From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #127 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Wednesday, August 9 2000 Volume 01 : Number 127 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 01:01:28 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Jason Steed wrote: > I don't think deliberate attempts to incorporate "neutral" nudity is the > answer. Open discussions with our children, trying to follow the spirit in > handling individual situations--these seem more appropriate to me. Maybe I'm on the perverted end of the bell curve, but all the frank discussions on earth wouldn't have satisfied my curiosity about the human body. Nor do I see how frankly discussing something, but continually acting ashamed of letting anyone see it, is going to change prevailing attitudes much. By the way, I don't think deliberately incorporating nudity is the answer, although I may have sounded like I did. Rather, I think the answer is not to fear nudity, and be willing to use it at appropriate times. > I don't believe that nudity is inherently evil, but I do believe the body is a > sacred thing and ought to be treated as such. If the body is, indeed, a > "temple", then I think any "casual" exposure of it--even if it isn't > explicitly sexual or "evil" in nature--is going to run the risk of > inappropriateness. My feelings are that the above statement is not an argument, but an expression of the prevailing cultural attitude. Just how seriously are we supposed to take the metaphor that our body is a temple? What does it mean to say a body is sacred? Maybe we shouldn't scratch our itches, because that's an awfully casual thing to do with a sacred instrument. Sorry to sound flippant here--I really don't intend to be. I'm serious about the question. I can think of a lot of things I do with my body that I wouldn't do to something I consider sacred. Furthermore I can't think of any scripture that says our bodies are sacred. Christ used the metaphor of the body as a temple once, but that's about it as far as I can recall. (I'm sure if I'm wrong, I'll be quickly corrected in this forum.) All the rest seems to be interpretation placed on that isolated literary conceit. Not that I think we should profane our bodies. They are patterned after God's body; they are an important tool for us to further our eternal progression. But don't you think we sometimes take this concept of "sacred bodies" to an extreme? Perhaps slapstick comedy is a terrible sin, because it uses this sacred instrument for cheap laughs. Maybe Jim Carrey is going to hell, because look how he contorts his sacred temple in the service of something as trivial as comedy. We need to call animators and cartoonists to repentance: their representations of the sacred human body are grossly distorted. Everyone who is not in peak physical condition is desecrating something sacred--why aren't we all following Arnold Schwarzeneggar's example and building our bodies up to as much perfection as we are capable? I consider the scriptures sacred. But I don't hide the book under a piece of cloth. I don't preserve it in a state of museum-piece preservation. I read it and mark it up and wear it out using it as a tool. I wouldn't paint a swastika on the cover--that would certainly be desecrating it. I also wouldn't pose nude for pornographic magazines--that would certainly be desecrating my body. But I'll use the scriptures and drop them on the floor and on occasion get a drop or two of food on them. If someone happens to see me nude, I won't freak out and scramble to hide myself like there's something shameful about my body. If my story requires nudity, as with those plays Eric Samuelsen mentioned, each one of which was an excellent example, I'll put it in. If it doesn't, I won't. Why is keeping the body permanently covered "appropriate"? Why is that the form in which we should respect the sacredness of the body? Where did that rule come from? As far as I can tell from Victorian England, when they used to dress piano legs for reasons of modesty. Is such cultural baggage truly of any value? > It's a difficult situation, dealing with cultural baggage (both Mormon and > American in general), but we need to have some respect for the fact that the > baggage exists, not just make attempts to cut ourselves loose from it. Why? I have little respect for baggage, which to me by definition means beliefs that have lost touch with their original purpose, but are preserved whether the result is positive or destructive. I think a large part of personal growth is cutting ourselves away from baggage and adopting more truth. I think I do a great disservice to let people nurture their baggage, although I recognize that great wisdom needs to be followed in helping people come to recognize baggage as such. Not everyone is ready to receive all truth. That's why we learn line upon line. But I don't think the answer is to succumb to the status quo. - -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 00:27:42 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing >To me, the public's or critic's immediate reaction to a work of art >means nothing. Only time and history will tell us what is good art. I'm >currently working on a play about Moli=E8re, the French comic playwright. >His play _Tartuffe_ offended a lot of stuffy religionists of his day, >and was even banned for a short period of time. Another play, _Don >Juan_, seemed to lionize atheism, and also bothering the clerical crowd. >Horrible things were said about Moliere. Old friends turned away from >him, condeming him to hell in their writings, and theatre in general as >a toold of the devil. > >Today, Moli=E8re is universally honored as France's greatest playwright. >Tartuff is considered Moli=E8re's masterpiece. > >In the short run, all the talk about is nudity appropriate, what >language should or should not be used, may give us all a lot to think >about. We may be offended by this or that, or not at all. But long >after we're gone, I venture to say that some of the works of art that a >substantial majority of our culture currently condemns may turn out to >entertain ages yet unborn, and they will wonder, like we do when we view >Tartuffe, what all the fuss was about. I think the problem here--and it's a problem that can only be addressed,=20 really, on a listserv made up of people who (presumably) share basically the= =20 same general belief that there is a Truth out there, absolutely, and that we= =20 have some idea of what it basically consists of--the problem here is that=20 you're using works produced by the world, initially rejected by the world,= =20 and later acclaimed by the world, as a basis for dismissing a discussion of= =20 how to judge--and whether or not, or how, to avoid--worldliness=20 (inappropriate representations of nudity). In other words, so what if the world lauds Moliere now? The fact that=20 Moliere is a "classic," now (or Shakespeare, or Faulkner, or 100 yrs from=20 now, say, for laughs, Stephen King), according to the world, really has=20 nothing whatever to do with the morality of nudity (or anything else=20 portrayed/revealed/reflected/promoted) in art. What the world finds=20 acceptable or rejectable changes yearly, if not weekly; but what is moral or= =20 immoral, generally, is unchanging. The world's standards are absolutely=20 relative, and we, as Mormons, shouldn't trust them. I should mention that we, as artists, shouldn't trust them either. It is=20 perfectly conceivable that the world could have done other than it has done,= =20 and that a culture could have been produced that lauded Moliere in his time,= =20 only to see him fade away into oblivion twenty years later, never to return.= =20 What is or isn't a "classic" is a matter of culture and ideology, not Truth.= =20 As Mormons and artists, we should be after the T-word, unafraid to go=20 against culture and ideologies should it prove necessary. That means being= =20 willing to abandon a "classic" because it is immoral according to that Truth= =20 that we make claims to knowing and following. It also means that discussions about the morality or immorality of a thing= =20 are essential to our (Mormon) art--we cannot, as many other artists have=20 done and continue to do, abandon morality as merely cultural (or=20 deliberately fight against it as such), thereby making it relative, because= =20 to do so would be tantamount to abandoning our Mormonism. And years from=20 now, while the world may be wondering what all the fuss was about over a=20 given novel or play, hopefully the Mormons will understand, and not be=20 bullied by the world into accepting the new "classics" simply because the=20 world has affixed the label to them. Wow, I feel as though a soapbox has forced itself under my heels here. I'm= =20 kicking it away now... Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 01:28:38 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Harlow wrote: This is a very powerful gift we can give each other, but also fragile. If you don't receive the gift it has no power for you. Or over you. It puzzles me deeply, and pains me, that in a culture that so profoundly emphasizes personal accountability, personal responsibility, as does ours, there are so many who adopt a deterministic model of reading. If we fear story we are essentially abrogating our response-ability to choose what influences us and to reject or dismiss things we don't want to be influenced by. I agree with this wholeheartedly, and with much of what Harlow said. And I'm feeling the need to back off from the somewhat extreme position I was displaying in a counter-argument directed primarily at Eric (to some degree simply for the sake of argument--because it makes me think and forces me to articulate things). I too believe art to be much of what Harlow claims it to be. And I'm not a Censor (uppercase 'C') in the sense that I'm in favor of any form of blanket or institutionalized censorship (though certainly some of the thoughts I was articulating may have hinted in that direction). What I am most in favor of is censorship on a personal level--and, indeed, this sort of thing is difficult to accomplish without a healthy sense of "response-ability". I do not believe in a deterministic model of reading, but I also do not believe that my personal response-ability is so wholly autonomous as to be capable of remaining unaffected or un-influenced by art, if I simply choose to be so. I do not believe in the strict binary of Self and Other, where my Self can cast out the Other (in this case, "bad" art), so that my Self retains its pre-Other integrity. The bottom line: I think that as Mormon Artists, there is a tendency to fight against the conservativism of our Mormonness and to overplay the liberalism of our Artistness. Let's face it: we all enjoy lambasting those prudes who can't handle the flash of buttocks or the four-letter words in a PG-13 film, or the bloody wars in the scriptures (for Pete's sake!). But we need to be careful that we're not too resistent to that adjective that distinguishes us from Artists in general. We discuss and deliberate endlessly over what is and is not appropriate/acceptable in what we write--and I don't think anyone will argue that, generally speaking, the literature we produce is more conservative in its presentations of things like sex and violence than literatures produced by 'other' writers--and I believe that's as it should be. Likewise (and this may seem redundant, though I don't think it is), our literature often is, and should be, more 'moral'. So why shouldn't we do the same with what we read (or watch)? Besides being Mormon Artists, we're also Mormon Readers. Right? And I think that the censorship of some things (be it personal, familial, or societal) can be just as much an assertion/affirmation of personal response-ability as anything. (And that doesn't mean 'fearing' story, or rejecting it blindly. Just as those who advocate a form of censorship often claim danger exists in that which should be censored, so those who rebel against censorship often claim fear in those who advocate it.) The fact is, the sort of censorship I'm advocating is informed and responsible (thus, response-able). If it's raining, we can exercise our response-ability by allowing the rain to affect us (hunching our shoulders, grimacing against the wetness at our back), or by not allowing it (standing tall, smiling through the droplets on our eyebrows); or, we can exercise our response-ability by choosing not to go outside...In the first two instances, despite our responses, we're still wet. All three choices are made with some knowledge of the rain and its effects, and of the fact that it is raining. So, while I sit in awe of the wonders of art, and (I might add) in awe of the fact that somehow I've posited myself on the fascist/reactionary side of the fence--which is normally so foreign to me--I don't mind being here (temporarily), gently re-minding myself (if no one else) of a few things I believe in as a Mormon Artist/Reader. Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 09:46:00 -0500 From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Thom, Could you explain the following: > To me, the public's or critic's immediate reaction to a work of art > means nothing. Only time and history will tell us what is good art. It occurs to me that the public and critics are the vehicles which place a work of art into the stream of history and allow it to endure over time. Contrarily, the negative public and/or critical response to a work of art can contribute to its being kept out of the stream of history. Clearly it's more complicated than this, but I'm interested to know what distinctions you make. Todd Robert Petersen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 16:37:28 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] DKA Magazine Announcement Forwarded Announcement: Volume III of "Dragon's, Knights, and Angels: The Magazine of Christian Fantasy and Science Fiction" is now online at www.dkamagazine.net DKA Magazine is a family friendly magazine of Christian fantasy and science fiction including stories, art, poetry, and reader interaction. The magazine is in need of submissions from authors of strong moral background and a love of science fiction and fantasy. See the site for more information. Rebecca Shelley Editor DKA Magazine - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 16:35:45 -0500 From: "Darvell" Subject: [AML] _Contact_ (was: Mormon Depictions in Movies) Eric D. Snider (eric@ericdsnider.com) >... which, in my opinion, is just another example of that film's >anti-religion message. I know there are those who got quite the >opposite idea from "Contact," and as soon as one of them puts forth >that idea, I'll go into detail as to why I feel the way I do (in a >polite, friendly debate sort of way, of course :-) ). > >Eric D. Snider I hope this is not drifting too far from the purpose of this list, but it does show how spiritual things are portrayed in movies, so... I feel the movie _Contact_ had very strong views of religion from both sides -- and that's because the movie was made by someone other than the man who wrote the original book. The original book by Carl Sagan (which I read ten years before the movie) does not have the realization of faith that Ellie (Jodie Foster) does at the end of the movie. That was added by the movie makers. This part is favorable to religion because it shows that in the end, all Ellie had was her faith of what happened. Carl Sagan didn't do that in the book. But I liked the movie ending better. Without that ending, it was a good story, but with it, it was a GREAT story. I absolutely loved it. It's a great portrayal of faith in an entertainment medium. I heard the director giving an interview about the finished movie and he expressed his hope that Carl Sagan would have enjoyed it (as he died during the filming). I personally think he'd be turning over in his grave about the ending, as that's NOT the message he had intended (or at least not the main message). Darvell Hunt _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 15:34:47 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies "Eric D. Snider" wrote: > > >Then there's _Contact_, where the guy who plants the bomb in the machine is > >a religious fanatic from Panguitch, Utah. They never say he's Mormon, and > >his long shoulder-length, bleached hair doesn't make him look Mormon, but > >just being from Utah makes you think that they want to portray him _as_ > >Mormon, without really saying it. > > ... which, in my opinion, is just another example of that film's > anti-religion message. I know there are those who got quite the > opposite idea from "Contact," and as soon as one of them puts forth > that idea, I'll go into detail as to why I feel the way I do (in a > polite, friendly debate sort of way, of course :-) ). You were not impressed, as I was, by the senator asking Jodie Foster for proof of her experience, for which she could give none, her answer was basically: "If I hand't have experienced this for myself, I wouldn't believe it either." Who does that sound like? Cosmos is an intensely religious movie. More spiritual in nature than many so-called religious films. It deals with the ineffable reality of the mysteries of the Universe by summing up everything in these words: "Because that's the way it's always been done." IOW, the reality of the Universe can not be understood by human reason alone, only by faith. It takes a poet (or a prophet) to adequately describe that reality, and you can bear your testimony all you want to to unbelievers, but you can't describe it. Cosmos, imo, is the greatest combination of religion and science fiction ever made. The second is Matrix. As a life-long fan of science fiction and religion, I feel privileged and humbled that I lived in the same decade when both of these films were made and thus could see them in first release. (Similarly, seeing Star Wars in its inital release was a religious experience that no video or DVD can ever re-produce.) Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 15:38:42 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies Melinda wrote: >I'd vote for the old movie, "Paint Your Wagon". Besides, in it >Clint >Eastwood sings, beautifully. "I talk to the trees, but they don't listen to me." From Dirty Harry, no = less. One of the funniest moments in the history of film. =20 How about the Mormon preacher in Little Big Man? Or am I not remembering = that right? Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:58:05 -0600 From: Gerald G Enos Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Rex, I was stunned by your fankness and I applaud your determination. As far as going topless I have always wondered why that rule didn't apply to both men and women. Personally I have found only one man that I can look at topless without being repulsed. Yes, I married him. And you are right, there should be a law against certain people wearing not quite there clothes. Don't worry, I would definatly be one of those too. Alot of what you said made sence, about shame that is. My personal opinion about nudity is to avoid it (exept with my husband) but that is my own opinion and what works for me. It has nothing to do with what is or is not appropriate in the arts. Konnie Enos ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:21:59 -0400 From: debbro@voyager.net Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ (was: Mormon Depictions in Movies) Not having read the book, I don't know one ending from the other. But, having seen the movie four times now (we own it) I have to say that I didn't get the sense that it changed ellie's view on God. I could be wrong, and it could be time to watch it again. Debbie Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:04:39 -0400 From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: RE: [AML] Good Writing And years from now, while the world may be wondering what all the fuss was about over a given novel or play, hopefully the Mormons will understand, and not be bullied by the world into accepting the new "classics" simply because the world has affixed the label to them. Wow, I feel as though a soapbox has forced itself under my heels here. I'm kicking it away now... Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Well said, Jason. I find that many of the more contemporary "classics" and also some of the newer Newbery Award winners are not what I consider classics. Melinda L. Ambrose - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 02:15:16 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Rex Goode wrote: [a whole lot of good stuff about society's attitude toward sex and nudity and the sexual problems people have] These were excellent comments you made. You expressed things that, if I had tried, would have come out greatly inferior to what you wrote. Probably because you're an expert on the subject, and I'm not. - -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:39:12 -0700 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ (was: Mormon Depictions in Movies) >Eric D. Snider (eric@ericdsnider.com) >>... which, in my opinion, is just another example of that film's >>anti-religion message. I know there are those who got quite the >>opposite idea from "Contact," and as soon as one of them puts forth >>that idea, I'll go into detail as to why I feel the way I do (in a > >polite, friendly debate sort of way, of course :-) ). >> > > >I hope this is not drifting too far from the purpose of this list, but it >does show how spiritual things are portrayed in movies, so... > >I feel the movie _Contact_ had very strong views of religion from both >sides -- and that's because the movie was made by someone other than the >man who wrote the original book. The original book by Carl Sagan (which I >read ten years before the movie) does not have the realization of faith >that Ellie (Jodie Foster) does at the end of the movie. That was added by >the movie makers. This part is favorable to religion because it >shows thatin the end, all Ellie had was her faith of what happened. > >Carl Sagan didn't do that in the book. But I liked the movie ending >better. Without that ending, it was a good story, but with it, it was a >GREAT story. I absolutely loved it. It's a great portrayal of faith in an >entertainment medium. > >I heard the director giving an interview about the finished movie and he >expressed his hope that Carl Sagan would have enjoyed it (as he died during >the filming). I personally think he'd be turning over in his grave about >the ending, as that's NOT the message he had intended (or at least not the >main message). That's very interesting to me, that the movie was changed significantly from the book. That lends more credence to what I thought: that the ending was sort of a tacked-on afterthought. So here's my diatribe about the movie, which I realize is approximately three years too late: Through the whole movie, religion is criticized. Every religious character is shown to be either old-fashioned and naive (the guy who says, "We don't even know if these aliens are moral" is clearly not well-respected by the movie's other characters), or out-and-out insane (the religious zealot who blows stuff up, who of course is from Utah, stereotypical home of religious nuts). The only religious character portrayed as being a normal, non-crazy person, is Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey) -- and he sleeps with Arroway on their first date! I'd rather be one of the "zealots" they make fun of than an immoral pseudo-spiritual backslider like Joss. (Is it OK to be judgmental about fictional characters?) Furthermore, Arroway, while speaking to Joss, gives two possibilities: Either God exists and refuses to make his presence known, or -- clearly the more "reasonable" possibility -- there is no God, and science is the answer to life's questions. A third scenario, the one that happens to be true, is not even mentioned as being possible: That God exists and gives abundant evidence of that fact to those who are willing to see it. When people raise concerns about sending an atheist like Arroway as a representative of Earth, when an overwhelming majority of Earthlings believe in God, we are supposed to be on Arroway's side. But I agreed with everyone else! Arroway SHOULDN'T have been sent! But that's not how the movie wants us to feel. We're supposed to roll our eyes at how silly it is that the issue of belief in God should even be brought up in a situation that clearly has nothing to do with it. "Look at how obsessive these religious people are!" is what the movie is saying, and we're supposed to agree with it. So the movie goes along in this vein for two hours -- belittling religion, showing religious people to be pitiable, misguided souls -- and then suddenly changes. In the final 10 minutes, we get this twist: That believing in science requires the same sort of blind faith that has been mocked by everyone for 120 minutes! Ho-ho, imagine the wackiness! If it had been better executed, this would have been a marvelous ending, giving scientific credence, or at least respectability, to belief in God. As it is, though, it is too little too late. It's hard to accept that the ideas presented so vividly and one-sidedly for two hours weren't what the filmmakers were really intending to say -- that it was merely a set-up for a grand, ironic finale. Again, the IDEA of it is great. But the execution winds up celebrating the anti-religious sentiment, rather than making a skeptical audience reconsider it. Eric D. Snider - -- *************************************************** Eric D. Snider www.ericdsnider.com "Filling all your Eric D. Snider needs since 1974." - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 06:55:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Darlene Young Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ I can't say much about the INTENDED religious message of the movie/book (sorry, I saw and read them so long ago that I can't remember the differences). But I did enjoy thinking about applications the movie/book had to my own relition. Specifically, I found it fascinating to think of the concept of a more advanced species leaving us a message. What would an advanced species tell us if they could? Or a society that has gone before? (A message from the inhabitants of the City of Enoch?) I know a person who made his wife promise that she would return to him after her death of cancer and give him a message. If she could only tell him one thing, what would it be? What message would you leave a younger and less-evolved version of yourself? Anyway, then I thought(brace yourself): is Sagan's idea of a message left behind by an advanced species so far from what we believe? In fact, isn't that our definition of God? An advanced species? (Or, if you prefer, a progressed version of us?) And we DO believe that He left us a message, made contact. In the form of an actual visitation to Joseph Smith. And the message? That we can repent. That the authority to act in God's name is again on the earth. And what more important message is there? ===== Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: (No, or invalid, date.) From: "Marilyn & William Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity I would really like to think about food. 1. Preoccupation. The mind of the addict becomes preoccupied with things = yummy. 2. Ritualization. Despite having mentally disallowed himself from indulgi= ng, his split off compulsive self begins to set up a situation so he can = look at things yummy. (Doughnuts, for example) 3. Acting Out. Here, he actually gets his fix and often binges. (Sometime= s two or three doughnuts?) 4. Self-hatred. The feelings of guilt and shame for having once again fai= led to control himself reaffirms the core beliefs he holds about himself.= (He likes food.) Goode list, Rex. Marilyn Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 00:34:45 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Jason Steed wrote: > In other words, so what if the world lauds Moliere now? The fact that > Moliere is a "classic," now (or Shakespeare, or Faulkner, or 100 yrs from > now, say, for laughs, Stephen King), according to the world, really has > nothing whatever to do with the morality of nudity (or anything else > portrayed/revealed/reflected/promoted) in art. What the world finds > acceptable or rejectable changes yearly, if not weekly; but what is moral or > immoral, generally, is unchanging. The world's standards are absolutely > relative, and we, as Mormons, shouldn't trust them. You bring up an interesting issue that I've wondered about before. It seems like one of the best ways to make a work of art morally acceptable to people, including Mormons, is to wait a while. The older a work of art becomes, assuming it's still remembered at all, the more of an aura of "classic" grows around it. A classic is often revered even if it presents material that would be considered immoral if it were first published to the world today. Shakespeare is a great example. Lots of immoral things happen in Shakespeare plays, yet when is the last time you heard in any LDS venue that we shouldn't be reading or viewing Shakespeare plays because they're immoral? Why does this happen? Is it just a matter of getting used to a thing and not seeing the vile aspect of it anymore? Or is there more to it? My conjecture is that we become distanced from a work of art the older it gets, and are able to look at it more objectively. The stuff that Hollywood or the publishing industry puts out now is immediate, personal, because our contemporaries are trying to influence _us_. So we take any questionable material in them personally and react emotionally to what we perceive of as immoral. But older art was created by artists back _then_ to affect those _other_ people, so we don't take it so personally. Thus we are able to look at it more objectively, to see the possibly immoral content and analyze it from a distance. We don't feel so threatened by it. [Sudden shift in gears.] Does God ever think immoral thoughts? The knee-jerk answer is bound to be no, or at most, maybe they enter his head, but he immediately tosses them out, not letting them dwell there for more than an instant. But I question whether that's true--I question whether that's possible. Of a surety, he doesn't dwell on immoral thoughts, letting them fester in his mind and start affecting his behavior. But I can't see how he could continue to be God if he doesn't consider immorality in all it's ugly aspects. He had to contemplate the sins of his children as he put together the plan of salvation and include a Savior in the mix. He has to prepare for the destructive actions of wicked men so he can combat their influence and keep his plan on track down here in mortal life. He has to know how to comfort us and bless us and help us deal with the consequences of our sins. God has to understand sin completely and intimately. Isn't that in fact one of the strengths we claim for Christ, who by suffering for our sins understands our shortcomings intimately and therefore is someone we can turn to for help? Now to tie the two concepts together. Somewhere along in our eternal progression I believe we need to learn how to face sin, look it in the eye, know and understand it intimately, and still resist succumbing to it. At what point in our progression we accomplish that is probably a very personal thing, different for each individual. I think it's clear that until we reach a certain level of spiritual strength, we are _not_ ready to learn that lesson, because we _would_ succumb. Therefore there is an appropriate time for "blissful ignorance" and protecting the innocent from the realities of life. But I don't think blissful ignorance is a permanent solution to perfection. Otherwise it might be a charitable thing to practice widespread infanticide so all those babies can go directly to the celestial kingdom and bypass the spiritual dangers of mortal life. I think the example of dealing with classic works of art with a dispassion, where we can analyze and understand the evil depicted within them without succumbing to any immoral influence that may be there, is a model for how we need--sooner or later--to deal with wickedness. After all, a man who was protected during his entire maturation process, who is naive about life, who doesn't understand much about sin, wouldn't last one week as a bishop. It's a very personal, and possibly risky, decision to decide when you're ready to start facing evil head-on and coming to grips with it's reality. But I think it's a thing that needs to be done. Evil in literature can help us do that in a very safe environment, much safer than diving headlong into evil ourselves. And because it's a personal decision, once again we have to be very wary of judging the choices of others, and expecting a one-size-fits-all model of spiritual progression to be workable. - -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: (No, or invalid, date.) From: "Marilyn & William Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Hey, you know what, Michael? You shouldn't be scratching those itches. Also, yes, I am "following Arnold Schwarzeneggar's example and building = up my body to as much perfection as I am capable." Luv, Marilyn Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:54:17 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ > I hope this is not drifting too far from the purpose of this list,but it does show how spiritual things are portrayed in movies, so... > I feel the movie _Contact_ had very strong views of religion from both sides -- and that's because the movie was made by someone other than the man who wrote the original book. The original book by Carl Sagan (which I read ten years before the movie) does not have the realization of faith that Ellie (Jodie Foster) does at the end of the movie. That was added by the movie makers. This part is favorable to religion because it shows that in the end, all Ellie had was her faith of what happened. > Carl Sagan didn't do that in the book. But I liked the movie ending > better. Without that ending, it was a good story, but with it, it was a GREAT story. I absolutely loved it. It's a great portrayal of faith in an entertainment medium. > Darvell Hunt I hate to burst your bubble - But Carl Sagan wrote the script for Contact, and when he was unable to sell it, he wrote the novel. Plus, the last half of the book deals with the main character finding a hidden message from God in the numeral Pi. That sounds a bit religous to me. But while the director may have a added a few things, the original movie script was written by Carl Sagan (and it included the "faith" ending in the movie) - --Ivan Wolfe - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: (No, or invalid, date.) From: "Marilyn & William Brown" Subject: [AML] MITCHELL, _Angel of the Danube_ (was: Mormon Depictions in Movies) May I say that Alan Mitchell definitely should be good at spelling these = days, as he is about to embark upon the publishing world with a wonderful= novel which has been touted by Richard Cracroft as Mormonism's answer = to HENDERSON, THE RAIN KING by Saul Bellow! Pretty wonderful high praise!= The publishers loved the book and so are doing a fabulous job with it. = Alan was also one of the winners in the Marilyn Brown thingy this last = February! We are SO PROUD of him! It is titled ANGEL OF THE DANUBE. It's = going to be wonderul. I'm excited for all of us Mormons and our continued= advances on quality! And I'm especially proud of him! Marilyn Brown - ---------- > > Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies > > > >Nelwyn wrote: > > > >>Clint Eastwood sang 'Moriah' - beautifully. > > > >Not quite. > > > >Clint Eastwood sang "I Talk to the Trees." Harve Presnell sang "Moria= h" > >beautifully. > > > >Neal Kramer > > > Still not quite. Presnell sang "Mariah" beautifully. > > Alan Mitchell - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #127 ******************************