From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #446 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Friday, September 7 2001 Volume 01 : Number 446 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 09:16:44 -0600 From: Chris Grant Subject: Re: [AML] Eugene England/Joseph Smith Story Jonathan Langford writes: [...] >As Michael Martindale and others have pointed out, there's a >fundamental generic distinction between the eulogy and a work >of literature/character study. A work of literature requires >conflict. That last sentence is axiomatic in the study of literature, isn't it? I remember in a high school literature class having to categorize every story we read as involving man's conflict against man, man's conflict against his environment, or man's conflict against himself. Why should it be true about literature but apparently not necessarily true about ostensibly non-literary ways of telling someone's story? [...] >Conflict within a character generally implies the existence of >character flaws. I'm not sure how general that is. Christ appeared to have an internal conflict in Gethsemane, and Paul tells us He was in all points tempted. Should these, along with the temptations the rest of us experience, be viewed not as internal conflicts but as conflicts with Satan? >Practically speaking, given the nature of the conflicts one >would tend to talk about in telling the life of Eugene >England, I can't see any good way to avoid dealing in some >ways with the flaws in his character. Perhaps some insight could be gained by considering the story of England's friend Lowell Bennion. What substantial character flaws of Bennion were revealed in Mary Bradford's biography of him (which is, I believe, the only book every published by _Dialogue_)? That biography is, of course, a work of nonfiction, but I still find it hard to see why there should be more constraints on fiction in this regard than there are on nonfiction. [...] >So: Is it whitewashing not to show a character's flaws in >one's literary depiction of that character? I would say, >yes--if those flaws are a part of the story one is telling, I would say that it would not only be whitewashing but would, in fact, be impossible not to show a character's flaws if those flaws are a part of the story one is telling. What if those flaws *should be* a part of the story one is telling? Well, then, tautologically the character's flaws should be shown. When should a character's flaws be part of a story? It seems hard to me to give a definitive answer to that that applies to all stories and to all characters. 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: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 18:18:06 +0000 From: "R Racer" Subject: Re: [AML] B. Weston ROOK, _The Junction_ (Review) Okay, I can understand your husband liking Rook's other work more than The Junction. Personally, I liked "A Shadow From the Past" much more than "The Junction". Maybe it's a guy thing. (I guess I should stop being so lazy and write a review of "A Shadow From the Past" for the list... someday.) But I honestly can't understand how your husband doesn't like "The Junction" at all! It's a good thing it's short because I couldn't put this book down. The story had me hooked from the very first page. Great review, steffany. Richard Racer - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 14:20:08 -0500 From: Irreantum2@cs.com (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Announcement of Two AML Events Preregister Now for Two Mormon Literature Events (sponsored by the nonprofit Association for Mormon Letters) Mormon Writers Conference "Mission Impossible: Breaking New Ground in LDS Literature" Saturday, November 3, 2001 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Thanksgiving Point, Lehi, Utah Thinking about breaking into the Mormon market? Join us for the third annual Mormon writers conference, the only conference specifically designed for authors of LDS literature. Speaking artist to artist, groundbreaking filmmaker Richard Dutcher will give his insider perspective on reaching the Mormon audience. Numerous workshop choices will provide the nuts and bolts of writing novels, stories, plays, films, poetry, and other genres for the Mormon culture. Representatives from LDS publishers will reveal current information about how to be published in the LDS market. A catered lunch is included in the cost of admission, and an onsite bookstore will be available. Preregistration is $40. (For full-time students and AML members, preregistration is $30. At-the-door registration will be $50 for all parties.) Don't miss this opportunity to interact with published and aspiring authors of LDS literature. AML Annual Meeting "Walking the Tightrope: Mormon Writers and Their Audiences" Saturday, March 2, 2002 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Gore Auditorium, Westminster College, Salt Lake City Join the Association for Mormon Letters for our annual gathering where Mormonism's leading literary personalities share their latest perceptions. This year Doug Stewart will unfold his insights about the Mormon audience and discuss his experiences with musical plays, especially his phenomenally successful Saturday's Warrior. Other presenters will include Lael Litke, who writes for national children's audiences; William Morris, who will discuss the Mormon audience; Neila Seshachari, who will discuss Leap by Terry Tempest Williams; Lawrence Flake, a popular Mormon storyteller; and many more. Preregistration is $12 for this full day of seminars and shoulder rubbing with the Mormon literary community. (For full-time students and AML members, preregistration is $9. At-the-door registration will be $15.) Preregistration for the optional awards luncheon--where we present awards for the best pulished works of 2001--is an additional $15, with no at-the-door registration available. Don't forget the complimentary evening reception, where refreshments will be served and AML award winners (or other skilled readers) will read selections from winning texts. Association for Mormon Letters Order Form (Print and mail in) Mormon Writers Conference ( ) General public--$40 ( ) AML member or student--$30 AML Annual Meeting ( ) General public--$12 ( ) AML member or student--$9 ( ) Awards luncheon--$15 additional AML Membership (Includes Irreantum subscription, book-length AML Annual, and AML event discounts) ( ) Regular--$25 ( ) Contributing--$50 ( ) Sustaining--$100 Irreantum Magazine ( ) Sample copy (current issue)--$5 ( ) 1-year subscription (4 issues)--$16 ( ) Back issue package--$34 (Issues 1-10; total page count 780) Tax-deductible donation $________ Total enclosed: $________ (Prices include postage) Make check payable to the AML and mail to: AML, P.O. Box 51364, Provo, UT 84605-1364. Name: __________________________________ Address: _________________________________ __________________________________ E-mail: ___________________________________ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:35:15 -0600 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: RE: [AML] An Iconography of Our Own Ethan Skarstedt wrote: >In one she was wearing a pink sweater with a white shirt >underneath buttoned all the way to the neck, had a pink hair thing >holding her hair back and was holding school books. In the other, the >hair thing was black, she had a dark colored jacket on and was holding a >purse. > >Perceived message? Judge others by their outward appearance. Apparently >this girl was either an acceptable friend or not according to how she >dressed. In a visual medium (like a photograph or album cover) the only cues you have to create a sense of difference is the outward appearance. Short of a caption beneath each picture ("This is the good one" and "This is the bad one") how else might the illustrator have shown a quickly understood differentiation between a good choice and a poor one? The whole point of iconic representations is that they're gross simplifications of larger concepts. Some of us look at the simplistic rendering and think, "Ah--one is good and the other is bad; OK, I get it" and we walk away. The image doesn't bear up under further scrutiny because it was never intended to. Is it unfair to depict people in black leather as evil? Absolutely! And yet at least part of the draw of black leather is the fact that as Americans (not just Mormons) we tend to associate black leather with the edge culture, with bikers and thugs and mobsters and rock stars. Why? Because these are the groups who effectively introduced the style into the national consciousness. The "bad" stereotype happened because at one time it seemed a fair characterization based on limited knowledge of a closed or forbidden society. But the point remains--the icon is visual shorthand that was never intended as a comprehensive statement, interpretation, or judgement. That some people do judge on that basis is an unfortunate given. But they have misunderstood the purpose of the icon, IMO, and taken the argumentative sample as the argument itself. Jesus didn't say all Samaritans were wonderful people; he chose a despised underclass and used it as an iconic representation to illustrate a larger concept. The icon was a tool of communication, not a point unto itself. The icon is intended to have one, simplistically obvious level of communication. Overworking its interpretation reveals our own unwillingness to accept a simple statement. For me it was that old visual aid they used to use in youth talks in Sacrament meeting. Someone would put a jar of water on the stand and add food coloring to show the idea of sin staining our spirits. Then they'd add bleach to represent repentance and the elimination of sin. Of course my sharp little 10 year old mind quickly seized on the fact that the water now stank and was undrinkable. Therefore, the metaphor was worthless and didn't apply to me, and I could safely ignore the actual point the speaker was making about repentance. I understood the icon; I wanted to reduce its relevance to me by intentionally misinterpreting its meaning. In my case, it worked for a lot of years. Now I've reinterpreted it yet again, this time a little closer to the original intent. As so many people on this list have suggested, let's cut each other a little more slack and assume good intent rather than ill from our artists. In this case I think a little charity is a good thing. Scott Parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:39:50 -0700 From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Sources of Information (was: Listening to the Spirit) Part 1. On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:48:48 I wrote that: "The Church's official position on abortion is to decry, but not prohibit. The Church recognizes that abortion may be necessary to save the mother's life on occasion. Members are very strongly encouraged to pray and discuss the issue with bishops and/or stake leaders before having an abortion." Then offered a comment on that policy that had intrigued me years ago as a pull quote in Sunstone: "What that means, as someone wrote in Sunstone years ago is that, given the status of law, the Church's official position would equal abortion on demand." On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:29:46 Bill Willson rightly called me on that: > Woa! > I think that before we look to "Sunstone" or the "White Stone > Foundation" to interpret "The Church's official position on abortion," I should have made it clear that I wasn't looking to either Sunstone or the White Stone Foundation to interpret the Church's position. My interpretation was a paraphrase of what I've heard over the pulpit repeatedly. I logged onto LDS.org to check my understanding against authoritative statements from The Ensign. The most recent was Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” Ensign, Jan. 2001, 13, from a devotional address given at Brigham Young University, 9 February 1999: "For example, consider the uses some have made of the possible exceptions to our firm teachings against abortion. Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Because abortion is a most serious matter, we are counseled that it should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer." This matches my understanding, that the Church decries abortion, stands firmly against abortion, but doesn't prohibit. I'm aware that the exceptions are narrow, and coupled with a strong sense that abortion is not good. Indeed, that was Richard Sherlock's point in the Sunstone article (more on that later) that the exceptions are tempered by "antipathy to abortion." Of course, for the White Stone Foundation, that antipathy doesn't overrule the fact that the Church makes exceptions. I should note that I have no sympathy for the WSF (love ths abbrvtns). Its insistence that the Soviet Union has not collapsed, but has just gone into hiding while plotting world conquest with the UN (or whoever) sounds like it comes from the extreme right wing of the extreme right wing, and I detest rhetoric that demonizes ones opponents. (I guess you would call drawing 666 on your opponents' foreheads and horns on their heads demonizing.) Every time we see the WSF picketing General Conference as if they were picketing NARAL headquarters, calling the Prophets to repentance, Donna asks, "What do they mean the Church supports abortion?" I share her incredulity. But I also want to understand their position because I'm planning a novel about a champion high school debater who leaves the pro-life movement in 1977 to serve a mission. One reason he leaves is that he begins to see how an absolute opposition to abortion could bring him into conflict with the Church's June 5 1976 statement on abortion (in much the way the WSF's absolutist position has made them into denouncers of the Church). >>>>> Church Issues Statement on Abortion To reaffirm the policy of the Church concerning abortion, the First Presidency is publishing the following official statement on this subject: “The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to, be a party to, or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or health of the woman is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by forcible rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the victim. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local bishop or branch president and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer. “Abortion is one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality. “Members of the Church guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion are subject to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant. In dealing with this serious matter, it would be well to keep in mind the word of the Lord stated in the 59th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 6, ‘Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.’ “As far as has been revealed, the sin of abortion is one for which a person may repent and gain forgiveness.” “News of the Church,” Ensign, July 1976, 76 <<<<< (I'm going to split this post. The whole thing is 1765 words just now, more harlowicient than usual, and I still have more to say. Harlow S. Clark, who has read the Odyssey, but not Ulysses, because they never asked for such a thing, but who did find an interesting review of the revised edition in a NYT Book Rev. left on a Skedaddle bus and feels the book calling to him, opening its pages, pulling him down to smell its ink, inviting him to cry out, "Yes. Yes, I will, Yes! Oh, Yes!" ________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:00:09 -0700 From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Sources of Information (was: Listening to the Spirit) Part 2 Having said all this about abortion, I should note that my original post wasn't really about abortion. I mentioned the White Stone Foundation only to make a point. The June 5, 1976 statement, and subsequent statements all emphasize that the decision to have an abortion should only be made "after receiving divine confirmation through prayer." To a group like the WSF that holds abortion as an absolute evil that position is blashpemy. (I think they said in one of their broadsides that praying before having an abortion makes the abortion a human sacrifice. I don't know where I put that broadside.) But I was only using the WSF's reaction to illustrate a point, which is simply that listening to the Spirit can sometimes be deeply disconcerting, as when Nephi listens to the Spirit while examining Laban's sword, or Joseph Smith keeps listening even after the Spirit warns, 'If you don't want to know about marriage don't ask.' Now, I need to make something else clear that I didn't in the original post. By mentioning Sherlock's Sunstone article and the WSF together I may have given the impression that he would be sympathetic to their position. I didn't mean to suggest that at all, I was simply using his article to make the point that you can't force people to pray. That is, if you took the Church's position that members considering an abortion should "[consult] with their bishops and [receive] divine confirmation through prayer," and wrote it as a law the effect would be abortion on demand because there's no way to enforce it, no way to force someone to seek divine confirmation, and no legally enforceable way to monitor whether they did. (Would a testimony that says, "I prayed and found out that this woman didn't receive divine confirmation before her abortion" stand up in court?) I should also make it clear that Sherlock is not criticizing the Church (though he wonders why church members don't rally against abortion with the same fervor as they rallied against the Equal Rights Amendment), he's making an observation about the philosophical implications of turning a stated position into law. I dropped by the BYU library to find the Sunstone in question (blue cover with an illustration of Roe V. Wade and a test tube that has spilled its contents over the document), and found that the pull quote is a little different than I remembered: "Without a built in antipathy to abortion the church's position as law would amount to abortion on demand." (Richard Sherlock. "Abortion Politics and Policy: A Deafening Silence in the Church. Sinstone (hmm, who transposed the keys?) July / August 1981 (6:4): 17-19 (quote is on p. 19) That is, Sherlock says, most people who would counsel women on abortion don't have a "built in antipathy to abortion" that might temper their counsel. Sherlock accepts what the WSF rejects, which is that Mormon culture's "built-in antipathy to abortion" makes nonsense of the claim that the church supports abortion. I suspect from the tone of his article he might even refer to them as "nonsense spouting lunatics marching up and down at General Conference." I find his tone off-putting and think Margaret Young made a better statement--more emotionally satisfying, more compassionate, better at acknowledging the pains and complexities that might cause someone to seek abortion--of a pro-life position in her This People article, Summer 1988, "'Unto Us a Child is Given' Good Questions--and Better Ones." I particularly like the section "Abortion Questions": >>>>> The questions the advocates for choice in abortion raise are difficult to answer. Should a woman be forced to carry a child she doesn't want? Should she have to bear every child she happens to conceive? Shouldn't a woman be able to exercise control over her own body? The truth is, I find myself deeply moved by the plight of women with unwanted pregnancies. I have read many of their stories and am loath to be their judge. And yet, as an older, less-sophisiticated-than-I-used-to-be woman, I boldly declare that I oppose elective abortion. It is a heart-felt opposition, outside the parameters of rhetoric. Because of the things I have seen and felt, I believe abortion is a violation not only of an unborn baby's life, but of the mother's spiritual instincts, of her very nature, and that such a violation cracks the moral foundation of our society. My students tell me they know a number of girls who have had abortions before high school graduation. I must ask myself, can I possible suggest that a sixteen-year-old high school student interrupt her life to bear a child rather than terminate her pregnancy? Shouldn't she be able to decide what happens to her own body? I feel her pain, I sense her humiliation and the hugeness of her burden, and truly find these questions hard to answer. But ultimately, it's not only my commitment to the life of the baby she carries but to her own life--her eternal life--which makes me respond as I do. And I am not only concerned about this sixteen-year-old's immediate future, but about our society's more distant one, about the direction we're headed, symbolized and furthered by how she uses her choice. What values will we be founded on? What place will God have in our community? How will we regard life in all its varied forms? How narrowly will we define humanity? (pp. 39-40. The whole article begins on p. 27, facing a companion piece on p. 26, Bruce Young's "'For Unto Us a Child is Born: A Father's Perspective, and continues on pp. 38-44 (nice family shot on 43). <<<<< More to come--I hope (does anyone dread that?) Harlow S. Clark, who, with hundreds of other Provo bread Mormons, read most of Ennis Rees's Iliad translation and all of the Odyssey in Joyce Nelson's AP English class at Privy High (actually he finished the Odyssey that summer sitting on a grain silo in Morgan, Utah), and found the Rees translation in a used bookstore in New Haven Connecticut at the end of his mission and has it on his bookshelf along with the W.H.D. Rouse, Richmond Lattimore and E. V. Rieu Odyssey translations and a copy of the Homeric Hymns. Someday he's going to read them all, along with the other 2000 books in the house. Don't ask about the newspapers. ________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 12:16:48 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Xlibris (was: B. Weston ROOK, _The Junction_, Review) Thanks so much for the information! - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry L Jeffress" > Xlibris provides on-demand self publishing -- basically a high-tech > vanity press. [snip] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:48:44 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Polygamy The scriptures say that in the next life the first shall be last and the last shall be first. I think that we may be in for some surprises relating to "celestial marriage." I would like to see a writer envision additional possibilities to the ones we usually consider. If justice prevails (and God is justice), that men and women will be truly equal and valuable in eternity. I think the earthly cultures that have practiced polygamy reflect a fallen state. They reflect a mistaken notion that men are privileged in God's eyes. Just as the early saints practiced slavery out of mistaken cultural habit, they also followed the polygamist cultural practices of ancient Israel which, I believe, reflected a fallen misogynist earthy state. In a just system in the next life, either there will be one man with one woman, or both sexes will enjoy relationships with more than one person. I can't accept the model of a male with a harem of women surrounding him. But what I could accept is the reality that a woman can love more than one man. Men seem to believe that they are programmed sexually to need more than one partner, but I think women just as readily can be attracted to and want additional physical and emotional connections with more than one person. The intensity of a one-to-one relationship would be diluted, however, under such a system, because you really can't be spiritually, emotionally, and physical connected to more than one person at any given moment. Of course eternity would enable the time to make significant connections with many people. I believe all of us are fully capable of loving many people in different ways. Perhaps the big surprise in heaven will be that men on earth were not ready to SHARE their woman with another man,, but that the perfect love in the celestial realm will allow such a possibility. Gae Lyn Henderson > - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 07:07:27 -0600 From: Gerald G Enos Subject: Re: [AML] Polygamy Like Darlene Young I too thought about sharing my husband with a friend that even now does not have a man of her own. I think about it now because it would be nice to have a friend around to talk with when my husband is to busy with work. And Karen Tippets point is well understood too. I have five children, two under two, and the mounds of chores never end, a sister wife would be able to give me a break from all of this. I could even go back to school or spend some real quality time writing. Stuff I can't do right now. On the other hand a sister wife could hold down a job and help us with our finances so that things aren't quite so tight. When I write my book on polgamy it will be on the premise that, in the furture, The economy is so bad that families need minamum of two or three full time incomes to make it and that goverment helps, like food stamps, WIC and housing, no longer exist. I may also include a great war leaving very few men around but I don't know that that would be nessasary to my story line. It would be about people finding creative ways to survive in a tight economy. Not nessasarly new ways just creative. I may even include multipal families sharing a home as one family in order to make it. (I mean something like mom, dad and kids sharing with aunt, uncle and cousins or something like that.) 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, 06 Sep 2001 13:47:00 -0400 From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Polygamy I find it interesting and a bit revealing that during the current discussion on polygamy the main participants have been women who are fairly unanimous in feeling repulsed by the whole idea (except for one who wrote that once, maybe, in an isolated fit of compassion, she could get an inkling of how it might work), while the men on the list read on with nary an evaluative comment. What a surprise. Tony Markham - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 14:58:47 -0400 From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: RE: [AML] Suspicion of Art >From Jacob Proffit in response to Harlow Clark: >Because there is nothing inherently virtuous about art. Art is >communication and *all* communication should be subject to judgment and >evaluation. If you are entirely unsuspicious of art, then you will be >blown by the winds of every popular doctrine that happens to be labeled >art. We shouldn't be required to just turn off our (hopefully) good >judgment just because someone has enough hubris to call their efforts >art. this reminded me of the thread on _Testaments_ that was very active earlier this summer. I will begin with the statement that I didn't follow that thread very closely because I had not yet seen the movie. I have seen it now. Anyway, what I want to say is this: I agree with Jacob. We certainly should not "turn off our (hopefully) good judgment" simply because someone has labeled something art. We should employ discernment and judgment whenever we approach anything. I would hope, however, that we also recognize the necessity of exercising that same judgment when we approach a representation that has been labeled "gospel" or "church sponsored". simply because a film or a painting or a story comes from a church source does not mean it is inherently more trustworthy than other sources. unfortunately, while most of the Mormons I know are all too eager to exercise judgment regarding art of the world, they are every bit as eager to embrace *anything* labeled Mormon, Gospel, Church. amelia _________________________________________________________________ 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:10:47 -0600 From: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] Eugene England/Joseph Smith Story >We're still waiting for your definition of a story told with >discretion. So far, I can't tell that you mean anything >different than whitewashing. When I used the word "discretion", I intended to use it the same way Church leaders did when they used the word to denote a virtue. I've already given an example of a story I thought was told with discretion: The Eugene England story as told on AML-List last week. Unless that story is a whitewashing, using discretion is not synonymous with whitewashing. Chris Grant grant@math.byu.edu I think I'm on Chris's side on this, and I think people are misunderstanding what he is trying to say. To me, I would replace the word discretion with "Charity." Many people here have mentioned Brother England's faults, I especially remember Scott Parkin's touching telling of his interaction with him in a ward setting. And yet those weaknesses were mentioned in a context of Christlike love for the man. The flaws that were there didn't diminish the man or what he had tried to accomplish or the effort he was making to live a Christlike life the best way that he could. To me, that touches on our approach literary to the story of Joseph Smith and other church leaders. Just because we approach the subject with Charity for the prophet and faith in his divine calling doesn't mean we need to ignore mistakes and faults. To me, the fact that Joseph could be a prophet despite these is a source of constant hope. It does, however, change the way we approach these faults. Do we portray him as struggling with his flaws, or reveling in them? Do we try and see the context, or do we simply judge? I believe that stories of church leaders, flaws and all, can be told in such a way that they also don't diminish the men or their missions. But it certainly can be done the other way as well, especially if the motivation is to "Tell the Truth" about the man. And I believe a story that showed Joseph as a man with a divine calling despite his mistakes, a man with a close enough relationship to his father in heaven to admit in scripture the times when he was chastised, a man who struggled to restore Christ's church at a time when he himself was still be instructed in Christ's church through visitations and revelation--while difficult to pull off--would find a sizeable market among church members. - -- Russell Asplund russa@candesa.com "Art is a lie which makes us realize the truth." -Picasso - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:47:19 -0600 From: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] Polygamy I've always thought about that in the context of Nephi and Laban. True or not, when I read the account I always image Nephi as still struggling with that decision even when he is writing this account several decades later. Because he can see that if put into general practice the command, "better that one man should perish..." could lead to great evil. And he want's us to know he struggled with it, that he didn't kill laban for revenge and that he didn't enjoy it, but that since it was God's will he had no choice. And also, that it was a one time revelation, not a general loophole in the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill. I often wonder what I myself place above God. If I were asked to give up my CD collection, or to leave my wife and children for an eight year mission, would I be willing to do it? When it came to polygamy, many were not willing. It certainly provides a lot of room for conflict, and for meditation on personal revelation and the institutional church. - -- Russell Asplund "Art is a lie which makes us realize the truth." -Picasso - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 16:43:52 -0400 From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] An Iconography of Our Own Ronn Blankenship wrote: > Reminds me of OSC's story about the time they chose to illustrate an > article about inactive brethren with an illustration of a man sitting in a > chair with a table beside it, and on the table was a pipe. They received > letter after letter saying things like "I thought the _Enisgn_ was *one* > magazine my children could read without having to see such things!" > When I heard him tell the story, he added one little detail that is worth mentioning. Card said that the artist subtly positioned the man between two mirrors so that his pipe was caught in one of those endless reflections. I'd love to know the publication date for this illustration. Anybody? Tony Markham - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 14:34:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] NYTimes.com Article: Pauline Kael, Provocative and Widely Imitated Film Critic, Dies at 82 Last week Pauline Kael passed away. She was the most influential American critic since the 1960'. Her style was at once intellectual and informal, and she believed art should be fun as well as edifying. The whole culture was influenced by her through a kind of osmosis; I see traces of her everywhere, not just in film criticism but in every type of writing about the arts. She certainly affected the way I think about things, even though she liked a lot of movies that I find trashy. Her influence can be found on this list in the way the most articulate of you express your enthusiasms; as I say she is in the very air we breathe, like John Ford on westerns or Alfred Hitchcock on suspense. A good appreciation of her can be found as this link: > > Pauline Kael, Provocative and Widely Imitated Film Critic, Dies at 82 > > By LAWRENCE VAN GELDER > > Pauline Kael, who expressed her passion for movies in jaunty, jazzy > prose as the longtime film critic for The New Yorker, died Sunday > at her home in Great Barrington, Mass > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/04/obituaries/04KAEL.html?ex=1000749979&ei=1&en=4fb810e6eeea8709 ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 16:40:46 -0500 From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] What We've Read > The Russian writers are difficult, but I can force my way through. The Greek writers are positively > riveting by comparison, IMO. > > Scott Parkin Say what? I've taught classes on both, and I'd say the Russian writers are easier hands down. Especially Tolstoy, Chekhov, Lermontov, and Bulgakov. Gogol is sometimes a bit opaque, Dostoyevsky can be wordy, and Solzhenitsyn can induce headaches (his histories, anyway - his novels are actually very clear and often quite lovely). I have a bunch of students who are right now struggling with _The Iliad_ (by the way, I'm very happy with the Fagles translation). One problem they have is that it is so completely foreign to their way of thinking. We'll spend much of this semester looking at the evolution of thought on justice, mercy, legal systems and efficiency (I am, after all, an economist) in Greece up through the _Oresteia_ and _The Republic_, and these kids can't get it through their heads that you can't use words like country, state, due process, law, etc. in the same way we do today when you deal with the Homeric world. We run into the basic problem of figuring out just what it is that Homer was thinking when he composed his poem, what he wanted his audience to be thinking when they heard it. An important function of language is to communicate thought. That I can read the words someone wrote a hundred years ago and think thoughts close to those he intended is nothing less that miraculous to me. That we can do it with something written millenia ago is almost inconceivable. At least the world of Dostoyevsky incorporated ideas that are much more like our own than those of Homer's world. The names may be outlandish and some cultural/political elements obscure, but how does one make sense of the fact that everyone ignores Nestor, that Achilles is willing to let his friends die so he can get revenge for a slight, that the gods will ultimately favor those whiny Greeks over a good husband, father and citizen like Hector? It's all fascinating, but it demands much more effort than _Anna Karenina_. I'm rambling, and I've yet to tie any Mormonism into this. I actually intended to digress into a discussion of scripture and its meaning, along with a few words about various bible translations and contemporary understanding of the BoM, but I don't have the energy to write a lengthy article today. The connections are out there, though. Jim Picht - - 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 #446 ******************************