From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #393 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 Saturday, July 14 2001 Volume 01 : Number 393 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:24:17 -0500 From: "Darvell Hunt" Subject: Re: [AML] Realistic Newspaper Reporters "Stephen Goode" wrote: >Two weeks ago, I had the experience of meeting a small-town reporter, very >small town. >A man in his late thirties, nice beard, conservative clothes, and a belly >pack had stopped to use the restroom. Hey, that sounds like me! I'm a small-time reporter for a small-time paper, but I'm in my mid-thirties. I have a trimmed beard, wear jeans and a golf shirt, and occasionally sport a "belly pack," and I use restrooms, too. Writing for a local hometown paper is certainly interesting. Just today there was a letter to the editor in the Lehi Free Press about my satirical column last week making fun of the stock parade that starts the Lehi Roundup celebration. I guess you're not a real columnist until some outraged reader writes about you in a letter to the editor. Cool. I'm just tickled about it. ;) As a "reporter," I go to town meetings, get to know the mayor and town council, and write everyday common stories about my hometown (Saratoga Springs) that most people could find out if they had the time and the desire to attend town council meetings. I'm certainly more of a writer than a reporter, though. If a news story is plopped in my lap, I'll write about it, but I'm not at all like the annoying beat-down-the-door reporters that make movies so interesting. I'm more like Clark Kent than Lois Lane, that's for sure. LOL. The pay is poor but the satisfaction (for me anyway) is high -- especially now that I have finally gotten my own weekly column. Sure, I have a "real" full-time job as well. You don't become a part-time newswriter for a local paper for the money. ButI've really enjoyed writing news stories for the paper since January -- though I'm not at all sure that anybody is actually reading them but my editor and my family. ;) If you have any questions you'd like to ask me, feel free to email me. Also, if you'd like to check out my column "Westside Stories," I have posted past editions on my new writing website at: http://www.geocities.com/darvell_writing/ It's not a great web site, but it serves its purpose. >Rex Goode In any case, I'm no Eric Snider yet, but I'm working on it! Does Anybody know if Lehi have a Victoria's Secret store? ;) 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: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:38:13 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Realistic Newspaper Reporters At 02:31 PM 7/10/01 -0700, you wrote: >I thought it was interesting that as I was thinking about my reporter >character, I should happen to meet a reporter and he would do a story about me. > >That was my one and only encounter with a flesh-and-blood reporter. Why didn't you pump him for information? People love to serve as subject-matter experts for novelists. >barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:39:36 -0600 From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] Steed Family Quoting luannstaheli : > Gerald Lund often > comments in talks he > gives about writing > Melissa Proffitt > wrote: > > > > > As a matter of > interest, I'd like > everyone who's > actually heard > someone cite > > the Steed family > (or any of the other > characters from The > Work and the Glory > > series) as real > historical figures > to respond here. Haven't heard this myself, but I did hear a woman (one I respect a lot, actually) list off _TW&TG_ in Relief Society as a blessing that we have been given in the latter days to help us understand church history and the gospel. I imagine that most readers understand that the Steeds are fictional, but I wonder how many accept the books as scripture anyway. Or as something pretty close. - --Katie Parker - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:40:39 -0500 From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] re: Quoting from Church Handbook Travis Manning: Don't we need to be careful about quoting from the _Church Handbook of Instruction_? I just cringe when I remember that story last year about that couple that published the entire _Church Handbook of Instruction_ on the web, and the Church legally challenged this couple's ability to publish it online, and won because it was copyrighted. ... *how much* are we allowed to quote ... _______________ I'd have to quote from the Handbook to answer your question! :-> Your concern is valid. Please let me explain. The new Church Handbook of Instructions combines 30 handbooks of the Church into one. And while there is one Handbook, it is published as Book 1 and Book 2. Book 1 is intended for stake presidencies and bishoprics, and more closely resembles the old General Handbook of Instructions. This is the book that the Tanner's (and others) posted online, then removed, but left links to other sites which still had the book online. The stake president or bishop may authorize portions of Book 1 to be copied for high councilors and others as needed. (High councilors no longer receive the entire Handbook.) Book 2 is for priesthood and auxiliary leaders. It includes information that was in the old Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthood handbooks, and in the old Relief Society, Young Women, Primary, and Sunday School handbooks. It contains other things, some new, including an excellent section on Gospel Teaching and Leadership. All of Book 2 is given to priesthood quorum and group leaders, and auxiliary presidents. In addition, each section of Book 2 is published separately and given to the leaders of that organization. These separately published sections are page numbered the same as the original book. For example, the Primary quote came from page 239, which is the same in the complete Book 2 as it is in the Primary section (pp. 229-240) which is published as a separate booklet and given to Primary presidencies and leaders. As another example, every teacher in the Church should have received the section on Gospel Teaching and Leadership, pp. 299-319 in Book 2, and also published separately. As far as I know, Book 2 was never available online. All of the Handbook is copyrighted and some of Book 1 is very sensitive. I would not quote those portions, especially where a referral to the bishop or stake president would be more appropriate. That said, however, if the answer to a question is in Book 1, almost any bishop will share it with a member who has a sincere question and a testimony to go with it. So, did you notice the Handbook quote in my answer? 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/tagj. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:23:06 -0600 From: Kellene Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Writing About "Good" Mormons D. Michael Martindale wrote: > > I noticed that all the examples given of interesting "good" characters > were actually well-rounded characters, not technically "good." They had > good characteristics about them, but they also had weaknesses and > foibles, and it was those in fact that made them interesting. A strictly > "good" character is indeed boring. > I have to be obnoxious. . . . Is Christ boring? He is probably the only perfectly good person available to write about. The rest, both fictional and nonfictional, are as D. Michael notes and as the scriptures teach, an interesting, complex combination of good and bad, natural man and saint. Kellene Adams - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:49:57 -0600 From: Steve Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Church-Sponsored Art on 7/11/01 10:39 PM, Jonathan Langford at jlang2@pressenter.com wrote: > There's that guy Christianson (I think), he does some wonderful fantasy > characters. I like his paintings. Not religious, just fun. > > Anna Wight He's one of 6 artists working right now on the murals for the Nauvoo temple. Steve Perry [MOD: James C (Jim) Christensen.] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:00:23 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Publishers vs. National Publishers Scott and Marny Parkin wrote: > It sounds like you're saying that the only true audience is the > largest possible and most general one, and anyone who writes to a > niche market is somehow less than a complete or worthy writer. This > surprises me a bit, because your prior comments have emphasized the > right of the Mormon artist to write whatever and however he wants. Well, then let me clear that up right now! I was trying to counteract the dichotomy that Darvell seemed to be presenting: write what you feel passionate about or sell millions. I tried to point out--like you said--that this is indeed a false dichotomy. A writer can choose to attempt both if he wants to. If he doesn't want to, fine with me. I've been comparing in my mind what Darvell said to what Richard Dutcher said about LDS filmmakers: they shouldn't waste their time making the typical Hollywood films. Anyone can do that. They ought to make films only LDS filmmakers can make. When it came out of Richard's mouth, I liked it, but when it came out of Darvell's mouth, I didn't. So I had to figure out the cause of this apparent contradiction. I think the contradiction lies in the fact that Richard was talking about an LDS filmmaker going the Hollywood route and playing _their_ game to strike it big--writing the usual stuff that reflects nothing about their LDS background. I don't think he was talking about the mere act of making a film that a general audience could appreciate. After all, his two films so far have been as available to the general audience as to the LDS audience, and the general audience stood up and took notice. The lengthy sacrament scene in _Brigham City_ that set up the finale is evidence that Richard had a general audience as well as an LDS audience in mind: no Mormon needed the information in that scene. Whereas Darvell seemed to be saying we shouldn't write to the general market at all, but restrict ourselves to speaking to ourselves. Yet the church has a three-fold mission. Now literature for the dead is probably not very useful, so we can skip that one. But the other two are very relevant: strengthen the members and preach the Gospel to the world. Our literature can and ought to do both. We ought to write to ourselves, but we also need to write to the world. Individual authors should choose for themselves which direction they want to go: LDS, world, or both. But as a group, I would hope we do all of it. This seems to come up over and over again--people trying to restrict what authors write. Write only to ourselves. Write only to the world. Write only fluffy happy endings. Write only about deep, dark, troubling human issues. Write only about good Mormons. Write only about Mormons struggling with their righteousness. Write about sex. Don't write about sex. Where does this urge to limit others come from? We as a group need to write ALL of it. But each individual is free to choose which subset he will focus on--and is not free to tell someone else what to focus on. If we leave it up to each individual author what to write about, the whole gamut will be covered by the law of averages. I really don't understand what's so hard about this concept. > I don't accept Darvell's apparent suggestion that writing > specifically to a Mormon audience is somehow nobler than writing to a > broader national audience, but I also don't find anything wrong with > his or any other artist's choice to write to a specific audience, > either. Agreed here. > > > It's part of being true to yourself. There are mainstream LDS writers out > > > there who don't put any LDS material in their writing. Doesn't that kind of > > > feel like they sold "us" out? > > > >Ouch! Back to dictating what other authors should write about. > > I'm not sure he's dictating anything; I think he's expressing an > opinion, just like the rest of us do. We all need to be a little less > sensitive about what other people believe. I admit this is an area where I am sensitive, and that's not likely to change. My dander really gets up when people start invoking morality and righteousness to condemn my literary choices as an author. There is no official church doctrine about literary choices a writer makes. Therefore any invocation of morality and righteousness to condemn a literary choice is, shall we say, overstepping propriety. I doubt there are two of us on this list who have identical views on how to handle moral issues about literature. If 200 of us drew a line where we think writers shouldn't cross, we'd end up with 200 lines. So how in the world can any of us think there's an objective, absolute line that should apply to all, let alone think our line is it? > Although by this rant I think your and my line would be pretty close. - -- 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: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 06:32:33 -0500 From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Writing by Mormons and Non At 11:39 PM 7/11/01, Rex Goode wrote: > >From rexgoode@msn.com Wed Jul 11 11:17:14 2001 > >Barbara, > >Thanks for your comments about Christianity and fiction. > >Christian films tend to be Catholic. Christian characters in horror films >also tend to be Catholic. Evangelicals may wear crosses, but you don't tend >to think of them as wielding a crucifix to keep a vampire away. I once >pondered how a vampire would fare in a predominantly Mormon community. The hero/ine would stop him by raising his/her right hand and showing a CTR ring . . . - -- Ronn! :) who confesses to owning a CTR ring that glows in the dark . . . - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:32:21 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Writing About "Good" Mormons I really think that this is just splitting hairs over what 'good' is. Good does not equal perfect. Personally, I don't equate goodness with being boring. Though in our current literature trends that may be true. Life has a way of throwing good people enough trials and tribulations to make their lives interesting. And good people are not perfect people. They make mistakes, sin, and so forth, that also make their lives interesting. They are also often involved in many interesting projects and so forth........Good people come in a lot of different shapes and sizes. Even as I say all that, I find it very difficult to quantify 'good'. Almost every person I know is mostly good. In and out of the church. I even know some guys who are gay that are basically good people. I know many Mormons would look at them and say "They are gay. They are not good." Well, the way they are living in that context is not something I believe is conducive to their eternal joy and happiness, but they are still, in many ways, very good people. In some ways they are much more Christ like than I am. They are loving, kind, helpful, understanding, warm, caring people. My adult LDS novel (that I've mentioned before) is still haunting the corners of my mind. It is basically about two good people who have been building a life for 50 or so years together, with all the ups and downs life generally throws people. I haven't found it a bit boring, discovering tiny piece by tiny piece, who they are and how they've lived their lives. It's still not the direction I would like my writing to go in the five minutes a week I have these days to write........ So, I don't know what your "technically 'good'" involves. Maybe you could explain in a little more detail. Tracie Laulusa - ----- Original Message ----- > I noticed that all the examples given of interesting "good" characters > were actually well-rounded characters, not technically "good." They had > good characteristics about them, but they also had weaknesses and > foibles, and it was those in fact that made them interesting. A strictly > "good" character is indeed boring. > - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 07:15:52 -0600 From: Chris Grant Subject: Re: [AML] Writing About "Good" Mormons D. Michael Martindale writes: >I noticed that all the examples given of interesting "good" >characters were actually well-rounded characters, not >technically "good." They had good characteristics about them, >but they also had weaknesses and foibles, and it was those >in fact that made them interesting. A strictly "good" >character is indeed boring. I'd appreciate it if you'd be more specific in describing the sins of the characters I listed. I deliberately chose the saintliest characters I could think of. If these characters are not good, I'd like to know who these truly good characters are that everyone seems to find so boring. Chris Grant grant@math.byu.edu - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:39:06 -0000 From: "Tami Miller" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Church-Sponsored Art I saw a program on Television about her the other day. She painted the mural(s) for the Manti temple. They interviewed her assistant, and he said that sometimes she would stop in the middle of a painting and they would drop to their knee's and pray for inspiration. What a wonderful example for any artist to follow. She also paid for family tuition at BYU with paintings, so they have a lot of her work around campus. - -Tami Miller [My favorite artist is Greg Olsen (O Jerusalem)] > > Favorite: Everything painted by Minerva Teichert. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:31:24 -0600 From: Gerald G Enos Subject: Re: [AML] Fiction in Church Mags What I tell my kids about Santa Claus, when they are old enough to hear it is the truth. He is a real person, he happens to be dead now, but that doesn't make him any less real and his spirit of giving lives on in most the people in the world today. I have always told them that I am Santa's helper and even an elf. (I happen to be rather short so this is easy for them to believe.) Now I am lying to my kids. No, I believe every word of it. Now, of course, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are totally make believe and, when they are old enough, I do tell my kids that they are not real. Konnie Enos ________________________________________________________________ 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/tagj. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:58:23 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Church-Sponsored Art I want Eric's reaction to "Testaments." We finally saw it. Marilyn Brown > > Haven't seen "Testaments" yet.... > > Eric D. Snider - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:06:49 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Church-Sponsored Art While I recall seeing the Garrens MST3K version of Johnny Lingo--and = laughing my head off--I still maintain that Tom Trails is the worst of the = lot. For those of you who haven't had the pleasure, Tom Trails was this = Native American kid, LDS, around whom this weekly soap opera whirled. The = great thing about it is that Tom did everything wrong; he slept with his = girlfriend--Lillie--in, I'm not kidding, a hayloft. He shoplifted, he ran = away from home. All with the identical expressionless face and monotone = voice. He was in ecstasy, he was in anguish, he was terrified, it didn't = matter; he was deadpan all the way. Read lines like "Oh Lillie, Lillie, = what have we done?" with an absolutely flat intonation and you get the = picture. Of course, none of it worked out for him and he always felt = terrible and repented, but I remember thinking that that kid on the rez = was having a way more exciting life than I was having. What made it even = best of all was that it was a filmstrip, at least in the version I got to = watch in Indiana. =20 And there was a terrible song that opened each episode: "Life is hard, Tom = Trails." Great stuff. If I'm not totally mistaken, didn't George P. Lee = play Tom Trails? =20 Eric Snider's post mentioned Barta Heiner, the world's greatest actress = (for once, I'm being sincere), in Lillies Grow Wild. Barta was in another = dreadful Church film, called something like Blind Love. She plays this = woman who's homely, happily married to a blind guy. What's great about = this marriage, you see, is that he's blind and can't see how hideous she = is. Then the doctors tell her they have this new Miracle Cure and he'll = be able to see, and this bums her out because, sure, her husband will now = be able to see, but he'll see her, dog that she is, and fall right smack = out of love with her. And the doctor takes off the bandage, and so the = first thing he sees is this babalicious nurse, and then he looks away from = her and sees Barta and of course says she's beautiful and it all works out = happily. =20 I suppose in a way this film could be said to have a nice message about = how true love overlooks an ugly face--not that Barta's face is anything = like ugly; she's an attractive woman. But it's like Johnny Lingo; good = intentions paving the way to aesthetic hell. I actually quite like The Windows of Heaven I think it's called, about = Lorenzo Snow and tithing. It's pretty old-fashioned looking nowadays, but = quite well made. And wasn't there a Church film many years ago about = Saints in the Mexican colonies being killed by Pancho Villa? I vaguely = remember it, and remember thinking it was quite good. I'm also grateful = to whoever remembered Mr. Krueger's Christmas. My grandmother was in = that, playing Jimmy Stewart's housekeeper. She got to have lunch with Mr. = Stewart on the set, and she never forgot it, and especially what a total = gentleman he was. =20 Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:12:25 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Re: (Andrew's Poll) Church-Sponsored Art (comp) > > >From skperry@mac.com Tue Jul 10 20:37:29 2001 > > on 7/10/01 6:55 PM, Jonathan Langford at jlang2@pressenter.com wrote: > > > Favorite: Everything painted by Minerva Teichert. BY sent her to France to > > study with the masters. > > There were several painters sent by Brigham to study in France, but Minerva > Teichert was not one of them (she was still alive in 1970). But you forgot to add that, in 1970, she was 125 years old. > She did study > art in Chicago and New York, however. I admit to conflating her story into the Brigham Younn era. I should know better. I saw a film on her life, written by Tim Slover, in the basement theatre of the Church Museum of Art in SLC. I got a great "impression" (pun intended) from the film, however, of a rather unorthodox but faithful Mormon woman who wanted to use her gift primarily to bless her fellow Saints. What I like about her art, which seems to be missing with most of the artwork of today (with the possible exclusion of Liz Swindle) is that her paintings had emotion. Her people, while not realistic in the slightest, weren't posed, with a Book of Mormon under their arm, looking off into eternity. Instead, they were vibrant almost electric people that looked like they would jump off the canvas. The paintings on the cover of the Ensign are not art. They are illustrations. - -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:17:42 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: [AML] _Salon_ Article on Christian Romance Salon has just posted a story on the Christian romance novel market. Oddly enough, it's doesn't have much of that sneering quality that Salon articles sometimes exhibit. I'm sure that the romance writers and readers on the list are probably already familiar with the issues and perhaps even the names that come up, but it's still interesting to see a topic like this get play in a liberal, general interest online mag like Salon. Forgive me if the link doesn't work. Copy and paste? http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/07/12/christian_romance/index.html I'd be interested in hearing what folks think of the tone of article, and if the characterizations and examples used are the best/most interesting ones out there. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:17:42 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: [AML] _Salon_ Article on Christian Romance Salon has just posted a story on the Christian romance novel market. Oddly enough, it's doesn't have much of that sneering quality that Salon articles sometimes exhibit. I'm sure that the romance writers and readers on the list are probably already familiar with the issues and perhaps even the names that come up, but it's still interesting to see a topic like this get play in a liberal, general interest online mag like Salon. Forgive me if the link doesn't work. Copy and paste? http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/07/12/christian_romance/index.html I'd be interested in hearing what folks think of the tone of article, and if the characterizations and examples used are the best/most interesting ones out there. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:15:58 EDT From: Higbeejm@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Writing About "Good" Mormons dmichael@wwno.com writes: > I noticed that all the examples given of interesting "good" characters > were actually well-rounded characters, not technically "good." They had > good characteristics about them, but they also had weaknesses and > foibles, and it was those in fact that made them interesting. A strictly > "good" character is indeed boring. Sure. But a strictly _anything_ character is boring. A strictly "bad" character is boring. One dimensional is boring. And "good" certainly does not always equal "one dimensional." Like most things, it probably comes down to a matter of definition. By the definition I use, characters like Jane Eyre and Stephen Kamalo and Atticus Finch are good people because, despite their weaknesses and foibles (and sometimes because of them), they carefully and thoughtfully make their choices in life based on their understanding of the principles of goodness--love God, love others, love yourself. Even Christ's definition of perfection has more to do with being well-rounded--being complete, fully dimensional--than with being "strictly" anything. And speaking of Christ...I'm right in the middle of a renewed study of the New Testament and the life of Jesus. Talk about an interesting character... Janelle Higbee - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:08:33 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Kent HUFF, _Brigham Young's United Order_ (Review) Just a quick note to thank you for these reviews. I have a copy of the Joseph Smith volume, but not this one. Tell the truth, I've never read the JS volume through. As you noted in the previous review, it was a bit dense at some points. I'm glad to know this volume is available in paperback. Thanks for the good info. > BRIGHAM YOUNG'S UNITED ORDER > by Kent W. Huff > Published by Bonneville Books (date not listed), distributed by Cedar > Fort, Inc. > Trade paperback, 313 pages > $16.95 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:45:57 -0000 From: "Tami Miller" Subject: [AML] Mormons and the Gospel (was: Sex in Literature) >From: "Christopher Bigelow" >Reply-To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com, ap8w@virginia.edu >Subject: RE: [AML] Sex in Literature >Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 11:07:49 -0700 > >Responding to Amelia Parkin: >Amelia Parkin said: ><<let's say, Baptists do not? My husband grew up in the south, Alabama to be precise. He came into contact with all of the religions on the `Bible Belt' and is from a good Catholic family. When I asked him what we have that they don't have he said "Why, The Priesthood, ofcourse." Ofcourse! - -Tami Miller - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:03:29 -0700 From: Jerry Tyner Subject: RE: [AML] Writing by Mormons and Non There was a limited release of the Left Behind movie early this year. It played at one of the theatres here in Irvine, California. It was like God's Army in that respect (played at a limited number of theatres). But I think God's Army had a better turn out. Jerry Tyner - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 20:44:08 EDT From: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Kenny Kemp Signs Deal: Alta Films & Press News Release Congratulations on this super achievement, and may you never have writer's block. Violet Kimball - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:01:23 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Church-Sponsored Art >Eric Snider's post mentioned Barta Heiner, the world's greatest >actress (for once, I'm being sincere), in Lillies Grow Wild. Barta >was in another dreadful Church film, called something like Blind >Love. She plays this woman who's homely, happily married to a blind >guy. What's great about this marriage, you see, is that he's blind >and can't see how hideous she is. Then the doctors tell her they >have this new Miracle Cure and he'll be able to see, and this bums >her out because, sure, her husband will now be able to see, but >he'll see her, dog that she is, and fall right smack out of love >with her. And the doctor takes off the bandage, and so the first >thing he sees is this babalicious nurse, and then he looks away from >her and sees Barta and of course says she's beautiful and it all >works out happily. The only thing that stopped us heckling "Blind Love" was that the Garrens ended before we got around to it. My heckling partner was quite insistent we do it, especially after seeing Barta in "Lilies Grow Wild." 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: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 23:42:51 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Institutional Art - ---Original Message From: D. Michael Martindale > > Um. Droves? I think you overstate. > > Here's a quote from opera singer Michael Ballard at the 1995 > Mormon Arts Festival: > > I met with the Bishop and the Stake President and had > a book, a very substantial book of all the artists who were > Mormons living in the Manhattan Ward. It was page after > page after page after page, but most of them either had > an 'X' or an 'X' in parenthesis around them. I said, > "What does this 'X' mean?" "It means they've been > excommunicated." "What does the parenthesis around the > 'X' mean? "It means if they come through the revolving > door they'll be excommunicated." > > Ballard attributes this to the highly corruptive nature of the business. > But I say, the low opinion that church members and occasionally even > General Authorities seem to have of art greases the wheels of that > corruption. If artists are not appreciated by their own people, they'll > go where they're appreciated. If we appreciated them more, perhaps fewer > would be so enticed by the corrupt artistic culture out there. Well, as your example points out, we have real trouble discerning causality. I think that is a central problem throughout our discussion. People leave the church because... Michael Ballard says that the artistic community in New York is corrupting people so they leave. You guess that the lack of support artists receive in the Church causes people to leave. Frankly, I have concerns about the accuracy of the anecdote. There are enough Mormon artists living in the Manhattan Ward to create a very substantial book just by listing them all? > > And frankly, I've never heard of > > an intellectual/artist/writer/whatever who left the Church because of > > Church policy about art (or because there wasn't enough swear words in a > > play). They tend to leave when they find something that few members > > know about or because they can't accept some doctrine that has been > > taught--i.e. for ideological reasons not presentation reasons. > > And do you think this happens out of the blue? I've learned all sorts of > things about the church, it's doctrine, it's history, it's leaders, that > give one pause, but I'm still here. Something has to have prepared an > individual to let things like that knock him out of the church. I'd say > the preparatory things are much more significant than the final straw > that makes them act. Well, we're not going to resolve this one based on anything other than personal belief. Once we start questioning the stated reasons for leaving the Church, we are left with nothing but our own opinions. My point is that I've known of people (in my current Ward) who say they left the Church because they were offended by an action (a recommendation by the Bishop, boorish behavior by someone who wasn't punished etc.) by someone but I've never, ever heard anyone say they left the Church because of our art or how we treat our artists. > > At any rate, I think it may be a legitimate shift to take > > the burden from those who are struggling with the gospel, have less > > understanding, and are easily offended to those who, as you say, think. > > And who says that, just because people think, they can't also struggle > with the Gospel, have less understanding in critical areas, and become > offended? This truly sounds like anti-intellectualism to me. Well, anti-intellectualism is an interesting topic. I'm afraid I leave myself open to the accusation because I'm not a big fan of a lot of things coming from academic quarters. I don't think I've earned the appellation here, though. I don't think it is anti-intellectual to say that intellectuals can handle the burden of no official support better than those who are easily offended can handle offensive materials in Church publications. > > Well, like I said, I don't think we're losing people because of the > > simplifications. We lose some of our intellectuals, but not because of > > how the Church has decided to present its message. > > Like I said, I don't think it's a simplistic process, that one day an > intellectual learns something and leaves the church. This intellectual > has long ago become disillusioned with the cavalier approach the church > seems to have at times toward truth and facts. The way the church > presents its message can be a big part of that. You may be right. I don't know. Who can say all the elements that *might* lead to someone leaving the Church. All I can deal with are stated reasons--which are obviously not going to be accurate either. Frankly, we're both just guessing when it comes right down to it. I'm not convinced my arguments for possible reasons for the Church policy on art are really the reasons at all. I think Jim Picht's hypothesis (that it's simply easier on an institutional basis) is more likely anyway. Still, I don't think that the way the Church presents its message leads to our artists leaving the Church. I don't see any support for the argument that it does. > > The lack of an explanation means that people have to pray about it and > > follow or not. Giving an explanation means that people can deal with > > the explanation without dealing with the message. No explanation means > > people have to argue with God. An explanation gives people a chance to > > argue with the GAs. I'd call that having more wiggle room if I can take > > on the reasoning of a GA instead of God. > > And if a large portion of church members did that, you may be right. But > I don't see it. I see many of them treating the silence as if it were a > message as loud and clear as a statement. But since there is no > information in silence, they provide their own information--i.e., > interpretation--then accept or argue with that. Same process + less > information to work with = larger wiggle room. I hope that a large portion of Church members do that. It is my belief that they do. I think that people are more likely to argue with GAs when they present a reason than will argue with them when they don't. A reason gives them traction to argue against. Lack of a reason means they have to cover *all* reasons or run a chance of sinning. Most of the members I know are very concerned about sinning and will do what they can to avoid sin. They are conservative. > > Okay, now try getting that explanation through a correlation committee > > and/or a unanimous vote of 15 people with vastly different backgrounds > > and opinions. > > Well, I was thinking of that statement being delivered by a General > Authority, not a committee of church magazine editors. But the > correlated approach to art is what I'm complaining about. As I give my > solutions, I'm doing so in the context of alternatives to correlation > committees, not as add-ons grafted onto them. Correlation Committees are not going to go away. But in my example above, I wasn't really referring to correlation committees as much as to *any* committee--including the Apostles themselves. Just because we don't hear about their discussions until they are unanimous doesn't mean that they are automatically all unanimous. And taking an action is *way* easier than agreeing to a reason for that action in a committee/institutional sense. > > Because art is nowhere *near* the equivalent of preaching the Gospel. > > No doubt you *can* teach gospel principles through art. We've had a > > number of discussions that indicate a faithful Mormon can't really *not* > > teach gospel principles through art, at least as much as they understand > > and believe gospel principles. But that is a whole lot different from > > preaching the Gospel direct because the direct address challenges the > > listener/reader to recognize the truth of doctrine taught plain. And as > > much as you may think you know or can communicate about something like > > the Atonement, you won't *really* know anything at all about it until > > you hear the story told plain and with accompanying testimony of its > > truth. > > I just plain disagree with you here, for the same reason that we differ > on reasons for artists leaving the church. I'm getting the impression > that you're only looking at the highly visible catalyst event to these > things: the straw-on-the-camel's-back fact from church history that > finally drives the intellectual over the edge, or the tracting > missionaries that find the golden contact and teach him the > discussions. > > But the preparatory stuff is equally as important--I'd say more > important. Without the preparation--the opening (or closing) of the > heart--the catalyst event becomes quite meaningless. Art will open > hearts much more effectively than sermons. > > I've heard many sermons on loving your enemy. All of them put together > did not drive that point home to me like one scene out of a movie: the > "Les Miserables" film with Richard Jordan as Valjean and Anthony Perkins > as Javert. When a bishop invites the destitute Valjean into his home, > feeds and beds him, then Valjean steals his silver plates and utensils, > and finally the police arrest him and bring him back to the bishop, the > bishop says the silver was a gift to Valjean to help him start over, and > also gives him a pair of silver candlesticks. This completely turned > Valjeans's life around, and etched itself indelibly in my mind as a > marvelous sermon of Christian love. This one scene is what instilled in > me the passion I have for the story behind "Les Miserables" as a superb > example of redemption and the efforts of one man to be truly Christlike. > > I don't so much as remember a single one of the sermons about this that > I've heard over the years. Not even from General Authorites! > > Maybe sermons have seemed more effective in preaching the Gospel because > we as an LDS culture have hardly use art, so we don't have the > experience to understand its power. Effective or not, sermons and/or gospel doctrine courses are necessary to learning the gospel and art isn't. No matter how good an example "Les Miserables" is of redemption and being truly Christlike, you cannot know about Christ or the reality of redemption unless it has been taught to you in straight-forward, undisguised language. Consider this: without knowing what redemption and Christlike behavior is, you would not have been able to enjoy "Les Miserables" so much. The same is not true. You cannot know about Christlike love without hearing about Christ first. > > Art may prepare someone to accept the Gospel, but a) it isn't the only > > way to be prepared to accept the Gospel and b) it isn't enough by itself > > for someone to accept the Gospel. > > Neither is the sermon if the heart isn't prepared. The fact that other > ways exist to prepare a person does not in any way diminish the > importance of art in doing so. Certainly not to the individual who _was_ > prepared by art. > > Since art in no way conflicts with other methods, why should > we diminish it? True, art doesn't have to conflict with other methods of teaching the gospel, but that doesn't mean it is equal with other methods. Some other methods are *required*, for example, and are, therefore, more important. You have to have the Gospel taught to you plain before you *can* accept it. Art may help, and it may prepare, and personally, I think it is important, but it is *not* required. So I understand when the GAs decide to support the required and leave the merely helpful to its (lesser) place. Jacob Proffitt - - 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 #393 ******************************