fascinated: what do you mean by Windham Hill "suppressing" a CD? Amy Chamberlain ----- Original Message ----- > Anyway, I'm looking for a certain CD. It's been "suppressed" by Windham Hill [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] DANSIE, _Unwound 2002_ (Short Films) Date: 23 May 2002 16:48:24 -0500 [I am forwarding the following announcement from young Latter-day Saint filmmaker Tucker Dansie, with his express permission: -- Preston] ----UNWOUND 2002 A Collection Of Short Films By Tucker T Dansie/Admission is FREE!---- Salt Lake City, Utah--Young Short Filmmaker Tucker T Dansie, in association with local new-media & technology company Digital Options Inc. are proud to present an annual exhibition of Dansie's newest, award-winning short films, collectively entitled UNWOUND 2002. The event will take place on Saturday, June 15th, 2002, at the Jewett Center for the Performing Arts on the Westminster College Campus (1700 s. 1300 e.); it will be free of charge & the films are suitable for all ages. Afterwards will be a meet-&-greet with the director & various actors from his films. Dansie is a graduate of the Vancouver Film School were he received top honors in his class. While at school, among other duties, he wrote/directed an award winning 16mm short film that was screened at the Vancouver International Film Festival & also received a nomination at the prestigious LEO awards (Canadian Oscars) in 1999. Since then it has been screened in over 15 festivals worldwide, winning many awards. Upon his return, he was able to write/direct/shoot/edit many short films including a 30-minute documentary about Logan-based LDS band COLORS. The film earned him much critical acclaim and was picked up for distribution by Excel Entertainment and is available in most Deseret Books stores. Afterwards, Tucker made movies; any movies he could think of. His upcoming film "Finding Freedom" is a powerful new documentary about an African man who was seeking Political Asylum in the United States, and his struggle to get to this Nation. It's a compelling story about survival, and personal instincts being your only guide. This man has not seen his family in over 3 & 1/2 years, talk about a "survivor". Although short(his website reads "Short Films/Short Filmmaker")his films are full of compassion, comedy, love & lately enough emotion to bring his mother to tears. He loves to make films, but more over, he loves people to see his films. UNWOUND 2002 is sure to bring that love to everyone who attends. Admission is free, everyone is welcome. for more information & a map go to www.tuckertdansie.com/unwound or e-mail tucker@digop.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Conservatism in Fantasy (was: _Attack of the Clones_) Date: 23 May 2002 19:03:37 -0400 On "inherent social conservatism" in science fiction, Jonathan Langford wrote: >So what do I mean by inherent social conservatism? Here are some of the >points that I see frequently recurring in much fantasy literature that I >think help to create a sense of underlying social conservatism: > >* Emphasis on blood inheritance >* Character as a function of group: family, race, nation of origin, etc. >* Story focus on those of "noble blood" >* Character as something that is revealed over the course of the story, >rather than as something that changes. (This is tricky, because you >can get a lot of development that *looks* like change but is actually >simply an unfolding of inherent, preexisting character traits.) >* Interpretation of a society, people, or nation largely in terms of its >past >* Glorification of the trappings of quasi-medieval society, without >attention to the "violence inherent in the system" (as the Pythons would >put it) >* Use of largely antedated belief systems as sources of magical power. >(E.g., magic comes from knowing something's "true name"--harking back to a >view of language as containing meaning, rather than as strictly arbitrary.) Wow! "Conservatism" as defined in the US is the opposite of what is described above. The above sounds more like something that Marxists and COLLECTIVISTS of all type would embrace as their ideal. After all, Marx did believe that the concept of the individual was fiction. Langford continues his list: >* Notions of destiny >* Totalizing descriptions of good versus evil (we know who the good guys >and bad guys are) >* Attachment to archetypes, hierarchies of knowledge and experience, etc. >* Willingness to associate a right to rule or govern with possession of >unique personal qualifications > These would certainly be more easily linked with American conservatism because they vale the concept of the individual and the idea that individual achievement(not blood, race, etc.) are what qualify one for a particular role in society. The above also are based on an understanding of and appreciation for the human faculty of consciousness.( The ability to recognize and categorize good and evil however broadly or narrowly; hierarchies of knowledge and experience.) Question: Isn't all knowledge by its very nature hierarchical? I know that Post Modernism rejects this; but then it also rejects the efficacy of human consciousness--which is man's only tool for acquiring knowledge--so even their convoluted arguments, to be consistent, must reject any semblance of certainty. >Not all these factors are necessarily innately conservative, but taken >together I think they contribute to a genre that probably comes closer than >almost any other to deserving a marxist critique. Marxists would certainly reject my thoughts on these things. I am not a big science fiction fan, but I think its appeal lies in the fact that it is a classically Romantic genre; it views individuals are agents who are in control of themselves, their actions and, therefore, of their fate. This is a noble view of man--almost religious--and in a culture that has increasingly rejected the very existence of objective standards of universal morality, it fills a very real human void. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Changes in Usage Date: 24 May 2002 01:33:55 -0600 harlowclark@juno.com wrote: > There's a difference between saying, "The answers were all right" and, > "the answers were alright." The first means all the answers were correct. > The second, depending on tone, can mean that the answers were > satisfactory, or that they were just so-so. Exactly. "Alright" has come to mean something different than "all right." But the anti-alright crowd claim they're interchangeable, and that "all right" is the only acceptable version. As far as I know, virtually all editors will change "alright" to "all right," even thought "alright" now serves a useful function distinct from "all right." -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Conservatism in Fantasy Date: 24 May 2002 14:15:36 -0700 on 5/22/02 10:23 PM, Jonathan Langford at jlangfor@pressenter.com wrote: > Jonathan Langford > Speaking (babbling, really) for myself, not AML-List... While I do not dispute the fact that all of the listed qualities appear in almost all Fantasy literature I do dispute the fact that these things are in any way representative of social conservatism. The only way such an interpretation can be made is to take an absolutist definition of conservatism, and one not defined by adherents but by yourself. By your list you have decided that conservatives believe that the middle ages were the good old days, but there are no conservatives, social or otherwise, who believe that, at least in America. No, for lovers of feudalism you have to look to radical Islam and Socialism. All of the things listed work perfectly well in the context of current neo-Marxist and radical Islamic literature and rhetoric, though of course the terms and language is different to give a modern flavor. I am myself a social conservative, and very familiar with the arguments, beliefs, and people who make up the movement. Conservative itself is a unfortunate word in the modern sense, because it doesn't really fit, but since my side has been defined that way by the left there's not much point in arguing it anymore. For once I'll take them in order: * Emphasis on blood inheritance The conservative view of blood inheritance is that there isn't any. A man or is what he does--his deeds make him. His family background is largely irrelevant, other than it may make the self-made man more admirable because of the difficulties of his background, such as Clarence Thomas. This applies equally to women. * Character as a function of group: family, race, nation of origin, etc. Social conservatism is individualistic. Family, race and nation of origin are merely trappings, actions are what define a person. To a conservative the difference between black and white and red is skin deep. Culture is not something that cannot be divested--it is a free choice. If you don't like the culture you were born to you can reject it. This is what's known as the American Ideal, which is believed by conservatives of every stripe. * Story focus on those of "noble blood" Social conservatives do not believe in the existence of noble blood. Nobility is in the deed. * Character as something that is revealed over the course of the story, rather than as something that changes. (This is tricky, because you can get a lot of development that *looks* like change but is actually simply an unfolding of inherent, preexisting character traits.) While this is true of much fantasy, it isn't true of Tolkien and really has no relevance to any of the beliefs of conservatism. All brands of conservatism recognize the right to change camps, or repent, or whatever you want to call it. This is why people like David Horowitz can be so widely accepted among conservatives despite his past leftist radicalism. * Interpretation of a society, people, or nation largely in terms of its past Social conservatives tend not to believe in society at all. They believe that society is a construct of the left to try and take away individual freedom. People goes back to race. There is no American people except in the sense that Americans as a nation are those who accept the American Ideal. An American can't just be born, he has to be taught to be American. As far as the past goes it is the left that tends to define America that way. As a conservative I don't feel any guilt for what America did; she did nothing, people individually did things that were evil in her past. The fact that the ideal was failed by many individuals in the past doesn't make the ideal necessarily wrong. * Glorification of the trappings of quasi-medieval society, without attention to the "violence inherent in the system" (as the Pythons would put it) Again this occurrs in ALL fantasy writing but has nothing to do with social conservatism. Perhaps you have not noticed but there is little respect for authority per se among social conservatives. I am part of the Neo-Federalist/Hamiltonian wing. There are too many wings for this bird to fly which is why social conservatism hasn't taken over the world. We have so much fun arguing with each other that we forget who the real opponent is. * Use of largely antedated belief systems as sources of magical power. (E.g., magic comes from knowing something's "true name"--harking back to a view of language as containing meaning, rather than as strictly arbitrary.) Again with the Fantasy, but not with the social conservatism. There is really no "accepted" linguistic school among conservatives. Almost all despise Chomsky because of his hatreds, and know little or nothing about his linguistic theory (which I personally think is bunk). I may add that it is the left that tends to view language as imperitively meaningful--by limiting the language one will limit the bad thoughts that go along with it. Hence the concept of "hate speech" and Orwell's parody of it, Newspeak. * Notions of destiny I have never met a conservative who believed in destiny, and I correspond with some of the famous figures around the country as well as many others locally and around America. Prophecy is not the same as Destiny, but conservatives all believe in freedom, not fate. The fact that God knows what is going to happen beforehand is irrelevant. I know Lutherans do not believe in free will (or at least Luther himself did not) but then I have never met a conservative Lutheran, though I'm sure some exist. It would seem to be a contradiction in terms to believe in freedom and fate, and conservatives (and especially social conservatives) come down on the side of freedom. Smith's "invisible hand" is not fate. * Totalizing descriptions of good versus evil (we know who the good guys and bad guys are) There are two different, almost diametrically opposed ideas in this section. Knowing who the bad guys are doesn't make them "totalizing." Conservatives when they talk about lefties tend to do it apologetically. Lefties mean well, they're just misguided, etc. Lefties, on the other hand, tend to demonize conservatives. Bush KNEW that they were going to bomb the WTC. Gingrich is going to starve children and throw old people out into the street. Reagan (or Goldwater for that matter) is going to blow up the world. As a rule social conservatives are more willing to act against evil, but no conservative that I have met or talked to believed that Russians were all evil, or that all Chinese are evil now. On the other hand all conservatives agree that Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc, were evil, but that is not the totality of their characters. Hitler petted his dog frequently. Mao let all those twelve-year-old girls he (expletive/deleted) live afterwards. Evil is considered to be a seduction that draws one to evil deeds, but repentance (or change) is always part of every conservative (particularly social conservative) worldview that I know of. In the fantasy literature this is also true. Gandalf let Smeagol live even after all those horrible deeds. Edmund was the traitor who mended. Though Sauron was totally evil by the end, so were Hitler or Stalin. The fact that they ended up totally evil is a warning, not a description. * Attachment to archetypes, hierarchies of knowledge and experience, etc. While entirely apt in describing fantasy, this is mere literary device rather than any belief. It's simply easier to write in those terms. As far as social conservatism goes, there is no attachment to archetypes, merely a hesitation to reject them out of hand. Stereotypes and generalization are always false, but they are also often true. There is an element of truth to all, but there are always exceptions. There is little love for hierarchies of any kind outside of their proper place in the Church. The ideal of the self-made doesn't really go in for the Chinese technical school that you describe here. * Willingness to associate a right to rule or govern with possession of unique personal qualifications Of this list this is the one that is the farthest away from the social conservative viewpoint. It describes in no way any belief that any conservative of any stripe believes. The "right to rule" anyone other than oneself is something that doesn't exist from the conservative way of thinking. While we certainly believe that every individual is unique, and therefore has unique personal qualifications, that doesn't give them any right to rule anybody. This also is not the usual case in much of Fantasy literature. Theoden told Saruman: "Even if your war on me was just, as it was not, for were you ten times as wise you would have no right to rule me and mine, for your own profit, as you desired..." The old English ideal of freemen in a kingdom is a little strange to Americans, but it exists. Even the Spartans, who lived in as structured (and as rotten) a society as ever existed, believed themselves to be free. You have to give the Spartans this--their kings were not kings because of blood but because of their abilities. You had to be a good general to king it in Sparta. In this case there may be a semantical difference, but the concept as stated is anathema to conservatism. I agree that Star Wars are fantasy movies. I agree that fantasy tends to use the middle ages as an ideal. I agree that many fantasy writers often may sound conservative to a non-conservative. I agree that Tolkien was certainly a conservative in the English sense (his political ideal was the Holy Roman Empire after all). The problem comes down to definitions as always. In the American sense almost no fantasy literature is conservative. All of the points you list are un-American. My own writing is almost all fantasy and does have an American social conservative flavor that is obvious to the initiated. Those who take the Washington Post and NY Times as the proper definers of conservatism will not recognize much of it. The word "conservative" is probably the biggest sticking point in the whole argument. Since it is a relative term is can be pushed any which way. In Egypt a conservative longs for Pharoah. In France for the Capets, or maybe Charlemagne. In Russia after the fall of Communism he longs for Communism, or before the fall he longs for the Czars. Even in America it can be misinterpreted. Some "conservatives" long for the "era of good feeling," ie Jeffersonian democracy. Some want the Washington/Adams/Hamilton federalism back. Some long for the antebellum South. The conservative political movement doesn't long for the past. The name is really a misnomer. The essential beliefs are very simple. Do not reject tradition without testing it first. Freedom is more important than money or security, and is worth even the ultimate sacrifice. Progress should be measured and careful, with due regard for facts. People are not universally good. Evil exists, and some will fall prey to it. People are the same now as they have always been--human nature has not changed one iota since the beginning. Progress is based on individual achievement. Laws, regulations and rules must be understandable to all. Too much of law, regulation and rule stifles creativity and imperils freedom. I could go on all day, but that will do for now. Social conservatism is not merely a belief in traditional "family values" or a discomfort with "new" thoughts. It is a progressive, vibrant belief system with many radical ideals many of which have never been tested. Some say capitalism has been tried and failed--the pure version Smith wrote about still hasn't been tried, so it may still be considered a radical vision. At the risk of being insulting, Jonathan, I have to say this: while describing yourself as a social conservative you show very little understanding of it. It is a much more complete and complex interpretation of life than Marxism ever hoped to be. Marxism is an attempt to revive feudalism, with intellectuals as the lords instead of warriors. You seem to hold your view from a Marxist perspective, as if you are in a culture, looking at it from without, and understand neither the culture you live in nor the culture from whence your perspective originates. Anyone can tell how much I despise Marxism, and not only because of the horrors perpetrated in its name. Marx was wrong about every single thing he wrote about. He described a world that can't exist replacing a world that never existed. He rejected reality and wanted to replace that rejected reality with an unreachable one. The great tenet of socialism, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is bunk. It can be refuted with the greatest of ease. Hand me a couple of pounds of cherries, sugar and flour, and I will take what is already valuable and turn it into an inedible mess that my vanity would call a cherry pie. My abilities subtracted value. Hand them to my mother and she'll make a bang-up cherry pie that anybody would like, thus enhancing the value of what she was given. The same material given to a great chef might increase the value tenfold. The question is, if I, and my mother, and the great chef, are all paid the same, why would anybody bother to increase his abilities. Since the value is neutral, nobody would have any pie. They'd just eat the cherries and sugar, and make the flour into bread. This is, by the way, how feudalism works. A peasant works on his lord's farm 3 or 4 days a week, and on his own little plot the rest of the time. Which do you suppose receives more love and care and effort? The fact is I hope the guy that invented Golden Rice get's stinking rich. I'm glad that there are lots of billionaires among those who invented and developed the computer. I hope that the guy that invents my flying car gets richer than Croesus' dreams. If he doesn't, he won't invent it! And I want a flying car. There you go. My belief in capitalism is really just a desire for a flying car. That's why capitalism works and socialism never will. Sorry to be so long, Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Young Heroes (was: _Attack of the Clones_) Date: 24 May 2002 14:20:16 -0700 on 5/23/02 2:15 PM, katie@aros.net at katie@aros.net wrote: > > I don't know whether these problems are part of Padme's character, or if > they're flaws in plotting. I can accept them as being part of her character, > which would add a further twist to the story. But it's possible that this > aspect of it just wasn't written very carefully. (Or that the answers were in > the movie and I didn't catch them.) > > --Katie Parker I believe that we're seeing definite character flaws. If she were really as wise as her foolish people believe she wouldn't be secretly marrying Darth Vader, no would she? After all, she did it with eyes open. Nobody else knows that he commited an atrocity after his mom's death. She alone knows, and still she married him. It's like Winona Rider's Mina knowing that Dracula has babies for breakfast but "I don't care, I want to be with you." Sometimes a girl who believes she can reform a wild, wicked young man is SORELY mistaken. Of course, when I saw Anakin's mom a-dying, I said to my cohorts, "It's atrocity time." But I would never DO it...I hope. --Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kellene Adams Subject: [AML] Baby Exhaustion (was: Frankness in Mormon Writing) Date: 24 May 2002 15:40:50 -0600 Sharlee wrote: > Then the second baby came along, then the third, then the fourth, then the > fifth. And suddenly everything changed. I was still madly in love with my > husband, but I was tired. ALL the time. Deep-down bone weary. Nursing a > baby and caring for several toddlers all day long left me exhausted and > feeling all touched out. What I craved more than anything else at the end > of the day was TIME TO MYSELF. This was a difficult period for us. > Sometimes we talked about it, and sometimes we didn't. It was always better > when we did. Completely off topic here, but I jumped on this part of Sharlee's post. It's very timely for me. Currently I have three children, aged 5, 3, and six months. I have never been so emotionally, physically, spiritually, and intellectually exhausted in my life. I got great solace from Sharlee's observation that the season passes; I'd suspected it, but having someone confirm it was very heartening. Now for my questions. This pure and deep and even desperate fatigue has taken me by such surprise, yet when I talk to people, it seems very universal. Just about every mother of several young children seems to experience it. I have been trying to come up with a useful, interesting, and purchase-worthy book idea targeting young mothers that contained hints and tips for dealing with this season of their lives. Question 1: Do you think this topic has any merit? I know there's some stuff out there. . .has the subject matter been dealt with thoroughly? Question 2: Would you focus it on an LDS market so you could include gospel-related material (i.e., Relief Society, prayer, scriptures, etc.) or look toward a national market and keep it nonLDS specific (although you could certainly still include prayer-like suggestion, yoga, meditation, etc.) Question 3: Are there any great experiences, suggestions, ideas, tips, etc. that anyone would care to share with me if I can get my act together and get this project going? (This one you may want to respond to me personally; I'd sure appreciate any and all input. . . ) Thanks for your thoughts. . . Kellene -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Petersen Subject: Re: [AML] MCLEAN & KELLY, "The Ark" (Daily Herald) Date: 24 May 2002 15:37:47 -0600 O.K. I don't understand where people get the idea that ancient Egyptians were black. Most aren't black today. Certainly the BoAbraham was used to justify the ban against giving blacks the priesthood, but we're beyond that now. In Maryland, where I lived for over 8 years, I was extremely distressed to find black latter-day-saints who believed they were living under a curse, were fence sitters in the pre-earth life, or were not valiant in some way. I was sad to see such folk doctrines enter their lives. I have discussed this issue with one Egyptologist who said that what we know about Egypt at the time of Abraham (whenever that might have been) is that there were some pharaohs who were black some who were definitely not black, but for most we just don't know. At the very least we know that race was not really an issue for the ancient Egyptians. And if you look at the facsimiles in the BoA there is only one person who is represented as black--a servant in fac. 1. We have wrenched the meaning of the BoA to accomodate our past practices, but there just simply is no reason to continue this. In his book _Abraham in Egypt_, Hugh Nibley (btw, the biography is all done except for final proofing!) challenged the folk belief used by many members and leaders of the Church to justify the official pre-1978 policy of excluding Black members from holding the priesthood. "Why was Pharaoh, 'a righteous man . . . blessed . . . With the blessings of wisdom' (Abraham 1:26), denied that priesthood, which he 'would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham' (Abraham 1:27)? Certainly not because of Ham, 'a just man [who] walked with God' (Moses 8:27). Rather, Hugh argued, Pharaoh was denied the priesthood because he claimed it through the "matriarchal line" rather than the "patriarchal." Hugh concluded that "there is no mention of race, though enemies of the Church have declared with shock and outrage that these passages are proof of Mormon discrimination against blacks." Hugh may not have been correct about the patriarchy/matriarchy line of this argument. At the time he wrote his book it was a fairly common belief that Egyptian society was matriarchal. But that has been pretty much dismissed. Nevertheless, it is not hard to imagine that Pharaoh claimed the priesthood through an illegitimate channel. Regardless, we no longer need the Egyptians were black argument and I believe it's time for it to go. I saw "The Ark" in its first incarnation and reviewed it for AML. I found it troubling then that McLean had chosen to make Egyptus black and I raised the issue in my review. I'm really sad to hear that after overhauling the play she is still black. There's just no reason for it. And despite the fact that the woman playing the role then was the best member of the cast, I thought it wrong-headed to perpetrate this folk doctrine. Why not make Noah black instead. That I'd really like to see. --Boyd Petersen > Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:20:41 -0600 > From: margaret young > Subject: Re: [AML] MCLEAN & KELLY, "The Ark" (Daily Herald) > > Actually, I've never made the claim that the evidence that Egyptus was > black is not strong. I think she was black. I think most Egyptians were > black. Likely what Andrew is thinking of is my assumption that Joseph's > Egyptian wife (Asenath, the mother of Ephraim and Manessah) was black. I > also think Rahab (mentioned in the genealogy of the Savior) was black > It's a long discussion, and I'm just taking a brief break from very > concentrated writing to correct this little tidbit. Happy to pursue it > AFTER this third installment of the trilogy is done. > > [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Conservatism in Fantasy Date: 24 May 2002 19:10:31 -0500 Rob and Jim's replies make it clear that I need to clarify what I meant in using the phrase "social conservatism." (Which probably means that I was insufficiently clear in my original message.) So, here goes: By "social conservatism," I did *not* mean political conservatism of any stripe--including the type that focuses on social issues--or any political movement currently called conservative. Rather, I simply wanted to reference a basic view of society that values stability very highly (often over other values such as democratic representation) and that tends to support existing social structures, including class structures where they exist--seeing the alternative as a chaos that damages both individuals and societies. In saying this, I do not mean to imply that this set of values maps in any way to the movements called "conservative" in the United States today. Possibly I ought to have used a different term. But in discussing societies (as opposed to political movements) as "conservative," I think something like this is very generally what is meant. (Looking in the dictionary, I find both types of meanings listed under "conservatism" and "conservative," which simply attests--as Jim noted--just how widely the meaning of this term can vary.) It's in that sense that I meant my list of characteristics of fantasy literature. And I do think that these characteristics tend to support that sort of view of the world. I don't mean to say that all the authors who work in the fantasy genre support this view, but rather that the structures of the genre itself seem to make such a meaning very easy to read into fantasy works, and sometimes rather hard to work against, if that's what you want to do. (I agree, by the way, with Rob's characterization of science fiction as a modern Romantic genre glorifying the individual. I think, however, that this is not true in the same way of fantasy. Many of the items I listed as characteristic of fantasy are not standard features of science fiction, at least sf books.) With regard to subjecting literary works to a marxist critique, again I do not mean to make any specific reference either to marxist political philosophy or to the writings of Karl Marx. There's an entire branch of literary criticism known as marxist criticism that was developed by a group of scholars who saw the marxist view of the world as a fruitful place to start in asking questions of literary texts. Many of these were political marxists; a number were not, and many literary critics (including some LDS scholars) who are not marxists in any way use the tools of marxist literary criticism to interrogate texts. Marxist literary criticism tends to look at texts from the perspective of class structures, social values, and political and economic power, and how these are depicted within a literary work. As I use it (which is only pretty minimally) and as it is used by those critics whose works in this area I value, it has less to do with finding a particular ideology in a literary work and more to do with the types of questions that you ask about the work. It focuses, among other things, on the social impact of a literary work. What will be the effect if many people read this book and accept its ideas? What impact will that have socially and/or politically? These are the kinds of questions that a (good) marxist critic asks. (I have to also add that there's a lot of marxist criticism--most of it, in fact--that *is* doctrinaire, and a lot that's relatively unsophisticated. Still, I think there's value in the approach. Even if I disagree with someone's position, there's a lot I can learn from listening to someone who *has* a position from which he or she makes an argument.) (Ironically, in the world of literary studies, the marxists are now considered--in alliance with the liberal humanists--as among the "conservatives" in English departments. It's a bizarre world out there, and while there are a lot of connections to real-world politics, the labels--and the lines of alliance--don't go where you think they ought to go.) (A quick story before I end this aside: At the University of California at Riverside, where I attended graduate school, there was another graduate student who was of the radical lesbian criticism school. She was very friendly to me, though. I couldn't figure out why, until I realized that she saw me--a conservative, religious student--as being, in some sense, an "oppressed minority," in the same way that she viewed herself, fighting as an underdog against the existing power structure. It was very strange. "All politics is local," the saying goes, and I certainly saw that to be true in my own view of departmental politics.) So the point I was trying to make had a great deal to do with types of societies as they are commonly described, and very little to do with political labels. Part of the problem is that terms, such as "conservative," are used in many different ways in many different fields. Because they do have all these meanings, we can't discard those labels--say that when we use the word "conservative," it has to mean only thus and such, and not this other. By the same token, I hope that Rob, Jim, and others will recognize that I do not mean to get into an argument over terminology, or to make any statements about political movements. Rather, my intent was simply to share a set of observations about what I see as the social implications of structures in fantasy literature. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Conservatism in Fantasy Date: 24 May 2002 17:40:44 -0600 > Lefties mean > well, they're just misguided, etc. Lefties, on the other hand, tend to > demonize conservatives. Bush KNEW that they were going to bomb the WTC. > You are as off kilter wrt defining leftists as you claim Jonathan is in defining social conservatives. "Ultra" leftists may KNOW what was in Bush's mind, etc. True leftists just WANT to know what Bush knew. Big difference. And you had the gall to say that Conservatives demonize the left. Except for the above, and a few other swipes at leftists, I agree with your assessment of where fantasy sits on the social/political scale. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Moderator Message on Politics Date: 24 May 2002 19:20:45 -0500 Folks, I've recently allowed through a couple of posts that made some off-topic/disrespectful statements about political philosophies with which the authors disagreed. I didn't want to send these back for rewrite, since these were largely comments in passing. However, I do need to add at this point that we really need to be careful about characterizing those positions with which we disagree, particularly in the political arena. Okay? Keep in mind: we have both (self-described) leftists and conservatives on this list, as well as libertarians, probably greens, and goodness knows what else. Arguing about politics is off-topic for AML-List, although political views are *sometimes* relevant to the degree that they inform literary views. However, quick, easy, and potentially insulting characterizations of someone else's position are never appropriate for AML-List. To the degree that I've let these through, due to laziness on my part, I apologize, and share with you my resolution to be more careful in this area in the future. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 24 May 2002 20:19:52 -0500 I think anything well done that realistically or fairly or humorously or honestly portrays motherhood would be wonderful to see in any market. Interesting anecdote, though. Right now I am getting my MFA at Hamline University in St. Paul, MN. This last semester I was on the editorial board of our literary magazine, Water-Stone (a very good magazine, by the way. If any of you are interested in seeing it or even submitting to it, let me know). At any rate, as a mother of three children under six also (5, 4 and 13 months, and, yes, I am also bone weary), I am definitely an "alternate voice" at Hamline and represented a demographic different from the average Hamline student during our editorial discussions. Although I am interested in and love reading a very wide range of styles and subjects, one particular piece submitted to the magazine was both well written and very resonant for me personally because it dealt with new motherhood. It was neither sentimental nor angry, just realistic and funny and, I thought, altogether great. The piece made it to our final round and just barely missed the cut for publication, although I fought for it hard. We had a great discussion as an editorial board, though, about the lack of good writing out there portraying the life of suburban, middle class motherhood without a tone of derision or sentimentality weighing it down. It's a huge and potentially interesting and moving topic, but many literary magazines either can't publish it because of lack of good stuff, or won't publish it because of a subtle sense that these stories aren't "important" enough for a serious literary readership. Anyhow, I found the whole process to be both frustrating and enlightening, and I hope to see more good fiction and non-fiction published about motherhood. Angela Hallstrom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Random Thoughts Date: 25 May 2002 02:24:10 +0000 Random thoughts, none worth their own separate message: I finally saw Brigham City last week. My DVD player only works with DVD's bought in Japan, but a friend in the US found a video of Brigham City on Ebay and bought it for me. The video is not out officially yet, so I'm not sure how she got it. It has the horror film cover, and the one preview is for a buggy horror film called Creepy Crawly. Werid. Anyway, I greatly enjoyed it, and then I enjoyed all the discussion about it on AML-List that I have been avoiding for a year so it wouldn't ruin the movie for me. John-Charles' Duffy's paper and Scott Parkin and everyone else's responses were all very thought-provoking. Dutcher really is an excellent film-maker. I don't know much about psychotics, but wouldn't the killer have shown a few more signs of his problems than he did? Could he really have fooled his wife and Wes and everyone for so long that he was a normal, nice guy? Sorry about two attribution mistakes recently, Margaret Young on Egyptus, and a mistake about M. Shayne Bell's book in my Irreantum article. Thanks for correcting me. I enjoyed the new Irreantum, especially Darlene Young's story. Also the Brady Udall interview. I thought it was funny how the whole interview he seemed to be thinking, "who the heck are you AML people?" I liked how he can only write after midnight, it sounds like one of his charachters. I am not much of a poetry reader, but I liked the review of the Arthur Henry King collection. Thanks to Chris for his work on the magazine. I'm reading Terryl Givens' _By the Hand of Mormon_, and finding it fascinating. I'll probably give it a stronger review than Jeff Needle did. When we were in Seattle last year there was a "Pig Parade" similar to the "Cow Parade" someone mentioned. There were some very cool ones. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jana Pawlowski" Subject: [AML] Re: Baby Exhaustion Date: 25 May 2002 10:16:33 -0600 Original post: I have been trying to come up with a useful, interesting, and purchase-worthy book idea targeting young mothers that contained hints and tips for dealing with this season of their lives. Question 1: Do you think this topic has any merit? I know there's some stuff out there. . .has the subject matter been dealt with thoroughly? Question 2: Would you focus it on an LDS market so you could include gospel-related material (i.e., Relief Society, prayer, scriptures, etc.) or look toward a national market and keep it nonLDS specific (although you could certainly still include prayer-like suggestion, yoga, meditation, etc.) Jana: I think we can reach for a more universal market. Relief Society (at least in our ward, where they have 8 nurseries---Herriman new subdivisions) seems to put alot of time into addressing these issues each Sunday and work meetings, so maybe we should be kind and reach out to those who don't have that forum. Altho' market it locally as an LDS author, because young R.S. attenders should also benefit from it, but are sometimes conservative about reading non-LDS authors. Original post: Question 3: Are there any great experiences, suggestions, ideas, tips, etc. that anyone would care to share with me if I can get my act together and get this project going? (This one you may want to respond to me personally; I'd sure appreciate any and all input. . . ) Jana: My husband has been my personal hero/savior through my difficult child bearing experiences, so I'm generous/lenient with him in the, how does one say this delicately, that room where one retires at night and sometimes during daylight? I think that should be part of the equation of any eternal marriage, being each others' personal heroes (somehow combined with being your best critic too:.....but not in the retiring room). I just asked my husband, Randy, what should be done about the exhausted mothers, and he said, "Let them rest." So include that somewhere.....They get to nap whenever, wherever, and always by themselves. And if they like, to nature sounds or celtic harps or incense or church hymns, anything that is relaxing or soul-satisfying. We should all do Yoga too (I'm trying to pep-talk myself into this, actually. I have the tapes, I have the time, I'm just not doing it.) If motherhood really is the greatest calling then we should keep a sanctuary and provide a time where we can replenish ourselves (without getting into anything weird or polytheistic. I'm speaking as a solid member to other solid members. I was raised on a farm in Idaho, so those instruments of meditation and relaxation are pretty much just a mood setting gimick for me.) Jana Pawlowski -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 25 May 2002 13:26:31 -0500 >I have never been so emotionally, physically, spiritually, and >intellectually exhausted in my life. I got great solace from Sharlee's >observation that the season passes; I'd suspected it, but having someone >confirm it was very heartening. It really does? Really, really? I have six, ages almost-12 to 3 months old. >Now for my questions. This pure and deep and even desperate fatigue has >taken me by such surprise, yet when I talk to people, it seems very >universal. Just about every mother of several young children seems to >experience it. Why aren't we WARNED? :-) My level of fatigue, after this baby, doesn't come close to what I thought was fatigue, when I had three kids 3 and under. I was in my early twenties then, though. Age makes a difference. There is also the related issue in Mormondom, almost never addressed in literature and rarely from the pulpit, of never knowing when you'll be finished with that birthing stage (until you actually are). And of wishing you were finished, but personal revelation tells you otherwise. And perhaps even guilt over being finished. How many babies is honestly "all you can care for?" For some families that's literally one or two. For others it might be nine, ten, eleven. Couple this fatigue with a knowledge it's only going to be added upon, and it's no wonder there are so many hopeless women out there on Prozac. > I have been trying to come up with a useful, interesting, and >purchase-worthy book idea targeting young mothers that contained hints and >tips for dealing with this season of their lives. If you do, I'll buy it. I'd love to come up with stories to help you, but man, I am TOO TIRED! :-) I did go to a yoga class last Saturday, for the first time, and it really, really helps. It *works.* I don't know how. Probably through that "governing vessel" stuff Paris was teaching us all about. But how easy is it to get out of the house and do that, on a regular basis? Or afford it? (The class I attended was a free trial run.) Yoga, especially, is something that needs to be taught. You can't just read a book and learn how. And it fits in with our gospel just fine. Sharlee is also right about the sense of being "all touched out." Young moms can hit a saturation point in a very real sense, no matter how much one naturally, normally enjoys cuddling children and other enjoyable physical things. Dads who are doing their full part to be involved in it (getting up at night, doing housework, etc.) can become equally as tired. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] Young Heroes Date: 25 May 2002 12:30:26 -0700 (PDT) Then there's Buffy Summers, who was called to be the vampire Slayer when she was only 15. She has of course saved the world multiple times since then:-) Two good evaluations of the recent astonishing season finale can be found online: "Buffy's War" by Thomas Hibbs http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hibbs052402.asp "Willow, Destroyer of Worlds" by Stephanie Zacharek (one of the most perceptive writers about "Buffy") http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2002/05/22/buffy/index.html ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] LDS and Evangelical Universities Date: 25 May 2002 13:42:49 -0600 An interesting piece in "The Wall Street Journal" about an Evangelical college, Patrick Henry, that was denied accreditation on the grounds of lack of academic freedom. That institution is compared to Southern Virginia University, a mostly-LDS college that has had no trouble with accreditation. I think the author, Naomi Schaefer, perfectly captures the contrast between Evangelical and LDS worldviews. That kind of crippling narrowness is what we came to Utah to get away from:-) http://opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110001751 _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 25 May 2002 14:17:58 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- > Completely off topic here, but I jumped on this part of Sharlee's post. It's > very timely for me. Currently I have three children, aged 5, 3, and six > months. I have never been so emotionally, physically, spiritually, and > intellectually exhausted in my life. I got great solace from Sharlee's > observation that the season passes; I'd suspected it, but having someone > confirm it was very heartening. This section of Sharlee's post had the opposite effect on me. I currently have ONE child, who's almost two, and after reading this I'm thinking: so what's so bad about having only one? Terminal exhaustion isn't my idea of fun. I guess that I'm essentially lazy. Yeah, sounds like a book on the topic would be a good idea. [Amy Chamberlain] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 25 May 2002 18:17:43 -0400 ----- Original Message ----- > > > We have a Stake Pres. who is a very highly regarded doctor. He has taken > > care of missionaries without compensation for years. > > If I made what a doctor made doing my art, I suppose I would be able to help > people with art as well. > Reply: I'm not sure comparative earnings are a good measure of whether or not we should donate our time to a project. So his profession has the possibility of higher hourly wage. All the more reason, some would say, for him NOT to donate his time and services. There are other things that are just as important as money. How about time. I'm sure that often he was giving this service during his very limited personal time. After all, he already has a full church work load with all his stake presidenting. A while back there was a service project in our area--collecting coats for the needy. I noticed that not very many were being donated in our ward. But we had one family that donated about five--one from every member of their family. And they were probably about the poorest members of our ward. We happened to be friends with them, which is the only reason I know of it. If I had looked around the ward I would have picked them as the people who should not be donating coats and should possibly be receiving them instead. It gave them great joy to make this small sacrifice. I guess all I'm trying to say is that there is something to be said for giving the widow's mite. And, as said before, each person's decision is between themselves and God. Tracie -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Changes over Time Date: 25 May 2002 18:29:07 -0400 I'm with you Thom. While the principles of salvation remain the same, much of what we call doctrine is actually practice. And, you're right. Writers better know the difference, and know what was acceptable at different times. The missionary's Mom in Falling Toward Heaven gets in big trouble for laying on hands during prayer counseling. I believe at one point it was not uncommon for women to perform similar blessings. (Though I am not at all sure of the extent of the practice.) We've had discussions on the wine thing and male facial hair thing on the list in the recent past. I know that some practices vary from region to region in the church today. In some areas a priesthood holder must be the concluding speaker, or the closing prayer must be given by a priesthood holder, or choirs can only sing hymns from the book and ditto for organists. Tracie ----- Original Message ----- >Suffice it to say that our doctrines > have changed so much that visitors from the past would hardly recognize > the Church of today. LDS writers need to know this lest they make such > stupid mistakes as showing ancient apostles drinking grapejuice, or > (more appropriately to a project I'm currently involved with) that > witholding priesthood from black people was a God-sanctioned practice. > > Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: Re: [AML] Changes in Usage Date: 24 May 2002 21:24:35 -0700 Regarding all right versus alright: I teach Freshman English online. Alright is a non-word with me. I correct it in my students' essays. I doubt that alright will ever become acceptable in formal English. I was told fifty years ago in my Freshman English class that it would be only a matter of a few years till ain't became a respectable word. This half century later, it still isn't respectable. I think that is the way it will be with alright. Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: [AML] Update to the Nauvoo Theatrical Society - 2 Date: 26 May 2002 13:20:25 -0600 I have a distinct memory from my college days: "I'm glad I'm a theatre major. Now I'll never have to do hard physical labor." So why did I recently go out and by (for the first time in lo these many years) a tube of Extra-Strength Thera-gesic, and a bottle of arthritis capsules? Well, the vagaries of producing theatre in Utah County being what they are, it became obvious to me many years ago that, if ever I wanted to see my plays produced, I would have to do it myself. So here I am, years later, swinging a sledge hammer against a temporary wall in a retail space that used to sell outdoor equipment (and was a hair salon before that) -- to make room for a 150-seat theatre where my organization, the Nauvoo Theatrical Society -- will soon produce its first 7-play season. I feel a bit out of my depth -- I'd rather just write and direct -- but since no one else is breaking down my doors to do my plays, I've assumed the role of Business Owner in order to give birth to my dream. As it turns out, the dream is a shared one, shared by Scott Bronson, and more recently by Paul Duerden, who have thus far helped immeasurably in helping this project limp forward. The irony of my college memory that being in theater would mean I wouldn't have to do "real" work came to mind during a recent visit to Lowe's. Scott and I were walking through the aisles, cramming our shopping cart with stuff we figured we'd need on an ongoing basis at the theatre (things like toilet brushes, waste baskets, mops, brooms). It hit me during a brief discussion over the kind of stepladder to get (one or two steps) how, to an outside, Scott and I looked for all the world like a couple of aging Queens setting up a household. This was confirmed when we approached a salesman for information on buying a refrigerator for our Green Room. He looked us both us and down and said, "Yep. You can sure put a lot of six-packs in there, can't ya?" Innocuous comment? Or, as Scott later surmised, was the guy trying his best NOT to suggest that he thought we were gay by going to the Macho extreme? Anyway, I remember feeling the need to dissuade the salesman of any thoughts about our sexual preferences, so I blurted out, to answer his comment about the six-packs, "Actually, it's the perfect size for us to store the six severed heads we currently have in storage." (In retrospect: Now THAT's intelligent, isn't it? So a guy won't think you're gay, make him think you're Jeffery Dahmer). My point being is that sometimes artists (and probably more so, Mormon artists) have to be pro-actively engaged in creating a market where none exists. Maybe a person who writes plays for the general public can happily crank out words, send them to Cafe LaMama and then show up on opening night. But in the niche market that I, Scott, and others have chosen to write for, we have to do everything from producing to taking tickets at the door. We have to learn to deal with the stares of others while we have a "lover's" spat over the best kind of disinfectant for the bathrooms. We have to learn (if we don't already know) how to swing a hammer. We have to be willing to get dirty, tired, and achy for our art. Yesterday (Saturday) we raised the framing for half the wall to the front lobby. When I saw it go up, I felt, "It's been worth it so far." I know it will stay that way. I may have to buy more Extra-Strength Thera-gesic before we're finally done, but it'll definitely be worth it. --- Thom Duncan The Nauvoo Theatrical Society "Mormon artists exploring Mormon life through theatre" -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 26 May 2002 22:48:45 -0600 Kellene wrote: > Completely off topic here, but I jumped on this part of Sharlee's post. It's > very timely for me. Currently I have three children, aged 5, 3, and six > months. I have never been so emotionally, physically, spiritually, and > intellectually exhausted in my life. I got great solace from Sharlee's > observation that the season passes; I'd suspected it, but having someone > confirm it was very heartening. I am happy to know that you got solace from my rambling confessional. I was repenting of having sent out a post that was so personal, but after reading this and receiving several private responses, I'm glad I was so open. We *do* need to talk about our shared experiences, worries, and frustrations. As I told a friend recently, it's the only way I know of to begin to diminish that sense of existential isolation. You wrote: > Now for my questions. This pure and deep and even desperate fatigue has > taken me by such surprise, yet when I talk to people, it seems very > universal. Just about every mother of several young children seems to > experience it. I have been trying to come up with a useful, interesting, and > purchase-worthy book idea targeting young mothers that contained hints and > tips for dealing with this season of their lives. > > Question 1: Do you think this topic has any merit? I know there's some stuff > out there. . .has the subject matter been dealt with thoroughly? I think your idea has great merit! And, no, I don't think it has been dealt with thoroughly. I would love to see a book that targeted an LDS audience, but I wonder who would publish it. The major LDS publishers seem to like authors with the right credentials (most often someone with a degree in family sciences teamed with someone from the religion department at BYU!)--especially when tackling anything to do with sex. But I would be much more interested in a book about the exhaustion of the baby-bearing years that was written by a true expert--i.e., a bright, insightful woman who is *in* the season (or one who has recently survived it). As a side-note: one thing I have found that both astounds and saddens me is that too many older women have forgotten what those years were like. As one who has just "passed through" (my youngest is now 4), I have vowed never to forget. Our society does a deplorable job of offering support to young mothers. I'd like to change that--at least in my own little family circle. Anyway, I say go for it, Kellene! I'd be happy to bounce ideas around with you if you want to e-mail me privately. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Mormon Fiction/Nonfiction Markets Date: 27 May 2002 12:53:58 -0600 [MOD: Responses to the questions Scott poses would be welcome either over AML-List or as private replies to him.] I know this question goes around fairly often, but I wanted to raise it again--especially in light of recent discussions on different kinds of fiction and the fundamental differences between them. I know that most of the major Mormon publishers lurk on this list, so I hope they will respond and help me understand the scope and extent of the Mormon fiction (and non-fiction) market. I know that the AML maintains a pretty good list of publishers, but there is a limited amount of information on the extent, slant, and success of those publishers. Which leads to a series of questions-- * Who are the major players in LDS publishing? We know about DB/Bookcraft/Shadow Mountain, Covenant Communications, Signature, and Cornerstone. Who else is still playing? American Book claims to be a player but I can't recall hearing their name associated with an actual LDS title discussed here on the List. Aspen seems to have disappeared along with Horizon. I keep hearing about Gibbs Smith, but I'm not sure I recall any of their titles. Cedar Fort still feels like a subsidy press despite their protestations to the contrary; for the current inquiry I'm more interested in publishers that pay authors, not the other way around. * What is the general "slant" of these publishers with regards to fiction? DB and Covenant seem interested in middle of the road, "mainstream correlated" LDS work. Signature is reputed to be more interested in critical or literary works. What about the others? Is there a good "edgy-but-faithful" publisher out there? I know that each publisher offers guidelines, but the reality of what works are actually bought is often quite different from the ideal world described in writers guidelines. * What is the general slant of these publishers with regards to non-fiction? Are any of them willing to take a chance on a potentially difficult subject matter--especially if it could run afoul of Correlation? (For example, I've been thinking about a non-fiction title for Mormon teens based around the question "What if I *don't* know the Church is true?" that explores the nature of testimony, how it's expressed, how it's developed, how it relates to questions or doubts, how much of it is necessary to go on a mission/temple trip/BYU, and similar questions. I think we talk a lot about testimony and *knowing* truth, but I'm not sure we've been as frank as we can be (or ought to be) on dealing with questions and doubts and struggles. My goal with such a work would be to mine the resources of the institutional Church for correlated answers, but also to offer a substantial number of other kinds of ideas--not all of them correlated. It's the kind of book that could offend a lot of people, but whose only purpose is to help young people understand--and hopefully overcome--some of the powerful questions and doubts that often arise when one starts actively considering their beliefs and the role of the Church in both the foundation and support of those beliefs. Despite news stories to the contrary, Mormons are not homogeneous in social, political, or religious thought, and it's often our differences on social and political issues that lead us to question our place in the greater Church more than doubts about religious issues. Are there any publishers who would publish such a book, even it is wasn't fully correlated?) * How many titles do each of these publishers offer in the Mormon market in a given year in both fiction and non-fiction? I believe DB is a more extensive non-fiction market, but Covenant may well be the largest LDS fiction publisher. Signature only did one or two fiction titles last year. Do the other markets really count? * How many copies do these publishers move in a year, both in terms of total sales and individual titles? I suspect that a popular LDS book sells as many copies as an average national market book, which suggests that we may not be as far behind the curve as some of us think we are--especially in Children's/YA literature. * What is the average shelf-life of a book offered by LDS publishers? The average national market title stays on the shelf for between two weeks and six months (unless it ends up in the "classics" or "literature" section, or unless the author is writing series books). It seems like LDS publishers keep titles on the shelf for a little bit longer than the others--between six months and two years--thus allowing for more word-of-mouth sales and keeping authors in front of readers for longer. * What is the national availability of titles offered by Mormon publishers? Covenant is associated with Seagull Book (though they also distribute to DB and other LDS booksellers). Likewise, DB is primarily associated with Deseret Book stores (though they also distribute to Seagull and other LDS booksellers). DB's Shadow Mountain imprint claims to be nationally distributed, but I'm curious how extensive that distribution is, and how easily Mormons can obtain those titles from non-DB/Seagull/LDS bookstore outlets. I'm not sure how extensive the distribution of LDS titles is outside of Utah/Idaho/Arizona, and would like to know more. * What percentage of sales for LDS publishers are in the Utah corridor? I suspect 90% of the sales of LDS books are in Utah/Idaho/SoCal/Arizona. Do LDS publishers really have visibility outside of the intermountain West? ===== I know that's a fairly large list of questions, but I'm very, very interested in the answers. I suspect that most people think of DB as dominating the market, and I'm not sure the total numbers really bear that out--at least not for fiction. I'd like to find out. I'm also quite interested in comparing the numbers offered by the publishers with the perceptions offered by individual LDS authors and book buyers. I suspect there's a disconnect between those two perceptions and I'd like to find out for sure. If I can get enough information, I will try to digest it and offer an author's analysis of the LDS market, its opportunities, its contact points, and its potential for both financial reward and extensive distribution. If I don't get enough information, I will offer what I do learn with appropriate disclaimers of incompleteness. I know that as an individual author I have had a hard time understanding the extent of the LDS publishing market, and I suspect others have wondered as well. Obviously any analysis is only as good as the data its founded on; I hope the LDS publishers who lurk on this list will help me compile this information so LDS authors can be informed about the nature and extent of the opportunities available within our market. As I said before, I suspect the potential for success is quite a bit greater than most authors believe. Phase II will be a look at LDS-friendly publishers outside of the Mormon corridor. I've made no secrets about my desire to start an imprint with one of the major publishers that expands the definitions of Mormon literature beyond the "faithful morality tale"/"how I grew up and left the Church" duality that I perceive in the current LDS market. I believe that there is a substantial middle ground for a literature that splits the difference, that offers sometimes difficult and challenging--yet fundamentally faithful--looks at what it means to be Mormon in the modern world. I admit freely that one of my selfish reasons for trying to collect this data is to find out what the total LDS publishing market looks like today so I can justify the creation of a new line of LDS works. But that is only one of my intents; my primary goal is to educate people to the extent of the opportunity that exists within the LDS publishing world as it stands today. Your assistance is collecting this data is appreciated. If you want to send information to me privately, I would be very much interested in understanding the extent of that information. If I get enough data I will post an analysis to the List in general. Thanks. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Random Thoughts Date: 28 May 2002 08:28:23 -0600 Thanks for providing a needed rest from this dang writing, Andrew. It's 8:00 a.m. and I've been at this since 5:00--trying to make an impossible deadline with an impossibly convoluted manuscript. I really did need to talk about Ted Bundy exactly now. He, of course, was an insidiously, deceptively charming serial murderer--and he was also a baptized Mormon. Not only did people persistently believe in his innocense, but one deluded lady married him during his trial. My own sister told me about giving a hitchhiker a ride many years ago and sensing something scary and evil about him, then dropping him off at the University Mall. Later, when she saw his picture, she recognized him as Ted Bundy--but this was long after he was into his serial murders. I suspect he hid his wickedness from MOST of his associates--at least at first. Eventually, I suspect people could sense something about him. Dutcher plays with this idea a little in the porn addicted character who is strange and not quite "right", self-consciously hiding some secret, and who is intended to divert the audience's suspicions. I do think it is possible for evil to disguise itself extremely well. Thus, we are led CAREFULLY to Hell. My husband dropped a rare hint of something he has had to encounter in a disciplinary council: a case (or more than one--I don't know) of pedophilia. It is almost impossible for me to even imagine that any member of my stake could be a pedophile. Then again, most of us would be surprised to learn about the trials our neighbors are dealing with, or the temptations they fight (or don't). [Margaret Young] Andrew Hall wrote: > I finally saw Brigham City last week. [snip] > > I don't know much about psychotics, but wouldn't the killer have shown a few > more signs of his problems than he did? Could he really have fooled his > wife and Wes and everyone for so long that he was a normal, nice guy? -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: margaret young Subject: [AML] re: Baby Exhaustion Date: 28 May 2002 08:53:16 -0600 I am the oldest of eight children, and I fully suspect that my mother had a sort of nervous breakdown when she was expecting #5, and various episodes of undiagnosed depression afterwards. (I was six years old at the time.) My childhood memories are quite vivid--and they do not include Family Home Evening or singing "I'm so glad when Daddy comes home" before settling down to a scruptuous supper. I remember my mother being completely exhausted. I remember her sobbing. I remember her telling us time and again that she was not our slave and couldn't we do at least a little housework? This is not to imply that she was a bad mother or that I had an unhappy childhood. I think my mother was simply heroic in managing all she did while an utterly unrealistic image of what a Mormon mother should be hovered around her in stern condemnation, and chemical imbalances kept her (I believe) from experiencing true joy. I think it is amazing that she organized a birthday party for me when I was twelve, that she bought me dolls and dresses, that she had SOMETHING on the table for supper every night, that she managed to smile many, many times, and that she told me some silly rhymes when I was very young which I still remember. Nothing short of heroic. Dad was mostly absent, but a formidible, even godly influence anyway, and surely the source of my own driven nature. What happened to us Blair kids in the face of this really difficult situation, was that we BONDED with each other. In many ways, we parented each other and we remain the best of friends and the best supporters of each other still. Now, as I prepare to welcome my first grandbaby into the world (in six weeks), I have warned my daughter about the fatigue she will feel and have cautioned her to not overdo--and certainly not to buy into the idea that she has to singlehandedly populate rural Utah so that the Lord's choicest spirits can have good homes. I have also testified to her that her children will be her greatest joy, and that giving birth will be the greatest miracle of her life. When she was born, the midwife sensed that she was a girl before her delivery, and told me, "I can feel her spirit, and it just feels like a girl--sweet and tinkley." There is so much I would change about my own mothering, and most of it involves tossing out the Mormon myths and just loving my kids. Of course, there have been some books written on this subject, and I recommend Emily Watt's _Being the Mom_, which deals with guilt humorously. But my own experience with Mormon literature on this subject is that it partakes far too much of self-congratulatory anecdotes and quotes from general authorities--all of whom seem to be male. There are some wonderful books on childrearing by some Born-Again Christians. One I love is called _Shepharding Your Children_. I don't recall the author. [Margaret Young] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 28 May 2002 09:09:40 -0600 On Fri, 24 May 2002 15:40:50 -0600, Kellene Adams wrote: >Now for my questions. This pure and deep and even desperate fatigue has >taken me by such surprise, yet when I talk to people, it seems very >universal. Just about every mother of several young children seems to >experience it. I have been trying to come up with a useful, interesting,= and >purchase-worthy book idea targeting young mothers that contained hints = and >tips for dealing with this season of their lives. I think it would be very useful. My youngest is almost 2 now, and I'm finally starting to be less bone-weary and less emotionally unstable. = But when she was an infant, I remember I used to complain about being so = tired all the time--and the UNIVERSAL response, from people who should have = known better, was essentially "Duh. Deal with it. What did you expect?" = Which is not exactly helpful. So I just lived through it--didn't do anything really useful for two years (and the two before that, and the two before that). (I *think* it has something to do with caring for both an infant and = older children--the tiredness, I mean. When you have a passel of toddler-aged children and up, it's still complicated, but not quite so physically wearying. But that's just my experience.) I think such a book would be useful not just for the hints it could = provide, but for putting this season of life into a broader context. Just saying "you'll get over it" is very discouraging to someone who is in the middle= of tending a lot of little kids as well as an infant--someone who cannot see that there IS an ending, only that the current moment is almost = unbearably difficult. But if you can say that while providing ways to cope until = the period of fatigue passes...I think the simple knowledge that it's not an abnormal feeling would be very comforting. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Attack of the Clones_ (Review) Date: 28 May 2002 08:07:40 -0700 > First of all, to address Eric's proposition that Lucas has some > kind of racist element going, especially in the casting of a > polynesian/maori actor to play Jango Fett. I receive emails I haven't read all of this thread, so maybe this has been covered, but I have a question--Bobo Fett is a clone, right? Jango Fett had asked for a clone of himself that wasn't genetically altered in any way. Wasn't that supposed to be Bobo? As for the racial issue, maybe I'm just clueless about stuff like this and don't notice it--but I never once thought of Jango Fett and all the clones as being of a particular race or nationality. He was just a bounty hunter out to make some quick cash. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Changes in Usage Date: 28 May 2002 08:45:31 -0700 Levi, your statement here raises a question. It concerns the word "till." Given that it is a contraction of the word "until," and given that I've seen it written "'til," when did the spelling "till" become acceptable? Thanks! At 09:24 PM 5/24/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Regarding all right versus alright: > >I teach Freshman English online. Alright is a non-word with me. I correct it >in my students' essays. > >I doubt that alright will ever become acceptable in formal English. I was >told fifty years ago in my Freshman English class that it would be only a >matter of a few years till ain't became a respectable word. This half >century later, it still isn't respectable. I think that is the way it will >be with alright. > >Levi Peterson >althlevip@msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tait Family" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 28 May 2002 11:02:47 -0700 Sharlee: >one thing I have found that both astounds and saddens me is that > too many older women have forgotten what those years were like. As one who > has just "passed through" (my youngest is now 4), I have vowed never to > forget. Our society does a deplorable job of offering support to young > mothers. I'd like to change that--at least in my own little family circle. Me: My friends and I used to bemoan the "older" women who would watch us wrestle with our small children during sacrament meeting and then come up afterwards and say something like, "Just enjoy your children while they are little. This time is so precious!" We would roll our eyes and wonder why those people who thought our children were so "precious" didn't offer to help us out! Now, however, I'm in the teenager business, and not to discourage anyone, but this stage brings an exhaustion all its own that makes those baby years glow in retrospect. I keep telling my friends with young children that the elementary school years are really the "golden age" of parenting, the respite you get between babies and teenagers so that you can decide you really do like your kids before they turn into teenagers. I'm desperately hoping that things get better when they become adults--but I'm also wondering if these creatures will ever become adults. Whatever is written and published about this subject needs to be handled with a lot of humor. Most of the time all we can do is laugh. And too many of us don't allow ourselves to do that. We take parenting (or, ourselves as parents) so seriously! I watch my counselors in primary, both of whom have small children, and I find myself wanting to repeat those same words of advice to them: lighten up! Just love your babies and don't take everything so seriously. You're not going to be a failure as a mother if your child can't recite the articles of faith before she can read! Nobody expects a three year-old to have perfect manners! My mother, who also had four children in five years, was never able to admit how difficult and miserable motherhood was. She was never able to admit that she hated us at the same time she loved us. I think, truly, that it broke her sanity. Dialogue on this subject could be a literal lifesaver. But it would need to be honest and unblinking, as well as humorous and optimistic. I am not sure a mainstream LDS publisher would be comfortable with the level of honesty I'm envisioning. Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Fiction/Nonfiction Markets Date: 28 May 2002 10:29:35 -0700 Cornerstone is currently not publishing. The situation is so far beyond "confusing" that I won't even attempt at this time to describe it or how I think it will come out. I recommend that you avoid passing or believing rumors about us at this time. The possibilities are mind-boggling. But the bottom line is simple, we are not publishing at this time, and will give you notice when that changes. In the meantime, I'm running an editing service with assistance in manuscript placement or self-publication, if you're interested in that. This is a wonderful set of questions. I look forward to some answers from those who represent these publishers on this list. Let me say that Cedar Fort has come up a notch from what they used to be in my opinion. They are well run, but the biggest improvement I've seen is in their cover designs. They say that their sales have increased 40% in the last year and that they are publishing something like 65 book per year. That's more new books than I personally can imagine an LDS publisher putting out each year, but more power to them. I haven't heard much from American Book lately, but would like to. They seem to be aimed at the general trade market, with good books, including LDS titles. I think that's a very good development and would like to hear how it's going. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathy Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 28 May 2002 11:01:45 -0600 It is very hard to write about this, I think. When you're in the middle of it, it's hard to emerge from the fog enough to be brilliant and witty. When you're done with it, you can recall it but not all of its detailled miserableness--at least I can't. It's like childbirth; you blank out some of the worst of it. I was so tired for over twenty years as I had my nine kids! Even now, with our youngest almost ten, sometimes I wake up after an uninterrupted night's sleep full of wonder and disbelief--I slept! We were at a Saturday evening stake conference session last year that was totally amazing. The stake presidency gave some kind, interesting talks on family life and then the stake president opened the session up for questions. Although it was a huge meeting, the way he handled the discussion was just like an intimate class. Finally one woman carrying an infant and clearly in the middle of baby exhaustion said, "I understand everything you've been saying about quality family time and all. But to be honest, at the end of the day, all I want to do is escape. I am so tired!" Instead of giving her platitudes, the stake president stopped thoughtfully and said nothing, and soon people in the audience were answering. They talked about visiting teachers who regularly came and stayed for several hours, at least once a week, so overloaded moms might nap or veg out in the park. They talked about dads who gave up evening after evening of TV or snoozing after work to give mom a break. Everyone agreed that this was a very real problem and that mothers deserved and required serious support through these years. I know I didn't have it when I was raising those multitudinous children. I used to range hopelessly through my head to figure out someone who could help me, but my mom was in California and I just couldn't figure out anyone to help. Perhaps in Zion someday we'll all be family enough to give moms of many little children the support they really need. Cathy Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Update to the Nauvoo Theatrical Society - 2 Date: 28 May 2002 11:34:59 -0600 Thanks for that interesting update on your theater work, Thom. It adds to a potential attendee's enthusiasm to know something about what's going on behind the scenes. I hope you'll put out your casting calls on this list. BTW, as you build your dang-what's-that-word-for-a-bunch-of-actors-who-work-together?, maybe you can slide some of this hard physical labor onto young, strong actors. Then you can have more time for your excellent writing. After all, at our backs we always hear Time's winged chariot hurrying near. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 28 May 2002 11:53:38 -0600 Tracie Laulusa wrote: > I'm not sure comparative earnings are a good measure of whether or not we > should donate our time to a project. So his profession has the possibility > of higher hourly wage. All the more reason, some would say, for him NOT to > donate his time and services. There are other things that are just as > important as money. How about time. I'm sure that often he was giving this > service during his very limited personal time. After all, he already has a > full church work load with all his stake presidenting. The problem is not with comparative income as an indicator of righteousness, but comparative income as an indicator of free time. The doctor who makes so much more money has more freedom to take time off and donate both time and materials to good causes than the subsistence worker who can barely pay the bills on two jobs and an in-home business. The widow's mite was a substantial portion of her wealth and represented a generous offering. While I think Thom is trying to privilege artists above other professions and claim special exemption from charitable work (which I strenuously disagree with), I think he makes an excellent point about the relative respect that different professions receive. When I tell people that I write for a living, I get the most bemused looks, and I feel like they think my vocation to be somewhat less than honorable--and certainly less than productive. Of course I live in an area populated by a lot of steel and construction workers. Oddly, people seem to find plenty of value in the billboard salesman's job at the same time that they find my vocation so amusing. Over time that bemusement and dismissal starts to pile up, and it leaves some of us feeling undervalued because we choose to traffic in hopes and ideas rather than tangible products. Oddly, if I tell people that I'm a computer interface designer, a human factors engineer, or a Web developer, I don't get the same reaction. The thing that amuses me is that all three of those other professions are component parts of what it means to be a writer in the technology industry--and none of them develop tangible products. But call yourself a writer and people think it somehow cute. > I guess all I'm trying to say is that there is something to be said for > giving the widow's mite. And, as said before, each person's decision is > between themselves and God. There is a great deal to be said of giving the widow's mite. To give when one has little time or means to offer a gift is a true act of charity and real concern for the well-being of others. What I understood Thom to be frustrated with was that the ward seemed to be demanding a dollar from his widow's income, then treated it as if it were a mite from a doctor's income. They perceive his offering as of little or no value because (to paraphrase a former employer) "any housewife can write." So why value mere writing and direction--which we think anyone can do--when we can choose to admire gifts of skill that we don't think we can match? It seems like we're choosing to value one offering over another, when all offerings should be valued alike. You're absolutely right--the act of charity should be done because it's right, not because it's valued. Our offering is between ourselves and our god, and earthly appreciation is irrelevant in a true true act of charity. Still, when we see the doctor lionized for giving materials he has in plenty and spending time that he has more freedom to arrange, then ignore the playwright who gives his best with less free time and less discretionary income with a simple "but it was his calling," I do find that we treat the playwright a bit unfairly. We should all give our gifts freely and without regard to public notice. But we should also appreciate each gift that is given. It's up to God to sort out who gave more; for us it is required that we appreciate all gifts. I don't think we do that. At least not as often as we should. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] New Sugar Beet Date: 28 May 2002 12:12:13 -0600 "Jesus wants me for a Sugar Beet" http://www.thesugarbeet.com/ Bat Boy Joins the Church Church Introduces Administrative Machines Utah Man Calls Jewish Neighbor "Gentile" Petitioners Want Old Testament Removed from the Standard Works Couple Finds Erin Brockovich "Really Good" Despite Its R Rating Convert Won't Beat Wife on Sundays Active Nuclear Cannon Discovered in Utah Church Building Male Impersonators Outed at Father-Son Activity New DNA Evidence Aids Splinter Group's Challenge of Joseph Smith Martyrdom Vacuum Created by LDS Chronicler's Call to the Seventy Plus NEW and favorite departments ----- Send Sugar Beet news tips to chris@thesugarbeet.com. Not all submissions will be acknowledged. If you were forwarded this message and want to join the Sugar Beet update list, send your request with ADD in the subject header to chris@thesugarbeet.com. OPT OUT: To stop receiving Sugar Beet updates, reply to this message with REMOVE in the subject header. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Music Query Date: 28 May 2002 14:28:55 -0400 Amy Chamberlain wrote: > Sorry, Tony, I can't help you here, but now I'm fascinated: what do you mean > by Windham Hill "suppressing" a CD? > > Amy Chamberlain > Amy (and all), I have no idea, but was quoting from a Darol Anger website: http://www.darolanger.com/cds.html A more complete quotation has been cut and pasted below: NOW ONLY AVAILABLE THROUGH AMAZON-Sales suppressed by Windham Hill. The hard-to find Amazon page. Darol and Mike's finest hour. Unforgettable melodies combined with innovative arrangements push the art of the string band to limits never before attained. Features fretless bass wizard Michael Manring. Includes the NPR favorite "Dolphins"... Sometimes I think I'm going nuts--I first heard this album years ago stuck in traffic in Worcester, Mass. The DJ was playing cut after cut and calling the album Chiaroscuro. I bought it almost immediately (it was that good) but none of the cuts on this CD matched the ones he was playing. I always just figured there had to be another album of the same title out there somewhere. But thanks to all who helped me track it down, esp Marny Parkin. I'm reconciled to never hearing this haunting music again. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Mary Jane Jones" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 28 May 2002 13:13:08 -0600 >>> adamszoo@sprintmail.com - 5/25/02 12:26 PM >>> >I did go to a yoga class last Saturday, for the=20 >first time, and it really, really helps. It *works.* I don't know how.=20 >Probably through that "governing vessel" stuff Paris was teaching us = all=20 >about. But how easy is it to get out of the house and do that, on a = regular=20 >basis? Or afford it? (The class I attended was a free trial run.) = Yoga,=20 >especially, is something that needs to be taught. You can't just read = a=20 >book and learn how. And it fits in with our gospel just fine. Just wanted to recommend a series of Yoga video tapes: I don't have children yet, so I can't speak from that experience, but I = can tell you that the yoga tapes I use work wonders for all my work and = family related stress. I like the Kathy Smith yoga collection. I found = the series at my local library, and they have really helped me. Her = approach is not at all intimidating or overly New Age. It's relaxing, and = a pretty decent work out as well. All in the privacy of my living room. = The beginning tape was for me a really good introduction to yoga--everythin= g was explained well (and slowly), and I didn't need any equipment. =20 Thank heaven for public libraries.... Mary Jane Ungrangsee -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 28 May 2002 13:37:00 -0600 Great post from Sharlee, and another from Kellene: >This pure and deep and even desperate fatigue has >taken me by such surprise, yet when I talk to people, it seems very >universal. Just about every mother of several young children seems to >experience it. I have been trying to come up with a useful, interesting, = >and purchase-worthy book idea targeting young mothers that contained hints and >tips for dealing with this season of their lives. >Question 1: Do you think this topic has any merit? I know there's some = >stuff >out there. . .has the subject matter been dealt with thoroughly? Weighing in as a guy; when this was happening with my wife, I was working = two jobs putting myself through graduate school. I was never home, and = thus contributed mightily to my wife's depression and exhaustion, = something for which I've never quite forgiven myself. I'd very much like = to see this topic dealt with. It does seem to me that those years when = mothers are with small children tend also to be the years when they and/or = their husbands are working unreasonable hours in order to establish = themselves professionally. Which makes me wonder how anyone survives = their twenties. >Question 2: Would you focus it on an LDS market so you could include >gospel-related material (i.e., Relief Society, prayer, scriptures, etc.) = or >look toward a national market and keep it nonLDS specific (although you >could certainly still include prayer-like suggestion, yoga, meditation, >etc.) I'd like to see both. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] MOORE, _Lamb_ (Review) Date: 28 May 2002 13:22:54 -0600 Christopher Moore: Lamb, The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood = Friend. New York: HarperCollins, 2002. $25.95 hardcover. A very Bad book. Couple weeks ago I was teaching Sunday School, that lesson on phylacteries,= you remember it? The lesson manual (which I generally loathe anyway) = wanted us to ask people what kind of stuff they had on the walls of their = houses, and to, like, put post-it notes on all of it, labeling it 'leads = me to God,' or 'leads me away from God.' I wasn't going to do that, = obviously, nor recommend it, but thought a general lesson on iconography = might be of some interest, and, as a sort of ice breaker, mentioned that = if you walked into my house the first thing you'd see would be all the = book cases crammed with books. And a sister in the ward (who I really = like, actually) said, "but you only have good books, right? You don't = have any bad books." Well, I was stunned/shocked/baffled/mystefied. It just congenitally = doesn't occur to me to think of books that way, as 'good' or 'bad.' Books = are all good, always; that's the way my knee jerks. I mean, okay, = logically, I do think some books are qualitatively better than others, and = by constructing that sort of continuum it must logically follow that some = would end up on the 'bad' end of the scale. But I don't respond to books = viscerally that way, as 'good' books or 'bad' books morally. Fundamentally= , I don't think bad books exist. (Uninteresting, poorly written books, = sure. Like, say, Sunday School manuals.) Which brings us to a book I just have to tell y'all about, Christopher = Moore's novel Lamb. Subtitled, "the Gospel according to Biff, Christ's = childhood pal." I don't think there's much doubt that this is exactly the = sort of book that my dear ward sister had in mind as a 'bad' book. My = wife kinda thinks so too. I thought it was terrifically interesting and = amusing, but I'm also wary of recommending it too highly.=20 Here goes. It's a purported fifth gospel, written by one Levi ben = Alphaeus, otherwise known as Biff. Basically, it focuses on AD 6-30 = (well, actually 0-24, since Jesus was probably born 6 BC), the years not = covered by Matthew Mark Luke and John. The story is told first person, = from Biff's perspective. The basic premise is this; the angel Raziel has = come to earth to resurrect Biff, bring him to a Hyatt Regency outside St. = Louis, and keeps tabs on him while he writes a fifth gospel. Angels, in = the world of this book, are exceeding powerful and exceptionally dense, = and Raziel is no exception; while Biff writes, Raziel spends his time = watching pro wrestling and soap operas on TV, both of which he thinks are = real. Biff, meanwhile, keeps sneaking off to the bathroom, ostensibly to = masturbate, but actually to read the Gideon New Testament he found in the = room. The passages in the novel in which Biff describes his interactions = with Raziel are very short, but also really funny little sketches = in-between the main narrative.=20 The main narrative, then. Well, it's about Jesus' childhood, adolescence = and early adult years. It helps that Biff consistently calls him Joshua; = that distances us a bit. And, well, how can I describe this book? It's a = demented funhouse of a book, clever and witty and profane. And it's also = a serious examination of the basic ideas of Christianity. Moore never met = a punch line he didn't like, and 'inappropriate' is really not a word in = his vocabulary. But his research is detailed and convincing, and his = ideas are fascinating. =20 Biff himself is an interesting character. He's profane, sex obsessed and = something of a buffoon. He's a smart aleck, a wiseacre, whose proudest = achievement is teaching the Son of God the concept of sarcasm. He's also = fiercely loyal to his friend, and has a great capacity for love, and even = for spirituality. He is, in other words, and intensely human character, = and we can see why Joshua loves him. Joshua loves everyone. He is incapable of lying. He is incapable of = violence, or hatred, or malice. He is a generous and tender hearted child = and a generous and kindhearted adult. What's remarkable about Moore's = achievement with this book is that Joshua does not seem remotely . . . = remote. He's also human. He knows he's the Son of God. He knows he's = supposed to be the Messiah. And he doesn't know how. Which quest drives = the book; Joshua and Biff searching the world for answers to the question: = how does one behave as Messiah. So how to find out? Well, through the three wise men. Joshua looks them = each up in turn. From Balthazar (who he finds in Afghanistan), he learns = the writings of Confucius and Lao Tzu and Sun Tzu. (He's also taught by = Balthazar's eight Chinese concubines, about which more later). After he's = learned what he can, he travels to Tibet, where he meets Gaspar, who has = become a Buddhist monk. There, he learns the fundamental precepts of = Buddhism, and learns that his role as Messiah will, in part, encompass the = role of bodhisattva, one who has achieved enlightenment, but who refuses = nirvana until all others preceed him there. Joshua and Biff also learn = judo and kung fu. (This, Moore admits in an endnote, is an anachronism; = Buddhism did not arrive in Tibet until 500 AD, and kung fu was invented = two hundred years after that. But Buddhism, of course, preceeded = Christianity, and if the historical Jesus traveled to India, he would = certainly have learned of it). Finally, Joshua travels to India, where he = meets Melchior, a Hindu adept, from whom he is introduced to the Bhagavad = Gita and the Upanishads. Biff, meanwhile, is far more interested in = learning all he can from the Kama Sutra. =20 What clearly interests Moore is the connection between Christ's teachings = in the New Testament and Eastern religion. In a very revealing afterward, = Moore admits that Jesus could have, and probably did formulate his = teachings based on nothing more than his own spiritual insight, the = teachings of rabbis, and the Torah. He just thinks that the idea of Jesus = traveling all around the East makes for a better story. I still found it = all most provocative. But then there's all the sex. Now, Biff's interest in matters sexual is = certainly no more than that of any adolescent boy. And while Biff does = get to know (in all senses of the word) Balthazar's eight Chinese = concubines, Joshua does not. There's also a love triangle in the story, = between Biff, Mary Magdalene and Joshua. Mary (known as Maggie in the = book), desperately loves Joshua. Biff loves Maggie. Maggie is also = married to a Pharisee (who she eventually leaves). Joshua, meanwhile, is = celibate throughout. But he's very interested in sex, and makes Biff tell = him all about it. He 'needs to know about sin.' (For what it's worth, = Maggie also gets resurrected, and she and Biff end up together). =20 All this is very uncomfortable, yet not altogether implausible. What was = adolescence like for Jesus? How did he deal with the inevitable changes = that come from maturation? And did he have a best friend, and if so, what = was he like? For the nice lady in my ward, long discussions of sexuality = in a novel about Christ would, I suspect, automatically vault it onto the = 'bad book' list. Biff is, shall we say, sexually active in this novel, = although there aren't really any graphic or pornographic descriptions of = any untoward activity. Well, apart from quite comic parodies of the Kama = Sutra. =20 Moore's Joshua never marries, and remains faithfully celibate. Jewish = boys, in that era, normally married at fourteen. Well, what are the = implications of all that, theologically, historically? As a Mormon, I'm = untroubled with the notion that Jesus was married. But I'm equally = untroubled by Moore's fictitious notion that he traveled broadly in search = of enlightenment, or that a study of Buddhism may have been part of his = education.=20 Final note: there's a ton of bad language in this novel, especially the F = word. Really, it's not used to offend; it's just a word people use, = including Joshua. If you think, as I do, that words are morally neutral = and that offensiveness is a matter of context, then the language in this = novel is fine. But if you get offended by harsh language, I'd avoid this = book. =20 Anyway, it's really funny, and very well written, and thought provoking, = and could easily be seen as amazingly blasphemous though I didn't find it = so at all. Frankly, my main reaction to it was to want to be nicer to = people, and to look for genuine opportunities to practice charity. I = loved this book. But to the lady in my ward, it's probably a great = example of a very very bad book. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] LDS Booksellers Convention Date: 28 May 2002 15:46:20 -0600 Once again, the AML is making it possible for dues-paying members of the AML to attend the annual LDS Booksellers convention under the AML's LDSBA membership. The 200-booth tradeshow hours are: Wednesday, 8/14, 9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Thursday, 8/15, 9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Friday, 8/16, 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. If you are not a current AML member and wish to attend, it looks like it costs either $5 or $25 for the AML to register you as a sponsored guest (the order form is unclear--I will have to inquire if anyone falls under this category). In addition to admission to the convention, you have the option of the following: Booksellers school lunch, Tuesday, 8/13, Noon, $12.00 (The actual school is free with reservation, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.) LDSBA banquet, Thursday, 8/15, 6:30 p.m., $30 (There is also an LDSBA annual meeting on Friday morning, 8/16, 9 - 10 a.m.) Also, we can get extra copies of the LDSBA's 4-volume directory for $70 in print or on CD-ROM. This lists all the LDS products and wholesalers, I believe. (The AML gets one copy with its annual membership, but I don't think we've ever actually used it.) The deadline for registration is July 12, so let's say our AML deadline will be June 30 (if you need to mail a payment for anything, it has to be in the AML's hands by then). To register, contact me directly at chris.bigelow@unicitynetwork.com. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 28 May 2002 15:55:26 -0600 At 02:17 PM 5/25/02, you wrote: >. Currently I have three children, aged 5, 3, and six > > months. I have never been so emotionally, physically, spiritually, and > > intellectually exhausted in my life. I got great solace from Sharlee's > > observation that the season passes; I'd suspected it, but having someone > > confirm it was very heartening. This is one problem with the nuclear family. One young woman must deal with all of this endless child care, all on her own, with few opportunities to refresh her mind and spirit. In our mobile society, young couples often live far away from parents or other family members who might otherwise help. The other women in the community are equally exhausted. And the idealistic family image that is constantly presented in the LDS culture makes these unfortunate women feel that something is wrong with them when they get tired and discouraged and want to throw the screaming baby out the window and heave the vacuum cleaner after it. My youngest is 34 -- but I still remember those days when by bedtime I could say, "Those kids are still alive. I've done my job." Forty years ago, I was astonished by that song, "I'm so glad I'm not young any more." Now I get it. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] _Buffy_ (TV Series) (was: Young Heroes) Date: 28 May 2002 16:30:31 -0600 ---Original Message From: R.W. Rasband > Then there's Buffy Summers, who was called to be the vampire > Slayer when she was only 15. She has of course saved the > world multiple times since > then:-) Two good evaluations of the recent astonishing > season finale can be found online: > > "Buffy's War" by Thomas Hibbs > http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hibbs052402.asp > > > "Willow, Destroyer of Worlds" by Stephanie > Zacharek (one of the most perceptive writers about "Buffy") > http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2002/05/22/buffy/index.html I thought the first article (the Hibbs one) was pretty superficial. It missed a lot of the layering and dwelled too much on a judgement of season (and series) merit. He spent too much time (in an article obviously pressed for space) on pacing and issues of craft and seemed to me to miss entirely a lot of the layers present in the show. The final paragraph is a good example of his general obtuseness where he attempts to sum up the concepts of good and evil in "Buffy". To me, one of the greatest strengths of the show is its insistence on avoiding too facile categorizations--most particularly categorization of good and evil. One of the reasons that I love "Buffy" is because of the ambiguity and complexity given the issues of good and evil--and that it can examine/depict those complexities without descending into the too-easy relativism that denies both good and evil their power. The second article is much more powerful and I think much closer the mark. Of course, it's at least three times as long as the first, but even Ms. Zacharek's summaries are more concise and accurate than Hibbs'. It's obvious to me that Zacharek not only watches the show, but that she is engaged in it on the profound levels it explores. I hope that isn't just a reflection of how I agree with Zacharek and disagree with Hibbs. I try not to be so simple as to label things I agree with as profound and/or denigrate those I disagree with. The truth is, in the middle of this season, I might have agreed more with Hibbs, particularly with regards to season pacing. However, subsequent episodes revised my opinion by showing the deeper meanings behind the actions I considered too facile and manipulative. I think that one of the great strengths of the show is how it has meaning and depth that continues to expand and contract over time--the way people might actually expand and contract given the experiences they endure. The characters have weaknesses that come out of their character--not out of the need of the writers at that moment to have a hook for their plot. And while actions look unjustified and too surface (like Zander leaving Anya at the altar), there *is* a consistent motivation and the resulting stories won't just explain those actions but will explore their deeper meanings and motivations and make the characters that much more understandable and give them the opportunity to make choices that will strengthen or weaken them in the ways commiserate with their choices. And that's what I really like about "Buffy". Choices have weight. Decisions come out of the depths of the characters and consequences are realistic, messy, and bear the weight of reality as I understand it. And the consequences have weight, too, creating chances for growth, reward, condemnation, forgiveness, redemption, and damnation. I'm excited for the next season because I can't wait to see what will happen with Spike. Spike has been the heartthrob of the internet "fan" base for years now, and this whole chip-in-the-head thing has been interesting (particularly if you relate it to Gerald Lund's "The Alliance"). The chip has shown how Spike is driven mainly by the chaotic impulse to rumble--to be a renowned warrior in direct opposition to the sensitive sap he was in mortal life. So with the chip in his head, Spike looks for a way to satisfy his need to fight and thus *joins* Buffy and the Scoobs because the chip makes it so he can only fight bad guys (defined as non-humans--i.e. demons, vampires, etc.). Contrast this to how, say, Angel would have reacted had he been "chipped". Anyone who saw the evil Angel episodes knows that nothing as sissy as a chip in his head would have stopped *him* from destroying Buffy anyway. Angel was motivated by "pure" evil and he was perfectly happy to manipulate from behind the scenes and tear their lives apart thread by subtle thread. His urge to destroy was spiritual and complete whereas Spike's tends to be purely physical. So what is going to happen now that Spike has his soul back? I'm not entirely certain that Spike didn't go to the evil department store demon-thing in *order* to get his soul back. I had the last two episodes taped and, while he certainly bitched about the chip, everything said could as easily have been him *requesting* to get his soul back. Buffy getting "everything she deserves" could as easily be him deliberately requesting his soul so that he can be tormented as *he* deserves--so that he can become the man *she* deserves. But I could be wrong. And with Joss Whedon at the helm of "Buffy", I'm just as happy if I am. Melissa mentioned to me before the season finale that she could see the show going "either way". By which, she meant that Willow might stay evil or might be redeemed. The strength of the show is that it *could* have gone either way. And we couldn't tell which way it would go. And yet, we were *sure* that whichever way Joss Whedon chose to take it, we would be content with it. We have that much confidence in his skill. We know that had Willow stayed evil, she would have done so based on reasons that made sense and suffered consequences that made sense. And, even more important, we knew that if she were redeemed, she would be redeemed for reasons that made sense and *suffered* *consequences* that made sense. And it turns out that our trust was justified. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Style in Historical Fiction (was: Changes in Usage) Date: 28 May 2002 20:57:10 -0600 At 10:24 PM 5/24/02, you wrote: >I doubt that alright will ever become acceptable in formal English. I was >told fifty years ago in my Freshman English class that it would be only a >matter of a few years till ain't became a respectable word. This half >century later, it still isn't respectable. I think that is the way it will >be with alright. I understand that the language changes, of course. I understand that it does not fossilize at the point at which one learned it and cease to change from then on. I appreciate, for example, the fact that I no longer have to worry about the difference between "shall" and "will." (Yes, I had to learn it as a kid, and yes, it was a long time ago, and yes, I know that stuff hasn't even been in footnotes for simply years, so what, you're no spring chicken either.) I know that people simply continue doing something wrong until the establishment gives up and it eventually becomes right. The particular passages that distressed me were in works of historical fiction. The modern corruptions -- okay, spellings -- jerked me out of the story every time because they made me see gum-chewing 20-year-old editors who have never seen"all right" or "lie down." They took me out of the year 1815, where I was trying to be. It would be interesting, perhaps, to discuss how members of the list might adapt their styles when writing historical fiction. A modern voice does not work well in that venue for me as a reader. What other opinions do list members have about this issue? Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Frankness in Mormon Writing Date: 29 May 2002 00:48:15 -0600 Sharlee Glenn wrote: > 1. D. Michael Martindale and others were quick to denounce the observation > by Stephen Lamb and Douglas Brinley that wives who are uninterested in sex > are "often women who have been mistreated by their husbands." Why the > defensiveness? The authors are not making a blanket statement. They say > "often," not "always" or even "usually." And this observation is just one > small part of a chapter entitled "Some Thought for Husbands." > Obviously, there is no attempt here to foist all > the responsibility onto the man. Why the defensiveness? Because we were reacting to the quote, not the book. I've neither read the book or even seen it. All I had to go on was the quote. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Random Thoughts Date: 29 May 2002 08:54:44 -0700 > hint of something he has had to encounter in a disciplinary council: a case (or > more than one--I don't know) of pedophilia. It is almost impossible for me to > even imagine that any member of my stake could be a pedophile. Then again, > most of us would be surprised to learn about the trials our neighbors are > dealing with, or the temptations they fight (or don't). Are there any LDS books that deal with this issue, other than _Secrets_? I read it not too long ago, and I appreciated what it attempted to do. I'm wondering if there are any other novels that deal with the subject without being so obviously a teaching tool, though. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Neil LABUTE, _The Distance from Here_ Date: 29 May 2002 10:14:57 -0600 This week's New Yorker (May 27 issue) has a respectful, complimentary review of LaBute's latest play, _The Distance from Here_, now playing in London. The play sounds like a fun-filled evening of sexual confusion and infanticide. One interesting side note is the following: "Like any man who believes in sin (he is a practicing Mormon, although his play 'Bash' got him 'disfellowshipped' by the Church elders), LaBute does not trivialize darkness but treats it with proper awe." Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report May 24 02 Date: 29 May 2002 12:39:31 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of May 24, 2002 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 8 The New Guy 4,410,899 2,374 17 Eliza Dushku (lead actress) 24,388,438 16 Murder by Numbers 421,292 752 38 Ryan Gosling (lead male actor) 31,046,134 22 ESPN's Ultimate X - The Movie 299,841 48 17 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 1,595,556 47 The Believer 34,269 13 10 Ryan Gosling (lead actor) 84,710 59 The Singles Ward Kurt Hale (writer/director) 14,682 9 115 John E. Moyer (writer) 738,100 Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Will Swenson, Connie Young, Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne, Michael Birkeland, Robert Swenson, Lincoln Hoppe, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, etc. 60 The Other Side of Heaven 14,135 18 164 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,508,604 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 62 China: The Panda Adventure 13,643 6 304 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,349,990 63 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 12,489 5 752 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,312,112 64 Galapagos 12,212 7 941 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,323,194 88 Mark Twain's America 3D 1,206 1 1424 Alan Williams (composer) 2,224,305 If you didn't see "The Other Side of Heaven" during its national release, you may have to wait for the video. Last weekend, the film only played in 18 theaters. Its weekend box office gross dropped for the first time below that of "The Singles Ward", which averaged $1,631 per screen - although it only played in 9 theaters. Latter-day Saint cinematographer Reed Smoot's hit IMAX film "ESPN's Ultimate X" continues to perform amazingly well. Playing in 48 theaters now, the film's per screen average remains high. This week, it average $6,247 per screen, outperforming big new releases DreamWorks' animated "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron" and "Enough" (starring Jennifer Lopez) on a per screen basis. BATTLESTAR GALACTICA AND OTHER SCI FI: SciFi.com's current weekly news roundup (http://www.scifi.com/sfw/current/news.html) includes an update on the "Ender's Game" feature film (information we sent out last week, about this adaptation of LDS writer Orson Scott Card's popular novel), as well as a report that the "pre-crime" forcasting techniques in LDS movie producer Gerald Molen's upcoming "Minority Report" are JUST science fiction, but computer-based techniques could lead to similar possibilities. The news roundup also includes the following report on the upcoming "Battlestar Galactica" miniseries (based on Latter-day Saint television writer/producer Glen Larson's popular 1980's TV series): Screenwriter Ronald D. Moore filled in a few blanks about his plans for the SCI FI Channel's upcoming Battlestar Galactica miniseries. "I'm in the middle of working on the script," Moore wrote in an e-mail exchange with SciFi Pulse that was reported on Cinescape Online. Moore added, "The basis of the miniseries will be a retelling of the origin story; that is, the events that cause [the ship] Galactica and the fugitive fleet to begin their journey. There will be familiar characters from the original show, and new ones as well. I'm trying to flesh out the backstory of what led up to these cataclysmic events as well as round out many of the characters and their relationships. I can tell you that both the studio and the network are very happy with the outline and that things are going exceptionally well with this project so far." UNWOUND 2002 IS ALMOST HERE: Tucker Dansie's "Unwound 2002" short film exhibition is almost here. The popular annual event, still with free admission, will take place on June 15th at 7:00 p.m. at the Jewett Center for the Performing Arts at Westminster College below the corner of 1700 S. 1300 E. in Salt Lake City. There will be a "meet and greet" after the films are shown so that all in attendance can meet the director and many of the actors. Short films shown include "The Switch", "Chick Magnet", "A Chance Meeting", "Forget-Me-Not", "S.F.L." and "The Lesson." Most of the films are comedies, but "The Lesson" is a drama. There will also be sneak peaks from Dansie's upcoming comedy "The Dougs" and his feature length documentary "Finding Freedom" (about a political refugee from Rwanda). This is a fun event. Dansie's films are very well made and highly unusual. If you're not familiar with his work, just imagine that Dansie is Neil LaBute and Jack Weyland's love child. The films are challenging and edgy, yet appropriate for the whole family. For more information, see the official website at: http://www.tuckertdansie.com/unwound.htm THE ACTOR CAST AS JOSEPH SMITH...: Although the official announcement still has not been made about which actor will be portraying Joseph Smith in Richard Dutcher's upcoming feature film "The Prophet", we can tell you that the role has NOT been filled by any of the following actors who have portrayed Joseph Smith in the past: Vincent Price (who played Joseph Smith in "Brigham Young - Frontiersman" in 1940), David Wetberg (who played the Prophet in "The Lost Manuscript" in 1974), and Richard Moll ("Bull" from the TV sitcom "Nighcourt", who also played Joseph Smith in "Brigham" in 1977). -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Fiction/Nonfiction Markets Date: 29 May 2002 11:30:22 -0700 (PDT) --- Scott Parkin wrote: > > If I can get enough information, I will try to digest it and offer an > author's analysis of the LDS market, its opportunities, its contact > points, > and its potential for both financial reward and extensive distribution. > If I > don't get enough information, I will offer what I do learn with > appropriate > disclaimers of incompleteness. > I hope that Scott gets the information that he needs, but wonder if the publishers are going to be willing to share information that in their view (or my view of their view) is proprietary and something to be jealously guarded in a tight, small market. But what if Scott doesn't release comparative info., and instead lumps everything together and issues a report of sales info. on the Mormon fiction and non-fiction industries as a whole? There could still be some breakdowns (how much is sold inside/outside the corridor, sales of different genres, how long fiction titles and non-fiction titles stay on shelves, etc.). This sort of index would be invaluable to those of us who are interested in the Mormon publishing market from an academic perspective. It would also provide a measure that the publishers themselves could use to track overall growth and trends in the market (which they could then compare to their own numbers). But all the publishers would have to be on board for such a thing to work. It would be lovely if an impartial organization like the AML could provide the industry with such a service, but I know that the AML is limited in what it can do because of a lack of funds. I believe the LDSBSA provides some sales estimates, but I don't know if they provide the kind of analysis that Scott is looking for. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Dallas Robbins" Subject: Re: [AML] Random Thoughts Date: 29 May 2002 18:44:33 +0000 Andrew Hall wrote: "I don't know much about psychotics, but wouldn't the killer have shown a few more signs of his problems than he did? Could he really have fooled his wife and Wes and everyone for so long that he was a normal, nice guy?" Three words: Think Mark Hoffman. Dallas Robbins cloudhill@hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 29 May 2002 21:18:14 -0700 Yoga has helped me to combat the stresses of the 'baby exhaustion' years (I'm just exiting that 'season' of my life now that my youngest is in kindergarten). There are some great videos out there, but I've found that a yoga class is always a better way to go--especially for a beginner. I've taken them from junior colleges, at community centers and through university extention, all of which are much cheaper than a private studio. I also recommend Pilates, though classes tend to be harder to find than yoga and more expensive. While I was in the throes of the baby years, I struggled and fussed and woke up each morning wondering why my life was so out of control. Though it wasn't wholly miserable, it was hard beyond anything I expected. My marriage suffered, my testimony wavered, and my self-esteem was nil. Email became very important to me during that time, especially during the long Utah winters where my only time away from my kiddos was a few moments at the computer. I also found that books were a wonderful escape. Good luck! Jana Remy -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 29 May 2002 21:58:18 -0700 Baby exhaustion and the struggles young mothers have is a worthy topic whether for the general or the LDS markets, it hasn't been explored in depth at all in my opinion. I have never known such bone weariness, a depth of tired I never knew existed. I loved my husband, but I couldn't keep a romantic thought in my head, there wasn't room for it being overwhelmed with a collicky baby who awoke every 2-3 hours. And if you didn't somehow feel special and spiritual about being a new mother most of the time, that somehow you weren't doing it right, lacked the right attitude and proper spirit, and boy the guilt trip I laid on myself! I wish I hadn't felt so alone. I think new mothers, whether it's your first or fifth, need to have physical exercise, it will really help with the postpartum. And women in general need it for overall mental and physcial health. I'm currently following a Korean discipline called Dahnhak, which combines elements of yoga, tai' chi, and energy work and exercises exclusive to it. There are no centers for it in Utah as of yet, but there is a book with the movements illustrated with simple text and well as explanation of the philosophy behind them. The book is titled, "Dahnhak, The Perfect Way To Health" by Dr. Seung-Heun Lee. I highly recommend it. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] MOORE, _Lamb_ (Review) Date: 29 May 2002 22:12:20 -0700 Okay, so let me get this straight -- you don't want me to buy this book. Did I get that right? I saw the book on the shelf in a local bookstore the other day, and wondered how many folks would just glory in this kind of stuff. But on the subject of bad books, I've run across one or two that were just dismal. They never end up on my shelf, unless they're SO bad that they define a genre. Thanks for the review, and the warning. ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 12:22 PM Christopher Moore: Lamb, The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Friend. New York: HarperCollins, 2002. $25.95 hardcover. A very Bad book. Couple weeks ago I was teaching Sunday School, that lesson on phylacteries, you remember it? The lesson manual (which I generally loathe anyway) wanted us to ask people what kind of stuff they had on the walls of their houses, and to, like, put post-it notes on all of it, labeling it 'leads me to God,' or 'leads me away from God.' I wasn't going to do that, obviously, nor recommend it, but thought a general lesson on iconography might be of some interest, and, as a sort of ice breaker, mentioned that if you walked into my house the first thing you'd see would be all the book cases crammed with books. And a sister in the ward (who I really like, actually) said, "but you only have good books, right? You don't have any bad books." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 29 May 2002 23:30:52 -0600 ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen > Weighing in as a guy; when this was happening with my wife, I > was working two jobs putting myself through graduate school. > I was never home, and thus contributed mightily to my wife's > depression and exhaustion, something for which I've never > quite forgiven myself. I'd very much like to see this topic > dealt with. It does seem to me that those years when mothers > are with small children tend also to be the years when they > and/or their husbands are working unreasonable hours in order > to establish themselves professionally. Which makes me > wonder how anyone survives their twenties. Well, we could stop treating it as normal. At least this aspect of it. I don't want to pick on you, Eric, because this is *such* a common phenomenon, but it *shouldn't* be. We need to seriously take our teen and early twenty men aside and tell them to pull their head out. It *isn't* all about them. Their life isn't going to be forever marred if they fail to attain that *next* level of professional recognition. Most of us figure it out in our thirties or forties, but by then, we've missed the most interesting part of our kids' lives and added a lot to the burden of our poor wives. Why aren't we telling people about these things? The baby exhaustion, sure. But we need to tell the men that their career isn't the most important thing that will ever happen to them and these family-killing obsessions aren't justified. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 29 May 2002 23:52:54 -0600 ---Original Message From: Barbara Hume > This is one problem with the nuclear family. One young woman > must deal with > all of this endless child care, all on her own, with few > opportunities to > refresh her mind and spirit. In our mobile society, young > couples often > live far away from parents or other family members who might > otherwise > help. The other women in the community are equally exhausted. And the > idealistic family image that is constantly presented in the > LDS culture > makes these unfortunate women feel that something is wrong > with them when > they get tired and discouraged and want to throw the > screaming baby out the > window and heave the vacuum cleaner after it. My youngest is > 34 -- but I > still remember those days when by bedtime I could say, "Those > kids are > still alive. I've done my job." But the problem isn't the nuclear family, or the wives. The problem is that while we have been telling the women that they should be mothers, we've forgotten to tell the men that they should be fathers. We need to stop believing that we can have everything our society tells us we can and have a stable family, too. Our houses should be smaller, our toys fewer, and more time should be spent together as a family. Am I being too idealistic, here? I've practiced what I'm saying. Am I just a freak? I'm not the best husband that ever lived. Melissa will tell you that I don't always step up to the plate to make her life easier. But I *am* here. I know what is going on in my family. I know how well Teleri can read and what books she is interested in. I know that Aerin skips tasks on her Piano practice unless you pay attention. I know who Rhys is playing with and that he prefers the front yard to the back yard. It's not that hard, but it *does* mean that I make less money than I could if I worked longer hours. I've had to tell clients that they can't have what they want, or at least when they want it. I've lost business as a result. So what? I'd rather sacrifice the business than sacrifice the family. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Changes in Usage Date: 30 May 2002 01:49:53 -0600 Levi Peterson wrote: >I doubt that alright will ever become acceptable in formal English. I was >told fifty years ago in my Freshman English class that it would be only a >matter of a few years till ain't became a respectable word. This half >century later, it still isn't respectable. I think that is the way it will >be with alright. "Ain't" is an interesting comparison. The quintessential bad boy in good English, "ain't" is nonetheless readily accepted in fiction writing. But not "alright." I don't choose the spelling "alright" out of ignorance, but purposely, as part of my style. Yet an editor will change it back to "all right." This makes no sense, and is downright arrogant, in my opinion. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kellene Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 30 May 2002 00:21:10 -0600 Thanks all go have contributed to this line. I've been pleasantly surprised with the positive feedback, and perhaps motivated (cross your fingers). I've also received some great ideas. If it's okay with those involved, I'll be communicating offpost with you. I'm going to put a query letter, along with a book outline and maybe even a sample chapter, and ask for your feedback. Of course, you don't have to reply, but I'd appreciate it. If anyone else would be interested in helping me muddle through the process, I'd love to send the above to anyone willing to throw in their .02 worth. . . (I'm setting a goal to have this done by June 15.) One more question: I'm considering two different options Option A: Straightforward, nonfiction approach, possibly with several interviews with "experts" if I can get them to cooperate. (I have an in with a professor at Duke who may help me find someone there who could add credibility to the book, etc.) Option B: A series of essay-type chapters that deal with various aspects of being a mother of young children that would, by necessity, be light-hearted (somewhat Erma Bombeck-like) but honest, encouraging, and enlightening at the same time. Assuming I could pull off both equally well (which I have yet to determine), which do you think would be most appealing? thanks again for your help. I hope such questions are appropriate. . . . Kellene -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: [AML] Lit-crit Recommendations [was: Conservatism in Fantasy] Date: 29 May 2002 13:27:30 -0700 (PDT) --- Jonathan Langford wrote: > > Marxist literary criticism tends to look at texts from the perspective > of > class structures, social values, and political and economic power, and > how > these are depicted within a literary work. As I use it (which is only > pretty minimally) and as it is used by those critics whose works in this > area I value, it has less to do with finding a particular ideology in a > literary work and more to do with the types of questions that you ask > about > the work. What works by critics do you value? [And this question isn't just for Jonathan]. After a layoff of a year or so where I've read mainly fiction, I find myself getting back into some literary criticism. And I'm being reminded of why I have a love-hate relationship with the field. What works do you see as essential to the way you view literature (and culture)? What about when it comes to Mormon literature? I've discussed how Gregory Jusdanis' work on belated modernity and aesthetics has influenced my thinking on Mormon literature (and adjusted how I approach 'Western' ideas on literary history). Orson Scott Card refers often to John Gardner's _On Moral Fiction_. What about you AML-ers? Any must-reads on your bookshelves? I'm open to a wide range of approaches and topics. Help me create a reading list. Thanks. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Date: 30 May 2002 07:03:38 -0400 I don't suppose it would help at this time to clarify that not very many people in our stake know the doctor does this. We happened to be involved in missionary work a lot when my husband was ward mission leader. He's not being lionized around the stake as far as I can tell. But that's not what I was trying to say, and obviously saying so badly. I'm sure we could set up tables of different factors in our lives: income, time, other responsibilities, .......and try to decide in some logical manner who should be giving what to the church. Thom's post that I was responding to seemed to say (in my faulty memory, and I'm not going to take the time to go look it up) that *he* was doing this kind of comparison to determine whether or not he should be giving service. All I was saying was, why look at others. The widow's mite story is so powerful because of who it was that was giving, what she was giving, how she was giving, and how it was accepted of the Lord. If she had sat back and made comparisons she wouldn't have given. She would have said, "Well, that Pharisee has a heck of a lot more to give than I do, and I am barely scraping along--using all my time just to feed myself. I'll let the burden of giving fall on him." Did that little mite have any substantial value to the work of the temple or what ever it was being used for? Not in comparison to the abundance others could give without even putting a strain on their resources. But it was valued of the Lord, and I believe that is because of what it does to the person doing the giving, as well as whatever value it had for those given to. I understand what you are saying about peoples' perceptions of writers. Try being both a stay-at-home mom and a wanna-be writer. No respect! And even my husband has said on occasion, "Well I guess I could write if I wanted to." As if anyone who wanted to could just sit down for a few minutes, get the hang of things, and Write. But, I don't recall Thom making any statement about people perceiving that his writing was of no value. Aren't they asking him to serve because they feel that it *is* of value? While they might not understand the time and effort inolved on behalf of the writer, it does seem that they value the ability--at least in this situation. (BTW, I think this problem of people not valuing writers, and many other professions, is US culture, not Mormon culture.) I whole heartedly agree with your last few paragraphs. *We* should make sure that we are not valuing one service above another. And perhaps we should also do what we can to educate others. And maybe, just maybe, we should also be sure we are not falling into the habit of "reverse prejudice" by belittling the offerings of others because we perceive them as being more able to give for whatever reason. Tracie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 30 May 2002 09:00:43 -0600 I'm glad to hear Eric's male perspective on this: > Eric R. Samuelsen > > Weighing in as a guy; when this was happening with my wife, I was > working two jobs putting myself through graduate school. I was > never home, and thus contributed mightily to my wife's depression > and exhaustion, something for which I've never quite forgiven > myself. The male/father experience has a huge impact on the growing family. My husband admitted years later that he tried to avoid coming home after work (he would go out with the guys), because I was so tired, needy, and wanted to dump the kids on him. I remember sitting in the living room and watching out the window for his car lights to appear, rocking myself. It was a hard time, probably made worse because I was so lonely. No email then--no AML list. (But I remind myself, I had a phone--my pioneer polygamy ancestors really were isolated. I could tell you stories.... And obviously the stories about then and now need to be told.) A few of mine: My mother while expecting her ninth child couldn't walk. The pain in her hips and legs was too great. She used a walker. My mother is the epitome of a hard-working, pioneer woman. Today, at 76 she still raises a mammoth acre garden and keeps a raspberry patch that takes six hours to pick. She still stays up half the night pressure-canning beans (for her children's children). Often she has said that getting outside and spending her time in the garden was her salivation, her escape (escape into more work!), from the house jammed with kids. And I think the last couple of kids just didn't get as much mothering. The rhetoric about bringing spirits to earth has eased off somewhat in the past few years, although we have young women on this list with five and six little children. But to be a committed and converted Mormon woman in past years meant that you had to bring as many children into the world as you could. There was the caveat about the "health of the mother" but as Daryl Hoole used to preach in Relief Societies across the country, you can always crawl to the kitchen in the morning if you are too sick to walk! I figure I was as strong or stronger than any other woman and that where much was given much was expected. Now I define "health of the mother" differently. Probably some of you saw through this pressure in the 70s and 80s and were more reasonable about how many you tried to "bring down," but Mormonism, if it does anything, breeds idealistic women who breed more idealistic women. I remember President Benson saying to have a "quiver full" of children. As I looked around I figured a quiver must be equivalent to a Suburban. After my sixth child, I was visiting the Orthopedist about the degenerative pain in my hip. I told him I needed to fix the problem before I had my next child. He looked me straight in the eyes and said "why on earth do you want to have another child?" A miscarriage or so later I started to think he might have a point. But I still wrestled with my conscience because what if a spirit was waiting to come? A wonderful woman I know bore 5 children and endured multiple miscarriages. Finally her husband felt inspired that their family should end. But she struggled with his decision to the point of severe depression that put her in the hospital; she was on medication for years. She felt she might be letting God down and not doing her duty. After my fourth child, I remember repeatedly sobbing and crying (with what I now realize must have been post-partum depression). The discouragement I felt was that if I felt so overwhelmed with four, how was I going to have any more? I actually had four children in diapers at one point (nights)--due to severe incontinence problems of some. And yet I felt it was my duty to not take the easy way; I couldn't give myself a reasonable out--so I had two more kids. In addition, there was also a strong feeling of martyrdom and resentment among those women who tried to take the injunctions of the prophets literally about having large families and staying home, and the resentment went against those women who were able to self-define their own limits. Maybe they would have 2 or 3 kids and then get a job. Now I think such women are becoming more prevalent. Is that good or bad? Are we as a culture going the way or the world or just honestly recognizing a woman's emotional and physical limits? (I vote for the latter.) Yes, I survived having six and my mom survived having 9. Which one would we send back? None. But did I do an adequate job of mothering my youngest? I doubt it. I still feel he has been neglected. So guilt compounds the problems. I'm at times angry that the admonitions against birth control and limiting one's family have eased because I could have used a break back then! Are there fewer spirits clamoring for bodies now? What has changed? And not to be negative or anything, but yes, it gets even harder when you have teenagers/young adults who break the Mormon rules, don't follow the outlined plan for their lives. You feel the devastation of your idealism crashing around you, envisioning your children as lost forever and wondering where you could have done better. That's why I told my students I understood the severe psychosis that someone like Andrea Yates devolved into. We have a Utah-full of depressed women. So back to the original topic of sex deprivation. Why wouldn't some of us be uninterested in sex?? The amazing thing is that some survive and are interested, although I (embarrassed) admit I read Sharlee's post about the joy of sex in a happy marriage and wondered if anyone else felt jealous. What unfortunate combination of my own inadequacies/bad attitude/failures/lack of self-cartaking/need to conform/need to be perfect/resentment about feeling controlled/guilt/self-pity/family tradition-----interacting with a patriarchal idealistic and demanding culture has created my life? Did I ever choose anything or did I just react to the pressure to do it the way they said I should? Maybe I sound like I'm indulging in self-pity. I can hear all those talks about counting one's blessings and gratitude ringing in my head. I do live in the United States of America and have a pretty decent life. But nonetheless, maybe the factors I mention above have created a life that has been less than happy. I still have a few years left to try to fix it. And saying what I honestly think (even if, maybe especially if, it is nonconformist) is part of that process. Gae Lyn Henderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 30 May 2002 11:03:44 -0600 At 12:02 PM 5/28/02, you wrote: >I keep telling my friends with young children that the >elementary school years are really the "golden age" of parenting, the >respite you get between babies and teenagers so that you can decide you >really do like your kids before they turn into teenagers. I'm desperately >hoping that things get better when they become adults--but I'm also >wondering if these creatures will ever become adults. My 16-year-old grandson just became human again after several years of being a sullen, uncooperative, arrogant bleep. His humor and his basically sweet nature have reappeared, and he has learned to control his emotions and his actions. He's willing to admit that sometimes you have to do things you don't want to do and that the world does not owe him a living. He's fun to be around again. Even better, he's decided that Gramma isn't so dumb after all. So there is hope! Now there's the 14-year-old, who wears all black and whose room is all black and barely illuminated by black light and who mutters dark imprecations against the basic inustice of the universe. . . . . Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Changes in Usage Date: 30 May 2002 12:47:26 -0700 It is more properly used when referring to working the soil or where the proprietor's cash is kept., however most modern dictionaries also list it as meaning - "up to the time. Wait till tomorrow. etc. My rule is if it's in the dictionary use it, unless it doesn't fit into the setting in which I'm trying to use it. Regards, Bill Willson ----- Original Message ----- > Levi, your statement here raises a question. It concerns the word > "till." Given that it is a contraction of the word "until," and given that > I've seen it written "'til," when did the spelling "till" become acceptable? -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marc Schindler (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] CHARLES, _Endowed from On High_ (Review) Date: 31 May 2002 18:47:58 -0500 [MOD: This review was submitted by a non-AML List member at Jeff Needle's=20 recommendation, who had seen it on another email list.] Review: Endowed From On High John D. Charles, Endowed from On High: Understanding the Symbols of the Endowment (Salt Lake City UT: Horizon, 1997) Pb., 112 pp. ISBN 0-882-90614-3.US$9.98 [I ordered mine through Deseret Books, although they don't stock it - they have to place a special order on Horizon, so presumably you could save time by ordering it directly from Horizon: http://www.horizonpublishers.biz/ (one of the first URL's I've seen with the new .biz suffix, but there's not much content there yet).] Reviewed by Marc A. Schindler This is a fascinating book for several reasons. First of all, you might ask: who the heck is John D. Charles? He has an M.A. in English from BYU and teaches ESL in Latin America. He's not a GA and not a BYU prof - he's just an "ordinary guy" like you or I. But he has obviously been paying attention during endowment sessions and has some insights which I personally found very useful. I don't know what the temple prep class curriculum is like, but I'd recommend this book as a text. In fact, I've got 5 more on order as gifts - it's that kind of book, that makes a good stocking stuffer, especially for those who haven't gone through the temple yet, but even for old-timers who think they know the whole score. You certainly finish the book with a new, increased reverence for the temple. He stays away from "Nibleyesque" parallels to ancient times except where it's warranted, and then he says all he has to, very simply and succinctly. Two areas he handles with aplomb especially impressed me: why is there a similarity between the endowment ceremony and certain Masonic ceremonies, and there a significance to that similarity? Also, the fact that the endowment is liturgical (or what he calls a drama) in nature. It's not just symbolic in its components like the signs and tokens and clothing, but the whole experience itself is a symbol of both the restoration of the Gospel and the promise of future exaltation. Estimated reading level: Grade X. Rating: 4.5 stars out of 5. Here's an excerpt: [beginnings of pages are indicated within square brackets] [30] =85 Some gospel ordinances, e.g., baptism and the sacrament, follow a set script which has not changed (or has changed only very slightly) since ancient times. By contrast, the ceremony in which the endowment is presented (but not the endowment itself) has been modified several times just since it was revealed to Joseph Smith. This seems to be because this ceremony apparently is tailored by the Lord to the needs of particular cultures and times.=20 In the first modern revelation referring explicitly to the temple endowment, the Lord indicated that while the endowment might, in one sense, be continuous with ordinances revealed anciently (for example, to Adam, Seth, Noah, and the other patriarchs mentioned in Facsimile 2, figure 3, in the Book of Abraham), the ceremony revealed to Joseph Smith had been designed to meet the particular needs of Latter-day Saints:=20 And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people;=20 For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fullness [31] of times. (Doctrine and Covenants 124:40-41; emphasis added) Presumably, then, the ceremony revealed to Joseph had certain unique elements not to be found in the endowment ceremony from any previous dispensation. (See Heber C. Kimball to parley P. Pratt, June 17, 1842, LDS Church Archives) UNIQUE ELEMENTS FOR MODERN TIMES By the same token, the endowment ceremony currently performed in temples has unique elements not to be found in Joseph Smith's endowment, or even in the endowment performed ten years ago. With the passage of time, the saints' needs and cultural understanding apparently have changed, and under the direction of the living prophets and apostles the endowment has changed with them. One of the most significant and innovative changes is that the ceremonial drama, which used to be presented by live actors, is now presented on film in almost all the temples. Other changes have followed.=20 Some of the most recent change to the endowment, for instance (made in 1990), reflect our increased emphasis on the equal and our deepening respect for Christian churches with whom we formerly had rather hostile relations. Other changes have made the ceremony briefer and simpler, and thus more accessible. Records that early endowment sessions performed in the Nauvoo Temple lasted over five hours, as compared to current sessions which last about an hour and a half, =85 LEARN TO UNDERSTAND SYMBOLS THAT BOTH REVEAL AND CONCEAL Symbolism was a mainstay of the teachings of jesus. Matthew claims that Jesus never taught the multitudes without the use of symbols or figures. He wrote, All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. (Matthew 13:34-35)=20 Matthew also says that Jesus used figure deliberately to obscure his teaching, so dial the multitude would not understand than, 'It is given unto you," Jesus explained to his disciples, "to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them [the multitude] it is not given" (Matthew 13:11)=85. [37] ON-GOING PREPARATIONS FOR THE BLESSINGS While the parables no doubt had this obscuring effect, it should be noted that the nature of figures is to both reveal and conceal. In other words, a figurative presentation not only obscures at one level, the truth being presented, but simultaneously, at another level, it serves to help us understand the truth in a new way. The symbols used in the endowment serve the same purpose: they may serve to conceal the truth at one level, but they simultaneously reveal it to us in a new light at another level. When Jesus describes missionary work in terms of a sower casting seed, for instance, be not only obscures, for some listeners, the fact that be is talking about missionary work but he also helps us missionary work in a new way. The symbols used in the endowment serve the same purpose: they may serve to conceal the truth at one level, but they simultaneously reveal it to us in anew light at anothor level. LEARN TO RECOGNIZE BOTH "SIGNIFIERS" AND "SIGNIFIEDS" In linguistic jargon, A symbol has two parts: a signifier and a signified. The signifier is what we generally speak of as the symbol "itself" - the colored material that flies on a flagpole, or the broken bread on a sacrament tray: The signified is what we generally speak of as the meaning of the symbol - the country that the flag stands for, or the body of Christ represented by the bread.=20 The signifier is concrete; the signified is abstract This is the power of using a symbol: a angle concrete object is used to invoke a whole nebula of meaning. A flag stands not just for a country, but for that country's people, its history, its various aspirations and values, the dead who have fallen in defense of those values, the spirit of patriotism that preserves their memory, and so on. The bro- [38]ken bread stands not only for Christ's body, but for his atonement, his mercy, his compassion, his suffering, his mission, forgiveness, reconciliation, our willingness to keep his commandments, our discipleship, our communion with God and each other, and so on. In short, symbols rarely have a single meaning. Signifiers and signifieds do not fall into neat one-on-one relationships. This means that almost every scriptural image used as a signifier in the endowment refers to not just one meaning, but to a complex web of meanings. It is this fact which makes the endowment such a rich experience - an experience in which the laert participant can continue to learn throughout his lifetime. This book will merely begin to help you see the relationship between the endowment's signifiers and signifieds. The endowment will open up for you as you begin to grasp more of each symbol's various meanings and begin to see the complex interactions between those meanings, as well as their interaction with the meanings of other symbols. The most meaningful insights occur when you begin to see how events and aspects of your own life function as signifieds to the endowments signifiers, i.e., how the endowment provides a symbolic representation of your daily life=85. --=20 Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland =84Man mu=DF noch Chaos in sich haben, um einen tanzenden Stern geb=E4ren zu k=F6nnen.=93 =96 Friedrich Nietzsche Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author in the context of a conversational-style Internet discussion group only; its views do not necessarily reflect those of the author=92s employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Neil LABUTE, _The Distance from Here_ Date: 31 May 2002 09:19:11 -0600 (MDT) Chris Bigelow wrote: > One interesting side note is the following: "Like any man who believes in > sin (he is a practicing Mormon, although his play 'Bash' got him > 'disfellowshipped' by the Church elders), LaBute does not trivialize > darkness but treats it with proper awe." > > Chris Bigelow Is there any truth to this quote - or is it like the persistent rumors I hear about Orson Scott Card and Dave Wolverton - just an Urban Legend? --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 31 May 2002 11:48:26 -0500 I was just wondering if any of you were familiar with the book _With Child: Mormon Women on Mothering_, edited by Marni Asplund-Campbell and published by Signature Books. It is a collection of poems, fiction and essays dealing with conception, birth, babies and mothering. Although the quality of pieces included in the collection is a little uneven, there's some really great stuff in there by Louise Plummer, Linda Sillitoe, even an excerpt from Margarat Young's _Salvador_. I ordered it online about six months ago when I was feeling all alone in my Mormon-Motherness out here in Minnesota. My best Mormon friend had just moved back to Utah, and I needed to hear the voices of people who came from a culture where having three children before the age of 30 doesn't make you clinically insane (although, who knows . . . sometimes I think that I just might be :-). One of the biggest differences between living in Minnesota instead of Utah is I get a lot more people challenging my decision to have so many kids so young--not in a mean way, really, but in a curious, "wow--what does she think *she's* doing" kind of way . It's affected me in two ways. One, I started asking myself that same question, whereas out in Utah I think I simply went the same route that everyone else around me was going. Why do I (or we, Mormons) have our kids so young, and have three, four, five kids instead of one, two, three kids? How do I know what is best for me, for my family, for God?? And two, I feel a little less entitled sometimes to complain about how difficult it is out here because I have chosen this path. I have knowingly made my bed, as it were. There are many people around me who have one or two kids--three, tops--who say outright, "I just can't handle anymore." Why are we as Mormons unable to say that?? And why is "three" the magic acceptable kid number in a Mormon family (at least sometimes it seems to be)? I have a friend who's killing herself to have at least four because she deep inside she would feel like she was cheating or lazy if she didn't have at least that many. It's a hard, hard, hard question. (And I'm not sure how literary it is. Sorry! But the beginning of this post started out literary . . .) Angela -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] re: Baby Exhaustion Date: 30 May 2002 11:11:12 -0600 Some years ago, my father-in-law was visiting. I find him a very = difficult man to get to know, simultaneously reserved and opinionated, who = emerges from his shell to offer pronouncements, and then retreats again. = This visit went like many others, uncomfortably and awkwardly, and then, = suddenly, in a lull in the conversation, he began speaking, and he talked = for four hours about his childhood. I have never forgotten that evening; = it was just a remarkable outpouring of honesty and genuine feeling. =20 The subject, in this case, was the year his mother went to bed. My wife's = grandfather was a rancher, but his wife didn't want to live on the ranch; = she was a teacher and wanted to live in town. They agreed on that = compromise when they married. After over ten years of marriage, he broke = the promise, sold the town house, and moved to a tiny home on the ranch. = His wife (my wife's grandmother) had five small children. And she went to = bed. For a year. My father-in-law was the oldest (he was ten), and he = took charge, cooking meals, cleaning the house, all very badly, as you can = imagine. =20 She stayed in bed for a year, only emerging to eat and take care of = necessaries. Her husband never said a word about it; just told my = father-in-law what needed to be done. What saved her was a visit from the = superintendent of schools. A teacher had quit and they needed a new one = for a small rural school close to the ranch. She took the job, and that = probably saved her life. But I still think of that poor woman, so = terribly depressed that she went to bed for a year. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Nuclear Family (was: Baby Exhaustion) Date: 31 May 2002 11:20:14 -0500 Barbara Hume wrote: >> This is one problem with the nuclear family. One young woman >> must deal with >> all of this endless child care, all on her own, with few >> opportunities to >> refresh her mind and spirit. And Jacob Proffitt replied: > >But the problem isn't the nuclear family, or the wives. Jacob then goes on to make many excellent points that I agree with. On this first point to which Jacob is responding, however, I think I see Barbara's point, and agree with her. I think part of the problem *is* our notion of the nuclear family, and our expectation that nuclear families ought to be self-sufficient, particularly in the rearing of children. First, a couple of definitions. The term "nuclear family," as I'm using it here (and as I think Barbara was using it), is one husband, one wife, and all relevant children thereto. No grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Those I'm all considering as parts of the extended family. I'm not sure that human experience has yet demonstrated that it's possible to have a stable society based on nuclear families alone, without extended family support. I'm not sure there's even been any significant effort to try, until the American frontier and subsequent (e.g., post-World War II) increases in geographic mobility created circumstances where a large number of families were far away from any extended family. Even today, families tend to rely a lot on extended families for support, both financial and in terms of child-rearing--where they are available. But I think that the conceptual model of "the family" in American society is, largely, that of a nuclear family that manages pretty much on its own. I don't think this is nearly as strong a model, even today, in Europe (certainly my time as a missionary in Italy led me to believe that it's not). But I think it is the way we in America believe it should be, even when it doesn't work out that way--and therefore it's the standard we work toward, and measure ourselves against. I suspect (though I don't know, not having studied this) that in earlier cultures, there was probably a lot more labor-pooling in the child care department. This would also have had the advantage of socializing the child with other children his/her own age. It also would have had the advantage of exposing the child to a variety of adults and adult role models--people who could supply different needs and relate to children in different ways. We do that to a large extent, of course, with today's educational system, and with babysitting and day care, but I wonder if it's as effective, or if it doesn't lose a lot of the values of the older system--e.g., that it may not be *my* parent watching, but it's *someone's* parent, or uncle, or whoever. And my parent may be watching us all tomorrow, and at any rate is probably on call in some sense. (There's a fascinating book, by the way, titled _Women's Work_, about the history of weaving and textiles in prehistoric and early historic cultures, that talks among other things about why weaving so often was women's work. It uses an anthropological model that talks about what the requirements are for work that women will do. Foremost is a requirement that it be something that can be done more or less safely while tending small children. Weaving and textiles fit that requirement in a way that much other labor did not.) In any event, I don't think our society has come up with adequate substitutes for the extended family (and the local, closely connected community). And I do think that's part of the overall problem with baby exhaustion in today's culture. It even plays (I think) into part of what Jacob mentioned in another post, that is, the notion that men believe they have to devote so much of their energy in their twenties and such to establishing themselves in their careers. Yes, this is a problem of values, but I think it may be a problem of structures and expectations as well. The ideal, in American society, is that from the moment (at least, if not before) that a man marries, he should be able to support his family fully and be independent. I wonder if that isn't an unrealistic expectation. Again, in extended family systems, I think there may have been more of a transitional period--where the married son continued working largely with his father. It may sound here like I'm idealizing extended family systems. That's not really my intention. I think they have problems, too. I think that it's very difficult to create cultural change in such systems (e.g., people changing their religion), which may be one of the reasons why the Book of Mormon talks about people being dependent on the traditions of their fathers, and why the Church's restoration came at a time when that very mobility (both physical and conceptual) was blossoming, particularly in the areas where the Church was first successful. But I'm not sure we've come up with a good substitute yet, and I agree with Barbara that our ideal of how the nuclear family "should" work can contribute to the problem. One more aside: I wonder if that wasn't, in part, the function or at least one purpose of plural marriage in the early Church: to create an extended family for those who, having in many cases left their extended families behind (by joining the Church, immigrating from Europe, or moving to Utah--or being sent from Utah to another colony in, say, Mexico), would otherwise have been largely without an extended network of support. I rather like this idea, as it seems to reinforce the value of families (as opposed, say, to more formal "programs" of mutual support) as a way of meeting needs. Of course, I'm aware that it didn't work that way in many cases, but instead created many separate "nuclear families" where one parent was largely missing from any given home. But I think I've also heard of cases where something like this did happen. (Another tangent: I think that the increase in mobility has largely come at the cost of woman-woman connections. Generally people move where the man has a job--i.e., a connection. Women--at least according to the traditional model where they stay at home, or get jobs only as a supplement--were then uprooted from their support systems and given nothing in its place. If you believe, as I do, that civilization is a composite of connections between men and men, and between women and women, and between men and women, with each type of connection contributing a different type of strength to the overall fabric, then I think that the loss of the extended family may have placed its greatest stress on the connections between women and women. And I think part of the problem of our modern notion of the nuclear family may be that it suggests that men-women connections ought to be making up for that lack, rather than directing our attention to the lack of women-women connections. Which is not to say that there isn't a lot to improve in men-women and men-men connections too...) Anyway. Enough blathering on for now. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Conservatism in Fantasy Date: 30 May 2002 14:56:53 -0700 on 5/24/02 5:10 PM, Jonathan Langford at jlangfor@pressenter.com wrote: > Rob and Jim's replies make it clear that I need to clarify what I meant in > using the phrase "social conservatism." (Which probably means that I was > insufficiently clear in my original message.) So, here goes: > > By "social conservatism," I did *not* mean political conservatism of any > stripe--including the type that focuses on social issues--or any political > movement currently called conservative. Rather, I simply wanted to > reference a basic view of society that values stability very highly (often > over other values such as democratic representation) and that tends to > support existing social structures, including class structures where they > exist--seeing the alternative as a chaos that damages both individuals and > societies. There is one additional argument that I thought about but forgot to mention in my earlier dissertation. This regards both of the senses--the one you meant and the one you didn't. Fantasy and Science Fiction literature, from Tolkien to Howard to Heinlein to almost all of the current writers, has a prediliction for woman warriors. Tolkien had Eowyn, Howard had Valeria and Belit. David Weber, a current best-selling SF writer, has the fabulous Honor Harrington series, about a female space navy captain (well she's an Admiral now). A few years ago there was Elizabeth Moon and Paksenarrion, and there's plenty more where that came from. Both sexes write about them, and almost all seem to be new incarnations of some of the old favorites like Vennolandua or Britomarte. I have to plead guilty myself--my "main" series of unpublished novels includes a major character who is a lady knight/magician that fights with the best of chivalry as an equal. Most of the women warriors in that world are horse-archers rather than standard knights, but the Sisterhood of Saint Valarey of the Shield is made up entirely of women who can match men hand to hand. I don't really want to debate it too closely, however, because it is an inconsistency in my thinking. While I write about women warriors I oppose women in combat in our current military, with the exception of aerial combat. Even in the fantasy world I created the vast majority of women want no part of combat or war, but I see no reason why those who do should be universally barred from it. The ground-slogging thing, however, is too difficult; not for the indiviual, but because the individual cannot be integrated without great difficulties. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 30 May 2002 17:15:41 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- But if you can say that while providing ways to cope until the period of fatigue passes...I think the simple knowledge that it's not an abnormal feeling would be very comforting. Melissa Proffitt My husband's great-grandmother, Elizabeth, left a fascinating, detailed, energetically-written account of her life (she was the first female mayor in all of Utah--and I've also heard in all of the US, but I don't know for sure on that one). I found myself envying how the women of Southern Utah in the late 1800s dealt with having lots of little babies. They really had a good system worked out. Basically, the young, unmarried women were expected to go and stay--sometimes for upwards of three months--with the woman in the extended family or community who had just had a baby. Elizabeth's journal contains accounts of herself at ages 16-25 (she married late), going off to stay for a few weeks or months with one woman or the other, like a cousin, aunt, or family friend. She would help with the cooking, cleaning, and child-tending until the new mother felt more like herself and could take on her housework again. She talked about how grateful the women always were to see her. Then, later, when she had her two children from a polygamous marriage and had to go into hiding (it's a very interesting story!), she talked about how glad she was to have a younger sister or cousin come to help her. She spoke of those young women as personal saviors. They helped her cope with loneliness, with the fatigue and exhaustion of having new babies, and with the never-ending housework. I've always thought that was a brilliant system--it gives the young women more competence in the chores they'd have to take on some day, and gave the new mother a much-needed break. By the way, I'd be interested in talking off-line with anyone considering a book on this subject. Amy -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Exhaustion Date: 30 May 2002 18:53:36 -0600 >One more question: I'm considering two different options >Option A: Straightforward, nonfiction approach, possibly with several >interviews with "experts" if I can get them to cooperate. (I have an in with >a professor at Duke who may help me find someone there who could add >credibility to the book, etc.) An expert who has never been a mother offers less credibility to me that people who have been through it. I've seen a lot of honesty on the list about this subject, and a book that sets forth these feelings would be more valuable than some bearded professor blathering about sociological studies and proper gender roles. >Option B: A series of essay-type chapters that deal with various aspects of >being a mother of young children that would, by necessity, be light-hearted >(somewhat Erma Bombeck-like) but honest, encouraging, and enlightening at >the same time. Not too light -- this is a serious topic, as you can see. Don't make it seem that you are dismissing these strong feelings being expressed with humor. Your book needs to contain many case studies, so to speak, contributed by women like the intelligent, articulate, and exhausted young mothers we've been hearing from. I'm glad I didn't hear any anti-birth-control nonsense when I was investigating the church. I never would have joined. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature